HC Deb 08 November 1988 vol 140 cc278-86

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

10.30 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

In initiating this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Scottish salmon netting industry, I declare a nominal and, I hope, temporary interest in this industry, and make it clear that neither I nor my family derive any income from any form of fishery.

I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the fate of a small traditional rural industry in Scotland, which used to employ directly over 1,500 on a regular seasonal basis. I fear that the salmon netting industry is being systematically destroyed by blatantly discriminatory action by the Government, combined with inappropriate dealings by what is supposed to be a charitable trust. This is an example of the shameless promotion by the Government and the rest of the establishment of the interests of a group of influential landowners, regardless of the rights of small netting businesses and their employees. These are the points that I wish to expose during this debate.

The lawful salmon netting industry has provided seasonal employment in rural communities on the estuaries of our main rivers since time immemorial. Netsmen have been subject to detailed regulations to prevent overfishing, and the industry has operated side by side with angling interests for centuries without any suggestion that the nets were a threat to the survival of the wild salmon. My understanding was that, even recently, nets have been taking only about 15 per cent. of available stocks.

Apart from the direct contribution of about 1,500 regular seasonal jobs to the rural community, the traditional net and coble fishing technique has been an attractive feature of the lower reaches of our rivers from the Borders right up to Caithness. It is part of the local tourist attraction in many of these areas. This industry is disappearing rapidly, as a result of a two-pronged attack involving sabotage by the Government, on the one hand, and, on the other, acquisitions by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland), which has the unlikely charitable objective of destroying this perfectly legitimate industry.

I suspect that the Minister will accuse me of attacking rod fishermen and seeking to frustrate a conservation initiative, so let me deal with those two points straight away. There is an urgent need for action to conserve salmon. Salmon stocks have suffered grievously as a result of several factors. They have been hit by increased fishing at sea at various points between Greenland and Northumberland; they are suffering from the ravages of disease and pollution; and there is no question but that illegal netting with fixed monofilament gear is taking a heavy toll.

There would be overwhelming justification for taking effective action to deal with any of those problems, and I would be interested to know whether the Government or the new Salmon Advisory Committee have come up with any ideas or initiatives to deal with those problems. I note, incidentally, that the Salmon Advisory Committee's paper on information on the status of salmon stocks, which was published only last month, simply confirms that the available information is next to useless.

I have the impression that very little is happening to conserve salmon. The Government have copped out on the positive suggestion of a tagging scheme, and I fear that the proposed dealer licensing scheme will be little more than a window-dressing exercise. All this pressure to be seen to be doing something about salmon conservation has focused, totally irrationally, on the unfortunate legal netsmen. The fact that they are not a significant part of the problem is evidently not important. They are a small and dispersed group of seasonal workers who can be picked off easily. Significantly, their removal leads to an immediate financial return for the proprietors of valuable upstream rod fishing beats.

I turn now to the matter of the rights of rod fishermen and the value of the tourist industry. The Labour party is strongly committed to promoting the interests of anglers. Unlike the Government, we want to see initiatives to promote public access to fishing on the rivers of Scotland. We also recognise the value and potential of the tourist industry. However, the destruction of the legal netting industry has nothing to do with those objectives. It is simply designed to further inflate charges for salmon fishing, which will make the sport even more exclusive. There is little room for more anglers on our main rivers. They will have to pay more to the landowners. The fact that so many of those landowners are absentees will minimise any benefit to the local economy.

The hypocrisy of those people who want to shut down the nets in the interests of conservation is graphically exposed when the self-same people want to extend their lucrative rod fishing season on rivers such as the Dee, regardless of the fact they will be taking fish that are on the point of spawning.

I turn now to the Government's rather squalid part in these affairs. Ministers have evidently been persuaded by influential friends to initiate a series of measures to strengthen the position of rod fishing proprietors against all other interests, and particularly against the netsmen. First, the Salmon Act 1986 entrenched the rights of proprietors, despite Opposition efforts to promote the public interest. Then, earlier this year, the Government imposed new regulations to reduce the catch at netting stations by 20 per cent. by extending the weekly close time to 60 hours, although opposition to that measure came not only from Opposition Members, but, significantly, from the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).

The next threat is to introduce drastic changes to permitted netting techniques to make it even more difficult for netsmen to make a living. These blatantly discriminatory measures have already had drastic effects on the number of small netting businesses. They could be described as a form of expropriation without compensation, because that has been the effect on some of those small businesses.

All these Government initiatives are given spurious justification by referring to the need for conservation. In Committee, the Minister went round and round the issue and, in the end, said: The mortality rates of salmon in the open sea are increasing. He went on to urge the Committee to support a precautionary measure to reduce the exploitation of salmon in home waters."—[0fficial Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. 4 May 1988; c. 25.] We should note the logic of that. There is a problem out on the high seas, so the Government take action in the rivers. I pressed the Minister further on that matter when I put a parliamentary question to him on 18 May. I asked if he will place in the Library any scientific evidence which is available to him concerning the effect of legal netting operations on salmon stocks in Scottish rivers; and if he will review the weekly close time for such operations before the start of the 1989 season in the light of such evidence. The reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), came with characteristic bluntness. He said: No. The scientific evidence available to the Government reflected the outcome of research and monitoring work on the state of salmon stocks in Scotland and was discussed in the course of the consideration of the weekly close time regulations by the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 4 May. The Government have no plans for a further review of weekly close time for salmon net fishing in Scotland."—[Official Report, 18 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 469–70.] The refusal to publish the scientific case against legal netsmen may well mean that the evidence is either unconvincing or, as I suspect, non-existent.

This softening-up operation carried out by the Government, combined with falling fish stocks and lower market prices, has made salmon netsmen an easy prey for predators such as the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust. It is a strange coincidence that the Crown Estate Commissioners have chosen this moment in history to sell off their 150 tenanted netting stations. In present circumstances, tenants cannot aford to buy their netting stations, and even those who can afford to do so have not been given the opportunity by the Crown Estate Commissioners.

We do not know to whom the commissioners will be prepared to sell those fisheries, but I wonder whether the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust will be involved, either directly or indirectly, ln any of those deals. I note, incidentally, that the chairman of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Earl of Mansfield, who was at some time a Minister of State, Scottish Office, is being paid £8,500 a year by the Tay river board not to work his fisheries at Scone on the Tay. We have the flavour of what is going on there.

The Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust is a shady organisation which evidently has access to large sums of money. It set up shop in 1985 and spent £83,000 that year on acquiring and extinguishing netting rights. In 1986, the figure was £460,269, and in 1987 it was £828,663, which may or may not include £286,000 of forward commitments for 1988. Total spending on the purchase of netting rights up to March 1988 came to almost £1.25 million on several rivers. These included the Spey, the Deveron, the Dee, the Don, the Alness, the Conon, the Beauly, the Ness, the Nairn, the Findhorn, the Lossie, the Tweed and the Solway.

There is an interesting twist to the trust's operations on the Solway. It spent £234,200 on buying fisheries, and I gather from an answer that I received last week from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces that his Department stumped up £135,000 of that sum to help the trust to buy the Loch and Dornock fishery. I find that a surprising use of taxpayers' money. I also find it a surprising price to pay for what seems to be a modest property. I wonder whether someone somewhere received a backhander. I think that we should know more about that.

In the course of these wheelings and dealings there has been no compensation for tenant netsmen whose businesses have been sabotaged by the extension of close time. There is no provision for working netsmen who lose their jobs. As seasonal workers, they have no right to redundancy payments. They merely discover during the close season that their jobs have disappeared following secret negotiations with the trust. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will know that in his area there was an interesting variation on the theme. A rather colourful group of English international cricketers took over the ailing Berwick Salmon Fishing Company, only to strip its assets and sell it to the trust in a matter of months.

The main objective of the trust is to destroy the netting industry, which, rather surprisingly, has been accepted by the Inland Revenue as a charitable purpose. The upstream proprietors can invest in manoeuvres that enhance the value of their properties with the advantage of charitable tax relief. The sources of the trust's massive finances have been a closely guarded secret, but its agents on the Borders blew the gaffe in a letter to Tweed proprietors dated 23 August. The Duke of Roxburghe, no less, wrote: As all the Tweed proprietors, and proprietors of all the main tributaries are likely to benefit enormously over the course of the next few years from the removal of the bulk of the netting presence and the subsequent control of the Tweed salmon stocks for conservation, it would be nice to think that all proprietors interested in salmon conservation would contribute to the ASCT(S), possibly in proportion to their assessable value. Isn't that nice? The duke was appealing for a cool £600,000 over two years. The terms of the letter make it clear that contributions towards the enterprise will by no stretch of the imagination be charitable donations. They will be commercial investments and should be treated accordingly. I understand that a similar levy system is proposed for the Tay.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the duke even had the gall to appeal to the local authorities, whose ratepayers had been put out of work by the actions of the trust, to finance these activities? The response was pretty cool.

Mr. Home Robertson

I am aware of that. That shows the brass neck that these people have. I am grateful to the duke for exposing the hypocrisy and thoroughly corrupt nature of what is taking place, perhaps inadvertently.

I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Inland Revenue office in Edinburgh to draw attention to this abuse of charitable status. I have demanded retrospective action to recover charitable tax relief from the organisation. I have received no substantive reply to my correspondence. I shall be grateful if the Minister can confirm that the charitable status of the trust is being reviewed in the light of this damning evidence.

I suppose that it can be argued that those who are hostile to legitimate netsmen, for whatever reason, are entitled to buy and extinguish netting rights by free-market transactions, but it is obscene for people who stand to gain directly from such developments to make purchases with the benefit of charitable tax relief.

The really squalid element is the fact that Her Majesty's Government are stabbing the netting industry in the back to enhance the position of the rod fishing proprietors. Perhaps the most shameless manifestation of such top-level connivance came in the House on 20 July this year, when the Government whipped in 287 Tory members to vote to take salmon rod fishing rights out of the rating system in Scotland—just hours after the same Whips were required to defeat the measure to relieve disabled people from the poll tax. What a contrast of priorities! But I suppose that we should never under-estimate the Tory party's commitment to the landowning fraternity in Scotland. Who knows—perhaps that gratuitous handout of £1.5 million in rating relief for impoverished lairds will help to fund the financial commitments of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust.

A centuries-old tradition of legal netting is falling prey to a sordid alliance between riparian owners and their friends in the Government. I hope that remaining netsmen on the Tay and elsewhere will be able to survive the onslaught, but I think that the saddest footnote for the salmon is that this clearance of legal netsmen is leaving the lower reaches of our rivers wide open for unscrupulous high-tech poachers. Genuine conservation is further away than ever, despite the protestations of those involved in the affair.

I find it difficult to choose between the poachers who fish illegally and the other category of big-time property poachers who are behind the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust, such as Sir William Gordon-Cumming and the hon. Patrick Wills, both of whom are trustees and have either direct or indirect connections with the Moray Firth Salmon Fishery Company, which could, I suspect, stand to benefit from any future revival of netting rights acquired by the trust. It is interesting to speculate on that possibility.

There can be no justification for the vicious discrimination and harassment suffered by Scotland's salmon netsmen. As the House has a duty to protect citizens' rights, we are entitled to demand an urgent and, if necessary, retrospective review of the trust's charitable status, in the hope that anything forthcoming from it would help to restore the employment of those thrown out of work without compensation. We should also demand an assurance from the Minister that he will publish proper, credible, scientific evidence about the impact of netting on salmon stocks, and that he will review the weekly close time in the light of that evidence.

The Minister can say what he likes when he replies, but I should like straight replies to two specific questions. First, is a review being conducted, internally or otherwise, by the Inland Revenue into the charitable status of this highly suspect trust? Secondly, will there be a proper review by the Government of the impact of netting on salmon stocks, in the light of genuine evidence, not hearsay, pressure or political arm-twisting?

10.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Roberston). I must say that his criticism of the Government as champions of the landowning fraternity is hard to take from that quarter. As the hon. Gentleman presides over some 1,000 acres in the Borders, I am not sure whether I can champion him.

The hon. Gentleman made his views on the activities of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust pretty clear. They are already well known, and I listened in vain tonight for anything new that he might have to say. He has criticised it, not for the first time, for buying out nets in various rivers and around the coast of Scotland. It is clear that the sales of those netting stations are purely commercial arrangements between willing purchasers and willing sellers. I realise that where the stations have been leased the lessee will be the loser if the agreement takes the nets out of operation, and that there will also be a loss of mainly seasonal employment, but I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government should do about it. Certainly nothing in current legislation would allow us to take action, even if we thought it justified.

The hon. Gentleman has also seen fit to criticise the charitable status of the trust and I understand that he is pursuing the matter through other channels. That is, of course, a matter for him and I do not intend now or in the future to comment on the trust's status or the tax benefits arising from that status. The tax position is a matter between the Revenue and the individual or the individual company. However, I deplore the hon. Gentleman's use of this place to attack an organisation that is committed to the conservation of salmon, by referring to it as a shady organisation and making the accusations that he has made using the cloak of privilege.

The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the Trust's stated aim is to conserve a balanced stock of fish by managing that stock of fish in respective rivers of origin. There are many—not just proprietors—who will support that aim and who would prefer to see local, small-scale fishing effort, including nets where appropriate, take the place of large-scale commercial catching of salmon in coastal areas. The issue is one of balance, and it would be wrong to suggest that heritable rights can never be acquired or used in a different way to take account of changing interests or changing circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is, if I may say so, a personal embodiment of that principle. He has sought to criticise the trustees of the trust and to suggest that they have interests, but he must know that none of the three trustees has any personal interest in the ownership of salmon fisheries. The articles of the trusts specifically prohibit any fishing proprietor from being a trustee.

The hon. Gentleman referred to illegal fishing, but there should be a better appreciation on his part of what the Government and other enforcement agencies are doing at present. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is aware of the increase in the reports of illegal fishing both in coastal waters and further out at sea, and has deployed enforcement resources accordingly. The hon. Gentleman asked what initiatives had been taken. I do not know whether he is aware of the successful prosecution of an Irish vessel operating outwith the 12–mile United Kingdom limit and the resulting penalty of some £9,500 for salmon offences. In addition, over 17 miles of illegally set salmon nets have been lifted by the protection service, and plans are already being made for enforcement deployment in 1989.

The hon. Gentleman argued that the loss of fishing time and the absence of lawful netsmen for the additional hours of the weekly close time will lead to less watching of the estuaries and the coast. I am not sure whether that is the case, but I would point out that there is an argument which, if it is pursued along those lines, comes to the absurd conclusion that there should be no weekly close time at all, on the basis that the continuous presence of netsmen and anglers will reduce or eliminate poaching.

Mr. Home Robertson

That is a rather weak point for the Minister to be reading from his brief, and whoever gave it to him needs to be checked out. The hon. Gentleman is not the sort of person whom I would normally invite to my house, but if he is seriously interested in this matter, on any weekend he could come to where I live on the Tweed and I could show him ample evidence of poaching, which was much less prevalent when there were people whose job it was to look after those banks and net those rivers legally. Now that those people have been removed, because of the actions of the hon. Gentleman and those of the trust, that estuary is bandit territory and the netting effort has increased.

Mr. Forsyth

If the hon. Gentleman has evidence or can point to examples of people who are breaking the law, it is not me whom he should invite to witness that. I must say that he has double standards. The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for derating salmon property in Scotland and the resources being made available to the boards, but at the same time he argues that more action should be taken against poachers.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth

No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The effect of derating will be to make additional resources available to district fishery boards and thereby increase the resources that they have available to enforce action.

Mr. Wilson

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth

I shall not give way.

Mr. Wilson

What the Minister is saying is utter rubbish.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. Mr. Forsyth.

Mr. Forsyth

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he will make any progress in the House by being offensive and difficult, he has something to learn.

The hon. Member for East. Lothian said that the loss of fishing time and the absence of lawful netsmen for the additional hours of the weekly close time will lead to less watching of the estuaries and the coast. If the hon. Gentleman followed that argument to its logical conclusion, we would have no close time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Labour Government—

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not sought to intervene in the Adjournment debate, and if the Minister is not giving way, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Forsyth

The hon. Member for East Lothian will recall that it was a Labour Government who, in 1951, first extended the close time—without any compensation for the interests for whom the hon. Gentleman has made a plea tonight.

The hon. Gentleman made much play of the arguments about weekly close time for salmon netting. Earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman and I had a long discussion about this matter. We have consulted widely on our proposals and we have taken account of the views that have been expressed by the various interests. We did not bring the increase in close time into force immediately, as was done in 1951, and we gave notice until 6 May 1988 so that netsmen had a little breathing space.

Of course it is understandable that, since then, representations have been made on behalf of netsmen. I understand, however, that there is considerable support for the Government's decision. When the hon. Gentleman adopts a one-sided approach to the matter, he would do well to bear in mind that support as well as the fact that many regard the Government's decision favourably, on conservation grounds. The hon. Gentleman, more than most hon. Members, should appreciate the importance of passing on to the next generation what the present generation has inherited.

It is repeatedly alleged that an increase in the weekly close time is unnecessary because most, if not all, rivers in Scotland are fully stocked. All that the scientific evidence shows, however, is that young salmon can be found in all Scottish rivers where access and water quality are adequate. That does not mean that all rivers are fully stocked. There can be no doubt, in my view, that increasing the weekly close time will lead to larger numbers of eggs being deposited. In some areas that may well result in increased production of smolts. What is clear is that simply tinkering with the close time would have done no good at all—any increase had to be fairly substantial.

There is no reason why netsmen should continue to take such a high proportion of the fish landed. Their heritable rights give them no entitlement to a fixed proportion of the catch. At a time when salmon farming is producing large and growing quantities of salmon for the table and export, I can think of no logical reason for not shifting the balance of exploitation from netting to angling to some extent, which makes a greater contribution to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Wilson

Rubbish.

Mr. Forsyth

The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider his constituency interests and the interests of the hotel, tourist and service sector, which benefit from the substantial contributions made by rod fishing.

This debate has highlighted once again the divergence of views that the issue of wild salmon arouses. Clearly I cannot satisfy the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), but I can point to evidence of the positive measures that the Government have taken to improve the management and conservation of wild salmon.

The Salmon Act 1986 was a major step forward. It gave new impetus to local conservation and enforcement by district salmon fishery boards and initiated the review of north-east of England drift net fishery. It set up the Salmon Advisory Committee, whose first report we are now considering.

The Government have played a major part in the wider, international conservation efforts of NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—and other bodies and will continue to do so. Conservation of wild salmon is a major heritage, amenity and economic issue for Scotland, as it has been for centuries. The hon. Gentleman may want to fossilise one aspect of salmon fishing, but times change and I believe that the measures that the Government are taking reflect the wider public interest in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.