HL Deb 15 May 1972 vol 330 cc1230-43

3.55 p.m.

Viscount DILHORNE

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This also is a law reform Bill, with not quite the same history as the last one and dealing of course with a very different topic. I should begin by declaring an interest, one which I am sure is shared by many noble Lords in all parts of the House, for I am very fond of fishing for salmon and trout, and was when a boy for what are I think rather inappropriately called coarse fish. This Bill deals entirely with fish and eels. The Report of the Committee on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries, of which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe was Chairman, was presented to Parliament in May, 1961. Now, eleven years later, I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill which implements some 30 or so of their 150 recommendations. Five of them have been dealt with in Acts introduced by private Members in 1964 and 1965; some of their recommendations have been overtaken by other legislation. The Committee worked for four years and produced a very valuable and, I found it, a very interesting Report.

I am sorry that this Bill leaves a number of their recommendations not implemented, but Mr. Simon Digby, who introduced this Bill in the other place, decided—and I am sure he did so wisely—that if the Bill was to get through another place it had to be non-controversial. I think he succeeded in his object for, despite the many interests involved and affected, this Bill received its Second Reading in another place on the nod; no Amendments were moved in Committee, but some interesting speeches were made on Third Reading. It is a modest little Bill but a very useful one. It applies only to England and Wales, although no doubt it will be interesting to hear a Scottish view on what is proposed. I hope it will not prove more controversial in this House than it did in another place. I must confess that personally I should have liked the Bill to go a little further in some respects, and I may not be alone in that; but I hope that Amendments will not be made which will imperil the prospect of the Bill's reaching the Statute Book. I have clear recollections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he was Lord Chancellor threatening me with the loss of the Bill if I moved an Amendment to a Private Member's Bill. I was glad to hear him confess to-day that that result had never followed from the Amendment's having been accepted.

I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Clause 1(1) substitutes a new subsection for Section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923, the main Act. It adds firearms, crosslines and set-lines to the list of prohibited instruments. Firearms, as so defined, include underwater guns; and so, if this Bill is passed, it will be illegal to use them to kill salmon, trout and freshwater fish. The Bill itself does not define a "setline" and a "crossline". It would be an improvement if it did; and they are, I think, well defined in the glossary at the commencement of the Bledisloe Report. Throwing stones at salmon and trout was prohibited by the Act of 1923. This Bill makes it illegal to throw stones at freshwater fish and also (should anyone feel disposed to do so) to fish which are jumping in the air. Just looking at the first clause of this Bill one might think that it prohibited the use of a gaff when one was fishing with rod and line. I hasten to say that that is not so: Section 1(4) of the 1923 Act permits the use of a gaff as an auxiliary to fishing with rod and line, and this Bill makes it lawful to possess one for that purpose.

Under the 1923 Act, provision is made for the establishment of fish passes in dams across rivers. To comply with that Act the fish passes have to be approved by the Minister, but the making of a fish pass that operates as one is by no means a certain science. It may look all right on paper, but the fish may not like it and may not use it. So Clause 2 provides that in future the Minister's approval can be provisional only, so that he need not give final approval until the fish like the pass and the pass is seen to work. If it does not, then the pass will have to be altered until the fish like it, or the obstruction removed.

Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the close times for salmon and trout. It will now be open to river authorities to make bylaws specifying the annual close season and close times for their areas, and different areas require different treatment. This provision introduces a degree of flexibility which is desirable, and I hope that the degree of flexibility may be such as to enable alteration of the by-laws to be effected speedily and temporarily so that they may be adjusted according to river conditions, and extend perhaps the close time when the rivers are low. The close season and close time must not be less in all than the minimum now provided. The by-laws will require approval by the Minister, and if no bylaws are made the present close season and close times will remain in force.

My Lords, for a variety of reasons, including disease and the effect of disease and the fishing off Greenland, I think it is true to say that the stocks of salmon in our rivers in England and in Scotland are far lower than they used to be ten years ago, and far, far lower than they used to be in the days of my youth. While those are two of the contributory factors, there is a third—and I am not at all sure that it is not the major factor—and that is the degree of netting that is now going on. I think it is true to say that far too many fish are now being caught in the nets at the mouth of the river, and from figures that I have seen, but which I do not have with me, I think it will be seen that as the rod catch has gone down and there has been a diminution of fish in the rivers, there has been a very considerable increase in the last ten years in the number of fish caught in the nets, and in particular caught at times when the river is low and fish are waiting to come up.

I am sure that in some areas it is necessary in the interests of all that the close times for salmon should be speedily extended, although perhaps only temporarily. I hear that in some rivers the position is a little better than it was last year, but from such experience as I have had this year I must say that I doubt it. Of course I welcome what is being done to prevent pollution. A few weeks ago there was some discussion in this House about salmon coming up the Thames. I hope that the water in the Thames will soon be pure enough to enable them to come up, but it is really no use taking all this trouble to prevent pollution if there are no salmon left to come up our' rivers. I fear that we are really being far too complacent about the present position. Action requires to be taken without delay. More fish must be allowed to get up our rivers to spawn and the best way of securing that is to enlarge the close times.

Clause 3 also provides that salmon and trout lawfully caught on rod and line can be sold during the close season. That removes an anomaly, for salmon caught lawfully in other ways can be sold at that time. Both the Bledisloe Committee and the Hunter Committee recommended that all fresh salmon and trout should be dealt in only by registered dealers. The Bledisloe Committee considered that an essential means of controlling illegal catching. The Association of River Authorities, the Fishmongers' Company and the National Council of Salmon Nets men are all in favour of that, but the National Federation of Fishmongers, the British Port Wholesale Fish Merchants Associations and the Inland Wholesale Fish Merchants were opposed, bodies which I should not have thought were primarily interested in salmon.

As I have said, my Lords, the Bledisloe Committee reported in 1961. Now, 11 years later, with the depletion of salmon stocks since then, I think it is even more essential that their recommendation should be adopted. Such a scheme operates in Northern Ireland but it is argued that it could not operate only in England, and that as it is not proposed in the White Paper on Fisheries in Scotland, we cannot have it here. I do not find that argument convincing. Those who catch salmon illegally in the South of England are not likely to go to Scotland to dispose of them. If an Amendment is tabled to carry that recommendation into effect—and it is one of the most important recommendations in the Bledisloe Report—I should not myself be disposed to oppose it, unless it appeared likely that if accepted the Bill would not be enacted. If we put it in this Bill, it might also find its way (one does not know) into a Scottish Bill.

I understand that views differ as to whether there should be a close season for coarse fish. Clause 4 provides that there should be one and that it should apply to all inland waters, including reservoirs and gravel pits, but it gives river authorities power to abolish the close season for freshwater fish by by-law in their areas. If they seek to do so, people in the area will have ample opportunity to make their views known and the Minister has to give approval to the by-law. It is said that in some rivers rainbow trout breed. I hope that no one will ask me which rivers they are for I have not the least idea. But if they do breed in some rivers, it is right that there should he power to prescribe a close season for those rivers, and Clause 4 does that.

Clause 5 clarifies the river authorities' by-law-making powers and extends them in two respects. One is that by-laws will be able to be made to require anglers to make nil returns. I understand it is thought that this may lead to more accurate returns. One river authority—I think it was Lancashire—has found that only 3 per cent. of fishermen in its area admit to having caught a fish in a whole season. That seems unlikely, even in Lancashire! In future, they will have to make a return, whether or not they catch a fish. I fear that in the past they have often omitted to make a return when they have caught a fish. If it is necessary that there should be proper returns, it really is essential for conservation that there should be full information as to the number of fish caught. The other extension to the by-laws is to enable by-laws to be made to authorise methods of eel catching during the close season.

My Lords, I understand that some anxiety is felt about river authorities being given power to make by-laws imposing requirements as to the material used for nets, it being felt that this would permit of monofilament nets being prohibited. I see no reason for that fear, because I do not think that the change of language in this clause really involves any change of meaning. Under the 1923 Act, river authorities can determine the description of nets that can be used. So, in my view, they can and could under that Act, if they wished, now prohibit the use of these nets.

Clauses 6 to 9 deal with licensing. In future, a licensing system will have to be established for freshwater fish and eels unless the river authority can show good reason why that should not be done. Clause 7 strengthens the powers to prevent illegal fishing and poaching. It makes it an offence to catch fish by an unlicensed instrument or to have one in one's possession with intent to use it.

Clause 9 deals with the production of licences and gives authority to require production of a licence by someone who is fishing, who is reasonably suspected of being about to fish or of having fished within the last half hour. Clause 10 makes it an offence to introduce fish into an inland water without the consent of the river authority. Clause 11 clarifies the powers of water bailiffs and enables them to search for bait, and makes it an offence to obstruct a bailiff when he is seizing objects liable to be forfeited.

Clause 12 and the second Schedule are important. They deal with penalties. Under the 1923 Act the maximum fine for an offence was £50 and on a third conviction a person might be sent to prison for not more than three months. This Bill abolishes the power to send to prison for summary offences and, as your Lordships will see from the second Schedule, prescribes maximum fines, appropriate to the nature of the offence. For the serious offences of discharging poisonous matter into waters containing fish and for using explosives and poisons, and so on, a person may after conviction on indictment be sentenced to up to two years imprisonment. I think that these increased maxima are desirable and will bring the law into a more up to date position, and I believe these provisions to be reasonable and right. But it is really not much use making these changes unless the magistrates avail themselves of the power which this Bill, if enacted, will give them.

I fear that, with the present market value of salmon, in many cases the penalties imposed for the illegal taking of salmon, for poaching, are wholly inadequate to deter a repetition of the offence, and are wholly inadequate to prevent the wholesale depletion of our stocks of salmon by gangs which operate in different parts of the country. I think I have said enough about the Bill. It is, in my view, a very useful measure, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

4.13 p.m.

LORD HOY

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for taking over this Bill from another place. The remarks I have to make will be very few indeed. I think this is a very useful provision, and indeed the honourable gentleman who introduced it in another place would have liked it to go very much further. As the noble and learned Viscount said, when people begin to further the scope of a Bill the less likelihood there is of it being passed during this Session; and, speaking for my noble friends, I certainly would not wish to do anything to prevent this Bill from becoming law. The House will be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply dealing with monofilament nets, because this was a point raised by the National Council of Salmon Netsmen, and when it was introduced in another place a promise was given that whoever took the Bill over in your Lordships' House would in fact make this point perfectly clear; I think the answer is reasonable indeed.

The Bill is in fact a charter for the sportsman and the angler as well as for the professional associations. Indeed, when one remembers the tremendous number of people who fish in a private capacity and for sport, anything that can be done to help them is welcome. I do not think I would even dissent from the noble and learned Viscount's criticism about what is preventing salmon getting up the rivers. We know, of course, what has happened overseas, or in other parts, and we also know that some years ago in Scotland steps were taken to prevent drift netting for salmon. But these steps have not been the answer to the problem; they may have helped but they have not provided the answer. Indeed, we have had many complaints that in fact the salmon netted at the river mouth have created an even greater problem than those that were caught by drift nets. This is a point that might well be looked at.

On the various parts of the Bill dealing with legislation, I am bound to say that I found it a little difficult to understand why certain rules are going to be made by the wider authority and some by the river authority, particularly affecting rainbow trout, which is a fish that is not altogether very well understood. I will not bore your Lordships, but I remember that when the salmon disease was first heard of the two great experts from Britain designated as the cause of this disease the rainbow trout which were being cultivated on a farm in Southern Ireland. We all know this to be quite untrue. But I am fortified in my non-belief of certain experts because of what transpired afterwards. The rainbow trout is a very popular fish. I was a little interested when the Bill was being moved in another place to hear the honourable gentleman say that it was a bit of a conundrum, nobody knew very much about it, and as a consequence we will give the problem to the river authority to decide. It seems to me that with a fish of this kind which is very popular, perhaps there might be a little more inquiry from the Government so that we may get a more complete picture of the part this fish is to play.

Secondly, while in a Private Member's Bill the question of pollution may not be spelled out, one of the weaknesses in the Bill is that it does not deal with pollution at all. True, the rivers are being cleaned up, but it is still a considerable problem and will remain so until action is taken. It may be that whoever speaks for the Government will be able to say a word or two about what they propose to do.

On the whole, I think this is a good Bill. I am certain it will be welcomed by all. The provision of even further penalties will help to deter people from doing things that they ought not to do. So therefore I welcome the Bill, not only personally but on behalf of my noble friends.

4.18 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I share your Lordships' feelings of gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount who moved the Second Reading and who gave us such a clear description of the Bill. It is indeed a peaceful, compromise Bill, avoiding conflict on many major issues which arise from the Bledisloe Report. I think the Bill is aimed at achieving the support of many but the enmity of none. It deals with about thirty-five out of a total of 151 recommendations of the Bledisloe Report. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is only a first step on a subject of increasing importance, as we enter what I would term the leisure age, where problems of earlier retirement, problems of occupation and of relaxation, of shorter working hours, are all rising before us.

We have now two million anglers; the experts forecast that by the end of the decade we shall have over three million. The boundaries between what used to be called, and still are called (I think wrongly), coarse fishing and fly fishing are down, and there are untouched problems, affecting all waters, which are left out of this Bill but which must be tackled in the future. That is why I repeat that I regard it as a welcome first step to further measures which are necessary for the preservation of our waters, for the elimination of pollution and for the continued beauty of the countryside. I personally hope that for Scotland we shall see a measure, based on the Hunter Commission Report, which will have for Scotland the same benefits as we hope this Bill will have for England and Wales.

There is one point that I should like to raise in a few words. The noble and learned Viscount who introduced the Bill hoped that there would be no Committee stage if there was any danger of such causing the Bill to be lost. I agree with him entirely, and therefore the one Amendment that he proposes will, I presume, depend for its introduction on that particular issue.

Viscount DILHORNE

My Lords, I did not propose any Amendment. I merely said that if a certain Amendment was proposed I should be in difficulties in resisting it.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not be in difficulty resisting another Amendment that I am going to propose. This Bill proposes a number of new restrictions and penalties, to which one can take no general objection; but on one point I would seek guidance. and I think that there is possibly need for an Amendment.

Clause 1(1)(a)(iv) quite rightly prohibits the use of a gaff but, as the noble and learned Viscount said, a gaff may be used as an auxiliary for the taking of salmon. The same subsection says that no person shall (c) throw or discharge any stone or other missile for the purpose of taking or killing, or facilitating the taking, or killing of any salmon, trout or freshwater fish. There is a point here which I wish to bring to the noble and learned Viscount's attention. Somebody will have to be very clever to hit a salmon with a stone, but there are times when, as any noble Lord here who is a fisherman will know, one uses an old-fashioned way of moving a "sulky" salmon. This is by throwing a rock, not at the fish but into the pool, which in fact facilitates the taking of the salmon. If this Bill were to pass as it is at present, I should perhaps be breaking the law three or four times a year. If you have what is called "heavy water", a strong stream, and you are fishing with very light tackle and you get into a big fish, it may "sulk" in the bottom for an indefinite period of time. I myself have hung on to a fish for nearly two hours, unable to do anything with it. There are two traditional ways of moving that salmon. One is to take a coin, any coin, and tap your rod several times. The vibration from that coin will go right down the line, down the trace to the fly; the fish will feel those vibrations and may well move. The second way is for either the fisherman or someone else to throw a rock into the pool, and that disturbs or moves the fish. Under this Bill that would be made illegal.

Viscount DILHORNE

My Lords, quite right, too!

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount says, "Quite right". But I do not think there is any harm in putting a rock into a pool to disturb a "sulky" fish that you can move in no other way. I agree that it should certainly be illegal to discharge any stone or missile "for the purpose of taking or killing" a salmon, but I shall put down an Amendment on Committee stage to eliminate the words "or facilitating". I sincerely hope that, with the co-operation of your Lordships, such an Amendment might be inserted.

Apart from that particular point I think that this is a good Bill. I should like, in a final word, to support what the noble and learned Viscount said in moving the Second Reading, when he pleaded for those wider questions of conservation of salmon in our rivers which will need not only national action from Her Majesty's Government but international action. On the assumption, and in the hope, that we shall have those further measures brought before Parliament, I give my full support to this Bill.

4.26 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, explained that this was a Private Member's Bill, and he said that it had been non-controversial in another place and he hoped it would be here. I can give him the assurance that, so far as the Government are concerned, we will do everything we can to expedite the passage of this Bill, even if he has a little trouble from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The noble and learned Viscount said that he was a keen fisherman: I regret that I am not. As he said that, I recalled my initiation into the business of fishing, because when I was a small boy aged twelve I had a headmaster who thought it would be a good thing to encourage his boys in the art of fishing. He rowed some of us out into the middle of a loch and tried to initiate us into the art. I regret to say that, much to my surprise, and my headmaster's horror, my only catch was the Homburg which rested on the top of his head. This so horrified him, and indeed me, that I have never gone beyond that stage.

My Lords, the main legislation governing salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales is about half a century old. It still works remarkably well, but it is in many respects outdated. It was written in terms of administration by small local fisheries boards with inadequate budgets. It was not designed to deal with highly organised and mobile gangs of people, to whom I think the noble and learned Viscount referred and who can make a profit of about £600 a night from poisoning a salmon pool. New methods call for new approaches, and if we are to conserve our valuable stocks, which are already threatened by disease and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said, by pollution and by high seas fishing, we must strengthen the hands of those who are entrusted with conservation.

The Bill also seeks to loosen the national restrictions in favour of by-law control by the river authorities. If I may give an example, under the Bill river authorities will in future be able to decide, in the light of local needs and local views, precisely when they want their close season to start and finish; and indeed, in the case of coarse fish and rainbow trout, whether they need have a close season at all. To take one other example, they will also be able to offer, if they so decide, concessional rates for fishing licences to be taken out by pensioners or children. So the Bill aims to provide that the action to be taken shall be flexible and able to take account of local needs.

The noble and learned Viscount referred to the origins of this Bill, and to the fact that the conclusions of the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, met with fairly general approval from fishery interests and from the Government. Since that time there has been continuing discussion between advisory bodies and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it is clear from the recent consultations with all shades of fishery opinion that the proposals in this Bill command very widespread support. Within these modest limits, the Bill provides what the mover in another place described as a "new charter for fishermen of all ages", whether they are fishing for pleasure—and, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, it is estimated that there are between two million and three million anglers—or whether they are bona fide commercial men. It brings the fisheries administration up to date, and it recognises that the bodies who to-day are responsible for the day-to-day implementing of this legislation—the river authorities—are broadly based organisations commanding considerable resources and with highly qualified staffs. The Bill has the full support of Her Majesty's Government, and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.

4.31 p.m.

Viscount DILHORNE

My Lords, I should just like to say "Thank you" to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Bill. I was indeed interested to hear the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in relation to netting at river mouths. I have no doubt that an increase of close times for that netting would be opposed in certain quarters, but I think that would be very short-sighted opposition, having regard to the present situation, because unless some extension is made there will be little left to net in a few years' time. The noble Lord then referred to rainbow trout. I think rainbow trout were accused of spreading the disease which they caught from a fish farm. I doubt very much whether rainbow trout ever breed in the waters of this country, but, all the same, if they do, it is right that there should be a close season for them. Then the noble Lord referred to pollution. We have recently passed two pollution Acts and I think that ordinary pollution should be dealt with by those Acts. As the noble Lord will see, under Clause 8 and Clause 9(3) of this Bill there are very heavy penalties for committing acts which would cause pollution for the purpose of taking fish.

I now come to my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. If I may, I should like to reply to him quite briefly in the hope that I may avoid having to make a speech in answer to his Amendment on the Committee stage. I was sorry to hear that he had hung on to a fish for no less than two hours—he did not tell us whether he caught it at the end of the day—and that he had to resort to stoning it. He suggested that we should take out the words "facilitating the taking" from paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. He appears to be under the impression that that is new language. In fact, the only change made from the 1923 form is the deletion of the words "into any water", so as to catch people who aim stones and spears at fish which are jumping or leaping. So I am sorry to have to say, on my noble friend's own confession, that for the purpose of facilitating the taking of his salmon he committed an offence against the Act of 1923. I do not think he should be encouraged to do so. I have never found it necessary to fill up the bottom of a river in order to get a salmon on to the bank.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

One rock would do it.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

And I do not think my noble friend should be encouraged in these practices, which have been illegal since 1923. Having said that, perhaps I shall discourage him from tabling an Amendment. I am grateful for the way in which this Bill has been received. I should not like to conclude my observations without saying that I think everyone ought to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe for the great work which he and his Committee did and which has brought this Bill belatedly before this House. Also we ought to express—and I do express—our gratitude to Mr. Wingfield Digby for piloting the Bill through another place.

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

Forward to