HC Deb 23 October 1986 vol 102 cc1340-6

`(1) In subsection (1) of section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 (disclosure of information obtained in pursuance of section 7 of that Act), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or (d) for the purpose of enabling a water authority to carry out any of their functions under the 1937 Act.".'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Measures relating to the prevention of disease among fish— `(1) Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the provisions of section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 ("Introduction of fish into inland waters"), any person who knowingly supplies any fish or spawn of fish to another for the purpose of the introduction of that spawn or fish into an inland water in circumstances where the written consent of the water authority within whose area any part of the water is situated has not been obtained under section 30 aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence, punishable on summary conviction with a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. (2) In subsection (1) of section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 ("Disclosure of Information"), there shall be added the following paragraph— (d) for the purpose of enabling a water authority to enforce the provisions of this Act and the 1937 Act in fulfilment of its duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries within its area by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 28 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.".'. Government amendment No. 33.

Amendment No. 34, in clause 33, page 28, line 28, after introduce', insert 'in respect of salmon or trout'. Amendment No. 35, in clause 33, page 28, line 29, at end insert `which is not in any way connected either directly or indirectly to a river'. Government amendments Nos. 49, 50, 53 and 54.

Mr. Gummer

We have had an extremely interesting debate in Committee on a whole range of issues. I undertook to listen carefully to what was said to see whether we could meet some of the points raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. One of those points is covered in new clause 10.

The clause concerns the disclosure of information collected under the fish farm registration scheme. That scheme was very properly set up for specific purposes. Parliament restricted the situations in which the information gathered under the scheme could be disclosed. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other of my right hon. and hon. Friends stated that the scheme did not meet a particular need in combating fish disease because there were circumstances in which water authorities might need the information gathered under the registration scheme. As authorities have functions relating to the control of fish disease, it seemed correct, as fish disease is of such great importance even though few instances were involved, that we should meet the contention so helpfully put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. Therefore, new clause 10 will allow such information to be given to water authorities where the authorities can show that they need the information to fulfill their responsibilities under the Fish Act 1937. I believe that the National Farmers Union will be content with that approach in principle. I therefore hope that the new clause will be accepted by the House.

New clause 2 has two parts. I hope that the second part will become redundant under the circumstances of the proposed new clause 10. The first part deals with the offence of supplying live fish to a customer who has not obtained water authority consent to introduce the fish to an inland water if the supplier knew that the consent had not been obtained. I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking does not intend the supplier to be prosecuted merely for failing to ask the customer whether he had obtained the necessary consent. That would be out of proportion to the original offence on the customer's part. We have to assume that the supplier knew that the customer did not have the water authority consent to introduce the fish and that therefore an offence was commited under section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. In those circumstances, the criminal law already provides for the supplier to be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence under section 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The subsection is unnecessary.

Some hon. Members have suggested that the subsection is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has drawn my attention this evening to the anxiety which one water authority has in that matter. I have looked at the case as carefully as has been possible in the short time since that anxiety was expressed, but my advice is that section 30 of the 1975 Act would, in the circumstances which the water authority has raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, meet the case.

However, the Government's intention is to meet the worries which lie behind the first part of new clause 2. Obviously I will consider the matter further to see whether action should be taken. I believe that the subsection is unnecessary and I hope that we will cover the second part of the new clause 2 in new clause 10. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will be willing to withdraw his proposed new clause 2.

Government amendment 33 covers section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That makes it an offence to introduce fish or spawn into any inland water without the consent of the relevant water authorities. There is no right of appeal if the water authority says no.

Water authorities have a statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop the fisheries in their areas. The Government therefore accept that controls under section 30 of the 1975 Act are necessary to prevent release into rivers and other waterways of fish which could damage the existing fish population, for example, pike into a salmon stream. We consider, however, that section 30 represents a considerable and unnecessary burden for the general run of fish farms.

Deregulation forms an important part of Government policy and we shall take appropriate opportunities to remove unnecessary restrictions. That is what clause 33 seeks to achieve. There is no doctrinal view that we should remove regulation where it is valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking and others have raised the point that there are circumstances in which the measure, which was not originally seen as a measure for the protection of fish and the elimination of fish disease, might be helpful. It might be helpful where there is a direct connection between a fish farm and other inland water where that connection might be a source of disease.

Under the amendment, we intend to retain the controls under section 30 of the 1975 Act on the introduction of fish or spawn into fish farms operating in cages or netted-off sections of rivers or other waterways. There are grounds for retaining controls on such sites because they are not insulated from other inland waters. The amendment would cover that area of real concern.

I know that my hon. Friends sometimes feel that we ought to go further and deal with cases where there is a connection with a conduit or ditch. Generally, fish farms connected by conduits come under water authority control because they will need the authority's consent to discharge effluent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I do not believe that the alternative amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking are necessary. If my hon. Friend's amendments were accepted, the only people who would no longer have the extra burden of section 30 would be those with fish farms completely unconnected to a river. Therefore, section 30 would continue to apply to the overwhelming majority of fish farms, most of which are connected to a river by a conduit. I do not believe that such control should continue to be applied to these sites. As I have said, these measures were not introduced to control disease, but ever since they were introduced we have shown increasing concern about fish disease.

There is legislative back-up for the action that we wish to take. We are extremely strict on occasions when we feel that there is a danger of increased fish disease. But we do not believe that this control is any longer necessary on that ground, and it is certainly not necessary on any other grounds. However, we accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Onslow), and in the light of what we have been able to do I hope that he will accept the change that we have made.

I know that hon. Members feel strongly about fish disease. It is of enormous importance. We do not think that new clause 2 is the way to deal with the problem. We have the Diseases of Fish Acts which vest the principal responsibility in Ministers. It is important to do what we can under the legislation to place very tight controls on the movement of fish and eggs that are or may be infected by serious diseases.

It is important to reiterate the Government's absolute commitment to continue with the tough and tight controls on fish and eggs in order to ensure that we protect the stock. In view of what I have said, I hope that the House will agree to Government amendment No. 33 and that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will withdraw amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

I think that we have the right balance between deregulation of a part of the Act that was not introduced for this purpose — but which some water authorities have found useful for part of the purpose — and the retention of that part that they may find useful.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

The Opposition welcome the notion of disclosing information under the fish farm registration scheme. If powers have been granted to the water authorities, it seems quite absurd that earlier legislation has prevented the dissemination of the information that is needed in order to carry out their functions.

However, I wonder whether this measure goes far enough in the way in which it attempts to combat fish disease. I agree with the Minister completely that this is a very important matter, but do the new clause and disclosure do enough to stop disease, and do the water authorities have all the powers that they need in order to carry out this work?

I should like to paraphrase part of a letter that I have received from Dr. Ron Linfield of the Anglia water authority. He said that to improve our capability to enforce controls over both fish diseases and the introduction of alien or exotic species we needed an amendment to either section 7 or section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. That would create for water authority officers with particular responsibility for carrying out statutory fishery functions a right of access to the fish farm register and associated movement records held at each farm. He said that the amendment we needed to give special recognition to the role of the water authorities gave the general prohibition on disclosure of information by the MAFF that it had created in section 9. Does this go far enough or should not the new clause have been more comprehensive in order to restrict the spread of fish disease?

The Minister said that inland waters could be connected by means of conduit, but are rivers covered? Inland waters can be connected to other inland waters, but what happens when an inland water is connected to a river? That could surely be a source of disease.

We agree that the control of fish disease is crucial and we completely support the notion that there should be restrictions on the movement of fish as well as other controls.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for going a limited way towards meeting the amendments that I tabled. They are not a whim of my own but represent the collective view of the water authorities.

In general there seems to be a wide gulf between my right hon. Friend's Department and the water authorities over fish farms. In my experience, water authorities are in general not quite as happy to be persuaded by the NFU — the spokesman for the fish farms — as the MAFF sometimes appears to be. Perhaps I am being unfair to my right hon. Friend's officials—I probably am from time to time—but I think that a strong case is building up for a complete reform of the law relating to fish farms, not merely in respect of disease but also in respect of pollution, planning and other aspects of fish farming. We can perhaps return to that on another occasion as it will not be debated tonight.

My right hon. Friend has half met the intention of new clause 2. The half that he has not met should be taken a bit more seriously. Although I recognise that the correspondence that I put into my right hon. Friend's hands only half an hour ago—which came to me shortly before that from Dr. Linfield of Anglia—is difficult to digest, it nevertheless bears out the need for action in this area.

A particular case that the Severn-Trent water authority drew to Dr. Linfield's attention is an example of the sort of thing that happens under the law as it stands, and it is likely to happen more frequently after the law has been changed. In this case the North West water authority issued a consent for trout to be introduced into a farm in its region from a trout farm in Somerset. This source was cleared by the Ministry and the South West water authority, and the consent was issued. The fish were supplied but did not come from Somerset. The supplier named in the consent, in addition to being a fish farmer, also carried live fish about by way of trade, and he obtained them not from his own farm in Somerset but from a farm in Nottinghamshire belonging to the Severn-Trent water authority which was not informed of the destination of the fish.

When the fish were delivered to the site in the northwest, a fish disease was diagnosed shortly afterwards which was attributed to the supplying farm. The Severn-Trent water authority thought that was unfair, but when the whole matter was looked at it subsequently emerged that a different consignment of fish, for which consent was issued on the understanding that the supplier would be providing them, was in fact supplied from quite a different fish farm.

The complexity revealed in that brief summary shows that there must be precious little effective control in this area by MAFF officials and very little scope for relaxation if there is to be effective prevention of the spread of fish disease.

I wish that we had been able to go over this in greater depth in Committee—

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

Raise it in the 1922 Committee.

Mr. Onslow

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not make stupid observations. When he is on his feet he is bad enough, and when he remains seated he is quite absurd.

I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's officials can be relying on the support of the water authorities for the brief which they have given him. I doubt whether those interested parties outside official bodies, who take great interest and show much concern about river pollution, would endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. The adequacy of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is strongly contested by bodies such as the Anglers Co-operative Association, of which I am a council member. It takes a close interest in these matters and is better informed than many water authorities. I ask my right hon. Friend to ask his officials to give him the details of the West Beck case. That case illustrates how dangerous the pollution problem can be and how important it is to keep tight control over fish farms and the quality of the water which they release into our rivers.

Evidently my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded. I would let amendments Nos. 34 and 35 go by without calling upon him to make any further comment, but I must ask him to answer my queries concerning new clause 2. I await, with interest, what he has to say.

7 pm

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

I am glad that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is being persistent in this matter, because it is a cause of concern in many parts of the House. The potential for the spread of disease or the arrival of unwelcome species of fish is great. One only has to consider what happened when mink escaped into the wild in some parts of the country to realise that dangers could exist in the rivers.

I echo the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Government for going some way but I cannot understand why the Government do not want to make these provisions as tight and reliable as possible. The Government, at a time of expansion in fish farming, should make sure that there is maximum control in these matters, as such expansion poses many dangers.

Many new entrepreneurs are attracted to the business and there are good people involved in the industry. If expansion is taking place, who knows whom it will attract? It is important that the water authorities should be able to control the situation. The fears which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Woking must not be realised. Our salmon and trout must not be endangered. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the arguments presented to him by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gummer

In reply to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), we believe that the amendments go far enough to provide the information which is needed by water authorities to undertake their responsibilities under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. If we did not believe that, we would have phrased the amendments in a different way. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask a direct question and he has got a direct answer.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West expressed concern about the phrase "inland waters". We used that phrase because, in law, they do include rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams, etc. Rather than put all those words in, the phrase "inland waters" was used. I am sure that, in legal parlance, that phrase will cover all the examples.

The reason that conduits are mentioned—

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

Cundies.

Mr. Gummer

Is that what I have to say to the Scots? I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. In fact I would not say it in Scots because there are few examples of this type of fish farm in Scotland. Therefore, in this case I may use the English term.

A conduit refers to a particular kind of connection other than a ditch. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was concerned that we should get the parlance right and I shall not tease him by asking whether he knows where rivers come or go. Nevertheless, one must specify both conduits and ditches. Conduits, in some cases, link the fish farms to the river and they are affected by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The fears of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would be realised if we were suggesting a removal of control which lessened our power to deal with pollution. I have studied this matter in great detail.

The problem between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and myself is that we have a differing view about whether this provision gives the additional protection necessary for the elimination and containment of fish diseases. That is the issue and it is a difficult one to resolve because we have both looked at the same facts and come to different conclusions.

I have had time to study the West Beck case. As it stands, there is breach of water authorities' consent under section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. If the supplier knows that the appropriate consent is not being complied with, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 makes it an offence to aid and abet in these circumstances. In this case, the supplier and the receiver are committing an offence.

The difficulty is that the legislation which we are largely rescinding under this Bill was enacted not for the protection of fish from disease but for other reasons. Those other reason are not now prayed in aid of retention: what we do pray in aid is the legislation's usefulnes in preventing disease from spreading.

I see no reason for retaining any more of the legislation than that part which will continue to be useful. If I thought that by retaining more of it, or all of it, we would in any way improve the protection of fish from disease, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. I have not been so persuaded, and I do not believe that the House should be. Although I have studied the West Beck case with care, I shall reconsider it. If I find that there is some information therein of which I was not aware I will have further discussions with my hon. Friend concerning the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to