HC Deb 05 June 1984 vol 61 cc265-82

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 8, line 28, column 3, leave out 'Section 4' and insert 'Sections 4 and 11'.

No. 15, in page 8, line 29, at end insert—

'49 & 50 Crofters Holdings Vict. c. 29. (Scotland) Act 1886 In section 32, the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board".'.

No. 16, in page 8, line 41, column 3, at end insert— 'In section 6, the definition of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts", and in the definition of "illegal trawling" the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition.'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

11.18 pm
Mr. John MacKay

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a most interesting debate today and in Committee, and I shall not delay the House long in asking for a Third Reading of the Bill. It is a measure of considerable importance to Scottish fishermen and the Scottish fishing industry. It is intended to modernise and simplify the existing body of legislation governing fishing in Scottish inshore waters. In summary, it provides for the Secretary of State, after due consultation, to regulate, by order, fishing within the six-mile limit. Such orders can prohibit all fishing, fishing for particular species, by particular methods, from specified descriptions of fishing boat or any combination of these.

Especially welcome to many fishermen is the fact that the Bill removes the three-mile limit which has been the cause of a great deal of heart-searching, a little prosecution and some fines in the Scottish fishing industry for many years. It gives powers to British sea fishery officers to enforce the new regulatons and provides for the recovery of fines. The Bill also seeks to tidy up the statute book, as we have just been doing, by removing much of the dead wood amongst the fisheries legislation which has accumulated over the years.

Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have tabled amendments to provide formally for consultation with appropriate bodies before any order is made. Such orders will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have also taken the opportunity to add some additional provisions which will be of benefit in combating the salmon poacher. These are a power to restrict the carriage of specified types of net, with monofilament nets being our main concern, and to allow water bailiffs to enforce any orders made under the Bill relating to fishing for salmon.

One of the key elements in the Bill is that it is a general enabling measure which will allow the Secretary of State to respond flexibly to the changing needs and circumstances of the fishing industry, both now and in the future. The Bill has been generally welcomed by both sides of the House, and I am grateful to all the hon. Members involved in its consideration for the constructive attitude they have taken to it. I believe it will prove to be a useful and valuable measure, and I commend it to the House.

11.22 pm
Mr. O'Neill

This has been a useful exercise. Those of us who participated in Committee found that there was a fair measure of give and take between the two sides. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) can speak for himself, but I think everyone sought to get the Bill into a form which would be acceptable to the industry. The discussion in Committee resulted in general agreement. The Bill now includes opportunities for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny which did not exist before. There are also provisions to deal with salmon poaching which were not available prior to this stage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has recognised throughout that he should not regard the general enabling provisions as a light responsibility. I hope that his successors and the Secretary of State will take the same view. If those provisions are handled wrongly they could provide an opportunity for almost draconian action. If the Minister's successors handle the matter with the same sensitivity as he has displayed throughout the consideration of the Bill we can be reasonably hopeful. It is not often that I find myself being complimentary to the Minister. He invariably makes an unholy mess of his responsibility in other matters. Here he has shown a degree of flexibility and sensitivity which I only wish he would exercise in regard to the Health Service and other subjects.

My hon. Friends and I recognise that much out-of-date legislation has been replaced by provisions for flexible regimes in various parts of Scotland which will involve, we hope, all sectors of the fishing industry. As a result, the fishing industry should be more effective and safer. At the end of the day we hope that the industry will be able to provide fish at prices the people can afford and of a quality and in quantities that they wish to buy.

11.24 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene briefly to say something about salmon conservation, which the amendment made in Committee—now clause 2 of the Bill—opens up. It is an important subject in which interest should be shared throughout the whole of the United Kingdom as salmon conservation and the fight against poaching cannot be isolated within the boundaries of Scotland. I hope that that will not be regarded as a contentious comment.

I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me for saying that, although the clause is most welcome in itself, one or two of the arguments that he adduced in its favour in Committee went a little far. Although it is useful to have power in the Bill to ban the carrying of monofilament gill nets, he was perhaps a little carried away when he told the Committee: The Bill gives us an opportunity to do something about the huge growth in salmon poaching. Anyone who looks at the statistics on salmon caught in the past decade or so will see the continual decline, especially in spring fishing. He then said that the clause would go a long way towards stopping the use of monofilament nets and to bring back the runs of salmon which are so important both to the legitimate netsmen and to angling interests." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 8 May 1984; c. 67–70.]

I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that the major threat and the major cause of the decline in salmon numbers off the east coast of Scotland is much less likely to be the use of monofilament nets, which has been illegal in Scotland for many years, than the activities south of the border of what is known as the north-east drift net fishery. I appreciate that that is not my hon. Friend's responsibility, but I hope that he has had the chance to read the minutes of the recent meeting between the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and representatives of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, at which the association no doubt stressed once again the change in character of the north-east drift net fishery since 1959 when it was a fairly simple, traditional hemp net fishery with an average annual catch of about 2,200 salmon and grilse.

Since then, it has developed through successive stages of nylon drift nets, the issue of more licences, the change to monofilament and now the issue of large numbers of licence endorsements to the point when the catch for the last season for which figures should shortly be available will be about 70,000 fish for Northumbria alone, if that is an accurate declaration of the actual catch. In fact, understatement or underestimate of the catch probably means that the whole fishery accounted for 140,000 fish in the 1983 season, and I believe that research carried out by the two Ministries has established that 94 per cent. of those fish were bound for Scottish waters.

The toll being taken by the north-east drift net fishery cannot be sustained indefinitely. The decline to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in Committee is difficult to measure, but the annual average catches in the east and north-east of Scotland have undeniably declined in the past eight years by about 20,000 fish while the number of fish taken in the north-east has increased substantially —probably by the same number of salmon not caught in Scotland, if I may so put it. That cannot be allowed to continue. If the Minister has not seen the figures, I am sure that those prepared by Mr. Ian Mitchell, managing director of the Tay salmon fisheries, will convince him of the seriousness of the situation, not least in the threat that it presents to employment in Scotland.

The threat to employment is difficult to measure, but it is undeniable. Hon. Members will have seen reports about the impact of declining salmon stocks on the tourist industry in Scotland. I believe that the district salmon fishery boards have been extremely conservative in calculating that for every job gained in the north-east of England two are lost in Scotland. That must be the absolute minimum. The Sunday Times colour supplement recently contained the following statement in an article about the Tay fishery: A survey carried out in 1982 showed that visiting salmon anglers generate about £140 million annually for the Scottish tourist industry. Equally important, it showed that salmon angling provides direct support for 30,000 jobs—more than 30 per cent. of the total employment support generated by the entire Scottish tourist industry — while the commercial netting industry provides no more than 1,500 jobs in seasonal and part-time employment.

That article was written to set the rodsmen and the netsmen against each other in Scotland. We should not see it as a controversy between rod and netting interests, any more than I want to present it as a conflict between Scottish and English fishermen. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the point that the subject is so important that it must be considered on a national basis. Sectarian interests are not involved.

The Atlantic Salmon Trust Ltd., about which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) probably knows nothing, as well as the Salmon and Trout Association and the British Field Sports Society, would agree that the priority must be to conserve salmon stocks nationally, a policy which requires national action. I hope that I can carry my hon. Friend with me in supporting a national tagging scheme, which is urgently required. That would cut off salmon poachers from their markets for stolen fish. If that were achieved, it would make a contribution. I hope and believe that that subject is being considered urgently by Ministers in the Scottish Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Some of the evidence that I have suggests that the Scottish Office shows some reluctance and has made heavy weather of the practicability of introducing a salmon tagging scheme in Scotland, especially because of the absence of a rod licence system north of the border. That can be overcome. If the Minister studies the 1951 Act, he will find that Scottish salmon fishery proprietors are the most appropriate people to undertake tagging. They already submit returns and are supposed to give written permission to anyone who wishes to fish in their waters. It would not be difficult to introduce a system in which they helped to operate tagging.

The fish farmers seem to find peculiar difficulties in relation to such a scheme. I do not think that we should be susceptible to their objections, which should be overcome. If they are lucky, grants should be available to overcome problems. Subsidies in that direction are not unknown.

I refer to a phrase in a letter from Lord Gray of Contin in reply to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), in which Lord Gray referred to a "cost effective scheme". If all that matters is the cost, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that the tagging scheme, like the other measures that we want to see introduced, is a conservation measure rather than one of revenue raising. I hope that the finances will not be such a Government preoccupation that they will use them as an argument for doing nothing.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is raising a number of propositions. I agree with some of them. Many hon. Members may wish to debate them later at length. However, neither the salmon tending scheme nor the restrictions on the netting of fish at sea is in the Bill. They cannot be debated at Third Reading. I am worried that, if the hon. Gentleman proceeds with his arguments, those hon. Members who wish to debate the Bill more fully will be precluded from doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member is correct in saying that matters raised in Third Reading debates must be related to the Bill. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is going a little wide. I am sure that he will relate his remarks directly to the Bill.

Mr. Onslow

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed cannot see the connection between what I have been saying and the contents of the Bill. When the Minister introduces a clause on the basis that it will bring back the salmon runs, end the long decline and make a major contribution to the fight against the huge growth in poaching, it is open to us, and right, to test those assumptions.

I believe that the Minister will agree on reflection that something like a salmon tagging scheme would make a much greater contribution to the conservation of salmon stocks than the relevant part of the Bill. I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to draw that comparison, but I shall not dwell on it as I do not wish to detain the House too long.

A great many other things need to be done. I shall not go through the list of them as it would infuriate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, although they might be new to him. Poaching is not the only problem. We want effective action against poaching, which bites on a national scale. Powers to enforce the ban against monofilament nets in a relatively small area where problems exist are welcome, but they do not go far enough. I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a great deal more to be done.

11.36 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I said in Committee that, although I welcomed the Bill—I still think that it is a useful measure, and the tidying up of the legislation was long overdue—my caveat was that it had been hijacked to some extent by the salmon lobby. The speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) proves that.

I regret that the Government have abolished the three-mile limit, but I concede that sections of the fishing industry are happy to see it go. With regard to salmon, I supported the idea of some protection for the method of fishing by nets on fixed stakes, which went on without detriment to salmon catchers for hundreds of years, but then the salmon lobby got the bailiffs' powers tightened up.

Monofilament nets are also referred to in the Bill. Many fishermen have invested much money in monofilament nets, which have no connection with salmon fishing. They have been used to fish for cod, ling, tusk, haddock and whiting, and recently for crayfish, because they are weighted on the bottom, and they have nothing to do with fishing for salmon.

Many of those fishermen have thousands of pounds at stake, much of it funded by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If they were caught by a blanket banning of monofilament nets, there would be a shout of rage and a great loss to fishermen throughout the country. I hope that there will be no precipitate action along those lines under clause 1, on fishing by a specified method.

It is deplorable that the netting of salmon is going on, but many of the estates that are complaining about it are netting on a large scale. They are not allowing the fish to be caught by anglers, and they are the people who are shouting about poaching. I shall not go into the salmon question as that is not what the Bill is about; it is about inshore fishing. I know, before someone corrects me, that a salmon is a fish that goes to sea, but that was not the main subject of the Bill. I am sorry that so much of it has been taken up by the salmon lobby.

I welcome the Bill. It was debated in a good spirit.

11.38 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

I make no apology for being part of the salmon lobby. The river Tay is the largest salmon river in the country, probably the most prolific at the best of times. Most of the fishing beats are in my constituency. It is probably true to say that all the rod fishing beats are in my constituency. Therefore, throughout the Bill's consideration I expressed a constituency interest.

I welcome the measures in the Bill to deal with aspects of salmon poaching. It was right that they were included. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) felt that that was wrong. After all, the fish never know the difference, which part of the river they are in and whether it is the net of a landed gentleman or the rod — as it often is in my constituency — of someone from the mining villages. Many of those people fish in my constituency, and long may they continue to do so. I hope that at the moment they are not doing more fishing than work.

I shall not discuss the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall put my argument simply and say that I support everything that my hon. Friend said, because we cannot look on the Tay or any other river in isolation. We must consider salmon as a national asset, and many jobs in my constituency depend upon them. If the Tay were to lose its fish, there would be as many squeals heard from my constituency as there have been about the problems at Bathgate. Those who come to the Tay to fish, and who stay in hotels in the area, are the main source of income for many of my constituents. Therefore, I must take an interest in anything that puts their jobs at risk.

I would welcome some form of salmon tagging and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister — who has a special interest in one fishing beat in my constituency, although I believe that his sons catch many more fish than he does—will continue to enjoy the delights of north Tayside. I hope that Opposition Members will not regard this measure as an attack on one sort of fishing. We are looking for a balance, because if not enough fish go up our rivers there will not be enough fish in the sea. Unless we nurture our stocks, and unless the fish continue to return to spawn, in future there will be no fishing for anyone.

The right hon. Member for Western Isles was correct to say that some landed proprietors net fish as well as allow others to fish on parts of their rivers, and they, too, are interested in achieving a balance. I met them last week, and they drew my attention to the fact that they wanted to ensure that everyone could get out of the rivers what the rivers previously provided in abundance. We should be fools if we allowed stocks to die and no longer to be available to our children and our children's children.

11.42 pm
Mr. Wallace

I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that some measures in the Bill are designed to attack the poaching of salmon. They are important and welcome measures, but the point of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was that, when the Bill was published, most of the debate centred on clause 1, which gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to make orders to restrict fishing in specified areas. Perhaps most of the major arguments will come in later debates, on whether areas should or should not be designated. When we debated the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee we believed that, since such wide powers were being given to the Secretary of State, we had to build in safeguards. It should be recorded that the Minister has accommodated many of the suggestions made on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

We especially welcome the statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult interested groups. Until now, the Scottish Office has been prepared to consult, but it is as well to legislate for that lest any future Secretary of State is not so well disposed to consultation. Equally, we welcome the clarification of the negative procedure in the amendments we debated earlier this evening, so that there will now be an opportunity to debate orders laid by the Secretary of State.

The Minister said a great deal in Committee, although it does not appear in the Bill, about local management agreements. The industry still believes that many regulations could better be made by the local people coming to an agreement. There would be no need for orders. Having read one of the Committee reports, I understood the Minister to say that, if an ad hoc committee came up with such an agreement, there would be no need for such an order. If that is the case, the industry would welcome it if the Minister made that clear when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Kennedy

Would my hon. Friend concur with the impression that I received in my part of the Highlands that the effect of the Bill has been to encourage a degree of agreement, co-operation and unanimity of opinion within the industry that did not exist previously?

Mr. Wallace

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It would appear that the Bill has focused the minds of a number of people, and agreement has been found where, prior to the Bill being presented, people thought that agreement was impossible. That is a good omen for the future. If the Secretary of State would be prepared to encourage such voluntary agreements, that would be welcomed by the industry.

In the circumstances, we would not wish to divide the House on the Bill, and we welcome its Third Reading.

11.47 pm
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

To a person uninitiated in the fishing world, it might seem odd that the Member for St. Ives, who represents the far south-west of the United Kingdom, should have the temerity to intervene on Third Reading of the Bill. However, any Opposition Members who express that view do not know much about the fishing industry. If they did, they would realise that there is often an affinity of interest and, dare I say it, on some occasions a conflict of interest between the fishing industries of Cornwall and those of Scotland.

The progress of the Bill is being watched with interest in Cornwall as presenting a way forward. What interests me particularly, and the reason why I rise, is the concept behind the Bill of what constitutes an inshore fishery. I am delighted to see here the Minister of State who, despite his Scottish name, represents so well the fishing industry south of the border.

Not for the first time, there is a marked difference in approach between fishing and the regulation of fishing north of the border and that south of the border, particularly with regard to what constitutes an inshore fishery. The case has long been put forward by the sea fisheries committees, particularly in Cornwall and Devon, that their jurisdiction should be extended from three miles to six miles. I support that claim wholeheartedly. In following the passage of the Bill in this House and through another place, I see enshrined in it the concept that an inshore fishery extends up to six miles. That concept has been welcomed by the Government and the Scottish Office —particularly the Under-Secretary— which I welcome.

Greater protection should be afforded to inshore fishermen. It is an irony that, if our good friends from Scotland come to Cornwall, they can fish up to a three-mile limit, whereas the one or two boats that go north from Cornwall to Scotland may find themselves precluded from fishing inside a six-mile limit. The irony and possible unfairness may be compounded by the fact that, because of the workings of the Hague agreement— a matter I have long since challenged, and in which I understand the present leader of the Social Democratic party had a hand —the territorial limits of the south-west are six miles, whereas in Scotland the territorial limits are in the main 12 miles.

I wish the Bill godspeed. I hope that it is a success. I should like to see some of its concepts, particularly on what constitutes an inshore fishery, extended.

Mr. Maclennan

Why has the hon. Gentleman been so unsuccessful in persuading his English colleagues in the Government to follow the example of his Scottish colleagues?

Mr. Harris

I do not want to score party points. The Hague agreement was negotiated when the hon. Gentleman's leader was at the Foreign Office. The Hague agreement cannot be undone. This is not the occasion to rake over history, although I should be happy to debate the issue with any SDP Member some other time.

I wish the Bill well. In the far south-west of Cornwall, we shall watch its implementation with interest.

11.51 pm
Mr. McQuarrie

I took part in the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, and on Third Reading I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but I should like him to consider some details. Will he have consultations with the Scottish fishermen's organisation, the federation and the White Fish Association? They have expressed severe reservations about designated static gear areas because they would seriously affect the Atlantic fleet.

I congratulate the Minister on amendment No. 3 because it widens the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will not delay orders, particularly in respect of areas where it is proposed to designate salmon fishing only to those with a licence. Delay will not help to check the enormous amount of poaching in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will raise those matters with the Secretary of State. I welcome the Bill.

11.52 pm
Mr. Soames

I make no apology for speaking, because I am a keen salmon fisherman, conservationist and lover of Scotland, its countryside and sports. I am reluctant to speak when I see the lairds' party so well represented by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on this important step forward. He is keen to ensure that the problems are dealt with satisfactorily. I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

I emphasise two important points. First, when talking about inshore fishing, it is worthwhile considering taking steps to give powers to the relevant authorities to prevent the netting of salmon after a prolonged drought in the river and sea estuaries. An enormous congregation of salmon builds up. The river runs down and the salmon cannot smell the fresh water. They come in on the tide and are taken by the nets and those left go out on the tide. That process is repeated again and again and enormous numbers of salmon are taken, to the detriment of angling interests. I urge Ministers to take steps to ensure that something is done about that in England and in Scotland.

Largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and hon. Members on both sides of the House, steps are being taken to attempt to solve the serious problem of salmon conservation. The industry for sporting salmon fishing, off both shore and river, is important to the Scottish economy. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to promote a close liaison between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Department in Scotland. I know that there are difficult problems to be overcome and that strides have been made, but I do not detect the spirit of urgency needed.

The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) feels strongly about employment in Scotland. I have the privilege of having been invited to fish on a number of the great Scottish rivers—something that I enjoy and look forward to from year to year. I know of beats on Scottish rivers where men have been employed for generations as river keepers and ghillies, and generally involved in the industry. Those people will not be replaced, because the level of stock is falling dramatically. Some temporary work may be available in the summer with let rods, but the jobs will disappear unless the salmon come back. It is important to the interests of the Highlands and Scotland as a whole that the jobs are preserved and enhanced and that the Scottish economy is expanded. There is great opportunity for further expansion of this leisure industry in Scotland.

I apologise for detaining the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, the greatest priority must be to conserve the salmon stocks.

11.57 pm
Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other hon. Members, I am deeply concerned about the future of salmon. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food listening to the debate. Like Oliver Twist, I ask for more.

I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland on introducing the Bill and steering it through the House. It is a major step in the right direction. However, I hope that the Scottish Office will not feel that the Bill is merely an academic exercise. It is of the utmost importance that the powers contained in clauses 1 and 2 should be used. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage and liaise with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that it will take helpful action on salmon fishing and netting in England. If there is no action to prevent interception netting on the north-east fishery——

Mr. Beith

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yet again issues are being raised about fisheries in England, which English Members might feel entitled to debate at some length. I am tempted to make a speech. The Bill is confined to Scotland, and I would be out of order in seeking to explain how, for example, many rigorous conservation methods are followed in England to preserve the salmon fisheries. We are constantly being drawn into the debate by Conservative Members who continually refer to the position in England.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The early clauses of the Bill are fairly wide. I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Morrison

I was making the point that if the powers in the Bill were not fully used, if a scheme was not introduced soon to control the interception netting on the north-east fisheries, and if a tagging scheme was not introduced, many of the intended effects of the Bill would be stultified.

Despite this measure, salmon will remain an endangered species. There is a race taking place now between the reduction of salmon stocks by netting, wherever that is occurring, and the efforts of salmon farmers to replace salmon as a food available for anyone in Britain who wishes to purchase it. Unfortunately, the race is being lost by the salmon, but it is also a loss in terms of the recreation of many people throughout the United Kingdom, for employment in Scotland and for the Scottish tourist trade. I hope, therefore, that legislation will be introduced shortly to deal with that issue and that it will have effect in England as well as in Scotland.

12.1 am

Mr. Home Robertson

I have already welcomed the main provisions of the Bill, which, as several hon. Members have pointed out, has been generally welcomed by the Scottish fishing industry.

I would not have delayed the House at this hour had it not been for the incredibly patronising remarks of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). When speaking about the natives of Scotland, he did not go quite so far as to say that some of his best friends were Scots, but I still have the impression that he would not like his daughter to marry one.

Mr. Soames

I am married to a Scot. I understand the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman, as a major landowner in Scotland, in appreciating the interests of those who enjoy Scotland and the Scottish people. He would be wrong to interpret my remarks as being patronising on in any way derogatory. I said at the outset that I spoke as a Member of the Parliament of the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Home Robertson

It is clear that I touched a raw nerve in the hon. Gentleman, and, while I understand what he said in his closing remarks, he should appreciate that many of us feel that it would be more appropriate if specifically Scottish legislation such as this were dealt with by a Scottish parliament. There is not much justification for hon. Members such as he to speak or vote on internal Scottish affairs which are already devolved to the Scottish Office.

I suppose that we should have known what to expect when the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), for Crawley and others come into the Chamber at this hour when a Bill dealing with Scottish fishers was being debated. It must be said that some interests have been poaching the resources of Scotland for a long time, and it might he suggested that some Conservative Members who have spoken tonight might have spoken on behalf of those interests.

Mr. Bill Walker

I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that my hon. Friends and others should stop coming to Scotland and thereby further affect the job opportunities of those who work on the Scottish rivers.

Mr. Home Robertson

If the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute or two, he will ascertain exactly what I wish to suggest. I agree with the principle that is being discussed, which involves the need for conservation of stocks of salmon and trout, for example. There are jobs involved in their conservation and it is part of the economy, whether it is netting in certain areas or the operation of the tourist industry. It is a fact that the stocks of these fish are diminishing at an alarming rate and that they have been doing so for a number of years. Something must be done about that.

The Minister would argue that something has been done about it in the Bill and I think that there is broad support for what he is suggesting. However, as I explained in Committee, I think that something far more radical is required. A completely new approach must be taken to the management of freshwater fisheries in Scotland and to the ownership of those fisheries. Those who represent the proprietors of lucrative salmon fishing rights are protesting too much in this debate.

Clause 7 gives additional powers to river fishery boards in Scotland, which control fisheries offshore as well as in the rivers. I shall cite one of the boards which borders on the waters adjacent to my constituency. The river Tweed commissioners' council includes no fewer than 38 riparian owners, including a representative of the Crown Estate Commissioners, two dukes, one marquis, one earl, two viscounts, a lord, the son of a lord, a knight, a major-general and three other retired officers. I have no doubt that they are all splendid people——

Mr. Soames

In what capacity does the hon. Gentleman serve as a Tweed commissioner?

Mr. Home Robertson

I serve as a commissioner because I was elected by the Berwickshire district council, to which I was elected before I came to this place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get too excited about that.

I have no doubt that the commissioners are extremely worthy but they should not be surprised that a body that is so heavily loaded in favour of one set of vested interests does not command universal respect or support from those who fish offshore or of the many who fish on the rivers. Until there is a radical review of the ownership and control of these rights we shall continue to have problems. The law which entrenches the rights of vested interests has fallen into disrepute and it will not serve an especially useful purpose to build more and more on to discredited 19th century legislation and to add to the powers of existing vested interests. I am glad to have the opportunity to put that point on the record and perhaps to balance some of the arguments which have been advanced by Conservative Members.

I repeat that I welcome the generality of the Bill. I welcome especially the useful concession which the Minister made in Committee when he let the Fisheries Act 1705 remain on the statute book. At one stage that Queen Anne Act, which guaranteed some of the basic rights of Scottish fishermen, was to be swept aside in a great tidying-up operation to be mounted under schedule 2. I am glad that in Committee the Minister accepted the amendment which prevented that from happening. That showed some useful spirit in Committee and elsewhere. I am sorry that some Conservative Members have taken this opportunity to raise certain issues involving salmon fisheries in Scotland.

12.9 am

Mr. Beith

I presume that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and other hon. Members sought to suggest that, in giving the Bill a Third Reading, we should reflect that it will not be effective because some provisions in England were not associated with it or made part of it. I sought to argue that they could not be made part of it because the Bill, in the way it is drafted, is confined to Scotland. Those hon. Members cannot be allowed to go unchallenged in suggesting that the Bill's effectiveness will be undermined because of the ineffectiveness of the operation of controls on salmon fisheries in England, especially in the north-east. To say that would be to imply, as the hon. Member for Devizes and other hon. Members clearly did, that, for example, the Northumbrian water authority exercises no control in its areas over the netting of salmon at sea, whereas in fact, it has an extremely rigorous licensing system, enumerating in immense detail the number of boats who can fish in them, who they are by name and the seasons in which they can fish. Those provisions are rigorously enforced.

As a Member of Parliament representing many of the fishermen involved, I have come across, as no doubt have many other hon. Members, the problems that arise when that rigorous enforcement takes place. The constituents of many hon. Members are affected including those of the Home Secretary. They seek salmon in a strictly regulated. way. I venture to suggest to Ministers that much can be learned from the operation of the scheme used by the Northumbrian water authority, which is looked at enviously by the former constituents of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who used to represent Berwickshire. That area is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Those constituents wish that they were party to such a scheme.

In making that comment, the Conservative Members who identify themselves with the salmon lobby are implicitly attacking the Tweed commissioners, to whom the hon. Member for East Lothian referred. Those commissioners are responsible for the enforcement of controls in the Tweed river, the Tweed estuary and the Tweed box, which is a widely defined area of sea, outside the Tweed estuary. There is a long-established salmon netting system in that area which goes back many generations and requires control and enforcement. Conservative Members might be suggesting that the Tweed commissioners are falling down in their job in carrying out enforcement in that area. If so, they should be more specific, not least because I and some of my hon. Friends are meeting the commissioners in a week or so. If Conservative Members wish to present more detailed criticisms, they should make them available to us.

We must remember what, curiously, was properly pointed out by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—there must be a balance between the groups of people involved. In striking a balance, we must pay particular regard to those who fish salmon not for their entertainment or amusement but to earn their daily bread to make a living.

Mr. Bill Walker

If the hon. Gentleman had studied the figures carefully, he would have realised that many more people are dependent on rod fishing for their livelihoods than on net fishing. All the hotels, the people who work in them and in the other services provided, and those who come into the area are dependent on that fishing. I am talking about hundreds of jobs in some very small areas and, in total, thousands of jobs. I doubt whether the number of those involved in the netting industry comes anywhere near those figures.

Mr. Beith

I am well aware of how the statistics are constructed. If the statistics for those earning a living from catching fish, are constructed on the same basis, the same consequences follow. Once those who are involved in the associated trades are brought in, the statistics arise in the same way. Those who fish for a living for salmon at sea and in the rivers of Northumberland, county Durham and north Yorkshire are providers of income, not only for their families but for the shops and trades that are ancillary to the fishing industry. Exactly the same network of economic dependence arises in the fishing industry as arises in the leisure industry which is so important in Scotland.

Mr. McQuarrie

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman twice rose on a point of order in relation to comments made by my hon. Friends. He has just mentioned Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire, which my knowledge of geography tells me are in England. Is the hon. Gentleman drifting slightly from the content of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill? He should concentrate his remarks on Third Reading rather than on the English areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will leave that matter to me.

Mr. Beith

I was responding to an intervention at the time. In my other remarks I was responding to remarks by Conservative Members about why, in proceeding to Third Reading, we should have regard to whether the Bill would be rendered ineffective, partially or wholly, by what went on on the other side of the border.

I do not know why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is becoming so excited, because I am paying him a compliment. He was right when he said that a balance must be struck between the groups of people involved. I am laying stress upon the fact that a great many of the people involved earn their living from fishing.

It may be difficult for Conservative Members to understand, but sitting on the Opposition Benches we hear hon. Member after hon. Member speaking for rod fishing and those of us who are interested in those who go to sea in the rough North sea in small open boats to make their living from fishing become a little sick and tired of the parade of those who talk about the rights of the landowners and the rod fishermen. There is a proper leisure fishing industry in Scotland and England. It is not solely in Scotland. It is part of the balance that we must strike when we work out how to conserve salmon stocks to ensure that they are available to those in all the different categories who have fished legitimately for many generations. We shall not achieve satisfactory results if we try to tag on — that is not a direct allusion to salmon tagging —desultory discussion on aspects of salmon fishing in a Bill which is necessarily confined to many other aspects of Scottish inshore fishing.

Mr. Home Robertson

Can the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that his constituents will be allowed to go to sea in open boats to catch salmon with the protection of the law while other people in Scotland, under the Bill, will be prosecuted if they carry a net that looks as if it might be capable of being used to catch salmon? Does he think that something should be done about that?

Mr. Beith

The hon. Gentleman knows that the differences that he described existed for the whole period that he represented Berwick and East Lothian during part of which a Labour Government were in power. Neither then nor more recently has he persuaded them to change the law in Scotland.

For many years in England there has been a licensed, regulated and controlled salmon fishery off the north-east coast. That is part of the balance, but there are many other aspects which must be considered. They must be discussed on another occasion and must not be attached to a Bill which for the moment seems to be in danger of being hijacked by interests going far wider than those that the Bill was designed to meet.

12.18 am
Mr. Maclennan

It is rather odd that the Third Reading has been dominated by representatives of rod fishing from Crawley to Devizes. It would be a pity if that were the way that the Bill left the Floor of the House.

The Bill is of great importance to many communities which are not blessed with salmon. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is right to say that there are a number of people whose livelihoods depend upon salmon fishing, the number of people in remote communities whose livelihoods depend upon sea fishing for white fish, pelagic stock, creel fishing and static gear fishing is infinitely greater. The House should not lose sight of that.

The debate has been stimulated by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends and that is a reflection of an inherent imbalance in the Bill. It makes sensible provisions for salmon fishing and poaching. Clause 3 makes proposals for salmon fishing that we cannot debate tonight in relation to sea fishing. Those proposals — which are the substance of the matter, and which gave rise to considerable debate when it became known, following the recommendations of the committee on the regulation of inshore fisheries, that the Government intended to legislate—have not yet been given the full benefit of consideration by Parliament.

As the Minister may acknowledge, the fishing industry was very concerned about the Bill and remains somewhat unsure of how the Government will use the substantial powers that they are taking to regulate the industry. It is true that the industry recognises that the Government have to have those regulatory powers, but the question how they intend to use them remains somewhat mysterious.

I am slightly anxious about the fact that, when the Government have made up their mind how to move, following the consultations which are now to be part of the statutory process—and we welcome that amendment to the Bill—the House of Commons, if it wishes to debate the matter, will be able to proceed only by means of a negative resolution.

Crucial decisions are involved for some fragile communities. Let us take the part of Scotland to which the mind of the hon. Member for Crawley no doubt turns when he debates these subjects. In north-west Sutherland there are genuine conflicts between different groups whose interests are exceedingly difficult to reconcile. There are those who depend upon static gear catches of shellfish and there are the pelagic men who, in the same first three months of the year, are moving around in the inshore waters and sweeping away the static gear, often at night, when it will be untraceable afterwards. Those legitimate interests must be reconciled. The conflict of interests in the use of the water will present a judgment of Solomon to any Secretary of State who has to exercise the powers, but the reconciliation of such difficulties is very much more important to the economies of those fragile areas than some of the other matters alluded to by hon. Members representing landlocked constituencies south of the Border.

Parliament should consider the specific proposals that the Government have in mind to enact, and the House of Commons should have a real opportunity to discuss them. Although the provisions are subject only to the negative procedure, it is desirable that a good deal of time should be allowed for consideration of the proposals that the Minister may make.

Finally, I ask the Minister two questions. When does he intend to bring forward his first orders, and how much time will he allow us for discussing them?

Mr. John MacKay

This by-catch of a Third Reading debate has been most interesting. I shall speak as briefly as I can while answering the points raised, and shall divide my remarks into two parts: first, the question of salmon and, secondly, the static gear reserves and related matters.

I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Crawley (Mr. Soames), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the Government are well aware of the problems connected with salmon, not only in Scotland but also on both sides of the north Atlantic. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent rural constituencies are well aware of the importance of salmon to the economy of many fragile areas from the point of view of angling and tourism and of the legitimate salmon netsman. I remind the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that many of them do some salmon fishing in the summer months to balance out the livelihood that they make from creel fishing in the winter. The salmon is important to many areas of Scotland.

We have had some debate on netting off the English coast. We also heard from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I noticed that, accidentally or because of the hour, it was handy for him that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) were safely absent from the Chamber at the time as otherwise we might have had an even longer debate. That might have been interesting. I am sure that it has been noted that ray hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been here throughout Third Reading and heard the arguments that have been advanced.

Mr. Beith

I am sure that the Minister will withdraw any criticism he might have intended of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, as he must be aware that the Committee on the Finance Bill is still sitting.

Mr. MacKay

Of course I accept that the Finance Bill is more important to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire than the parts of this Bill that affect salmon. I hope that my criticism was just a little tail wagging of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and their hon. Friend from the other side of the border.

As I have said, my hon. Friend the Minister has been here throughout this debate. He has recently met representatives of the Scottish salmon interests and has received written representations from the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, underlining the points that the Scottish salmon interests have made. I know of the difficulties involved and that officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been asked to consider the effects of the north-east fishery and to examine all of the arguments. I shall leave the matter there as it concerns my hon. Friend more than me.

Everyone knows that tagging originated from an outline scheme of the salmon sales group in England and Wales. Although it might be easy to implement that proposal in England and Wales, it cannot be implemented quite as directly in Scotland where we have problems. For example, there are no regional water authorities or rod licences. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office has asked his Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to prepare outline schemes for how a tagging and licensing scheme might operate in Scotland. We have received written comments from several interests and had discussions. There is general support and sympathy for the idea of salmon tagging if some of the difficulties can be overcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned some of the difficulties that the salmon farming industry foresees if it is forced to tag.

I know that my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that Ministries in Scotland and England are treating the matter seriously and are examining ways in which to resolve some of the difficulties. Any salmon tagging scheme must be cost effective in the broadest sense. It would be most unfortunate if we ended up with a tagging scheme that caused much bureaucracy and administration and did not prevent poaching. Any scheme must be watertight in that regard.

Mr. Onslow

I put it to my hon. Friend that some of the claims he made about the banning of the carriage of monofilament nets would probably not have quite the impact on the stocks in Scottish rivers that he suggested and that he should bear in mind the impact of the north-east drift net fishery. I should like to hear what he thinks the impact of that fishery is on Scottish salmon fishing.

Mr. MacKay

That is one of the factors which the officials of my hon. Friend's Department will have to bear in mind. I understand the argument my hon. Friend makes about the rivers on the east coast. I have seen the figures which show that large numbers of fish caught in English waters are heading for Scottish waters. To be parochial for a moment, I think that the banning of the carriage of salmon nylon monofilament nets will have a considerable advantage for the rivers of the west coast. I may no longer need to think about going to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to catch fish, which over the last two or three years I have found was a fairly fruitless journey.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) took part in the debate, not for the first time beginning by telling us that he had not meant to speak and then going on to make that abundantly obvious.

I assure those hon. Members who mentioned the sea fish part of the Bill that I shall take note of the points they made in Committee about the importance of this legislation. Coming as I do from a constituency which has a longer coastline than that of France, with very many fishermen of both types—static gear men and active fishermen — I know the importance of this kind of legislation. There is a great welcome from many fishermen in my constituency and elsewhere for the final abolition of the three mile limit.

I point out to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), as we have said time and again, that if local fishermen can come to us with an agreement for their area which we think—and this is important—will hold up I do not think we will be going down the road of orders. That should not be necessary if we can consult with them and be satisfied that they can agree.

But I caution him to listen to the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who highlighted the fact that on many parts of the Scottish coast there are real conflicts which it may not be possible to resolve by local agreements. In such cases I believe the Secretary of State has a duty to come to the House, after discussion with fishermen, with orders that will try to resolve some of the conflicts that have taken place in the waters off our coast and to make sure that those people whose livelihood is put at risk by the conflicts have the chance to fish and make a living in these fragile rural communities.

I look forward to the orders. I shall not predict when they will come. Once the Bill has completed its passage and received the Royal Assent, we can move on from the consultations which we are already engaged in with the fishing industry to the point where we can bring forward orders. I look forward to the orders when I am sure we will have more stimulating debates on this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.