HL Deb 22 June 1961 vol 232 cc765-77

5.10 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to draw attention to the need for early action to preserve the natural stocks of salmon in the United Kingdom rivers and estuaries from the threat of irreparable damage through drift-netting in the sea, carried out beyond legal fishing limits and without restriction as to time, season or extent; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the most useful thing I can do is briefly to give your Lordships some facts, first, about drift-net fishing for salmon. Drift-net fishing started seriously in 1960. It is mainly carried on outside the three-mile territorial limits and outside the five-mile exceptional limit under the Tweed Estuary Act. I am mainly concerned this afternoon with the form of drift-net fishing which is carried on outside those limits, and for which there is at present a complete public right Drift-net fishing within the limits is in fact illegal, as my noble friend Lord Craigton said in reply to a Question in this House recently. The illegality is, at any rate in theory, enforceable by district fishers boards.

Drift-net fishing is carried out at night. Fine-mesh nets are used, often made of nylon, and they are up to, indeed, sometimes in excess of, one mile in length. They go down to an approximate depth of twelve feet. Drift-net fishing is not new. It was tried on a small scale in the year 1880, it was tried again in 1900 and again in 1930; but it is due to improved equipment and techniques, including the introduction of these fine-mesh nylon nets, invisible to the fish, that the practice has now become possible and profitable. Drift-net fishing carried on outside the limits is permissible at any time of the year. There are no restrictions as to close season or limitation of hours during which the fishing can he carried on, except that fish caught in the close season from estuaries and rivers must have a certificate of origin before they can be sold. The certificate of origin is not, in fact, a legal necessity but an administrative convenience to comply with the law, which prohibits fish caught within the limits being sold during the close season. I would remind your Lordships that there are restrictions as to the seasons and the hours during which ordinary estuary rod and net fishing can he carried out. Those restrictions were introduced by the Acts of 1857 and 1859 and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951.

As to the quantities of fish caught, estimates vary, but I can tell your Lordships that from January 1 until February 16, which is the close season for legal fishing with either estuary nets or rods, no fewer than 3,500 salmon were received at Billingsgate only, mainly from Sea-houses and Eyemouth. If 3,500 are received at Billingsgate, your Lordships can well understand that many other fish were received in; fish markets in other parts of the country. It has been calculated by those concerned with the River Tweed that probably some 20,000 salmon were taken by drift-net methods last year —and that is a figure well in excess of the total taken by rods and nets combined.

Your Lordships will now wish to know the number of boats. During the close season—and I want to stress to your Lordships that that is the important time—from January 1 to February 16 (when, as I have said, 3,500 fish arrived at Billingsgate) there were 9 boats at Eyemouth and 14 boats at Sea houses employed on drift-net fishing. In 1960, the maximum number of boats fishing in that particular area was 16. In 1961, the figure had risen to 31. Boats came from as far distant as the Yorkshire coast to fish off the mouth of the Tweed. There have been reports that foreign boats have come over and indulged in drift fishing just off our coastal limits. I must tell your Lordships that I can find no positive proof that foreign boats have yet come over, but I have circumstantial reports of three foreign boats off the River Findhorn. The general opinion amongst those who have studied these matters is that it would not be economic for foreign boats to come over to drift-net fish off our shores and to return to their foreign ports of origin with their catches. On the other hand, there is a strong possibility that foreign boats will soon be fishing off our coasts just outside the legal limits and that they will land their catches in the United Kingdom. That is perfectly legal and practical, and would be profitable.

Boats engaged in drift-net fishing can be fitted—indeed, some are fitted—with Asdic. That, as your Lordships know, is a radar device which we used for hunting submarines during the war and which is used for hunting shoals of white fish. But as to the extent of the practical use of Asdic, so far I cannot find any positive proof, because the salmon do not pack like shoals of white fish until they are very nearly in the river mouth. Furthermore, Asdic is rather unnecessary because, as I will explain in a moment to your Lordships, there are other ways of catching the fish very effectively. The types of boats used are a mixture between the small inshore and the smaller deep-sea classes of boat. So far, the larger deep-sea trawlers have not participated. I should tell your Lordships here that certain commercial enterprises engaged in quite legal and licensed river netting take the view that if the law is not altered to protect their own commercial positions they will have to take to drift-net fishing and equip their boats for that purpose, and so avoid the annual close times and the weekly close times to which their river netting has to conform at the present time.

The ocean life of the salmon is still a fascinating mystery which, thank goodness, nobody has yet solved. The salmon in the deep oceans are widely spread over the ocean bed, but they start concentrating before entering rivers. The fish shoals are generally located near the surface of the sea up to about ten miles off the shore, and on occasions they have been spotted up to fifteen miles off the shore. Therefore, based on the knowledge of the salmon's likely course over the last fifteen, ten or five miles, the drift-net fishermen have no particular need to use Asdic, with these nets over a mile wide; and with what I would term the "chuck and chance" system, they can take a heavy toll of the fish.

Now as to the extent of drift-net fishing. The "happy hunting ground" is, at present, mainly off the Tweed Estuary, but there is definite drift-net fishing off Findhorn, Helmsdale, the Tay, the Spey, and the Dee. Beyond this I have no positive evidence, but various district boards in England and on the West coast of Scotland report preparations by fishermen to start drift-net fishing in their areas. As regards the legal position of drift-net fishing, as I told your Lordships just now, the drift-net fishermen outside the three-miles limit enjoy legal freedom, but they contribute nothing to river and stock maintenance, and nothing to preservation of salmon stocks. Conservation of stocks is, I submit to your Lordships, vital from a national point of view. Whether salmon be caught by rod or by net is immaterial, provided that the catching of the salmon is under some legal control. Drift-net fishing outside the limit is not.

Proof of the damage is not yet obtainable, but there is every evidence that grave damage has been done already and the runs of salmon are depleted this year; and far more marked fish, which have been lacerated and marked by these nylon nets, have been reported this year than ever before. The proof of damage is not available, and will not be available for five years, after the event when the salmon which should have been going up the rivers to spawn would have returned to the sea. In fact, the damage of 1961 will not be ascertainable until 1966, when it will be too late to repair it if nothing is done now. I think there is a heavy responsibility on any who would advocate a "wait and see" policy, because in that case it will be too late when we do see.

My Lords, I have given your Lordships, I hope briefly, some facts as to drift-net fishing. My next submission to your Lordships is that our salmon rivers are a national asset.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether drift-net fishing is illegal inside the limit?

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

"Drift-net fishing"—and I am now able to quote the Minister of State for Scotland in your Lordships' House on June 19 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232 (No. 94), col. 385]— within … estuarial limits is illegal and enforcement is a matter for the district fishery boards ". That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was mainly concerned with fishing outside the limits. My submission is that our salmon rivers are a national asset. As regards employment, on the River Tweed alone some 300 men are directly employed on the river; and a like number are employed on probably six other rivers. There is a tremendous benefit to tourism in this country from our salmon rivers, and indirect employment in dozens of different industries—in transport, in catering, in hotels; your Lordships can guess as well as I the large number of indirectly concerned industries. This is no campaign to preserve the rich man's pleasure, but it is a desire to preserve an asset which all can share in and which is of national value.

I think I should just submit to your Lordships that there are certain arguments heard against any action taken. The first argument is: "Oh, only a small proportion of the total of the salmon is taken". No one river can stand 20,000 fish taken off its mouth; and what is to-day a small proportion of the total becomes greater as drift-net fishing expands and as salmon stocks get smaller. The second argument against any action is: "There cannot be very much damage as river nets still get the same percentage of fish coming into the river". The answer to that is that estuary fishing, estuary netting and rod fishing, will always get the same percentage of fish entering the river, but it is the balance representing the breeding stock that is being depleted. The third argument is: "If the river nets are allowed, why not the sea nets?". My reply to that is that the river nets are controlled and limited, and river netters contribute a large amount of money to the upkeep of rivers and the conservation of stocks, but the drift-net fishermen do no such thing. I believe that those who, at present, carry out drift-net fishing should, in their own interest, be supporters of measures to control the amount of fishing if they do not wish to see all our rivers depleted in a very short time.

Finally, what to do? Some suggestions have been made. Let me say at once, I should like to see total prohibition of drift-netting. It has been suggested that, if that is impracticable, there might be a ban on the landing of salmon from the drift-net fishermen on Sundays and Mondays, which would put them on the same basis of limited hours as the estuary fishermen, who have to lift their nets from, I think it is, Saturday midnight till Monday morning. It has been suggested also that there should be a ban on the landings during the close season; that is to say, the instance I gave your Lordships of fishing between January 1 and February 16 would not be allowed. It has been suggested that there should be limits to the length of nets carried, and indeed that is right. There is already a limit of 600 yards imposed on licensed netters off the Northumberland coast. It has been suggested that there should be a heavy licence fee paid by drift-net fishermen in order to put them on some comparable basis with those who contribute something at present to river preservation. And there has been the suggestion that there should be a minimum size of fish to be taken, in the same way as there are certain limits on the size of white fish taken. All those things might be desirable; but I believe that basically the right thing to do is to prohibit drift-netting, and that will require legislation.

So I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government three questions. My first question is: do the Government consider our salmon stocks a national asset to preserve? My second question is: do the Government accept the fact of danger to that national asset through this drift-net fishing? And my third, and last, question is: what action do they propose to take now? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5.29 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)

My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I intervene at this point, because, of course, this is not purely a Scottish matter, though from the list of speakers before us your Lordships might have suspected it was. This is a United Kingdom matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, indeed makes clear in the terms of his Motion.

I am sure that everyone will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of lnchrye, for having raised this important question and providing this opportunity for a full discussion in your Lordships' House, which, as is so often the case, can bring much expert knowledge to bear. I can assure your Lordships that everything the noble Lord has said, and will be said, in this debate will be given most careful consideration by the Government, who are at this moment urgently seeking a solution of this problem which is both practicable and desirable. The noble Lord ended his speech by asking three questions, and I hope that, in the course of the few remarks I shall make, he will feel that those three questions and their proper answers are very much in our minds. The noble Lord said a great deal about the development of this comparatively new form of fishing. At this point I should like to say how grateful both my noble friend Lord Craigton and I are to the noble Lord for his courtesy in letting us see a copy of a carefully prepared memorandum on this subject which he has compiled. He has helped us a great deal in this way.

It is a fact that drift-netting for salmon on any scale started in the area off the Tweed only early in 1960 (the close season does not apply to fishing outside territorial waters) and it continued during the spring of that year. My information is that catches declined after the month of April and fell away altogether by the summer. As, however, there is no statutory requirement that returns should be made of salmon caught in this way, the Government have no precise official figures of the number of salmon caught off the Tweed in that year. Such information that we have indicates that the catches were quite considerable. I do not deny that. The fishing was, I understand, undertaken mainly by boats registered in England, and was confined to the Tweed area.

There was no further activity in 1960. Soon after the beginning of this year, 1961, drift-netting for salmon started again off the Tweed and continued for some months, falling off again last month, as it did last year. The fishing this year has been by Scottish as well as English boats, in about equal numbers. The information which we have boon able to obtain (which is not official) indicates that some 13,000 fish have been caught off the Tweed this year.

Elsewhere there has been some activity, at various points off the east coast of Scotland—particularly in the Arbroath, Montrose and Buckie areas. I have been told that there has been considerable development in these areas in recent weeks, and that, particularly in the Montrose district, a number of boats have been engaged. The activity in these areas, however, falls far short of the level which has taken place off the Tweed. I understand that fishing in these areas is not a very significant proportion of the total catch in Scotland. On the Tweed the situation is rather different, and the number of salmon caught by drift-net there must be regarded as a fair proportion of the Tweed catch.

At this point I think that I should state what so far has been the impact of this fishing in England. There has been a very little drift-net fishing in the high seas off the coast of Northumberland, south of the Tweed, and some concern has been expressed in Northumberland as to the possible effects on rivers there. A point that distinguishes the position in England, however, is that the use of drift-nets for taking salmon and sea trout has been practised in some areas off the coast of England and Wales for many years. This fishing has been mostly, if not entirely, in waters inside the territorial limits, where it is carried on under licence from river boards. But this fishing in England and Wales is on a comparatively small scale, and the close and open seasons for salmon and sea trout apply.

Your Lordships will appreciate that this new development of fishing, which can be perfectly legal under the present law, has provided an addition to the earnings of a number of inshore fishermen. It is not, therefore, an entirely simple question to deal with. Moreover, since it is comparatively new, the Government are studying the matter in detail and considering all the implications with the greatest care.

Two distinct points have been made in the representations which have been made to Her Majesty's Government on this matter, and these were brought out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. First, it has been suggested, both in England and Scotland, that if this form of drift-netting for salmon in the sea is not controlled, it will have an adverse effect on the stocks of salmon; and secondly, that, if catching by this method continues, it is bound to affect the catches of river and coastal fishings. The owners of these established rights have invested considerable sums in these fishings, and on both sides of the Border these owners contribute, in various ways, towards the management and control of the rivers to which the salmon must go in order to spawn.

Let me take the first point—the effect on stocks of salmon. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has cogently expressed the concern that is felt, particularly in Scotland, about the possible effects of drift-netting on the stocks of salmon. The Government recognise that, if this type of fishing developed on a substantial scale over a wide area, it could, in the long run, have an adverse effect on the stocks of salmon; but I am sure it will be appreciated, as the noble Lord was careful to say, that this is not a matter on which it is possible at present to make any firm predictions. There are many factors which affect the stocks of salmon, and it is difficult to disentangle the effect of any one of them. Moreover, in order to get any reliable information of what is happening to stocks, statistics over a fairly long period are I required, and as noble Lords will know, until the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act was passed in 1951 there were no detailed statistics of salmon catches in Scotland. We now have the figures since 1952, but that is really a very short period in relation to the cycle of fluctuations which are commonly experienced in salmon fisheries, and it is not possible yet to draw firm conclusions.

For these reasons, and bearing in mind that factors which affect present spawning stocks will not reveal themselves finally for several years, there is at present no reliable evidence to show whether the level of drift-netting which has taken place so far is likely to have a damaging effect on stocks. Research is being undertaken by our scientists on the various factors which may affect stocks, including the environmental changes in the rivers, but it is bound to be some considerable time before any definite conclusions can be drawn. I think I should say, however, that our scientists have expressed the tentative view, on such evidence as is available, that it is unlikely that the scale of drift-net fishing so far practised would have any damaging effect on the stocks, even in the Tweed. So far as it goes, that is reassuring. But we must be cautious on this matter, because it is clear that drift-netting for salmon in the sea could develop to such an extent that it might eventually affect the stocks of salmon. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the fact that it may be necessary to take steps to prevent a situation developing which it would be difficult or impossible to remedy.

The second point I mentioned was the effect of drift-net fishing on the catches of rod anglers and established river and coastal nets. I appreciate that there must be concern on this score, too, even though such catches always show considerable annual variations and there are many factors which affect them. The Government will, of course, keep this aspect of the matter under close review.

I must now briefly mention some of the difficulties which we encounter in considering what might be done in this matter. First, the greater part of this drift-net fishing has been taking place off the Tweed estuary, outside the Tweed District. This means that it is partly off the Scottish coast and partly off the English coast. Secondly, the law governing salmon fishing inside territorial waters in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales. It is, of course, for the courts to interpret the law, but as I understand it the right of salmon fishing within territorial waters in Scotland belongs to the Crown or to those to whom the Crown has assigned the right. In England and Wales, on the other hand, salmon fishing within territorial waters is generally a public right, subject to the control of river boards, who may prohibit or allow different forms of fishing and issue licences.

Thirdly, in Scotland drift-net fishing is prohibited within estuarial limits. I think I had better say a word on the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have a copy of the Hansard in front of me in which my noble friend Lord Craigton answered Lord Elibank's Question, and we must get this matter clear. My noble friend answered in these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232 (No. 94), col. 385]: My Lords, drift-net fishing for salmon within estuarial limits is illegal and enforcement is a matter for the district fishery boards". He then went on—and the reply has to be read as a whole: In the case of the Tweed estuary, this prohibition applies to five miles from the shore, and enforcement here is for the River Tweed Commissioners. Within one mile of low water mark, it is a statutory criminal offence for any person to fish for salmon off the coast of Scotland, unless he has a legal right to do so, or written permission from a person having such a right". That is the position, as I understand it, about the present prohibitions in Scotland. But that means that it is legal for the owners of the fishings to fish by drift-netting outside these limits if they wish to do so, although I am told this has not been the normal method of taking salmon in Scottish waters.

In England and Wales, on the other hand, drift-netting is an established method of fishing in territorial waters. A number of river boards issue licences to fish by drift net within their areas, and the position of these fishermen has therefore to be taken into consideration. This is one of the reasons why simple remedies are not easy to apply—the simple prohibition, for instance, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would like to see put in force. If you ban salmon caught by the drift-net, should such a ban apply to fishermen who have for many years fished off the coast of England under licence from river boards since 1948, and before that from fishery boards set up as long ago as 1865?

Other suggestions are that if drift-netting must be allowed, at least it should be prohibited during the annual and weekly close times; or that steps should be taken to regulate the extent and nature of the nets which may be used. All these, and others, are suggestions which the Government are taking into account in their consideration of the matter. I should briefly like to touch on one other point. The noble Lord did not raise it, but it has been suggested in some quarters that an extension of our own sea-fisheries limits would help to solve this problem. But such an extension would not of itself prevent drift-netting for salmon by British fishermen; and as your Lordships know, the whole question of fishery limits raises much wider matters than we are considering here to-day.

I can assure your Lordships that the Government are greatly concerned about this new development. Conservation of stocks of salmon in our rivers has always been an important consideration. Salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation in both countries has had a long history, with conservation as its central aim. Under this legislation all forms of salmon fishing in rivers and territorial waters, including the old-established drift-netting in England and Wales, are subject to control and regulation in such matters in close seasons in the interests of conservation. But it is not only a question of the conservation of stocks: this matter raises also the question of individual and public rights which have been long established, and it raises problems to which there can be no simple solution. That is why I feel that this debate can be of great value in giving us expert advice, and any light that your Lordships can shed on this most difficult problem will be greatly welcomed.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.