HL Deb 24 November 1936 vol 103 cc323-8

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships for any length of time, for no doubt a number of members of your Lordships' House will recall that my noble friend Earl De La Warr, in his then capacity as Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, moved a Bill of a similar character to this Bill in 1934. That Bill passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House and was subsequently given a Second Reading in another place, but the state of Parliamentary business did not allow sufficient time for its further progress. Objections to certain of the proposals that were incorporated in the Bill were raised by various parties concerned, including representations made by the fish farmers. Discussions have since taken place with these interested bodies, and as a result the present Bill, though substantially unchanged, contains certain modifications. I believe that today there is a general consensus of opinion among the persons and bodies most closely connected with these matters in favour of legislation on the lines of the present Bill.

Its main object is to combat the disease that is known by the name of furunculosis, which affects particularly salmon and trout. The disease first appeared in this country about thirty years ago, and has spread rapidly during the last few years through many of the salmon and trout rivers of both England and Scotland. Your Lordships will, I think, appreciate the serious nature of this disease when you remember that the commercial value of salmon fishing in England and Scotland altogether is of the order of £500,000 a year. As to trout, the trout streams of Southern England may be worth, in certain parts, between £1,000 and £2,000 a mile. The ravages of the disease, if they are not checked, may seriously damage the legitimate interests of many sections of the community, such as anglers, owners of fishing rights, fish farmers and, of course, local authorities, who may be faced with a considerable fall in rateable values. Therefore, the disease of furunculosis is a menace both to sport and to trade. This Bill is based upon the recommendations of a Furunculosis Committee which was appointed in 1929 and presided ever by Professor Mackie, of Edinburgh University. The Committee made an exhaustive examination of the disease and issued three Reports, the final one of which was published in July of last year.

I will mention very briefly the main provisions and principles of this Bill. In the first place, imports of live freshwater fish are to be permitted only under licence, and imports of live fish of the salmon family are to be prohibited altogether in order to safeguard our in and fisheries. In Clause 2 any waters that are known to be infected may be declared an infected area and the transport of fish, of eggs of fish and of foodstuffs for fish from that area may be prohibited or regulated. The provision of the original Bill to the effect that the Minister might also authorise the destruction of fish farmers stock has been deleted from this Bill, since it was felt on further consideration that it was an undue restriction upon the livelihood of fish farmers. Under the remaining clauses there are in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 provisions for the examination of waters to see if infection is present, for the making of a Standstill Order where infection is suspected, and for the payment of the market value of fish which are taken for examination and are found to be free of disease.

Modifications have been made in some of these provisions since 1934 to meet representations by fish farmers and other interests; but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with a detailed explanation of those modifications at this stage. I should, however, add that this Bill, like its predecessor, may be extended by Order in Council to cover other diseases affecting freshwater fish, and I think your Lordships will agree that this is a useful precaution to take; but our immediate aim under the Bill is the control and eradication of furunculosis, and I suggest that the proposals contained in the Bill are well designed to bring us towards that very desirable goal. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I desire to offer full support to this Bill, and may I congratulate the noble Earl on the very lucid way in which he explained it in a terse but very complete speech. This, in my opinion, is the best Bill this Government has introduced and I hope it also means a more vigorous policy on behalf of the Ministry concerned with regard to our freshwater fisheries. The noble Earl said that the commercial value of salmon fisheries in this country was £500,000. I should have thought that that was an under-statement. I do not know whether it included net fishings. There is, however, something much more important than the commercial value of salmon fisheries, and I am speaking on behalf of anglers, many of them artisans and other working men, who heartily welcome anything to improve our freshwater fisheries. A pure river is a tremendous asset to the community. There is not only the value of the fish, which is very considerable throughout the country. There is also the pleasure which is gives to anglers. The interests of farmers and stock-breeders must be considered, as well as the general health of the community, and there is the æsthetic value of a pure river.

There is a sort of idea about that salmon fishing is the monopoly of wealthy men. That is not so at all. I know many working colliers, for example, who are successful salmon fishers—more successful than I sometimes am I am sorry to say—and it is in their interests that this Bill is particularly valuable. Rich men can rent fishings in Norway or the North of Scotland and pay high rents for their fishings, but the humble man has to rely upon waters in his own neighbourhood. The number of anglers in the country is increasing ever year. I think that is a very good thing, and therefore this is not a Bill simply to put up the value of fisheries for wealthy landlords or to help at the Government's expense those people who can afford to pay a good deal for their salmon fishing. It affects the poor man who is an angler. I have sympathy for all anglers. One of the few points of agreement which I have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he is a salmon fisherman.

There is one other question which I hope the Government are going to look into further and that is the question of pollution. I hope that they will encourage local authorities to deal with this matter more actively. I do not know how much it affects the question of fish disease, but I am told that industrial pollution is one cause of fish disease, and it is no use passing this Bill if you are going to allow our freshwater fish to be destroyed by horrible effluents from industrial works. It is necessary that we should take a broad view of the matter. In the last century we destroyed for ever some of the most valuable salmon fishings in the country. Industries were allowed to be set up, which lasted for a time and then went out of existence. We now see their remains and bones disfiguring the countryside. But in the process there was destroyed for ever the value of a salmon river that had been pure for centuries and a source of pleasure and wealth to the community. I think this question of pollution has been far too much neglected.

In connection with the use of rivers by the community I want to draw attention to the new spirit which is abroad, shown by many landlords and riparian owners, of throwing open their fisheries to local residents. I want to mention, if I may be allowed to do so, two members of your Lordships' House who have given an excellent example to the whole community by allowing local people to fish in parts of their rivers. It has been found that these local people make very good watch-dogs. They are interested in preventing pollution and illegal methods of fishing. In the first place I would mention, if he will permit me, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, whom I see in his place. I hope he will not mind my saying that his action on his own property in Wales, in allowing local people to fish on certain days, has had a most beneficial effect upon the fishery. He has set an admirable example. The other member of this House whom I would mention is Lord Leconfield. On his property in Cumberland he has done the same, and the effect has been to bring up a river which was almost ruined to what is now a very valuable salmon fishing, to the advantage of everyone concerned. I trust your Lordships will not mind my mentioning those two members of this House.

I would just like to refer to two other matters which are perhaps almost Committee points but still of some importance. Your Lordships will see that Clause 4, subsection (3), provides that the onus is to be on any person entitled to fish in any waters of reporting infection, etc. That is quite good, but I would ask the noble Earl if he will take steps to see that people generally know of this provision. The debates in this House and another place are not always very well reported in the newspapers and a Bill like this may pass almost unnoticed. I suggest that special steps should be taken by wireless or by the Post Office to make this provision of the Bill known generally. The other point is this, and it is advice which has been given to me by a great expert on this subject: it is very necessary, I suggest, that in the regulations to be drawn up—Departmental Orders, etc.—very careful instructions should be given as to the disposal of diseased fish taken out of the water. They must not, I am informed, be buried in the earth near the river. If they are buried in places where the water drains into the river some of the good will be lost. They should be buried well away from the river in dry earth or, better still, destroyed completely. I am told that that is very important and I would draw the noble Earl's attention to it. This is an excellent Bill. I hope it will get a quick passage through the House and will effect the objects intended.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, I should like to say a word of welcome to this Bill on behalf of those in Scotland who are interested in it. I am very glad to see that Clause 11 extends the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. But I would like to remind your Lordships that some eighteen months ago we had a promise in this House, in answer to a question put to the Government, that there should be some extension of recent legislation to bring the Fishery Acts in Scotland up to date, and this clause, perhaps not intentionally, reminds us that such legislation is very out of date in Scotland. It refers to the salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1868, and although we welcome a little modern legislation for salmon fisheries in Scotland, yet I think it would be very much more to the point if we could be promised by a member of the Government representing the Scottish Office that we shall have some more legislation for Scotland to bring our salmon fisheries up to date. We have been promised a draft Bill for some time. It has not made its appearance and there seems to be no sign of its coming. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can say that there is going to be a Scottish Bill to bring up to date the legislation dealing with salmon fisheries I am sure we in Scotland would very much welcome that fact. But meanwhile we are very content to know that this question of the diseases of fish is going to be dealt with in Scotland as well as in England.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) who, I know, is a very keen fisherman, that last Session a Bill entitled the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Bill was brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Gain-ford, dealing with the pollution of rivers. I think he himself took rather an important part in the discussion, and it had the very object for which he was speaking this afternoon.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.