Title (Hansard, 23 October 1986)

§ Mr. John Townend
I do not wish to detain the House for long at this time of night, but I would like to put it on record that the Bill, as finally amended, will cause some concern to the fishing industry in Bridlington, particularly to the fishermen who operate fixed nets.
There is a feeling that too much power has been given to the water authorities. For example, clause 36 states that: A local fisheries committee shall not make byelaws for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1) and (2) above unless the water authority … have consented to byelaws being made". Clause 32 extends the controls to include not only fixed nets for salmon fishing but also for other fishing in tidal waters. This gives the water authority power to control the fishing of cod and sole by fixed nets. I am not sure whether that was the original intention. This is a vital part of the 1426 livelihood of the coble owners in Bridlington and it would mean that the water authority, if so inclined, could restrict that type of fishing.
I am not saying that the water authority would take that action, but I am afraid that from past experience the Bridlington fishermen have very little confidence that the Yorkshire authority would pay adequate regard to the interests of the commercial fishermen.
Clause 35 also introduces a further restriction on the fixed net fishermen — that whenever a salmon or sea trout net is hauled the licensee must be present. While this might be acceptable for drift nets, it will cause great difficulty for the fixed netsmen who set T and J nets which are not nearly as profitable as drift nets. It will make it virtually impossible for them to continue other fishing operations, such as potting, yet these other activities are essential to sustain a living, particularly in the summer months.
There is a strong argument for exempting T and J nets from the regulations but that has not been accepted by the Government, even though only 5 per cent. of the catch is salmon. The remainder is salmon trout and there are adequate stocks in the North sea. There is a feeling in Bridlington that the fishermen's interests have been sacrificed to the salmon lobby, which includes many prominent members of the other place from where the Bill originated.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of these reservations among the fishing community and that, having listened carefully, he will be able to assure our fishermen that their fears are unlikely to be fulfilled.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
That was a fascinating Second Reading speech. It may read well in the local press in the Bridlington area, but the hon. Gentleman's misgivings and remarks would have been slightly more convincing had he raised them earlier. If he is that unhappy about some of the clauses, I wonder why he did not vote against them.
The Opposition see the Bill as a sad waste of a potentially valuable opportunity to legislate for the future of salmon and freshwater fisheries. We should like to have seen a serious attempt to restructure the administration of these fisheries in a manner that would have achieved the respect of all interested parties. We should like to have seen a sensibly constituted set of salmon fishery boards with the authority and resources to protect and develop salmon fishing in the coming years and, indeed, to conserve stocks. I fear that the Bill fails to measure up to those objectives. It clings to the principle of proprietorial privilege and authority in the constitution of the boards. I suppose that is precisely what one ought to expect from any Tory Government. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) echo that sentiment.
The Bill also gives some unwarranted powers to the boards and their bailiffs which could lead to even more conflict and even less respect for the law on our rivers and lochs. However, we support the principle of dealer licensing and live in hope that the standing advisory committee on salmon conservation will get the personnel, resources and attention that it deserves. When in due course they are appointed by the Ministry, we wish Professor Dunnet and his colleagues well in their deliberations.
1427 The dealer licensing scheme and the advisory committee are two potentially useful factors. We welcome those redeeming features in an otherwise sad piece of legislation.

§ Mr. Beith
I share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), but I agree that he should have expressed them at an earlier stage in our proceedings. He could have helped in getting some of the clauses changed and could have tabled some amendments for the Report stage of the Bill. Unfortunately, he has already left the Chamber.
With regard to the Bill, I take a more sanguine view than does the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). There is much good in the Bill and it contains a number of useful provisions. I regret the fact that much of it is concerned with enabling powers and that Ministers will be left to decide, by order, important questions.
It is good that the Minister has ensured a balance between the interests of those who draw their livelihoods from salmon and conservation fishing. He has resisted the attempts of a few to hijack the Bill for a vindictive attack on one group of fishermen and their attempts to deprive these fishermen of their livelihoods. I appreciate the responsible action of the Minister.

Mr. MacKay
This is an important Bill on an important subject. It will be of great benefit to the conservation of salmon species and will benefit future salmon angling.
We have attempted to keep a balance between netting and angling and that is right and proper. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will try, as quickly as possible, to implement the Bill so that it can soon benefit salmon fishing. I indulge in a little salmon angling and I look forward to the benefits which will accrue to me and to other anglers in the years ahead.