§ 2.42 p.m.
§ Viscount THURSOMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government which of their advisory bodies advised against the importation of Coho salmon eggs, in what terms their advice was couched, and why it was decided not to accept the advice.
1447§ The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)My Lords, the following bodies have indicated opposition to the importation: two English Water Authorities—the Southern and North Western; the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland; the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards; the Salmon and Trout Association, and the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers. Five of the six bodies cited disease grounds and all six ecological grounds. The application for an import licence was made in terms of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in terms of that Act concerned with ecological issues. He is satisfied that he has taken into account all the disease points raised by those consulted.
§ Viscount THURSOMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for his courtesy in replying not only to this Question but also to one on a similar subject yesterday, I should like to ask him whether there is any Act under which the Secretary of State can take a decision on ecological grounds; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State's advisers advised him that it would be to the advantage of the country to be able to do so?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, as I indicated in reply to the Question posed to me yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is pursuing every nuance of statutory provision which may or may not be open to him in an issue of this kind, and he is in fact addressing his mind to the problem.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, is it not a fact that the licensing to import these eggs is done under very strict rules, and that there is an agreement that if they do not prove to be satisfactory this importation will stop? I understand that in France they are being imported in a very easy fashion, whereas we have laid down extremely strict rules and they are being very closely supervised.
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, the reply to both points raised by the noble Baroness is in the affirmative.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the introduction of these varieties has anything to do with the 1448 diminishing quality of salmon? After listening to 16 debates on Salmon Bills since I have been in the Palace of Westminster, I recall that 60 years ago I could win a tin of crimson middle-cut on the hoop-la, whereas now one has to go to Woolworth's and queue up for diminishing shades of pink, verging on white, at prices which are too prohibitive for me to buy.
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, in response to my noble friend's very interesting point, I can say to the House that the import licence has been granted to Unilever at Findon in Aberdeenshire, where I understand they intend to research the possibilities of this type of salmon as it would affect my noble friend's table.
§ Lord FERRIERMy Lords, while associating myself with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Onslow yesterday on the ecological angle, may I ask whether the Norwegians have been consulted on this matter, and, if so, what their views were? If it comes to that, may I also ask whether the EEC are involved, and whether the Canadians have thought of it, and, if so, why have they not brought the Coho salmon on to their East coast?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, there are certainly international agreements which have in their impact the control of ecology in the area from which the species may be imported. So far as the Coho salmon is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have conformed with every aspect of international practice.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether the firm concerned with this experiment has given an undertaking that no fish will be released from the tanks in which they are at present kept until the Government have agreed and it has been shown that no risk will be taken?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, I confirm to my noble friend that that is so.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there are no statutory grounds for refusing a licence, or no statutory grounds for reviewing a licence, which are two quite different things? Either would be quite incredible, and if the law is such an ass ought it not to be changed fairly quickly? Also, 1449 will the noble Lord confirm that all of the 10 chief fishery officers in England and Wales advised against this import on ecological grounds, and was not the same advice given from Scotland as well? Why was it ignored?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, if I may take the last part of the noble Lord's question first, I think it would take too long to read out the whole list which I have before me, but I confirm that I will write to him on that point. I can only reiterate that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has power under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. There is, at the moment, difficulty about drawing the line where ecological influence has statutory provision.
§ Viscount THURSOMy Lords, would Her Majesty's Government welcome statutory provision to control imports of live fish or fish eggs on ecological grounds?
§ Lord KIRKHILLMy Lords, I can only reiterate what I thought I had very firmly said at the outset, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering every nuance of statutory provision available in these circumstances.