European Communities

HC Deb 28 October 1985 vol 84 cc743-77 6.25 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)

I beg to move, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved. It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider also the following motion: That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Rifkind

The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—known as NASCO—was established by the convention for the conservation of salmon in the north Atlantic ocean. This convention was opened for signature at Reykjavik on 2 March 1982. NASCO's principal objective is to contribute to the conservation, restoration and rational management of salmon stocks in the north Atlantic, with the aid of the best available scientific information.

The establishment of the organisation was welcomed by the Government as a significant development in the management of salmon stocks in the high seas, thus having a beneficial effect on salmon stocks in our rivers. We have a strong interest in restricting as far as possible catches of salmon originating from our rivers, but caught in the waters of the Faroe islands and Greenland where they feed —the intercepting fisheries. We hope, therefore, that the convention, through NASCO, will enable these fisheries to be carefully managed and preserved.

The location of the headquarters in Edinburgh has also been welcomed by the Government—not only for the benefit to the local economy from holding meetings there, but as a recognition of the importance to the United Kingdom as a whole of salmon fishing as a commercial and recreational resource, particularly in remote areas like the Scottish Highlands where it is so important to the tourist industry. We believe, therefore, that it is highly appropriate that the headquarters is located in Scotland. It is, in fact, the first recognised international organisation to be based in Scotland.

The convention entered into force on 1 October 1983. The European Economic Community is a party to the convention and a member of the organisation, together with Canada, Denmark— in respect of Greenland and the Faroe Islands—Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the United States. The headquarters agreement with the organisation, which implements article 3 of the convention, was signed on 26 April at its new offices in Rutland square, Edinburgh. It will enter into force when the necessary legislation is in place— in other words, once the two draft orders now under consideration have been made.

As the EC is a party to the convention, it is a Community treaty for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972. It is proposed that the first draft order before the House— that relating to definition of treaties—should be made under section 1(3) of the 1972 Act specifying the headquarters agreement as a Community treaty. This order provides the basis for the second order — that relating to the immunities and privileges of NASCO provided by the headquarters agreement, which will be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. The headquarters agreement implements article 3 of the convention by specifying the privileges and immunities that NASCO is to enjoy in the United Kingdom. This agreement is similar to other headquarters agreements entered into by the United Kingdom with international organisations having their headquarters here—for example, the International Tin Council, the International Lead and Zinc Study Group and the Commonwealth Foundation.

Certain principal privileges and immunities will be conferred. NASCO will be provided with legal capacity, inviolability of archives, exemptions from taxes on income and capital gains, the same rating relief as is accorded to a diplomatic mission, relief from car tax and VAT and exemption from import duties.

The representatives of parties will be provided with immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts and inviolability for official papers and documents.

Staff members of NASCO will be provided with immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts, exemption from income tax, "first arrival" customs privileges and exemption from social security legislation.

Those privileges and immunities are conferred on a strict basis of functional necessity. The House will note that nobody is given the full immunity from jurisdiction of a diplomatic agent.

The House will wish to know that NASCO currently employs only two staff members and both are permanently resident in the United Kingdom.

I believe that NASCO will help protect a valuable and vulnerable resource. Even those among us who are not given to the solitary joys of river fishing will recognise that the disappearance of the salmon from our rivers would represent an irreparable loss; not only in terms of wildlife conservation, important though that is, but for the incalculable effect it would have on commercial salmon fisheries and on tourism in the remotest parts of the land where the local people rely even more heavily on incomes earned during the tourist season. If one takes away the fish, one takes away the fishermen and the incomes they generate.

I hope therefore that Members on both sides of the House will want to signal their welcome of NASCO to its Edinburgh home by supporting the draft orders before the House, and will join us in making a positive contribution to the preservation of a vulnerable resource.

6.30 pm

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

I am grateful to the Minister of State for explaining the orders. Some of the comments that he made are right. The salmon species in Scotland is in almost as grave a situation as the Conservative party in Scotland. It is right that we should be doing something about endangered fish, but I am not so certain about the Conservative party.

The Minister said that there are only two members of staff working for NASCO, so that will not impose any particular burdens or difficulties on Edinburgh. Like the Minister of State, I represent a constituency in Lothian region and I welcome the fact that this interesting and useful international organisation has located its headquarters in Edinburgh. However, I suspect that the Minister of State will agree with me when I say that it is already difficult to find a parking place in Edinburgh without having to compete with people from Canada, Finland or the Faroes who might be able to claim immunity from parking regulations. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.

I hope that we will be permitted to speak about the background to the work of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. There is no doubt that stocks of migratory salmon in British rivers are critically low and declining at an alarming rate. Indeed, it is a pity that we are not talking about immunity for the salmon rather than immunity for the bureaucrats. It is worth while to encourage scientific study and international co-operation in order to protect that and other species, and that is NASCO's function. There is a risk of too much talk and too little action.

I live near the river Tweed and, although I have never attempted to catch a salmon, I am well placed to witness some of the action that takes place on the river, in the estuary and offshore. Perfectly legitimate net fisheries and sporting anglers are losing out year after year to large-scale illegal fishing. That is compounded on the river Tweed, if I might say so in the presence of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by the extraordinary phenomenon of legal drift net fishery for salmon off Northumberland.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman declare any interest he might have in that area?.

Mr. Home Robertson

I have never caught a fish in my life and I do not particularly want to.

Article 8 of the convention says that one of the functions of the North-East Atlantic Commission with regard to its area shall be to propose regulatory measures for fishing in the area of fisheries jurisdiction of a member of salmon originating in the rivers of other Parties". Salmon that originate in Scotland are being intercepted by what are at present legal fisheries off the north-east coast of England. That is causing problens, and I expect some hon. Members may wish to say something about it.

The Government are constantly saying that they will do something about those problems. A scheme was mooted some years ago for tagging salmon to ensure that only legitimately caught fish could be marketed in this country. We also have the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, but while the Government fiddle, salmon stocks are being exterminated. I believe that the fundamental problem is that the current freshwater fisheries legislation is transparently unfair. It is designed to protect the vested interests of riparian owners and to exclude virtually everyone else. I recognise that it is not appropriate in the debate to raise the need for a complete overhaul of freshwater fisheries legislation, but that is what we ought to be doing sooner or later, preferably sooner.

We need a framework of freshwater and coastal fisheries management that will command respect from all concerned. It is absurd that so many rivers and estuaries are still under the authority of bodies that are effectively controlled by landowners.

The river that I know the best is the river Tweed and on the council of the commission that controls the fisheries on that river are two dukes, two earls, one viscount, one marquis, one baronet and four retired officers. It is a bit much to expect the ordinary punters of that neighbourhood to have a lot of time for an organisation that is composed of such members.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Since the hon. Gentleman claims to speak for the ordinary punter of the Tweed area, would it be fair to tell the House whether he has ever been a Tweed commissioner or whether he owns any land in the area?.

Mr. Home Robertson

I own land in that area. On one occasion I was a representative commissioner for Berwickshire district council. I was elected to that post, so there is a distinction.

We wish the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation well. We warn the Government that they must heed the growing scientific evidence about the depletion of salmon stocks. We do not need much in the way of bureaucratic immunity, but we need genuine effective action to protect the salmon species.

6.37 pm

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I welcome the orders and the fact that NASCO is to be resident in Edinburgh. Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I hope that we shall see action. The action will have to come from a combination of that organisation and the Government. It is depressing that we have made no more progress to assist the survival of the wild salmon over recent years. The words "wild salmon" have crept into our vocabulary since the introduction of farmed salmon. which have been a spectacular success, particularly on the west coast of Scotland.

Tonight we are interested in conservation, the survival at sea of the migratory salmon and its survival in United Kingdom rivers. If Britain does not set an example, we cannot expect others to take the vital steps that are required internationally. The economy of Scotland and of the areas of England and Wales that have salmon rivers is most concerned about the progress made by that organisation. The rural economy surrounding those rivers is affected, whether it is a question of hotels, shops, travel and tourism or the local authority rates, because the valuation in salmon fishing areas is extremely high, particularly in Scotland. Therefore, the success of salmon fishing is of crucial importance. Employment, the ghillies, other aspects of river management, the construction of boats, angling equipment and clothes are all most important.

The consumption of salmon is being maintained only because of the great success of farmed fish. I believe that we can now compete with Norway and other parts of the world. If we did not have farmed salmon, salmon from the wild would be extremely scarce because of the overkill of our resources, not by rod but certainly by net. Like the hon. Member for East Lothian, I would not claim to be an active fisherman, but we must look seriously in the world of conservation at drift nets and other methods of fishing in the sea, bearing in mind the migratory nature of the life of a salmon.

Drift nets, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned, are banned in Scotland, but not in England and Wales. There is exceptional confusion in the Solway area, close to the national boundary between England and Scotland. The area of navigable water is relatively small and there are continual arguments as to the side of the border on which the boats are operating.

A crucial decision must be made with regard to the Northumberland coast. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will probably speak about that later. I know that it is an old, traditional fishery. Everything would be fine if the people in the area were using the old, traditional methods of catching, with relatively few boats and old-style nets. However, today there is a modern fleet. I was told in July, in answer to a parliamentary question, that there were 121 licences issued by the Northumberland water authority. In the 1950s the average catch was a little over 2,000 fish a year. Last year, 77,200 fish were caught. Therefore, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of salmon caught off the Northumberland coast. It is having a dramatic impact on the number of salmon returning to the Scottish rivers. If they do not return, eventually we shall have no stock.

I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. If the council had responsibility for salmon, I am sure that we would be considering it as an endangered species. We consider the life cycle of birds and other mammals and we know how serious the position will be if we do not conserve what we have.

I am glad that the new organisation has been set up in Edinburgh, but most of us are aware that all true wildlife lives a precarious existence. There are limits to what we can take from the wild unless sufficient steps are taken to ensure conservation.

It is obvious that drift netting is the main danger. We have to deal with the problem in relation also to the Greenland fisheries and particularly the Faroes. In addition, we must have consultation with our friends in Ireland about their activities off the Donegal coast.

As I said earlier, we must put our own house in order. We have to look closely at stake netting and also at the fixed engines. They are important and operate legitimately around our coast but we must, as conservationists, ensure that there is no overkill.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

With regard to the question of conserving a precarious species, is it not the fact that the danger presented by the English drift net fishermen pales into insignificance when compared with the activities of the Faroese and the Greenland fishermen?.

Sir Hector Monro

I know that the hon. Gentleman has great expertise in fishing and I will accept that what he says as true, particularly with regard to developments in the Faroes in the past 10 years. It has been very significant and it must be looked at in international negotiation.

I welcome the inshore fishing regulations that were introduced by the Government in the summer. While not affecting salmon, they prevent mobile gear from sweeping into the bays and estuaries of Scotland and damaging our salmon fishing.

I am glad that the Government have looked seriously at the problems of salmon poaching, salmon sales and tagging. We must try to resolve those problems as soon as possible. Fishery protection has been stepped up by the introduction of fishery protection vessels, and by the purchase of an aircraft in the past year. It has been very effective in dealing with salmon fishing. I pay tribute to our district boards for their part in salmon conservation and for the employment they provide for the water bailiffs.

I reiterate that, if we are to take salmon conservation seriously, we must look at the problem of drift netting and be prepared to take action. We must also be prepared to negotiate with the Faroese and the Greenland Government about their activities in the Atlantic. I hope that the Minister will comment on that matter in his reply.

6.45 pm

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley, Central)

Although I welcome the establishment on the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation in Edinburgh, I hope that the Government will see fit, after it has been established, to take some positive steps, as a matter of urgency, to reverse the decline in our salmon stocks.

The two orders before the House are particularly concerned with salmon conservation. Although a number of countries that fish for salmon on the high seas have agreed to quotas, and in some instances have agreed reductions, so far the United Kingdom has not responded in any positive way and is still allowing indiscriminate, wholesale netting, legally and illegally, of the shoals of salmon returning to the United Kingdom rivers.

There is no doubt that if the United Kingdom does not act soon, our NASCO partners will call for action, or else there may be retaliation by the salmon quota countries, which could abolish their quotas, slaughter stocks and ignore conservation, as a retaliation to our unseemly and selfish attitude to salmon conservation.

As a result, the Atlantic salmon will go unprotected, its life span as a species will be seriously jeopardised, and Scotland, as well as to a lesser extent England and Wales, will suffer a disastrous decline in salmon searching for their spawning rivers. The economic and financial consequences of such action to sea fishermen in Scotland, to rod anglers and to tourism will be very serious. It could be long-lasting, and perhaps the salmon industry and the related industries would never recover.

On salmon conservation, at least three major steps should be taken. Drift netting off the north-east coast should cease. Nylon monofilament gill nets should be banned and a more serious attitude adopted by the Government, fishery boards, water authorities, magistrates and courts to the salmon poachers.

All the major organisations, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, trout and salmon and other conservation associations, have called unanimously for the end of drift netting. It was accomplished along the Scottish coast many years ago, but there is no such restriction along the Yorkshire and Northumberland coastline. It would mean restricting and possibly ending the licensing of fishing vessels using the drift netting technique, and thereby allowing the returning salmon to find their own spawning grounds.

According to the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the catches declared by the Northumbria and Yorkshire authorities are in the region of 60,000 salmon annually. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimated that 95 per cent. of them are intercepted in their passage to the estuaries of eastern Scotland.

Mr. Beith

Did not the same Ministry report that the effect that that fishing is supposed to have on the Scottish rivers is not more than 7.5 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is talking about the livelihood of a great many fishermen and their families, whose fathers and grandfathers before them were also fishermen?.

Mr. Mason

The hon. Gentleman has his point of view, and those Conservative Members in the north-east who want to register that point of view today are obviously entitled to do so. but if we are to take salmon conservation seriously, the problem of drift netting has to be tackled.

In The Times not long ago the chairman of the River Tweed Commissioners said: It is quite scandalous that the Government continues to turn a blind eye to this slaughter of returning Scottish salmon at a time when there is mounting concern over diminishing stocks. The chairman went on to say: It is galling that English nets can intercept salmon only a few miles from our rivermouth, using these deadly drift netting techniques which were outlawed in Scotland years ago, and still contribute absolutely nothing to the management costs of the parent river". According to statistics prepared by the British Field Sports Society, the north-east drift net fishery has considerably increased its catches in recent years.Between 1950 and 1959 about 2,000 fish were taken per year. Between 1970 and 1979 nearly 5,000 fish were caught per year. But in 1984 alone 7,700 fish were taken. Yet in Scotland the annual sea catch returns show that between 1970 and 1979 about 400,000 fish were taken, while in 1984 this had dropped to 280,000. So there is no doubt that this interceptory drift netting is having a calamitous effect on salmon stocks, on conservation and on legal salmon fishing off Scotland.

America and Canada have already placed restrictions on their catches. Greenland's salmon quota has been further reduced. Unless they see, as a result of NASCO being formed. the United Kingdom being subjected to a more common objective by the salmon states to conserve, they may have to apply pressure on the United Kingdom to take salmon conservation more seriously.

The Government must take steps to ban the use of this cruel and deadly nylon monofilament gill net. When I questioned the Minister of Agriculture in December 1983 about a ban, he stated that our fishery scientists were conducting research into the effects of using monofilament nets. I do not know with w hat results, but it has not led to a ban.

Some research has been done elsewhere. In British Columbia a report on a test which resulted in these nets being banned said: It has been established that mono-filament nets will, under certain conditions, out-fish all other regular gill nets to a degree where serious management of resources would follow … widespread adoption of the gear". Some idea of the deadly efficiency of these nets was shown in an experiment in the river inlet fishery. In one week, when the average catch of all ordinary gill net boats was 410, two fishermen using complete monofilament nets took 1,100 and 1,546 fish respectively. Hence the imposition of the ban. Not only is it a deadly piece of equipment, it is cruel too, causing considerable damage to escaping fish which drown as a result of gill injuries, or become diseased and then pollute the rivers. Broken nylon monofilament gill nets become ghost nets hanging in the seas and river estuaries, killing fish slowly as they hang from their gills. Because these nets do not rot like hemp ones, they go on killing and injuring fish, seals and sea birds. Gannets and sea-diving birds have no chance of seeing them because of their invisibility under water.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wildlife Organisation are adamant, as are the Salmon and Trout Association and the Atlantic Salmon Trust, that these nets should be banned. Their use is a form of cruel mass slaughter at sea of one of our finest fish species, the survival of which is undoubtedly being threatened.

What are the Government doing to curb the mass growth of salmon poaching to help conserve the salmon? It is now no longer the odd man in the village taking one to sell for a couple of pints; it is highly organised, with gangs poaching on a large scale, intimidating bailiffs, wrecking their boats, and having a range of outlets for their ill-gotten gains. Using gas, cyanide and nets, they are emptying our estuaries and rivers of countless salmon.

Every salmon river in the United Kingdom reports an increase in the discovery of broken illegal nets year after year. This includes the Scottish coastline too. A special article in The Scotsman said: It is no big secret that motor boats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh are to be seen returning at night with their lights off and weighed down with dead salmon, destined to end up remarkably quickly on slabs at Billingsgate. They too, use monofilament gill nets but, unlike England, there is no right here to drift net for salmon off the coast. Peterhead Police say, 'It seems to be increasing and it seems to be a situation which is getting out of hand.' Questioning Lord Belstead in another place in July-1983, Lord Chelwood said: Is my noble friend further aware that, as proof of how serious the decline in Atlantic salmon seems to be, figures seem to show that licensed netsmen in Scotland in the last decade have seen the tonnage caught decline by nearly 50 per cent.? Is this not a really serious matter? … Are we not prepared to face up to it? Lord Belstead replied: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Chelwood that there is undoubtedly evidence of illegal catching of salmon and that it is on a substantial scale. I can assure my noble friend that the Government are well aware of the need for prompt action."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1983; Vol. 443, c. 1368.] Prompt action? What action? The Government started a consultative review, a review of fisheries in England and Wales, in July 1981. Thereafter, a salmon sales group was established and that reported in July 1983. Its report was entitled, "Salmon Conservation—A New Approach." It recommended a salmon-tagging scheme to curb poaching. The report stated: Illegal fishing for salmon and trout has reached epidemic proportions in England and Wales. Impossible to quantify as to extent or effect, reliable, experienced opinion nevertheless holds that in some areas illegal catches regularly exceed the legal and threaten to destroy the resource. Over four years ago, the review began. Over two years ago a salmon-tagging scheme was recommended by a team of specialists. As yet we have made no progress. Rod and line anglers and fly fishers are incensed. Tourist returns on fishing in Scotland are on the decline. Fly fishers, of course, have long distances to travel and expensive journeys, and it is still costly on most rivers, but there are fewer and fewer catches and so fewer return to Scotland to catch a salmon with rod and line.

All who are interested in salmon conservation should ponder what is being lost because there is a case to be made for the promotion of rod fishing at the expense of restricting netting, but especially for recognising that the legal sea netters are not getting the returns that they would like and the illegal ones are not spreading their returns in Scotland or creating much allied industry with their operations. Rod fishermen are also incensed that netsmen contribute so little to conservation and restocking when they take so large a portion of the catch.

A recent survey put the value of the salmon catch on Scottish rivers at £2.6 million a year. Then there are the wages of bailiffs and ghillies, the employment generated in legal netting, in hotels, tackle manufacturers and shops, boat building and hirers, smoking businesses, food processing and fishing holiday sales—all worth scores of millions of pounds to Scotland. That is money often going into otherwise impoverished rural communities in the form of jobs. All is at risk unless something is done to cut back this alarming growth of salmon poaching. Those in Scotland who oppose the salmon-tagging scheme are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Another factor that may well bedevil the sea salmon netters is the growth of salmon fish farming. As these fish farms increase in numbers and inland farmed salmon multiply with increased annual production, prices for salmon will tumble. Sea netting may not be worth while. The salmon will then get back up the river and the rod and line angler will benefit. So will all those multifarious activities connected with rod and line salmon fishing. Scotland's tourist industry could benefit enormously and the fly fisher will come back into his own.

I end as I began. When we are fully participating in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation we shall have to say clearly to all its members that we take salmon conservation seriously and that we shall at least curtail the use of the drift net, abolish the use of the nylon monofilament net and introduce measures to curb the activities of those criminals who are poaching the seas and rivers of salmon.

6.59 pm

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I do not wish to keep the House long because the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has covered much of the ground that I should have covered. He mentioned one point on which I must correct him. He is being exceptionally optimistic if he supposes that the spread of fish farming and the increase in the numbers of farmed salmon will have the effect that he imagines. There is no evidence to suggest that there is the connection that he sought to draw. Many of us hoped that there might be. but I am afraid that experience has shown that it is an illusion. There will still be the poacher looking for stolen fish, however many farmed fish may reach the market. The House can unfortunately draw no comfort from the point put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.

I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the British Field Sports Society's fishery committee, and a colleague of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on the Salmon and Trout Association Council, and I am involved with the Anglers' Co-operative Association, as is more than one Opposition Member. I am a salmon fisherman. I own a small stretch of river in Wales. During the past five years I have caught the grand total of two fish in it, but not for want of trying. I have also been lucky enough to catch a few fish on other stretches of water.

I am especially glad to see not just my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but sitting beside him my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been known to hold a rod in his hand from time to time. It is also especially gratifying for the House to have the company, albeit practically silent, of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has a great deal to do with this issue. His predecessor, who has now gone to a harder job, was closely involved with some of the discussions about salmon conservation which have been taking place over the past couple of years.

If the gentlemen from the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation come to Edinburgh and if the other members of that organisation are to visit Edinburgh, apart from the pleasures of so doing, they may well ask themselves what type of salmon conservation policy their host country has. It may not be easy for them to find the answer if we rely on what we have now, because there is no doubt that the salmon that breed in British waters face the most appalling array of threats to their survival, not all of which have been listed in the debate. We have heard some mention, not unnaturally, of the north-east drift net fishery. The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central quoted some figures, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

It is significant that the average declared catch from the north-east drift net fishery — anyone who knows anything about that fishery knows there is also a great deal of undeclared catch—between 1970 and 1979 equalled one ninth of the total catch in all Scottish waters, whereas in 1984 the overall declared catch was one quarter of the total catch in all Scottish waters, including all rivers and estuaries.

Complacent as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) may be about those figures, and anxious though he may be to defend his constituency interest, he cannot brush aside, in the way he sought, the inexorable trend that they show towards the extinction of salmon in some east coast Scottish rivers.

Mr. Beith

Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that there is a substantial undeclared catch from the sea fishery but no undeclared catch from the river fishery?.

Mr. Onslow

Because it is much easier for someone fishing the north-east drift net fishery to transfer his catch at night to a Dutch or German trawler to be taken to the continent and sold there. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware that that type of thing happens, he should perhaps make some further inquiries in his area. It is much harder to quantify the poached catch from Scottish rivers, but all the evidence shows that there is much less fish there to start with. The hon. Gentleman could usefully do a little more research on that matter.

The threat to the salmon is not confined to Scottish east coast rivers. There is a similar threat on the north-west coast of Scotland. I have a letter written by someone from Sutherland referring to the illegal inshore and offshore netting that goes on there. He says: We believe this to be particularly bad on the North West coast. Once the legal nets come off, then practically every crofter or small boat owner is out somewhere with a nylon net. If we go round the coast, we come to the estuaries of the rivers Dee and Clwyd. There is an interesting report, dating from 1982, which describes how the poachers work the Dee estuary. It describes how the so-called sea fishermen do catch and take considerable numbers of salmon during the course of a season in addition to their normal catches of sea fish. They simply adjust their activities to the fish that are most abundant at the time and this includes salmon and just by watching the successes or otherwise of the legitimate salmon trammel netsmen can quickly assess the run of fish taking place. They can, if they wish, move into the productive zone of the low water channel pushing out the licensed men and then block the channel completely. There is no fear of retaliation from the licensed salmon netsmen as they are considerably outnumbered and the bailiffs can do little as the practice is perfectly lawful until attempts are made to bring any catch ashore. I have a letter dated August 1985 from a Dee water bailiff in which he talks about illegal fishing. He says: "this is the real problem, which has escalated dramatically over the five years to such an extent now that I am physically and mentally exhausted. I don't know which way to turn and am seriously thinking of quitting after fourteen years service, because I cannot take any more aggravation, abuse and seeing fish killed and not have any authority to do anything about it. There must be a change in byelaws, and it must come soon. This river to me is dying. This is the worst I have seen on it for migratory fish, and it's been sliding for the last three years. This is the problem … and it is causing a breakdown of morals and laws within the river system, that if some form of check is not brought in then it will be out of hand, because its just like having a supermarket and leaving all the doors open. If we go further round the coast, we reach the Torridge, which is a river in Devon that I have fished for over 20 years. I have a report from one of the local angling organisations, which states: In 1982 1,000 Salmon and 3,000 Sea Trout were taken illegally in the estuary of the Taw and Torridge. There was a declared catch of 22 netsmen of 1,394 Salmon and 3,576 Sea Trout. 1982 Rod catch of the Torridge was 46 Salmon, and 460 Sea Trout. On that estuary, unless there is enough rain to bring the river down in flood and so make it possible for the fish to run, they wash up beyond Bideford and down again. The netsmen who are working the banks of the Torridge simply scoop up the fish without any restraint or control. It is hardly surprising that most people who know anything about that river regarded it at the beginning of this year as having virtually ceased to be a salmon river.

We could go on round the coast, but perhaps I can rest with the threats that the salmon face in the estuary. The threat does not come just from the poachers. The Torridge estuary has a bad record of pollution caused by inadequate sewage works. There are other estuaries with similar problems where a great slug of poisoned water washes up and down with the tide and makes it impossible for the salmon to get through to the rivers and live.

But when salmon get through to the rivers, what do they find? They find the poachers there as well. We have heard tonight of the threat on the river Wye. There has been something like open warfare on the lower Wye where wires have been stretched across the river to catch the bailiffs' boats. Stones have been dropped from bridges. Bailiffs are rightly afraid to go around singly, unless they have a large dog. The Bridport gang, the Monmouth boys and all the other gangs of poachers mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central know that part of the river well. They know where the fish are and will steal them given half the chance. The task of the water bailiffs on the Wye can be very daunting.

On the river Esk in Yorkshire, which is nearer to the right hon. Gentleman's part of the country, the poachers have won the battle. They will stone a legitimate angler to get him off the water so that they can poach.

The situation is not quite the same on the river Dovey in Wales, but poachers have come from Birmingham and Manchester, poisoned the river and scooped up all the fish. Fortunately, in one case they were caught and received severe sentences. We must not ignore that aspect of the fight.

Pollution is an important factor. It would be a mistake to ignore the fact that water extraction—pumping water out of the river for irrigation, as farmers increasingly do these days — works against the chances of salmon survival because it lowers river levels to a point where they cannot survive.

Water quality is also affected by run-off from the spreading of fertilisers on riverside fields. That also makes it impossible for salmon parr, salmon smolts and mature salmon to survive in the river.

Land drainage, which is still heavily subsidised, has the effect of turning rivers into drains and lowering their levels through the years of drought such as we experienced last year and the year before.

Forestry is another source of drainage. It is a great promoter of acidification because of its effects on run-off. Indeed, it is probably a more serious contributor to acidification of our rivers than the so-called acid rain.

Finally, there are the pests — the mink, the goosanders and the seals. Seals arouse conflicting emotions in people who do not have the interests of salmon at heart. The Government seem at present to be relying on a document produced by the sea mammals research unit. That paper is based largely on research undertaken, curiously enough, at the kind of place where one would not have found many salmon for the seals to feed on at that time of the year. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has taken a close interest in the problem, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to say and do something about it on another occasion.

Against that background, it may be thought odd that I should also cavil at the absence of a quota on our own catches of salmon. Certainly it is not worthy that there is no quota imposed by our Government on the United Kingdom salmon catch. We are the largest producer of salmon in the European Community. The Greenlanders and the Faroese wonder why they should suffer under salmon quotas when we, as the largest producer country, cannot get round to imposing a quota on our own catch. The pressure for the acceptance of a quota will mount, and so it should, but the species must first survive for a quota to become a really effective defence.

I agree that we must have action by the Government, but I disagree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central that it is reasonable to suppose that a salmon-tagging scheme would prove as effective a defence here as it may have proved in Canada. In fact, I believe that the Canadians are having second thoughts about it. The French, however, are considering the possibility of introducing such a scheme, and it certainly has theoretical attractions. The difficulty is how to implement it in practice without creating a back door to the black market, which is the very thing that we are trying to prevent. How would the tags be controlled? How can poachers be prevented from obtaining tags? How will imports be controlled? How will fish from fish farms be dealt with? It would be very difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to propose legislation to implement such measures in so convincing a way that the House would pass it without challenge. I am sorry to have to say that, because I know that for the past two years the Department has honestly and genuinely been trying to see whether it could make a salmon-tagging scheme look convincing, and I and others have done all that we can to help.

There is, however, an alternative which I believe would have an equally good effect but be much less cumbersome to administer. It is to reverse the onus of proof and to provide that anyone having a salmon in his possession must show legal title to it—a licence or permit to catch salmon, or a receipt to prove his title, whether the salmon be in a hotel deep freeze or in a council house freezer. Anyone who can show legal possession will have no cause to fear. Only people who cannot establish that legal entitlement will face further inquiries and possible prosecution.

It has been a cherished principle of our law that the onus of proof should not be reversed without good cause, but in recent years there have been two examples of such a reversal. The first is in the Deer Acts. Secondly, under the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act anyone sending dogs underground is required to show that he is not digging for badgers. Personally, I do not take exception to that. I believe that the onus of proof could be transferred in the same way in this case. I hope that such provision will be foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech so that the poacher can be cut off from the market for stolen fish. I believe that that should be a priority.

Something must also be done about the north-east drift net fishery—a problem which is confined to part of the United Kingdom salmon conservation issue. I do not agree that it should be stamped out entirely and at once, as some hon. Members wish, but I believe that it is reasonable to provide that the number of endorsees should be severely restricted and that the right to operate a net should apply only when the licensee is in the boat operating the net. That would have a powerful effect. I should also like use of the monofilament net in daylight to be completely outlawed. That, too, would have a powerful and interesting self-policing effect on the use of a device which it may prove harder to stamp out in English than in Scottish waters.

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)

Insistence that the owner of the licence should be in the boat with the drift net might put a considerable number of people out of work if the owner were temporarily unable to go out with the boat due to illness or some other cause. That problem would have to be faced.

Mr. Onslow

I accept that it could put a number of people out of that line of employment. Whether it would put them out of work altogether is another matter. If that type of fishery is restricted, it is inevitable that some people will be denied that occupation. In that context, my hon. Friend might reflect on the number of ghillies and others on Scottish rivers who are currently being put out of work by the north-east drift net fishery.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

A number of ghillies in my constituency have been given notice this year that their jobs are to disappear.

Mr. Onslow

If the income of an estate is diminished because it can no longer attract fishermen from England, Scotland, Wales, France, or wherever, to pay the traditional fishing rent because there are no fish to be caught, the ghillies' jobs will inevitably be at risk. No one is more aware of that than the unfortunate ghillies. I believe the river Tay never ran down to summer level at all this year, although that was purely due to the weather. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) should bear in mind that his drift net fishermen can fish the sea throughout their limited season, but that the possibility of catching fish in rivers depends on the rivers being in order. I believe most salmon anglers in this country are quite prepared to face the consequence of a shift in employment from south of the border to the north. It is not difficult to imagine that for every job that might be lost because the licensee had to be on a boat which would be drift-netting off Northumberland, four or five jobs would be created in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and elsewhere in Scotland.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must bear in mind the importance of the employment of extra ghillies and the consequent opportunities for the whole of the Scottish industry?.

Mr. Onslow

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is well placed, as he represents an area where all this happens. It is no good promoting Scottish rivers for salmon fishing if the salmon have already been swept up in the North sea's drift net fisheries. This is an important subject because of the employment opportunities that the salmon fishing industry can provide in areas where they are sorely needed, and for the conservation and protection of a scarce species from which many of us have drawn great pleasure, and which many of us enjoy watching as well as fishing for. Not every salmon angler wants to kill every fish he sees or catches — he wants to see fish; he wants to know they are there. What he does when he catches them is up to him. A chance must he a fine thing, and we badly need a chance for the salmon to survive.

7.22 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I also welcome the agreement and creation of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. As a Scot, I welcome the fact that its headquarters will be in Edinburgh. Several hon. Members have emphasised the importance of conservation measures, especially with a view to getting more fish going up our rivers. Several hon. Members, in particular the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), have mentioned the importance of salmon fishing to the local economies of many parts of Scotland, its importance to the tourist industry and the jobs that might be created directly and indirectly. The North sea drift net fishermen seem to be the Aunt Sally of the evening, and, as this debate can run for another four hours and eight minutes, if my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have something to say on this important matter.

We are all sensitive about jobs in our own communities, but I hope that none of us is so bold or brash as to say, "Jobs in my community at the expense of jobs in someone else's community".

We are talking about fishing which has gone on since time immemorial. There was a vast increase in drift net salmon fishing in the 1960s and a form of licensing was introduced. It may be that further conservation measures will be needed, and licensing is often a means of reconciling conflicting interests. However, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) last week in a Standing Committee lectured me on inshore Scottish fishing and the need for scientific evidence before conservation measures are taken. The Government will not proceed with such measures unless they have scientific evidence.

Perhaps the Minister will state what scientific evidence the Government have on this matter, or whether they are commissioning any such evidence. One cannot help but see the obvious connection between drift netting in the north-east of England and its immediate impact on the river Tweed. However, there is surely not enough evidence to justify the statement that the loss of one job drift netting off the north-east coast of England could create four jobs for ghillies, jobs on the river Tay. I suspect that the impact declines the further north one goes.

Mr. Bill Walker

The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the evidence that shows that 90 per cent. of the fish caught off the north-east coast of England were destined for Scottish waters, including the Tay.

Mr. Wallace

I accept that 90 per cent. were destined for Scottish waters — most for the Tweed. The report also states that, if one takes account of non-catch fishing mortality, the total effect of English fishing in Scotland would be 7.5 per cent. This underlines the point that there is a need for sound evidence to avoid such generalised statements. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned the Solway firth. It is very difficult to see how it is affected by something on a completely different coast. More is involved than one drift net fishery and several of the other factors, such as poaching, have been mentioned.

I am impressed with the organisation's first report. It intends to establish a scientific data base so that conservation measures might be more effective. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the Government's funding of it.

During the recess, I had an opportunity to visit a research laboratory in the constituency of the Minister, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We discussed a whole host of problems, although admittedly not the salmon fishery, and it was clear that, like many other research laboratories which are funded substantially publicly, it is having to consider carefully what projects it can undertake because of funding costs. It is important to know what support the Government are giving this organisation.

A ban on monofilament gill nets has been asked for. The Minister might confirm that the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1985 outlawed such fishing in Scotland. We had debates similar to this on the Report stage of that Bill. How many prosecutions have there been since that Bill was enacted?

Salmon tagging has been considered at length in the Department. If it is proposed to take tagging a step further, I hope that the administrative and bureaucratic problems that it could pose for those involved in fish farming will be considered. A considerable volume of fish now go through fish farms in the north of Scotland and in my constituency. People involved are worried about those potential burdens, which could add significantly to their costs.

We should consider other means of tackling poaching. I take what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about the balance of proof, but I wonder what measures might be involved. There would be howls of protest if it were suggested that the police should be empowered to search domestic deep freezes. All manner of safeguards would have to be considered.

Mr. Onslow

It would not be necessary for the police to make searches. Members of the public health department might come across salmon in a hotel's deep freeze and reasonably ask where they came from. If any type of enforcement is to be effective, it must be seen through to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Wallace

I am not certain whether that is possible. I cannot imagine public health authorities having similar access to the council house deep freeze which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned. It is important that we tackle poaching, but we must be careful about civil liberties implications before changing the burden of proof.

I welcome the orders.

7.30 pm

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)

This is a serious debate, and the more one hears the views of hon. Members the more one realises that perhaps we should have had a whole day's debate on this subject a long time ago. Perhaps we shall have.

I was particularly interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). I did not agree with all he said, but he put his finger on the chief problem—illegal fishing, wherever it may be found. His idea of possibly moving towards a quota system may be something for future consideration, but there is no point in having a quota system unless one solves the problem of illegal fishing. The result would be simply to drive everyone into illegal fishing, and that would make the matter worse rather than better.

We all welcome the setting up in Scotland of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. As every speaker in this debate has said, it raises the whole question of salmon conservation. I am speaking on this subject because of the deep anxiety of many of my constituents. The river Esk is the only salmon river in Yorkshire and in recent years it has become almost denuded of salmon, particularly in its upper reaches. That has had serious consequences not only for those licensed fishermen who have paid their dues and expect proper sport, but also for the future of salmon stocks and the future management of the river.

The activities of poachers have become so widespread that serious damage and inconvenience are being caused in the harbour and to the boats of the fishing fleet itself. In one instance the lifeboat was fouled by poaching equipment left lying in the water, an incident which in other circumstances could have been extremely serious for those for whom the lifeboat might have been launched. Much blame is being put upon my drift net fishermen. It is claimed that the chief cause of the decline in the number of salmon is the result, mainly, of excessive drift netting off the coast of north-east England. Let me examine this case first.

It is claimed that there is no control over drift net fishing. Licensed drift netters are, in fact, closely regulated. My drift netters will shortly have to pay £425 for a licence, a vast increase over the cost a few years ago. Nets are restricted in length. In the case of Yorkshire it is 400 yd. The number of drift net licences issued by the Yorkshire water authority is limited to 29. The regulations are there all right, but the trouble is that fishermen are taking up drift netting without a licence.

Dr. Godman

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the length of the nets—I think he said 400 yd. What is the depth of an average net?.

Sir Michael Shaw

I think it is 15 ft, but I am not absolutely certain. As I say, there are regulations, but fishermen are taking up drift netting without a licence. My licensed drift netters complain to me that little or nothing is done about it, not even, it is said, when offenders are pointed out to the bailiffs. One does not want to be hard on bailiffs because theirs is a difficult job. particularly with the law as it stands, but, when fishing of that sort goes on so obviously and nothing is done about it, it is tremendously discouraging, indeed almost inciting, to licensed drift netters. The complaint cannot be of a lack of regulation, but it must be said that there are grounds for serious complaint about lack of enforcement.

My drift netters are represented on the river Esk management committee and contribute one penny in the pound of gross earnings from salmon fishing towards an Esk stocking fund. The drift netters and those seeking to manage the Esk are working as one because they do not believe their interests are inimical. It is claimed that my Yorkshire drift net fishermen catch the salmon on their way north. That is true, but the corollary is that the salmon running into the Esk are not caught by local drift netters —they tend not to run at the same time. Why, then, is there such a dangerous drop in the number of salmon in the Esk? It is because poaching has developed into big business, because it has become known that efforts to prevent it are ineffective, and because wholesale poaching, particularly in the lower reaches of the river, is highly profitable.

All those connected with the river Esk—the riparian owners, the Esk management committee, the harbour committee and the fishermen—are united in believing that the cause is virtually uncontrolled poaching. The salmon get into the mouth of the river, but then they disappear. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking is right when he says that at night people dare not go anywhere near parts of the river. Some people who inadvertently go there and see what is going on pretend they have not seen anything and go away as fast as they can. It would be dangerous for them to do otherwise.

The law and the regulations are in existence and the duties laid upon the water authorities by the 1975 Act are quite clear. However, in the case of my constituents those duties are not being carried out effectively, and the longer poaching is left to go unchecked the harder it will be to control. The water authorities will have to do their best to take effective action, or perhaps things have become so impossible that the law itself will have to be changed. I do not know which it should be, but something will have to be done about it now.

It will take manpower, determination and money. There is not a water authority in existence which does not regret being responsible for looking after salmon waters. I have arranged a meeting later this month of interested parties with the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority to discuss action on the problem and we shall try to have some decisive action taken. The problem becomes more difficult year by year, and the longer such action is deferred the more difficult the problem will become to solve. Here we have a specific case in which the salmon have almost disappeared from a river which we know does not suffer from drift netting. Why should Scottish rivers be any different?

I am convinced that the cause of the problem in Scotland is poaching, and, of course, the fish caught are not counted. As with the Esk, there will be many houses near the rivers of Scotland with deep freezers, far more deep freezers than any single household could want, and they will contain 13,14 or more salmon, caught we know not how but we can well guess. This is a serious problem and it has to be tackled. Poaching is the cause, poaching not only in the river but at sea as well. I say in all sincerity and without trying to be extreme that the licensed drift netters are not the culprits in this great problem.

7.40 pm

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). It was an excellent summary of the case for conservation. My right hon. Friend is a conservationist. I know that because I go fishing with him. He goes out of his way to make sure that he does not catch any fish—and that is only trout! His rule for salmon is that after he has caught 20, he goes home. I shall adopt no such rule.

Although I am on the council of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, my aim is not to speak for conservation. That is not where my interest lies, and I would be hypocritical if I said that. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that we liked to look at salmon. That frustrates me. I like to catch them. I want salmon in our rivers so that we can catch them. It is cant to talk merely in terms of conservation. We want salmon in abundance so that we have a better chance of catching them w hen we go fishing, and that is my starting point.

There was some embarrassment on the Opposition Benches at the beginning of the debate because my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is a landowner and one of the gentry. I go from bad to worse by saying that he is a farmer and prosperous, but that should not mislead the House. One of the problems of arguing the case for salmon fishing is that it is associated only with the aristocracy and the gentry. That may be true of some rivers in Scotland, but it is not true of many places elsewhere.

When I attend a branch meeting of the Union of Communication Workers, two or three members out of the 30 or 40 present are often more interested in talking to me about salmon fishing than about the business of the evening. Salmon fishing is now attracting large numbers of working people.

I have the honour to be vice-president of the Potteries Angling Society whose latest acquisition is salmon water on the Severn. The society is proud of that. The hon. Member for Woking mentioned the Dovey. Welsh water is not aristocrat or gentry water; in general, it is owned and controlled by clubs whose members are predominantly working people. Therefore, we are not talking about an aristocratic sport.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said that the aristocracy has the best waters, the easiest to fish and in which to catch salmon. But, as president of the Lords and Commons Fly Fishermen's Club, my right hon. Friend knows that the aristocracy needs easier waters in which to fish. It has been our experience that Conservative Members need easier waters in which to fish. We must therefore accept that working people shall fish in harder water, but that is a handicap that society places upon us.

Fishing is for all, and salmon fishing ought to be for all. That is what I am concerned about. In fact, there has been an expansion in the number of salmon fishermen. I want to see more salmon in our rivers, because there are now more fishermen to catch them. I want to make it possible for people from all walks of life to go salmon fishing and to have the chance of catching salmon.

Several well canvassed hardships have been referred to in the debate, but before looking at some of the well rehearsed arguments about poaching and drift netting we ought to ask whether we are now fishing at the right time. If one looks at the statistics, it is clear that spring fishing —a euphemism for fishing in bitter, cold weather—has declined and that, sadly for those of us who work in the autumn, catches in the autumn appear to have remained at the same level. Someone must explain that phenomenon. If spring fishing has been badly hit and autumn fishing remains good, how can one blame the Faroes, Greenland or the drift fisheries? it may be that fishermen are now fishing at the wrong time and that the close season ought to be changed. Perhaps we should fish later in the year to accommodate the change in the run of the salmon. We must certainly look at that point and consider it, because perhaps we are partly to blame for fishing at the wrong time.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a limit to how far one can extend the season? After all, many fish in the autumn will shortly spawn and are totally unsuitable for fishing.

Mr. Golding

I do not know how far that is true. They are, of course, nearer to spawning than in the spring, but I should like to know how near to spawning they are in the autumn. If, as some have suggested, the fish are running later and spawning later, fishing could take place for an additional few weeks.

However, people prefer to fish at the traditional time. They will fish in the spring when there are no salmon in the rivers and will come away with bitterness in their hearts, but, when the salmon have arrived, they will have put their rods to rest. I accept that there is a limit to how far the season could be extended, but perhaps something could be done.

I strongly disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and with most other salmon fishermen in their treatment of drift netting in the northeast. We simply cannot tell a group of men, "We will ban the way in which you earn your living.".

Mr. Mason

We did it in Scotland 23 years ago.

Mr. Golding

Emotionally I am on the side of the netsmen. When I was a kid, I went to school with the sons of salmon fishermen. They had a rough time. Most of them suffered from malnutrition because the fishing was hard. Those youngsters suffered from TB, malnutrition, and so on. I saw the hardships of the net fisherman's life. We cannot, therefore, tell these people, "We are going to ban drift netting."

The argument, as I understand it, is that drift netting is a traditional method of fishing which, until the advent of monofilament nets, caught a moderate number of fish each year. That is the argument advanced by the Atlantic Salmon Trust. The logic of it is not to ban drift netting, but to ban the monofilament nets. Those who advocate the banning of monofilament nets do not advocate banning the use of boron or of nylon rods. They do not advocate the banning of new scientific fishing lines. We take advantage of all technological progress that makes it easier to catch salmon.

Dr. Godman

Most people who know about the range of fishing methods agree that drift net fishing is the least damaging to stock. If there was a spectrum of fishing gears, drift nets would be at one end and purse seine nets at the other. Does my hon. Friend agree?.

Mr. Golding

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about other methods of fishing.

Many things affect the numbers of salmon in the rivers. Each has to be dealt with separately. We cannot pick on one and say, "That is the solution." The logical thing is to control stocks. It is not the drift netting or the monofilament that is terrible. The problem is the rapid increase in the number of salmon taken out by the netsrnen —77,000 now compared with 2,162 between 1950 and 1959. I do not want to go back to the 1950s because the north-eastern fishermen had as poor a living as the fishermen on the river Dee at Chester when I was a kid. I do not want to go back to the days of tiny catches. We want men working hard earning reasonable pay.

There are two answers. The first is control. If it is said that control is not enough, the answer must be to buy the fishermen out. I cannot understand why the Conservatives, who adopt such a cavalier attitude to property rights, do not agree. The fishermen have property rights to exploit the sea. Conservative Members say that we should ban them or confiscate their boats. but that is unacceptable. If the drift netters have to go, the only solution is to purchase their rights and give them compensation. Let the salmon fishermen get together and buy out those rights. I could justify and defend that. We cannot say to a group of working men, "So that we may enjoy our sport, you will lose your livelihood." That is not on. We must compensate for loss of property. I should have thought that when I mentioned the word "property", Conservative Members would immediately have been with me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central has no property and would not respond to the argument in the same way as Conservative Members who have property and who should defend property rights.

Pollution must also be controlled. If one visits the Dovey, for example, one hears from the people who run the Dovey association that the biggest polluters are the farmers. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian is listening. He is a farmer and riparian owner on the Tweed. Opinion on the river bank on pollution is that the biggest culprits are farmers. Those who cause pollution are as important as poachers in the destruction of salmon stocks. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that to heart and, when he goes home to his estate at the weekend, will check that he is not adding to pollution.

The Government must also investigate how salmon stocks are affected by acid rain.

In the south-west, pollution and poaching are connected. With the imposition of new controls on pollution, I am told that the south-west water authority is taking people away from their normal fishery control duties and putting them on pollution control. The National and Local Government Officers Association tells me that the authority is reducing the number of people who are patrolling the river banks. That will lead to more poaching.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central rightly attacks me for being weak-willed. I have listened to the difficulties that Government spokesmen have presented on tagging. My right hon. Friend has been bitter because I have approached the question with an open mind. He regards an open mind on it as totally reprehensible. Given all the custom and practice, it will be difficult to make a salmon tagging scheme work in Scotland. If it is difficult in Scotland, it will be difficult in the Lake District and in the north-east of England.

Mr. Mason

The Scots are holding us up.

Mr. Golding

My right hon. Friend says that the Scots are holding us up. The Scots have supported the Labour party throughout our history; certainly they have held us up.

We should not spend years arguing about the pros and cons of the salmon tagging scheme. If it is determined by the Government in good faith that the scheme will not work, we should turn our minds to how to stop poaching.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Bring back capital punishment.

Mr. Golding

My hon. Friend is going slightly too far. The poaching that takes place now is gangsterism. It is not the romantic poaching by the poor, starving family who nip out at midnight to pinch one of the laird's salmon. The police must be told that theft from a river is equivalent to theft from a building and that they must treat it as theft. The police must take strong action against that theft, and there must be no question of waters being additionally rated to provide money for the police, as has been suggested in Wales.

If we do not have salmon tagging, we must have adequate policing and adequate penalties must be enforced against those who steal salmon. If the tagging scheme fails because anglers, especially in Scotland, do not support it, we shall have to look at alternative methods of stopping poachers.

I want to see an increase in the number of salmon in our rivers. I welcome the creation of the new organisation which came into being partly from an initiative of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. We in Britain must do very much more to ensure that salmon get into and out of our rivers. I do not believe that the simple solutions that have been suggested will work. We must think hard about the solutions that the fishermen are presenting to the Government.

8.1 pm

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

Not for the first time, I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) who spoke eloquently and entertained the House with his witticisms and the truth of his observations.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a staunch supporter of conservation; like him, my objective is to catch fish, but, like the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), I lack some of the skills that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme possesses in abundance.

Mr. Mason

Poacher Golding!.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith

I do not believe the hon. Gentleman poaches. I am sure that he fishes according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules, though I doubt whether he would like his name to be associated with that of an aristocrat.

One of the fundamental points that has run through the debate is that there is no single cause for the decline in the number of salmon in the rivers of this country, Europe, Canada and the United States. There are many reasons, but I have to make some comments about drift netting, not because I want to make life hard for the folks who fish off the coast of Yorkshire and Northumberland, but because we must start somewhere.

The Hunter report is over 20 years old and many of us have read it and sat in on numerous meetings with representatives of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and stalwarts from the Salmon and Trout Association. I pay tribute to both organisations.

The two groups try to be united, but there is some disagreement and I believe that the Salmon and Trout Association is right to underline the need for estuarial control as well as control over drift net fishing. It is ludicrous that we have much poor control. Only one river board in Scotland gives us up-to-date and reasonably accurate statistics about how much is caught by rod and by net in its area. Reliable information is provided about salmon fishing in the Wye in Wales, but the paucity of information about what is caught by rod and net must be remedied. I hope that when the Government introduce legislation they will grasp that nettle. There has been a hesitant approach to reform because some say that there is not enough information. Another reason why action has been slow is that there are grounds for believing that the scientific evidence is inconclusive.

Ministers have told us that the biological functions are not properly understood, that we do not know enough about the genetic causes and that the information on oceanography is not as good as it might be. I make one simple point in reply to those Ministers. Unless we take some fairly obvious steps, we should not assume that there will not be a continuous decline, leading to the disappearance of salmon from our rivers.

It is interesting that the Canadians have decided that tagging is one way of dealing with their problem. They have also shortened the netting season and introduced dealer licensing.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has yet to speak, but it seems to me that we must be pragmatic and recognise that drift netters must have some effect on the number of fish that come into our rivers. Before ignoring the effect of the huge increase in the number of fish caught by drift netters, we should consider what the Norwegians have done. They carried out a careful analysis and noted that in 1960 some fishermen started drift netting for salmon, mainly because white fish catches were declining. When the monofilament net was introduced in the early 1970s, salmon catches increased dramatically. In 1976, drift nets caught about 35 per cent. of catches in Norway, but that figure has now doubled.

Norwegian biologists have pointed out that drift nets catch mixed stocks of salmon, which results in a lack of control for each river stock. Salmon caught by drift nets are damaged fish and, therefore, not of first quality. As a result, they cannot be exported. Drift netting injures salmon and it has been estimated that in salt water of 20 per cent. salinity, 60 per cent. of heavily marked salmon die before spawning. A number of us have caught salmon by the rod and noted how some have been badly affected by the nets.

I do not suggest that we should necessarily ban drift netting off the coast of Northumberland and Yorkshire—though if we are not to do that, we need to hear a better case from those who support that fishing. If we do not ban drift netting, we should certainly ban the monofilament net. Otherwise, we shall be ignoring the evidence before our eyes and I do not see that we shall be able to make progress with the member nations of NASCO whom we criticise for having too large a quota.

I accept that the commercial exploitation and overfishing of the high seas has a serious effect. Some would argue that we need more evidence before we take action, but I do not believe that we can afford that luxury. The Greenlanders have already reduced the number of tonnes that they take and have agreed to reductions in the Faroes, but they made it clear this summer that they will not take further action until we put our house in order.

If we do not agree to the banning of drift netting, we should make a start by banning monofilament nets. I also have no doubt that we cannot allow the existing lack of enforcement to be perpetuated. It is wrong that so many people can make a business out of poaching.There is insufficient flexibility regarding estuary netting. River boards are not allowed to alter the length of their season without the authority of the Secretary of State. The Salmon and Trout Association went to much trouble and expense to oppose those with estuarial netting rights on the river Deveron. They argued that as they were not catching so many fish in the spring because of the shortage of spring fish the netting season should start later and be prolonged into the autumn. That policy is shortsighted and will not preserve salmon. The only way to test the matter was through a lengthy and costly inquiry. The Government must intervene or we shall return to the long rigmarole which costs money, wastes time and has not resulted in the protection of salmon.

The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central suggested that farm salmon might ease the problem. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that that would not be the case. There was such an example when the price of salmon dropped considerably because farm salmon was brought over from Ireland. That only encouraged more people to fish with nets to make up for the loss of income. For that reason alone, the benefits of farm salmon are dubious.

My next point is not a frivolous one. Most of the top-class restaurants that pay the premium price put wild salmon on the menu, not farm salmon. People pay for it because they believe that there is a difference. I do not believe that there is a noticeable difference. Any difference is more attributable to how the salmon is cooked. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) looks sceptical. He is entitled to his opinion and I suspect that more people hold his view than hold mine.

The matter becomes complex when the problems of water abstraction and pollution are added. That is why successive Governments have not taken action. Representatives of the Scottish Office are here, as is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture—the Minister is away at the moment—so I hope that this message will get through and that there will be an undertaking in the Queen's Speech to introduce legislation to help achieve our objectives.

8.13 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I welcome the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I promise to be brief. I wish to correct the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who said that I had great expertise in the fishing industry. That is not true. I am an observer rather than an expert on fisheries.

The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said that the single reason—I almost said the sole reason—for the diminution of salmon caught in Scottish rivers was poaching. There are several reasons for the decline in the salmon catch in Scottish rivers. A mixture of natural and human factors must be considered. We must examine the problems generated by the drift net fishing activities of the Yorkshire and Northumberland fishermen. I have met some of these laddies and I have much sympathy with them because of the attacks made upon them in the House and elsewhere. I said in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that drift net fishing using the traditional gear is the least damaging of commercial fishing activities. Drift net fishing in the herring fishery is not damaging to stocks—certainly nowhere near as damaging as purse seine fishing. However, the nylon monofilament net is a danger. It is a savagely sophisticated piece of technology, and is perhaps too advanced to harvest stocks that are in a fragile state.

Advances in fishing gear technology sometimes outstrip the resources that it harvests. We have seen that purse seine gear can be highly damaging to young fish and can almost wipe out fisheries, and we are witnessing similar developments with the nylon monofilament nets.

In his fine speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) also outlined the dangers presented by discarded and lost remnants of nets to fish, sea birds and animals. The technology of the gear used must enhance the fair and efficient management of stocks. That is essential.

Mr. Beith

Does the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge and experience, accept that the technology must take some account of the safety of fishermen, and that the ability to work by day has considerable advantages?.

Dr. Godman

I readily accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have argued several times in the House that when debating commercial fisheries we must always take into account the safety of fishermen and their vessels. It may be necessary to restrict the activities of the English drift net fishermen, but I would not wish to deprive those men of their livelihoods.

I welcome what my hom. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about a buy-out. About six or eight months ago, I said in the House that if we restrict the activities of those fishermen we must talk about compensation. They must not be forced out of the fishery without some compensation or the offer of alternative livelihoods in the fishing industry. They do not all own or crew huge £1 million vessels. Some of the vessels are small cobles sailing out of Whitby and other small ports in England. We are talking about restrictions, but we should be talking about quotas, and we must debate compensation.

Much more must be done to reduce the activities of fishermen in the north Atlantic, despite the concessions made by the Greenland authorities. We must also examine carefully the arguments of those who oppose tagging. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) rightly said, this would present formidable problems to the salmon fish farmers in his constituency and in other areas of Scotland. He talked about their being fledgling industrial outfits. Some of them are only one-man operations, and it would be an onerous resposiblilty on them to tag fish. Have not some countries adopted a licensing scheme for those who deal in salmon? We must do something about the serious social evil of poaching. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was right in saying that it is a form of gangsterism, and that it must be tackled comprehensively.

Salmon is part of our national heritage, and it is essential that it remains so.

8.20 pm

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glagow (Dr. Godman), like many hon. Members who have spoken, speaks with great authority. I am pleased that the debate has had the attention of several Secretaries of State, including my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Transport, and for the Environment. The latter, who listened to part of the debate, seemed to be wearing his fishing suit, which shows his anxiety about the salmon fishing industry.

To take part in the debate at this stage is like talking to a great squire of the north, possibly the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), renting some fishing from him, paying a large sum for the privilege, sitting by the river bank, and seeing salmon appear, only to have the salmon taken by others who are illegally fishing, because many of the points have been made. My hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) outlined all the points that should be made.

I join with those who welcome the orders. NASCO's object is to contribute through consultation and cooperation to the conservation and rational management of salmon stocks. Our salmon stocks are an important national asset, and some coherent action between EC states is necessary to ensure that it is preserved. Whether the viability of the asset is at risk is in doubt. I take the strongest view that it is seriously at risk. The viability of our salmon fishing should be of proper concern to NASCO when it sets up in Edinburgh. It is sufficiently serious that fish stocks are in danger, yet it is not appreciated that Scottish salmon fisheries are also threatened.

Reference has been made to the figures for the past five years, which I extracted in a series of questions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who takes a great interest in the matter. They show a substantial decline in the number of salmon caught by rod and line in Scottish rivers from the figures 20 years ago, and all my evidence shows that the trend is continuing. During the past 18 months I have expressed anxiety to my hon. Friend in questions and correspondence, not because I have a great interest in the matter, but because many individual fishermen, who are customers, have brought the decline of salmon stocks to my notice. Some of them, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), are nature's aristocrats, others are less nobly born, but all of them care about fishing.

If a customer does not think it worthwhile coming to fish, the industry is threatened. Such is the decline in the number of fish in Scottish rivers that the industry, which may bring in £100 million or more to the Scottish economy——

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith

More.

Mr. Baker

—is in serious danger.

I have been struck by the extraordinary complacency with which some people in Scotland regard the matter. The owners of fishing rights continue to let their beats. No doubt the fine reputation of Scottish rivers is their best selling point, but the customers are now changing. Longterm fishermen are less and less likely to return to beats where they must seek their consolation in the tales of yesteryear's catches. Overseas customers will certainly replace them for a while, but only a while. The further a customer must travel to fish, the more he expects to take fish wherever the river is, and the quicker he will decide not to return, if the promise of salmon is not borne out.

The complacency is baffling and untypical. Those who adopt that attitude may think that the decline can be reversed in some easy or miraculous way. Perhaps they do not talk about it because they fear that they may accelerate the conclusion that we all fear. However, the longer decisive action is delayed, the longer any reversal of that decline will be postponed.

So far, many steps have been mentioned. I was extremely interested in the comments of Opposition Members about poaching because the poaching that takes place in rivers is similar to that which occurs in the countryside generally — not the charming old-world poaching to relieve the meagre diet of a family in need, but that of organised, armed and motorised gangs.

I wish to stress two points. The first relates to drift netting along the Northumbrian coast. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says that we should buy out those involved. Although that is a perfectly sensible approach, we should first deal with illegal fishing. All hon. Members have produced figures and, indeed, I have many. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) will know as much about this as anyone, but I see no distinction in the figures between legal and illegal fishing. The Northumbrian argument that drift netting is traditional is only partly true. Until 20 years ago old-fashioned cord nets were used. They were cumbersome, heavy and hard to work. Now monofilament nylon nets are used, which are light, cover miles of sea, are wasteful, damage fish and, in many cases, kill them.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking that fishing in daylight by those means should be banned. It is said that the jobs of 500 men could be at risk, but my information is that many of those jobs are part-time. Serious consideration should be given to the redeployment and conservation work that will be required of those who are engaged full time in legal fishing in that part of the world.

Mr. Beith

The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that part-time fishermen are disqualified from holding a licence under the Northumbrian water authority.

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman is also well informed, and he will have a chance to develop his point later.

The risk to those jobs must be compared with the much greater risk to jobs in Scotland, which are in peril. The figures show how the catch has increased, and demand that action is taken to deal with that aspect of the matter.

The second nettle which has to be grasped—it is one which has only just been clutched—is the rise of the greatest predator of fishing stocks, the seal. It is reckoned that in 1920 there were about 10,000 seals around the British coast. It is probable that there are now 80,000, most of which live off the Scottish coast. If a seal eats about 10 lb of fish in a day—it will not all be salmon but let us say that 1 per cent. of it is and that the average weight of a salmon is about 8 lb — about 365.000 salmon a year are taken by seals. That is greater than the total number of salmon that are taken by all means in a year in Scotland. If seals are allowed free breeding grounds and to increase in the way that they are doing, their numbers are likely to double to about 160,000 over 10 years. The effect of such a seal population upon salmon stocks would be devastating.

I do not want to see the extermination of seals, but, for the sake of fish, salmon stocks and jobs, I believe that conservation of the species has gone too far and some degree of control is essential. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should consider the measures that have been taken in Canada to exercise control over the seal population. He should examine carefully the dramatic increase in the salmon population which resulted from the exercise of that control. If the prospect of such control seems alarming. it must be remembered that, if nothing is done, the prospect will be worse for fish stocks as well as for the natural environment. The process of explanation for the public has to begin shortly, and that must be done on a European basis. I believe that NASCO should be capable of starting this work. Scottish salmon fishing is an important national asset for jobs, and the environment and the economy of the rural highlands depend upon it. It is in decline, and the decline could easily become permanent. Let us not be found wanting in its defence.

8.32 pm

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

It is apparent from what has been said already that my constituency and its people have some interest in this matter. They have scarcely been omitted from any of the speeches that have been made from both sides of the Chamber.

My constituency contains the Tweed, which is one of the world's great salmon rivers. The lower reaches of the Tweed are wholly within my constituency and, therefore, within England. For much of its length the river provides the boundary between England and Scotland. The constituency contains other salmon rivers, including the Coquet, which is a carefully regulated river: there is a systematic method of counting every salmon that passes up the Coquet. If Conservative Members would like more information on the procedures involved and the data that are available, they should look to the Northumbria water authority, which provides a massive amount of detailed information on the fish counting that takes place along the rivers for which it is responsible. Those rivers include the Coquet but not the Tweed.

In my constituency there are three groups engaged in salmon fishing. There are those who fish by rod and line, those who fish by river net cast into the Tweed, and those who use drift nets at sea. All these fisheries are long established over many centuries. Every one of them has a claim to involvement in the process by which man catches salmon and by which he seeks to catch a proportion without destroying the fishery for the future. Every one of these groups has an interest in ensuring that there is a sensible conservation policy. In my view, none of them is entitled to say to any of the other groups, "My group will catch the salmon and you have no right to do so." Any sensible conservation policy must be a balance between the various interests.

As I have said, there is the rod-and-line fishery, and we have good salmon beats on the Tweed and its tributary, the Till. There is great pride in the quality of the fish that is taken. There is a long history of the development of a well organised fishery and, of course, jobs are involved. I am fully aware of the employment dimension, which is important to many parts of Scotland as well as the area which I represent.

There is a long established system of catching salmon by means of a river net. The net is taken out into the river and there is a rowing boat at the other end. In any argument about which sort of fishery is legitimate, it is not possible to say that it is right to catch salmon with a rod, right to catch it by means of a net in the river and wrong to catch it in the sea, or vice versa. It can be claimed that the chances of the salmon reaching the spawning ground are more greatly imperilled by the blockage of the river by nets than by of length of net out in the sea. That sort of argument, however, is fruitless and it is my contention that all three means of catching salmon have been engaged in for generations and that they have legitimate and similar claims as long as we can catch salmon at all and ensure the salmon stock. If that can be assured, no one group should be excluded.

Drift net fishing at sea has been referred to especially during the debate. It provides a livelihood for many in fishing ports along the coasts such as Holy Island, Seahouses, Boulmer, Beadnell and Amble, or it means that they can have an all-round fishing livelihood. Salmon fishing can be supplemented in the winter by other fishing activities such as lobster and crab fishing, but anyone who is demonstrated to be other than a full-time bona fide fisherman — I underline a point that I made in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) — is disqualified from holding a licence or being an endorsee of a licence that is issued by the Northumbrian water authority. Vigorous steps are taken to enforce that regulation. There are so many people who would like a salmon licence that anyone who breaks a condition of the licence will be in peril of being reported immediately. It is a feature of the licensing system that any infringement is open to ready reporting by others who would like to be licence holders or endorsees.

There are many coastal villages and fishing ports along my constituency and, further south, along that of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who spoke eloquently earlier in the debate, where drift net fishing for salmon provides an important part of the livelihood of fishermen.

There are enforcement problems in all of the three sectors of salmon fishing which I have described. Unfortunately, poaching takes place in every sector. It takes place in the river spawning grounds and is present in and around the rod-and-line fishing community. It takes place in the river, where net fishing takes place. There is a considerable amount of illegal drift net fishing at sea, notably on the Scottish side of the border where there is no legal fishery and no licensed fishermen who have a strong incentive to point out that infringements or illegal activities are taking place. There is thought to be a large illegal take of the catch on the Scottish side of the border.

Conservation must involve a balance between the groups that I have mentioned. It is a complicated problem that involves many factors, many of which have been mentioned during the debate but not all. Some scientists contend that the salmon goes through a cyclical pattern, which is now changing. It seems that a shift in the seasonal salmon cycle may be taking place. A "World About Us" programme on BBC television in May cast doubt on many of the contentions that have been advanced by those on both sides of the argument. It laid particular stress on the probability that the salmon cycle is shifting so that the main salmon runs are now taking place outside the traditional salmon seasons. That must be tested along with all the other scientific contentions, but it is an illustration of the complexity of the scientific argument and the amount of discussion that is taking place.

A decline in the salmon rivers on the west of Scotland and the west of England cannot be attributed to licensed drift net fishing that is taking place on the east coast of England. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke earlier about problems arising in the Solway. Those problems cannot be attributed to drift net fishing off the east coast of England. The decline of the salmon seems so widespread around our shores that there must be explanations for it other than drift net fishing. That does not absolve us from examining whether there is too much drift net fishing and whether it should be restricted, but it certainly removes the argument that drift net fishing is the principal explanation for what is happening to the salmon cycle.

I mentioned the possibility of the salmon cycle being changed, but a number of other factors are relevant. The hon. Member for Dorset, North mentioned seals, which are a problem about which fishermen are especially aware. The same television programme which I just prayed in aid for arguing that the salmon cycle is the most important factor argued against the fishermen's view on seals. However, simple observation suggests that the capacity of seals to eat fish, their large numbers and the ingenuity with which they make their way to salmon nets are all evidence of their ability to reduce the salmon stock. It is common for fishermen to see a seal taking the fish out of their nets. It is obvious that the seal is a common cause of visible damage to salmon. Quickness to attribute damage to monofilament nets underestimates the extent to which salmon are damaged by seals.

In my area on the Farne islands there are large numbers of seals that are culled periodically by the National Trust. The National Trust assumes that the constantly increasing colony numbers threaten the other aspects of its conservation policy — the birds for which it is responsible. Seals destroy the birds' habitat. The culling is carried out not for the benefit of fishermen but to maintain the natural habitat of the various species on the islands. If it did not occur, the problem would be even worse.

Much has been said about the additional problems that the monofilament net may create. Some aspects have been forgotten. Some hon. Members pointed out that the use of the monofilament net led to an increase both in catch and in the activity of drift net fishing and that it was part of the process by which the licensing system was introduced. There is a reason for that. It was difficult to operate the hemp net, which was unsuitable for day-time operation. This meant that the fishing had to be done at night, which posed considerable dangers for fishermen and was hazardous to shipping. It is difficult to accommodate that form of fishing alongside other maritime activity. That is one reason why the massive drift net fishery off the Tyne during the 19th century declined. Later, the Tyne lost its position as a major salmon river. We hope that it will recover that position one day, but it was not the net fishermen who caused the decline of the Tyne as a salmon river. The ability to work a net primarily by day is a considerable advantage in a dangerous occupation. Hon. Members should not make light of the safety of fishermen.

Hon. Members should not be surprised that fishermen, like any other group, including anglers, modernise and look for new and efficient operating methods. The angler has changed his technology dramatically over the years. One presumes that he has done so with the objective of catching not fewer fish but more fish. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was honest enough to admit that. At times I formed the impression from some speeches that anglers were intent upon catching as few fish as possible and that only those who went to sea with drift nets had any other objective.

The former Minister of State — the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—recently said: Our scientists have looked at this question and it is very clear that there is no evidence of monofilament nets causing any more damage to fish than other types of netting. He continued: I am not in favour of banning these nets. If the scientists' reports do show that there is overfishing, then we must tackle this in other ways. That is what the hon. Gentleman said after he had had a chance to look at the position.

That leads me to what might be done to ensure that there is a conservation policy. I reiterate my assumption that any conservation policy must bear upon all those who have a legitimate involvement in catching salmon. I can hardly include under that criterion a policy that simply involves buying out the north-east drift net fisherman. It is at least a preferable option, so far as he is concerned, to banning his activity. That the activity could be banned without giving any consideration to the livelihood of those involved is a grotesque proposition.

Buying out, however, presents many problems. It is not morally justified as an alternative to regulating the activities of the fisherman. If we embarked upon this approach, we would immediately come across a difficulty. The assumption of the regulatory system is that the descendants of the fisherman can continue in that fishery. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme described it as being even more amenable to Conservative Members—it is not only property rights; it is inheritable property rights. The assumption is that the fishing community will continue to live by the father passing the licence on to the son. We are talking about buying out not one generation but a right of succession. If we attempted to buy out the fishermen, this would be greatly at the expense of fishing communities. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked his colleagues to compare that industry with others where there has been a decline. There is no reason why there should be a total cessation of the fishery. The salmon industry is not faced with quite the same difficulties as coal or steel. We should not talk about having to buy out whole communities from an activity in which they have been engaged for generations.

We should be considering other positive measures more carefully. I have some sympathy with the idea of tagging. When I was in Canada a year ago I had the opportunity to look at the procedures used there. Tagging poses problems, including those associated with fish farming. With a salmon tagging system it will be much easier and probably cheaper to buy salmon steak and very difficult to buy a whole fish, because that will have a tag. I remember when salmon was much cheaper. On a special occasion, we used to buy a whole salmon or salmon trout. It is now far too expensive for any normal family to contemplate that.

We must look at effort limitation—of national quotas and at the effort used by an individual fisherman whether in the sea or the river. We should consider the amount of effort a fisherman is entitled to put in and the quantity of fish that he is allowed to take. If too many fish are caught, the total number must be regulated. We should consider the measures used for regulation. We must ask the Government to lay before the House as dispassionately as is possible in this highly emotive subject the best scientific evidence available on all the propositions and counter propositions. We ask Ministers in the Scottish Department of Agriculture and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to put their heads together to produce evidence that both sides of the argument can see as being the best distillation of scientific opinion so that we all have a better basis for judgment. No valuable purpose is served by wild allegations, by talking about banning the livelihoods of substantial groups of people or threatening the livelihood of other groups unless evidence is placed before us which we can agree has a sound basis. The Government have a responsibility to do that, just as they have a responsibility to look to the livelihoods of all those who gain their living from the salmon in its progress through our sea and rivers.

8.48 pm

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

I agree with the closing comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it would be enormously helpful if the House had before it the best and most recent scientific evidence available on all aspects of salmon. The hon. Gentleman said that no one had the right to say, "We shall catch salmon but you have no right to do so." He should be reminded that that was said—perhaps unluckily for those concerned, albeit luckily for all others who have an interest in salmon — to the Scottish salmon drift netsmen. I would not suggest that it should be repeated to north-east coast fishermen. If there is to be any banning or reduction of salmon netting on the north-east coast, there must be compensation.

I want to ram home and repeat some of the points that have been made during the debate, but I hope that after the debate the Government will do something rather than weep crocodile tears and do nothing, as has been the case with successive Governments for far too long.

Man is a hunter, man is commercial, and man likes to eat salmon.

Mr. Maxton

And women.

Mr. Morrison

Mankind, I mean.

As a result, there are fewer salmon in our rivers. One only has to ask any ghillie, individual or river owner who has long experience of any particular river to gain confirmation of that fact. I accept that the detailed blame for that situation is manifold. The detection of salmon in the north Atlantic, and therefore the harvesting of salmon, was unknown in earlier times. Monofilament nets are undoubtedly efficient, but they are excessive in what they harvest, apart from the fact that they damage many fish. Anybody who fishes regularly on a salmon river knows that very well.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), I believe that in many areas there are excessive and increasing numbers of seals. There is the increase in poaching, the north-east coast drift netting, the stake nets and the drag nets. Against all that armoury, it is a miracle that any salmon escape at all to swim up the rivers to breed and, before they can do that, to run the gauntlet of rod fishermen and perhaps a few otters.

I do not accept that the serious salmon situation can be solved by special pleading on behalf of one interest or ascribing blame totally to any or all interests as long as they are not one's own. I am convinced that all interests will have to make concessions. The high seas fishermen will have to be limited in the amount of their catch. Monofilament nets should be outlawed. The number of seals will have to be reduced, certainly in some areas. Much greater efforts must be made to control poaching at sea, and that probably means greater assistance for the fisheries squadron of the Royal Navy, which does such excellent work. On land it is clear that the police must be given greater assistance in their efforts to control poaching.

Reference has been made to salmon tagging, and that could be a help, but I am not yet convinced that the introduction of a salmon tagging scheme is a practical possibility. The administration available for it in Scotland hardly exists, and the cost would be high. I have seen one recent estimate that it would cost £2.6 million to introduce such a scheme. While I am in favour of salmon tagging in principle, I believe that it needs a good deal more thought before it becomes a practical possibility.

North-east coast drift netting will have to be limited. That may mean compensation. Stake and drag netting may have to accept longer close seasons or close weekends, or, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, some of those netsmen may have to be bought out, if they are prepared to be bought out. Even rod fishermen, including the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) and I, may have to accept limits on what we catch. That would not be very difficult, because in my case the catch happens to be pretty low anyway.

Unusually, I may be preaching that there should be equality of misery, but if all interests are unprepared to accept that they have a responsibility, the situation will continue to worsen. Then, not only will rod fishermen lose their sport, that part of the Scottish tourist industry dependent upon the salmon die, ghillies, hoteliers and others benefiting from that tourism lose their jobs and some Scottish estates go bankrupt, but netsmen will lose their livelihood. If those disasters are not to occur, I am convinced that the Government must give a stronger lead, legislate if and where necessary, and accept the need for compensation. Until that happens, the husbanding of the salmon as an important resource will continue to be inadequate.

8.56 pm

Mr. Home Robertson

rose——.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Home Robertson

I am grateful.

This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. One of the wide-ranging issues that has been covered is innuendo about my alleged interest in fisheries on the Tweed. I should like to clarify the matter. I am not interested in fishing, if I may dare say that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). It is true that my farm borders on the banks of the river Tweed, but in that spot it is tidal, which means that it is affected by different legislation. As far as I know, it is of little interest to anglers. I do not want to derive any benefit from that water. I hope that that clarifies the issue.

All the conflicting interests that have been expressed by hon. Members from various parts of the country demonstrate the need for a review of freshwater fisheries legislation. Far too many people hold the present legislation in contempt. They feel that it is simply protecting privileges. That certainly contributes to the level of illegal fishing with monofilament nets. That chaos is contributing towards the threat to salmon stocks, about which so much concern has been expressed during the debate.

I return to order for one sentence. I repeat that we for our part wish the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation well.

8.57 pm

Mr. Rifkind

rose——.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?.

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Rifkind

As a simple Foreign Office Minister whose responsibility in the debate is simply to recommend an order that confers immunities and privileges on the two members of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, who I think live in Edinburgh, but neither of whom is my constituent as far as I am aware, I have been literally out of my depth in this wide-ranging and valuable debate. I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House for the unprecedented expertise, passion and conviction that they have devoted to the subject. This has been a worthwhile opportunity to give vent to the many issues of serious concern.

I should respond to the specific questions that were put to me about the order. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked a crucial question about whether the two employees of NASCO would be immune from parking fines as a result of the immunities and privileges provided under the order. Although I suppose that the two gentlemen in question will be less happy to hear it, I am happy to assure him that they will not be so immune. As I said in my opening remarks, they are receiving not the privileges available to diplomatic agents but simply those which are essential to the carrying out of their proper responsibilities.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about research by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the funding implications of that. NASCO does not have to fund research. It enjoys the benefits of the extensive international research programmes co-ordinated by the international commission for the exploration of the sea, to which the United Kingdom is a contributing partner.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the funding for NASCO and whether there would be a British contribution to the organisation. The United Kingdom participates in NASCO, not in its own right but as a member of the European Community. Therefore, the funding of NASCO is by the signatories, of which the European Community is the single largest contributor with a contribution of £40,590. Clearly, the United Kingdom pays its normal share of Community expenditure in that respect.

As I have said, much of the debate covered more wide-ranging issues which do not immediately arise out of the order. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if my comments are very brief.

There was considerable discussion of the problems of illegal fishing and salmon poaching. I am well aware of the seriousness with which the matter is regarded in many quarters. Indeed, I recall that it is said of a former Scottish sheriff that, in sentencing a person convicted of poaching, he remarked that the defendant had been convicted of a most serious crime, and went on to say that he might almost describe it as a crime against humanity. Nevertheless, the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem and are making a thorough examination of it, with particular reference to the proposals for a tagging scheme. The Government are also considering other ways of tackling the problem of illegal salmon fishing.

Final decisions have not yet been taken. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 21 October, the Government hope to make an announcement on the issue in the near future.

I understand that among the difficulties that a workable salmon tagging scheme would have to overcome would be how to deal effectively with imports, and with our own farm salmon production, without disrupting normal trade. It would also, of course, be necessary to provide secure control of the many tags that would be required each year. My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the matter in the future, and I hope that the House will feel able to wait for that.

Mr. Mason

In spite of the difficulties that the Minister has mentioned, may I take it from what he has said, and his knowledge of what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in mind, that the Ministry has not closed its mind to the introduction of a salmon tagging scheme?.

Mr. Rifkind

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any details as to what is likely to be in the announcement. All I can say is that the examination that has been taking place includes a possible tagging scheme as well as other proposals for dealing with the problem of illegal salmon fishing. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the announcement which I understand will be made in the near future.

With regard to the equally complicated and serious matter of drift netting, clearly there is a difference of view between hon. Members on the desirability of extending the present ban in Scotland to drift netting in England. Drift netting off the coast of England is not an intercepting fishery in terms of the NASCO convention. The convention deals with fishing beyond the 12-mile limit. Therefore, this matter is not relevant to the convention that the House is considering this evening.

However, the Government accept the need for careful constraint on net fishing for salmon. Although this fishery is already strictly regulated by the Northumbrian and Yorkshire water authorities, the Government have been reviewing the arrangements to see whether they should be further tightened. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland hope to make an announcement on this matter.

The House will have seen that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who is the Minister responsible for these matters in the Scottish Office, was able to attend a large part of this debate. I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will wish to study very carefully the many important contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House during this relatively brief but very important debate. It is on that basis that I commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

Resolved, That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Rifkind]