SALMON AND MIGRATORY TROUT (PROHIBITION OF DRIFT-NET FISHING) (EXTENSION) ORDER 1968 (Hansard, 11 February 1969)

§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place, but I did not expect my noble friend to proceed at such great speed with the last Amendments.
I beg to move that the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on December 18, 1968, be approved. Noble Lords will be familiar with the background to this Order, which has the same purpose as the one we debated briefly on January 31, 1967. This purpose is to extend for a further two years, this time to February, 1971, the prohibition on drift-net fishing for salmon and migratory trout in a defined area of sea off the coast of Scotland. The 372 prohibition was first imposed by noble Lords opposite in 1962. As we have debated this matter on several occasions since then, perhaps I need not take up your Lordships' time by a detailed account of the original circumstances. What we are now asking for is a continuation of the status quo.
We have two reasons for thinking that the prohibition must continue, at least for the time being. The first has not altered since our last debate on this subject: it is the difficult issue of the Report of the Hunter Committee on Salmon and Trout Fisheries in Scotland. Much as I personally had hoped—and indeed expected—at the time of our last debate that the extension of the drift-net ban for which we asked then would have been sufficient to enable us to deal with the Report, wide-ranging, complex and controversial though it has turned out to be, I greatly regret that we are not yet in a position to say what action we propose to take on it. We have had the long series of meetings and discussions with interested organisations which I mentioned in our last debate, but these have served to illustrate the more clearly, if this were needed, how many problems, practical and financial alike, would be involved in implementing the Report's recommendations as they stand and how many different views there are about the wisdom of doing so.
We think in these circumstances it is right to take time, to take even a very great deal of time, to consider all these implications, to examine other possibilities that have been thrown up in discussion and to make sure that we get the right answers in the interests of all interested in salmon and trout fisheries, anglers and proprietors alike, before we take steps to dismantle and rebuild a structure of law and practice that has lasted for over one hundred years. I assure your Lordships, however, that, although I cannot prophesy the nature or timing of our solution, we are, and have been, working very hard on it. In the meantime, we think it inescapable that the ban on drift-net fishing, which is an integral part of the fishing régime proposed by the Hunter Committee, should not be relaxed for the present.
The other reason is one which was debated in detail in your Lordships' House as recently as December 10 last 373 and on which, because of this, I need not speak at length. I refer to the recent rapid and substantial development of fishing for salmon at Greenland—both by coastal nets and, more ominously, by drift-net boats in the Davis Strait and elsewhere. I gave the House a full account of the action Her Majesty's Government have taken—action which we are continuing and extending—to secure an end to this high seas fishery, or at least a limitation on fishing effort. But we could not argue convincingly in the appropriate international forum about the need to secure sensible management of our salmon resources by prohibiting the international high seas drift-net fishery, if at the same time we were to allow the resumption of the indiscriminate drift-netting for salmon by our nationals which roused such fears when it expanded so rapidly in 1962. Few people are ever impressed by the argument: "Don't do as I do; do as I tell you"; and if we were to relax the ban on drift-netting this is the position in which we should be placing ourselves vis-à-vis the Danes or anyone else. That is the other main reason for maintaining the ban for the present.
Your Lordships have demonstrated the considerable anxiety that is felt over this matter of the high seas fisheries, and we have taken due note of it in formulating the Government's attitude to the problem. I trust that the House will assist us by approving the Order. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord for not having been in the Chamber at the outset of his remarks. My noble friends on this side of the House welcome the extension of this Order. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has told us, it is unlikely that our case will be heard with favour when we come to raise it in the International Commission of the North Atlantic Fisheries, if we ourselves are indulging in this particularly devastating form of netting. For this reason, certainly I, for one, welcome the extension of this Order. The Order, as your Lordships 374 know, has already been extended a number of times, and this is really only temporary legislation; it runs until February 15, 1971. What happens after that none of us knows.
I know that many interested parties have reservations about the Hunter Report. I, for one, hope that an early opportunity will be presented for us to consider closely the various aspects of the Hunter Report. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has told us that this temporary measure is really linked with a lack of decision—and I do not say this in any spiky way, because I think all of us, both Her Majesty's Opposition and the Government, are finding this problem extremely difficult. But there has been a lack of decision on what should be done about the Hunter Report. I personally hope that an early opportunity will be taken to discuss the Hunter Report in very great detail. If the present rate of salmon destruction (I think I must use this expression) continues, it is more than probable that within the lifetime of even some of the oldest Members of your Lordships' House salmon will become extinct. Therefore it is important that we should set this example by prohibiting to a certain extent the drift-netting off these Islands, so that we can speak with greater authority when we come to negotiate with other interested countries.
Once again I wish to repeat the plea to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I made on December 10 last year: that we should do our utmost to take the necessary steps to prepare other interested countries for the forthcoming International Commission of the North Atlantic Fisheries meeting which is to take place later this year. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was good enough to assure me that such steps are being taken, and he warned me that it might be undiplomatic if I were to say too much about this matter. Sometimes when I stood at that Dispatch Box I used to hide behind a similar excuse, that something would be undiplomatic. But I hope, whether it is diplomatic or not, that Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to take the necessary preparatory steps before the International Commission meet. With that, I should 375 like to give my support to the extension of this Order.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be relieved to know that on this occasion, at least, both the contents and the manner of his speech have my unqualified approval. That no doubt will be of relief to him. But there is one point I should like to make which I do not think was mentioned either by him or by the noble Marquess and which is an additional reason why this prohibition on drift-netting should be maintained. That is the way in which so many rivers in Great Britain and Ireland have been affected for the last few years by the very unpleasant disease ulcerative dermal necrosis, known for short as "U.D.N.". Although there is little doubt that this was the same disease as occurred about fifty years ago, and previously probably another half century before that, very little is known about it. However, we are confident once more that after a year or two it will recede. But in the meantime, and so long as it maintains its present proportions, any further diminution of our salmon stocks would be a matter of very great concern, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said about this ever-growing menace of drift-netting in the Northern waters.
I entirely acquit the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of any blame for the delay in the production of any forms of proposals for acting upon, or not acting upon, the Hunter Report. I urge him to do everything possible to get this important matter accelerated. It is particularly vital to those of us who have interests on the Tay, because it was suggested that the Tay should be used as a guinea-pig for a revolutionary scheme, the details of which I will not bore your Lordships with but in which there should be one netting station for the whole river. If successful, the scheme would be extended to the other rivers in Scotland which have a considerable amount of netting. It is obvious that the fishing interests on the River Tay and on other rivers are bound to be deleteriously affected as long as we do not know what is going to happen. Therefore I ask the noble Lord, 376 Lord Hughes, to obtain some information as to when the Government propose to implement, wholly or in part, the recommendations of the Hunter Committee.

§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, I will be equally brief in reply. I am grateful to the noble Marquess and to the noble Earl for the reception which they have given to yet another renewal of this Order. On the question of the attempt to control the fishing in international waters, may I say that it is perfectly true that I wished to discourage the noble Marquess from being too explicit in what he proposed. I do not at all object to the greatest possible pressure—and continued pressure—being put on the Government to do something about this matter, because that cannot be other than helpful. All I wanted to do was to ensure that when the noble Marquess made some useful suggestions to me about the way in which it should be done he should not make those suggestions in your Lordships' House, because in my view it is much better that our opponents should hear about them from us, when we press them in due course.
I thought the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield was right in making reference to the effects of disease. As he said, we still do not know exactly what it is and, even more unfortunate, we do not know how to get rid of it, but as long as the salmon are afflicted with this unknown disease it is yet another reason why man himself ought not to add to the difficulties of the situation by allowing indiscriminate fishing of this kind.
As to the early implementation of the Hunter Report, I wish I could be more sure about this. When we started there was widespread support which indicated that it would be fairly easy to get a majority of people who are interested in fishing, one way or another, in condemning the existing law. But the one thing which has emerged after examination is that it is just as easy to get a majority against any proposal. So we must go on investigating all the suggestions in order to find out what is most likely to gain sufficient support to justify changing the law. The Hunter Report has said that the law ought to be changed, and it has suggested particular ways in which it should be changed. 377 So while I hope for an early end to the uncertainty, I am afraid I cannot be optimistic as to when it will be forthcoming. The noble Marquess apologised for being late in coming into the Chamber. It may be a source of relief to him to know that I had to apologise for being late, because I was not here when the debate was due to start.