SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1923 (AMENDMENT) BILL (Hansard, 12 March 1964)

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I realise that any legislation dealing with salmon usually arouses a great deal of anxiety in your Lordships' House, but I can assure your Lordships that no harm is intended to the king of game fish in this small Bill. As your Lordships know, the Bill has been through another place in the very capable hands of my honourable friend Mr. Percy Browne, the Member for Torrington.

In order to understand this Bill, I shall have to refer to the Salmon and 610 Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, because, as your Lordships will see from Clause 1, the whole Bill revolves upon that Act. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote the relevant section. Section 6(1) says: No person shall, in any fishery district, shoot or work any seine or draft net for salmon or migratory trout in any waters across more than three-fourths of the width thereof …"— and here are the words relevant to this Bill— or within one hundred yards from the nearest point in the line of shot of any other seine or draft net worked in like manner and already shot or being worked in the waters, before such last-mentioned net is fully drawn in and landed. In plain English, this means that the restrictions placed on fishermen since 1923 not to work their seine or draft nets within 100 yards of each other will be abolished, if this Bill becomes law.

No doubt your Lordships know the process of seine or draft net fishing. The boat is rowed out from the bank with a net in the stern that is unfurled as the boat goes out. The boat makes a wide sweep into the estuary or river and returns to the bank it has come from, when the net is hauled in. No trouble had been experienced with these regulations until a short time ago, but in 1961 some prosecutions took place on the Torridge Estuary because boats, after having made their draft or sweep, were less than 100 yards apart. Up to 1961, the bailiffs had turned a blind eye to this. They had agreed that, so long as the nets were 100 yards apart when they were unfurled from the boat on starting, it did not matter if they were a few yards nearer, 80 yards maybe, to the next boat on landing. But apparently in 1961 there were some prosecutions for what happened on the Torridge Estuary.

If I may return to the section from which I have just quoted, while the magistrates convicted on prosecutions, they decided that because the boats were less than 100 yards apart they were liable under that section. It says in Section 6 of the Act: … or within one hundred yards from the nearest point in the line of shot of any other seine or draft net and worked in like manner and already shot or being worked in the waters. So the magistrates took the view that, even if on landing you were under 611 100 yards to the nearest boat, you were liable. That was really unfair because you had the strength of the tide and the current, and sometimes there is a very strong tide or a squall, the boats are rowed, and you can often end up far closer than you really intend to the next fisherman.

In 1961 there was the Bledisloe Committee Report on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries, and that Committee recommended that this regulation making fishermen shoot their nets 100 yards apart should be abolished. They agreed that in principle nets had to be controlled and limited, but they went on to say that the regulations about the use of nets were much less satisfactory. They said: They seem to us difficult to enforce, irritating to the fishermen and, in view of the other regulated powers we propose should be retained, unnecessary. We recommend that they be abolished as soon as river boards have had time to establish by-laws … such minimum restrictions to replace them as regulations suggest may be necessary". So this Bill, by striking out the words from "or within" to the end of Section 6(1) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, implements the recommendation of the Bledisloe Committee. If this Bill is passed, it will make no difference to the fish, because you are not going to catch any more fish. No fisherman really likes having his net near to that of another fisherman because he does not want to get them tangled up.

The object of this Bill is to make the law more practical, and I understand that all the fishermen welcome it. If under an Act you break the law due to the action of the wind and tide, this brings the law into disrepute. I do not think I can add anything further, other than to say that it will be a great help to the fishing industry generally. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)

My Lords, I am glad to be able to support this Bill. As my noble friend has explained, its 612 provisions are in accordance with the recommendations of the Bledisloe Committee which recently reviewed the salmon and freshwater fisheries law in England and Wales. One of the main principles embodied in the findings was that greater discretion should be given to river boards to prescribe the most suitable measures for fisheries conservation. This is because river boards, who are charged with administering the fisheries law, know the actual local needs and circumstances. The Committee also made a particular recommendation with regard to restrictions in the present Act such as that which is now being considered, which lay down how fishermen shall use their nets. They recommended that such restrictions should be abolished as soon as river boards have had time to establish by by-law such restrictions to replace them as local conditions suggest may be necessary.

My right honourable friend has not yet been able to announce decisions on the Bledisloe Committee recommendations as a whole, but he is in full agreement with this particular recommendation. The river boards have an excellent record of fisheries administration, and it seems right that they should he given the discretion in this case, particularly when it is remembered that the present statutory restriction was embodied in the Act of 1923, long be-before river boards were created. The Bill will accomplish one recommendation of the Committee. The Act will not come into force until April 1, 1965, and the river boards who have no bylaw in operation at present and rely on the statutory restriction in the Act of 1923 will have time to make new bylaws to replace the statutory restriction, if they wish to do so.