The Salmon Fishing Industry of Scotland

HL Deb 28 October 1981 vol 424 cc1090-111

4.17 p.m.

Viscount Thurso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the increasing difficulty of administering the salmon fishing industry of Scotland and of the dangers which face the industry as a result of the failure of successive Governments to bring forward the up-to-date legislation which the industry urgently needs.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Government the Question on the Order Paper about the salmon fishing industry of Scotland, I feel that I should start by declaring my interest. in the first instance I am an angler, and in the second instance I am chairman of a company that owns a salmon river from source to sea and that operates upon it a rod fishery, a net fishery and a hatchery. I am also chairman of a district fishery board; I am president of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards and I am a member of the appeal committee of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. So I have a lot of interests which I hope your Lordships will find allow me to be informed, rather than prejudiced.

It is about 20 years since the dangers facing the Atlantic salmon in Scotland, and the pressing need to up-date the legislation which controls both the rod and net fishing industry, caused the Government of the day to set up the Hunter Committee to advise them on what to do about them. For 20 years the position has slowly deteriorated. For 20 years successive Governments have sat back and done nothing. The only exception to all this masterly inactivity has been the continued banning of the drift net around the coasts of Scotland. But what a pity it is that this ban has never been enshrined in legislation, and still more a pity that the ban has not been extended all round the the coasts of Britain.

The development of the monofilament drift net has turned an archaic, small-scale Northumbrian fishery into a massive poaching operation on Scottish salmon stocks. One hundred and fifty tonnes of salmon are now caught annually by this fishery, of which 94 per cent. are admitted to be Scottish fish waiting to get up their own rivers. Can your Lordships expect Scottish salmon fishermen to contemplate with equanimity the loss of 140 tonnes of Scottish bred fish? This is a loss of some 31,500 fish to the Tweed and neighbouring east coast rivers.

Think, too, of how we appear to other countries when we seek to preserve our fish from their depre- dations and yet allow the very methods which we seek to prevent them from using to be used off the coast of England. The ground that this is a traditional fishery cannot really be upheld when it relies for its murderous success on the totally untraditional, invisible, monofilament fibre. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will face up to this problem and give us some hope that this undesirable drain on Scottish fish stocks will be phased out.

Another drain on Scottish salmon stocks about which successive Governments again have done little, and about which this Government appear to be doing nothing at all, is predation by the grey seal. The major part of the world population of grey seals is found around the shores of the United Kingdom. In 1914 when the population was estimated at about 500 the grey seal was first protected by United Kingdom legislation. Thereafter the population grew steadily. When the latest Government legislation on the subject, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, was passed the population was assessed at just over 50,000. Since then, despite an annual culling programme in the North of Scotland of approximately 2,000 seal pups, the population has continued to rise. It has recently been estimated by the Natural Environment Research Council that the Scottish grey seal population rose from 65,000 in 1980 to 68,000 in 1981 and is likely to rise to 71,500 in 1982.

A seal consumes about 15 pounds of fish per day, of which salmon is a preferred item of diet, and fisheries' scientists estimated in 1977 that around the British Isles 112,000 tonnes of fish of exploitable species were taken annually. Obviously now, in 1981, the figure is very greatly higher.

There has been continuing controversy between fisheries and animal conservation interests about the question of reducing the seal population. The latter interests have in particular challenged the figures for the "take" of commercially exploitable fish and of its importance to the fishing industry. However, though absolute proof in accurate, quantitative terms of the effect of control of seal numbers on fisheries may be hardly feasible, the inference of benefit can be regarded as strong enough to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the meantime, because of the cumulative expansion of the seal population the taking of effective measures to reduce the population becomes progressively more difficult. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to face up to this problem, too, and to tell us what action they are contemplating or proposing.

I believe that other noble Lords will be joining in this debate and will be referring particularly to the need for an Altantic salmon convention. I will not therefore go into great detail on this subject but will merely point out the importance of such an international agreement on the exploitation of salmon stocks to Scotland's developing salmon farming industry.

The main objective of any salmon convention must be to regulate fishing for salmon by the intercepting nations. I recognise, however, that where salmon feed elsewhere for example, in Greenland—the country concerned should be entitled to catch a regulated quota. As one of the main producers of salmon in the EEC, Scotland has a different interest from most of the other member nations. Scottish stocks have been assiduously protected over the past century against the ravaging effects of pollution, disease and indiscriminate net fishing in the sea. They now constitute the basis of a developing salmon farming industry whose production is likely to increase by four or five times over the next decade. Furthermore, if the present negotiations produce a favourable result, salmon ranching could make a substantial contribution to this process, salmon ranching being the release of farmed salmon into the ocean to feed upon the ocean at large, returning to their point of release.

The position is, therefore, that Scottish salmon fisheries are a growth industry and the emphasis should be on incentives to encourage enterprise and expansion. The Scottish salmon fishing industry feel strongly that it is time that the Government defined the objectives of their policy in this field and indicated what progress has been made in the international negotiations. It is important that this should be done in order that the support of enlightened opinion in the industry can be enlisted and also in order that confidence can be rekindled in the future of the industry at a time when it is facing unprecedented difficulties.

Finally, I wish to stress the long due need to update the administrative structure of the Scottish salmon fishing industry. Updating was overdue in 1962 when the matter was referred to the Hunter Committee. After all, the administrative structure was just about a century old then. It only took the Hunter Committee three years to produce a voluminous report. It then took double that time before a Government, a Conservative Government, produced a White Paper declaring their intention to legislate. Since then 10 years have passed and no legislation designed to update the structure of the Scottish salmon fishing industry has been placed before either House of Parliament. What a sorry tale!

I hope that it is not significant that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is not in his place to answer my question. I hope it does not mean that he has lost the enthusiasm to legislate on Scottish salmon which he certainly expressed to me when he entered office in this Government. I hope that the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is not merely ordered so that with his usual charm he may, with soft answers, turn away the wrath of the salmon fishing industry in Scotland at 15 years of almost total neglect.

Let me offer to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, one excuse which he and his colleagues, and predecessors, could well use to account for the 15-year delay: that the Hunter Report was a load of rubbish. It was a naked emperor. It was unworkable and founded on unsound principles. The word "Hunter" has become a shibboleth, at the sound of which every knee must bow. But although it would be an honest excuse, I will bet that the noble Lord will not use it. He will be briefed to utter the word "Hunter" with reverence and shibbolethic labial dexterity.

The fact is that we must forget about the vast sweeping changes suggested by the Hunter Committee, many of which, like the single trap fishery, are scientifically, technologically and practicably unworkable, and we must deal with the urgent needs of the industry which, if not met, will bring the industry to its knees.

The present administrative structure for salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland is outdated and ineffective. The principal legislation dates back to the 1860s. There is no organisation on many rivers. Protection is inadequate and there is an acute shortage of finance. There is urgent and increasing need for new legislation to provide for a new administrative structure for the rivers covering both salmon and freshwater fish, with all the interests represented, and a new system of finance.

The Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, of which I have the honour to be president, has made a number of detailed proposals to the Secretary of State about the form the legislation should take, with particular reference to the number and size of area boards; the composition of the area boards, on the elective principle; the form and scope of rod and net licences; improved arrangements for the protection of freshwater fishings and for public access; the introduction of trap fishing as a legal method; definition of legal methods of net fishing; the permanent banning of drift netting; and the variation of annual and weekly close times.

I do not minimise the difficulties of getting new legislation on these lines agreed among all the parties and put through Parliament. Meetings with trout angling representatives have revealed the misgivings felt by these interests. However, discussions with the salmon netting and angling associations have shown a common resolve to get something done. In the light of those discussions we, in the association, are convinced that although there would be great advantages in establishing a completely new comprehensive structure for the administration of rivers, including both the salmon and trout interests, it would be better to proceed on a more limited salmon-only basis rather than risk failure by setting sights too high. Accordingly we have suggested to the Secretary of State that Parliament might be asked to pass enabling legislation which would provide for the amalgamation of existing district boards at their request; the creation of new enlarged boards on groups of rivers where no boards exist at present, also on the initiative of local interests; the framing of a new model constitution for these boards, which would provide for the election of members, including members to represent angling interests, if desired; the flexible introduction of new methods of raising finance, either by rod or net licensing or membership systems or other means; and the vesting of the boards with new powers.

District boards have general statutory powers to protect and improve salmon fisheries within their districts. They also have power to appoint water bailiffs for fishery protection. In order to finance their operations district boards are empowered to levy an assessment—based on rateable values—on the proprietors of the salmon fisheries within their districts. They do not draw on public funds for any source of revenue.

Many of the larger district boards manage to function efficiently and are able to undertake such activities as the maintenance of salmon hatcheries and the improvement of their rivers. Nevertheless, the district board system suffers from the fact that district boards exist in less than half the districts which were originally envisaged. The result has been that extensive areas, particularly on the west coast between Cape Wrath and the Clyde, have no local administrative structure at all. Many of the existing boards also are crippled by lack of adequate finance, and experience has shown that, to enable them to function effectively as administrators of salmon fisheries, district boards require additional powers.

We think that the Secretary of State should, on application, have power to change the weekly close time for salmon net fishing by statutory instrument, with discretion to fix the close time either on a national basis or with variations for specific areas. At present any change requires primary legislation. The Secretary of State should have power to change the weekly close time for salmon and sea-trout angling by statutory instrument, either on a national basis or with variations for specific areas. Here again, at present any change requires primary legislation. Fishery boards should have power to change the dates but not the duration of the annual close time for net fishing, but subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. There should be no change in the arrangements for fixing the annual close time for salmon angling (including sea-trout) except that fishery hoards should be able to fix different dates for different rivers in their areas. The River Tweed should be brought into line with these arrangements.

Trap fishing should be made a legal method of taking fish provided that it is on the basis of a scheme prepared by a fishery board, subject to the hearing of objections, and approved by the Secretary of State. Fishery boards should have power to remove, by compulsion if necessary, obstructions to the passage of fish but subject to a right of appeal and compensation. Fishery boards should have power to control the introduction of fish or eggs into their waters, subject to certain dispensations for fish farms.

Fishery boards should have a right to be consulted regarding proposals for water abstraction. At present only individual proprietors are consulted. it should be made an offence to remove or disturb gravel without first consulting the fishery board. Fishery boards should have a locus, independent of individual proprietors, to take action in the courts against such operations.

In place of Schedule G of the 1868 Act there should be a general provision requiring persons creating an obstruction to consult fishery boards about the design of fish-passes. Responsibility for making a fish-pass operate effectively should rest with the obstructor and the fishery board should be able to enforce this requirement through the courts.

Fishery boards should be given a role in the operation of simplified arrangements to grant orders under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 for the protection of trout and other freshwater fishings. We believe that clear definitions are needed for the operation of net and coble fisheries and for the construction of the main types of fixed engines. The purpose should be to avoid malpractice in the use of net and coble and to prohibit the use of monofilament netting for the leaders of fixed engines. The present prohibition on the use of a hang-net set from a boat should be extended to apply to hang-nets not set from a boat, and the present ban on drift-net fishing which was imposed by statutory instrument expiring in 1982 should be made permanent.

The position of the whole salmon industry in Scotland has deteriorated seriously in 1981. I can say this because in fact I am lucky to administer a river where the position has seldom been better. We have had one of our three best recorded years for the rod fishery; we have had a good year for the net and a good run of fish throughout the season. But I think we have had this good fortune largely because we tend to be clear of the main effect of the sea netting, the seals and the other disadvantages which are seriously affecting the east coast rivers of Scotland. The position on the east coast particularly is extremely serious, not only for the rod fisheries but particularly for the coastal nets. This deterioration is partly the result of the combined impact of increased interception of stocks in Greenland, the Faeroes and the north-east of England, and partly also results from competition in the market from farm-produced salmon, much of the latter imported from Norway. This has affected the returns of the coastal nets, but there was a period when the price of salmon dropped extremely low in the wholesale market. Unfortunately, the price to the consumer stayed fairly steady, but there was a moment when the producer was getting a very low price indeed for his fish in the market.

As a result of these factors in combination Scottish catches have dropped alarmingly while the market prices have also fallen, yet at the same time operating and management cost have risen sharply. It is really a situation of crisis for the industry as a whole, and I feel it is time that the Government gave us a lead in this matter; and it is with that in mind that I have asked this Question.

4.38 p.m.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

My Lords, those of your Lordships who are interested in the Atlantic salmon and Scottish fisheries—and indeed that interest of course spreads further afield—will be greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for marshalling the facts which illustrate so clearly the steep decline in the numbers of salmon that have entered Scottish rivers in recent years, to which I would add that the average weight of salmon caught has also steeply declined.

The anglers and the net fishers who operate in Scottish rivers can all testify to these facts and many will agree with the conclusions reached by the noble Viscount, not only in dealing with the actual cause of the decline but also as regards the proposals that he has made about the improvement of the administration of the Scottish rivers through the district and river boards.

There is still a great deal to learn about the habits of salmon as they move from the rivers in which they were born to the feeding grounds and back again, but this much is certain: the damage to the stocks of salmon is not due to any change or convulsion in nature. It is man-made. Man has been totally responsible for the decline in numbers. And if that is so, man's mistakes can, at any rate partly, be remedied.

I want to deal very shortly with the priorities of the situation and the ways in which I believe that at any rate part of the situation can be saved. Once the salmon feeding grounds off Greenland and on the fringe of the ice-cap were discovered and over-exploited by netting, the spring and summer run into the Scottish rivers was drastically curtailed. When the scale of the casualties was understood, the Danes and the Greenlanders were co-operative, and what would have been a total disaster was partially averted. I should like to ask my noble friend who is going to wind up this debate about the Greenland agreement. I wonder whether he can tell the House whether the ceiling on catches to which the Greenlanders agreed still operates, and whether the agreement, which I think is due to come to an end about now, is to be continued. Further, if the damage done is not to be permanent, it is also necessary to obtain an agreement with the Faeroes. So if we can achieve agreement with the Faeroes and also continue the Greenland agreement, then at any rate the damage will be mitigated.

Of course, a complete international convention for controlling the catching of Atlantic salmon would be best, but I know from my personal experience that law of the sea brings the worst out of everybody; there is never any agreement in that body, or very seldom. So we should proceed with bilateral agreements, and I put the bilateral agreements with Greenland and the Faeroes at the top of the list necessary to protect the salmon coming into the Scottish rivers. But that has to be supplemented by action to prevent the netting of salmon in the high seas. The noble Viscount is entirely right to call attention to the nylon nets, the monofilament nets. They have converted what used to be a reasonable commercial catch into a massacre. And the effect of these long nylon nets, virtually invisible, has transformed the situation for the worse.

As the noble Viscount has said, in Scotland drift netting is prohibited in the sea. It ought to be prohibited all over, but that would take an international agreement and I think that would be very slow in coming. But the English ought certainly to co-operate and act in the way Scotland does. When we have limited, as I hope we shall, the netting by these means in the high seas, I would like to see the waters within the three-mile limits managed by the district and river boards concerned in partnership with the angling and netting interests. Such a policy would have the great virtue of concentrating all commercial netting on the approaches to the estuaries of the rivers concerned, where the netters, the anglers and the ratepayers have a common interest in conservation because they need a breeding stock for the future, and it means profit to all of them. If England would cooperate, it would make a great deal of difference in the banning of netting in the high seas.

I am bound to say—I have said this often before and I have said it to those responsible in Northumberland—that I think they are very shortsighted not to do this, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will press them to agree in the future to abolish this netting in the high seas. I have no doubt at all that if they were to do so, rivers like the North Tyne and the Coquet in Northumberland would very rapidly return to their previous excellence, so that everybody concerned with the rivers, and the ratepayers, would all profit. So I very much hope that legislation is in the offing which will bring the position in England alongside that of Scotland.

The noble Viscount mentioned seals, which is always a hot subject. I can only give one illustration as to how conservation when it runs mad can upset the balance of nature. The National Trust, who own the Farne Island, with the best will in the world, no doubt, were influenced by the conservationists; so they did nothing about culling seals for years. Where there were 800 seals in the natural condition, there are now 8,000, with the result that the fishing within that area round the Farne Islands has been very adversely affected. Again, I hope, therefore, that public bodies concerned with conservation will not let it run mad, because seals must be culled if the fishermen are not to be very much damaged.

My Lords, I do not think there is any more that I have to say. I have to apologise to my noble friend: I have an engagement inside this House which I cannot miss, and it is just possible that I might have to miss part of his reply; I hope not. But if the Ministry can achieve the agreements with Greenland and the Faeroes, and if we can gradually eliminate the netting by these new means in the high seas, then I think we can look forward to a better future in the Scottish rivers.

4.47 p.m.

Lord Balfour of Inchrye

My Lords, after the very powerful speeches from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, there is little for me to say. What I wish to say will be brief and largely on one point which I have raised a good many times over recent years in your Lordships' House. There is no need for me to speak of the value of the salmon industry to Scotland, to England and to Northern Ireland. But what I feel is most important is what was touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, a national policy which is absolutely essential as a first step, and as a second step a policy wider than national in order to embrace other countries that use the high seas.

I think that the key words of salmon policy should be "conservation" and "management". To my regret, all conservation and management is unstandardised, even within the frontiers of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Salmon laws, salmon regulations by order at present in Scotland, at present in England, at present in Northern Ireland, remain different and completely uncoordinated. For example, the drift netting which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned must be phased out. But, if you look at the regulations and laws in Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom, in Scotland, you will find no standardisation, but different regulations in each particular territory. All Governments have taken and patched up salmon legislation and fishing legislation. None of them have tackled it firmly and as a single purpose. All Governments have promised to do something and all Governments have done virtually nothing.

I sometimes think that in a democracy the trouble is that salmon have no votes. Within 250 yards of where your Lordships are sitting today you can see in fresh water great big succulent trout swimming. Those trout have no votes at all; they have no voice in your Lordships' House and they have very little representation in your Lordships' House. However, it is they who have to be conserved both as regards management and preservation.

There is a large measure of agreement in the territories of the United Kingdom which I have mentioned as regard rods and nets. There is no real rivalry between rods and nets because conservation and management are a common requirement to both rod and net waters. I think that the Government can forget the Hunter Report and start again on a national salmon policy for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Once we have got that and put our own house in order—and until we have put our own house in order we shall be rather weak when we go to the EEC and ask for restrictions and regulations—then we can tackle the EEC depredations by various countries who do not produce any fish themselves but only consume those which have been produced in our rivers. When that comes about with a national policy first, for the United Kingdom, and then succeeded by a firm EEC policy which would have the goodwill of all countries who have seen us put our own house in order, then I believe that there is a greater hope for the preservation of salmon than there is at present.

4.53 p.m.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, there is increasing concern over the growing threat to the survival of the Atlantic salmon. That threat is, in the main, threefold, as has already been touched on. First, the wholesale netting of the sea off Greenland and the Faeroes. Secondly, the depredation by the large seal population. Thirdly, the wholesale and now commercial poaching in the estuaries and rivers. The poaching of the odd salmon by rod and line and the small net for "one for the pot" is of no concern. The pressures on the salmon are such that if the situation is allowed to deteriorate beyond a certain point the time could come when the total numbers of breeding fish in the rivers will not be high enough to sustain breeding and to produce the enormous numbers of young fish needed to cope with natural wastage, without mentioning the catch by man.

Already the salmon runs at certain times of year have been drastically affected. As salmon rivers deteriorate so will the angling fishing industry decline. Taking everything from tackle supplies to hotels, travel and so on into account, game fishing accounts for a turnover of something around £200 million per annum. It also, of course, attracts a lot of foreigners who bring in foreign currency. Game angling is of particular importance to the economy of rural Scotland. It is a favourite sport of the Scotsman and peculiarly enough of West Midlanders. It is lesser a sport for the Northern, Southern and South-Eastern region people.

Over a third of game anglers are professional, managerial or white collar workers, but manual occupations are increasingly represented and it is of particular value as a recreation for the middle aged who are no longer prepared to undertake more active sports. Nevertheless, one in three game anglers is under 25 and there is considerable recruitment now from the 12- to 15-year old age group. Indeed, 15 per cent. of all households have at least one angler of which 20 per cent. are game fishermen—that is, there are about 676,000 game fishermen of which 223,000 are estimated to fish once a week. Game fishing is an important and financially valuable recreation.

I turn first to drift netting which has already been covered. It is, of course, prohibited off Scotland, but fish tour the sea and the coasts. Yorkshire and Northumbrian drift netters, apart from spoiling the English rivers, take salmon of which it is estimated that 90 per cent. are fish going to Scottish waters. Evidence of drift net damage exists in Ireland. Since the 1960s when Irish inshore fishermen were encouraged to fish for salmon, drift net licences increased from 363 in 1962 to 1,048 in 1974 and the total catch went up from 2.8 million pounds to 4.4 million pounds. During that time estuary net catches fell from 416,000 pounds to 79,000 pounds and drift netters were estimated to take 80 per cent. of all salmon caught in 1977. The Irish Salmon Research Trust showed that from 1975 to 1978 the spawning stock had become inadequate to be self-replenishing. Only severe restrictions rectified the situation in 1979. Drift netting is also wasteful due to many salmon escaping the nets and dying subsequently from the damage inflicted. Even those that survive can be so damaged as to make them less valuable when they are subsequently caught. That damage could contribute perhaps to the incidence in recent years of salmon disease.

As regards seals, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when opening the debate gave the great figures of the increase and I shall not repeat them. There is still a lobby, feeding on uninformed public opinion, trying to stop culling and seal control and we heard about that this morning on the radio. However, if organised culling with carefully selected marksmen is prevented, sooner or later it will be undertaken by exasperated fishermen with no humane safeguards and with no limits. Firm action is now imperative despite the objectors who are no longer supported by informed conservation bodies.

As regards the poaching of estuaries, that has now become a highly organised affair with groups of men netting thousands of pounds worth of fish a night and substantially stripping rivers of fish for anglers and for breeding. As regards estuary and river poaching, salmon catches in the rivers have been greatly reduced and in some cases the rivers have been totally stripped of fish and will not be re-stocked owing to the efficiency of the poaching. That has led to lodges, once hosting a succession of recreational anglers and bringing employment and income to Highland settlements, actually falling into irrevocable decay through disuse through lack of fish. In certain parts of Scotland poaching has become a local industry particularly in the Western Isles and often poached salmon are processed in Government sponsored HIDB fish processing factories. Needless to say, some of the worst culprits are men already drawing the dole. The stakes are so high that violence is not ruled out to maintain the illegal trade. Let there be no doubt that this is big business.

Anarchy exists in salmon rivers at the moment with illegal netsmen at every estuary, and the same applies to some English rivers. The great succession of rodsmen pay dearly for their fishing and are deprived by the few but effective commercial poachers who strip the rivers. The same story goes for Norway where erstwhile famous rivers no longer yield fish except on rare occasions and rural economy has started to suffer. Yet poachers put nothing back and when the river is empty they move on to the next one.

If salmon fishing is to be preserved as an outdoor sport, then the Government must act to ensure the survival and return of the salmon to the rivers of their origin in adequate numbers. It is the anglers who pay the river ghillie and who stock the river. Drive off the angler and off goes the ghillie and the salmon cannot survive the influx of free for all fishing. Salmon legislation is extensive and comprehensive, but varies as regards Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—this point has already been made—each area having a different policy for the conservation of salmon.

As has already been said, too many anomalies exist in present United Kingdom salmon legislation, and a national salmon policy is now needed and needs to be backed by new law. The national policy should include the condition that drift net licences for salmon should be gradually phased out and drift netting for salmon stopped. Likewise, monofilament nets should be prohibited. Monofilament nets damage fish and have already been prohibited in the South-West and North-West United Kingdom water authorities. The Government have accepted the view that salmon escaping the monofilament nets are now more likely to be injured and to die subsequently of dermal disease than if braided nets are used.

There is a need to establish district boards, with finance other than by rates, in order to finance conservation. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, went into this matter in detail. Also, rod licences should be enforced and the submission of an annual return should be mandatory. A much higher fee for a dealer's licence would also help to finance the administration and deter the small-time poacher from taking out a dealer's licence.

The alternative to the licensed dealer scheme is the salmon tagging scheme, such as that instituted by the province of New Brunswick in 1980. Their fishery officials have been satisfied with the results and the scheme has, first, given a measure of the commercial catch of salmon along the shores of the province and, secondly, reduced the wholesale poaching of salmon in inland waters.

Northern Ireland has a comprehensive and legally enforceable scheme for the control of salmon sales, as has the Republic of Ireland. The Irish scheme makes it unlawful to possess an illegally caught salmon, the onus of proof lying with the defendant. Anyone, other than a fisherman or fish farmer, needs a licence to possess or sell salmon. Salmon dealers have to keep registers recording all purchases and sales of salmon. Even hotels have to account for salmon in their possession if they are required to do so.

The registrations on the sale of salmon have not stopped illegal netting, but the Acts have been a great deterrent and have made handlers of illegally obtained fish run greater risks, and have made it more difficult for wholesale poachers to dispose of their fish. The Irish scheme is not so expensive, as time spent checking dealers is equated with time spent on river patrols. But I believe that river owners would be happy to contribute further in a levy to cure the poaching problem. There is no reason why the Northern Irish scheme should not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and this should be done before it is too late.

Finally, there is the high seas fishing by foreign nations using satellites to spot the salmon. The lack of a unified British salmon policy detracts from efforts by the United Kingdom Government to influence the EEC in seeking the protection of salmon on the high seas, and the control of salmon fishing in the Faeroes and Greenland areas.

5.3 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that we have had a fascinating debate and the House should be duly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for initiating it. He certainly told us about his interests, and that spread of interests certainly gives him a very considerable knowledge of the subject. It was one of my trials and tribulations at the Scottish Office to have to deal with the subject of the Hunter Report. The noble Viscount made it sound so easy. He never mentioned trout at all. But perhaps he will recollect that one of the great central themes of the Hunter Report was that the trout was to be given the same protections as salmon. According to the number of suggestions that arrived from all the varying interests—some welcoming the report and some suggesting the nationalisation of rivers—it was not so simple as he suggested. It was quite wrong of the noble Viscount to say that nothing at all was done.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, suggested that salmon had no votes. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, told us how many anglers there were in the country. In proportion, I think that there is a far greater number in Scotland than in England and Wales, and I can assure noble Lords that nearly every one of them wrote to me on the subject of the Hunter Report; and they have votes, if not the salmon or the trout. So it is not quite so simple.

Of course, when we look at the point that has been raised by all the speakers, that we have no common law in relation to the protection of freshwater fish in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, we can appreciate the difficulties. I was the Secretary of State who banned the use of the drift nets off the east coast of Scotland. I was not popular in that part of the country at that time. As I recollect, it was just before a general election, but I felt that it had to be done. It involved a change in their fishing habits; they had never done such a thing before. I think that they were shut out of other areas and then they realised that off their coast was to be found a fortune. But, of course, it would affect the estuarial fishing; it was quite legal on Tayside and elsewhere, and it would seriously affect the whole rod and line industry and the sport of thousands of people. However, their complaint to me was, "Why stop this in Scotland?" In Cumbria and Northumbria they can do it and it is legal. There, what was a small industry has now become a large industry. It will probably be much more difficult for a Government to interfere with it now than if they had sought to do so 10 or 20 years ago.

There is no doubt that salmon breed in Scottish rivers and English rivers but feed elsewhere, thousands of miles away. So the salmon run, subject to all the dangers of the taking of them by various means at various stages of their life. The matter can only be dealt with on the basis of international action. I think the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, in relation to Greenland and the Faeroes, that it had been suggested that present arrangements were to end soon. I understood—and if I am wrong perhaps the Minister will correct me—that negotiations affecting Greenland were successfully completed between the EEC and Canada; I think that the allowable catch has been increased from about 1,170 metric tonnes to about 1,200 metric tonnes. However, with the changes in fishing, they are allowed to catch bigger fish, so they will not be catching any more fish, but the weight of fish will be greater.

A few years ago the Faeroes catch was about 70 metric tonnes and it is now five times that figure, and growing. I do not think that the illegal drift net is quite so prevalent as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, thinks because in Scotland we took action a long time ago to make it easier to catch poachers and those acting illegally. It is one of the few areas in Scotland where you do not require corroboration for a person to be found guilty in the Scottish courts; indeed, I think that it is about the only area. If a river baillee finds someone on his own it can be a very expensive business for the poacher, because all his engines are taken, even a vehicle if he has one and is caught. Therefore, while I do not think that this is so serious, it goes on.

But the greatest need is for an international convention, an Atlantic convention, for salmon. Until we get that, the bilateral negotiations must go on. Could the Minister confirm that there have been successful EEC negotiations in respect of Greenland and of the Faeroes? From the Faeroes' point of view there is still further arrangement to be made so that there can be proper inspection and scientific research done in relation to all that is happening there.

I am glad that the question of seals was raised. If you are in the hot seat when the conservationists in respect of seals get at you—and they include powerful people in this House as well as elsewhere—then I can assure you that it is very difficult to get the balance across to the public that the conservation of fish—not just salmon—which is important for the livelihood of the particular people concerned, is also at stake. I am grateful for what has been said today so that people might get in balance the need to do something sensible about this matter.

I noticed in the last report by the Secretary of State that he was suggesting that he was looking at the latest scientific evidence before he introduced a new management plan in relation to the cull. Are we any nearer to a decision by the Secretary of State in that respect? I hope we can be given some information in respect of that matter. It is important. It is a valuable fish. I just checked the cost of it to the consumer; it is £3.50 per pound. There are not many of the 3 million unemployed spending much money on that. But at that price it is valuable to those who are getting it. You cannot get a great sense of national feeling about this matter until the price comes down for the ordinary public to enjoy it.

But who are the people who have the interests? They are not without influence, may I say to Lord Balfour. The riparian owners—many of them sit in this House—have an interest here. They have not been unsuccessful in getting legislation against poachers, and in respect of other matters of protection. There is this lack of agreement by the various interests, the riparian owners, those who let out fishing, and of course the whole thing will disappear if there are no fish there. Therefore, they all have a common interest in conservation, and in ensuring that international action is taken to ensure that the fish come back to the rivers in which they were bred.

There is one other little matter I should like to take up with the Government, and maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could give me some information about this. Our universities are doing quite a bit of work in respect of aquiculture. I do not know whether the House realises, but in 1980 there were 610 tonnes of salmon produced in our fish farms in Scotland. That figure is growing. It is something to be concerned about.

A lot of work has been done in one university in Scotland, Stirling, in respect of research, nutrition, and the whole hatchery business, the engineering side of it. I should like to know whether or not the Government are aware of the practical importance of this, not just to our own country but to the overseas development administration which has been supporting the work that has been going on there in research, and it has an information service that serves the whole world. I should not like to think that recent events in the university world are going to affect the research work that is going on at Stirling or elsewhere, in other universities.

When there is such demand for fish, and fish stocks are being overfished and people are being foolish about it, then we have not only to look after our own interests so far as the salmon are concerned, getting a national policy, getting an international policy, but to go into the question of research to see how we can increase the stocks on which we can draw for food. It is not going to be easy to get that legislation that was spoken of, but quite a number of ideas were given. Arising out of some aspects of the Hunter Report, I think it was in 1976, we had a Scottish Act. I do not think that it has been all that successful, judging by what I hear in respect of where you can take a river by river approach to it. It may well be that the Government need to look at this. If they look at the wider aspects and bring their influence to bear on the Minister of Agriculture south of the Border to see what can be done about the drift netting off the east coast of England, then that itself would be helpful.

The financing is always the stumbling block. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has recently read the Hunter Report. One of the things that went through my mind as I read it was that all the financial burdens fell on the Government. Now it is a profitable industry, and could be even more profitable. The question of finance really must be faced up to by the industry itself, as to how properly it should raise the money for all the new suggestions that the noble Viscount and others have put forward, and that the burden should not be on the taxpayer. If they can be convinced of that we are much more likely to get legislation by the Government. I would rather see legislation on this subject from the Government than go along the paths that we traversed last time in respect of legislation that certainly Scotland did not want. It may well be that all those thousands of angling voters would welcome legislation, whereas many millions will not welcome the kind of legislation that we hear might well be coming.

5.17 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, it falls to me to express on behalf of the whole House the gratitude that I am sure that all of us will feel to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for asking the Unstarred Question that stands in his name and has covered such a fascinating variety of subjects. Indeed, it has unearthed tremendous amounts of expertise from all round your Lordships' House. As always, I find that on past occasions when we have discussed salmon and salmon fisheries it seems that always the mover of the debate, and indeed any Government spokesman at least in this Government's lifetime, has to declare an interest. The noble Viscount declared his interest. I shall be far briefer and declare my interest in that I am a riparian owner in one of the rivers on the east of Scotland. I am far more a keen than an expert fisherman, to which my noble friend Lord Cullen will bear witness, as the hooks fly around not often in the direction of the fish but quite often in the direction of the humans. Even so, the pleasure I have always felt I am sure will also be felt by your Lordships' House and by everybody who has spoken this evening.

Questions and debates on salmon and salmon fishing are not unusual in this House. Of course, it would be right to commend the noble Viscount on the timing of his Question. I understand—I hope that I am correct—that the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards recently asked for a meeting on this subject with my noble friend the Minister. I do not know precisely whether the noble Viscount is using this evening's occasion as a preliminary canter over the course. I hope that I may be able to alleviate some of his fears and indeed some of the fears that have been expressed by my noble friends, by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and indeed all round the House.

The last time that there was a major substantive debate which included issues that we have been discussing this evening, particularly fisheries and salmon, was on the Motion by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, on 23rd January 1980. Of course, that particular debate was on a much broader canvas than the Question that has been asked this evening by the noble Viscount. The issue before us this evening is the narrower but certainly important question of the legal and administrative structure for fishing of salmon in our rivers in Scotland. Certainly I, and I am sure the rest of your Lordships, took the opportunity of reading that particular debate. It gave me great amusement to read what the noble Viscount said at that particular time. I must not tease the noble Viscount too much. It certainly fascinated me that at one stage in the debate he said: No longer can one leister a fish— I think I have the word right— on the redds to pickle for winter use"—(Col. 501.) That, I think, was the noble Viscount referring to some interesting piscatorial activity in or around the Thurso. However, he had some other more general points to make, and it all showed that the noble Viscount is no mean expert in this sphere.

As the House has heard from this evening's debate, the problems of Scottish fish and Scottish salmon are not new. The noble Viscount recognises this in the terms of his Question by referring to the failure of successive Governments to bring forward the proper legislation. Be that as it may, this Administration has not been unmindful of the need to face up to the question of legislation. Progress has not been as rapid as we should have liked, but we could not accept the suggestion that we are open to the criticism of "failure" as contained in the Question.

I shall not recapitulate the recent history of events in fishing legislation; the experts who have been speaking in the House this evening will be well aware of all such recent events. We are largely concerned with a central conclusion of Lord Hunter's committee, which recommended in 1965 that the existing system of administration of salmon fisheries by district salmon fishery boards set up under the 1862 and 1868 Acts should be replaced by larger and more widely-based area boards. Lord Hunter further recommended that these larger boards should have responsibility for freshwater fisheries, and I shall return to this later; it was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. The noble Viscount, in his speech during the debate on 23rd January 1980, went so far as to commend "the caution which legislators showed" in not following the Hunter Committee. I do not want to quote the noble Viscount out of context, but, taken with his earlier remarks in that debate—about making sure you knew where you were going (he quoted "a better 'ole to go to")—we took it that he was advocating making haste slowly and above all getting the legislation right.

The next attempted step forward after Hunter was taken by the previous Conservative Government who, in November 1971, published a White Paper proposing legislation. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his attempt to grasp the nettle. Briefly, the White Paper proposed the setting up of 14 area boards appointed by the Secretary of State with responsibility for both salmon fisheries and freshwater fisheries. The boards were to be financed by fishery rates, both on salmon fisheries—at present levied by district boards—and on freshwater fisheries, as well as by rod licences and salmon net licence fees and, initially, by Government grants. The expectation then was that income from rod licences would build up over two or three years to make the boards self-sufficient. For reasons, I suppose, of parliamentary time, those proposals did not attract a Bill before the next change of Government.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will forgive me if I make a brief but relevant aside about the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. It is probably fair to say that this Act has few supporters who are wholly committed to its every provision. Nevertheless, it does provide the opportunity to obtain protection for freshwater fisheries as, so to speak, a reward for increased access for anglers. I do not wish to be drawn into the merits of that Act, although the House may wish to be reminded that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently asked the chairman of the reconstituted Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries to suggest how procedures under the Act could be made to work more speedily and smoothly. It is, however, the opportunity which now exists to obtain statutory protection for freshwater fisheries that is important in the context of a debate about future legislation, and I shall point out why shortly.

That is the background against which my noble friend put in hand the current review of legislation and administration of salmon and freshwater fisheries. In a sense, he sought to take up these issues where our predecessors in the last Conservative Administration had left them. In December 1979—that was just before the 1980 debate on the noble Duke's Motion—the Government issued a consultation paper which drew very largely on the proposals first made in 1971. There were, of course, some differences; a smaller number of boards was proposed, for example, 10 rather than 14, and there was no reference to the question of Government assistance.

I mentioned earlier that I commended the noble Viscount's timing in asking his Question this evening. My noble friend is hoping shortly to conclude the review he put in hand. He has not, however, yet concluded it and it would seem fair to make some broad comments on how it has gone so far. In some ways it has been disappointing, at least so far as the question of boards with responsibilities for both salmon and freshwater fish are concerned. I hasten to say that the association of which the noble Viscount is president has been most constructive in its approach. While it may be true that that association has most to gain, it is to be commended for the effort it has put into this review. It has prepared its own papers for discussion with Government officials and has held informal discussions with freshwater interests. The association has also sought, much more recently, to gather together the views of the various Scottish salmon interests. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is widespread and robust resistance from the freshwater interests at club, area and national association level to the question of area boards with responsibilities for both salmon and freshwater fish.

That opposition of the freshwater interests is based on several points of principle. First, it is argued that area boards seem to them unlikely to bring obvious benefits to those anglers who do not fish for salmon. It is felt that the restocking of rivers in the circumstances is more obviously a matter for angling clubs, and they point to the success that many such clubs have had in this respect, particularly in recent years. The second main concern of the freshwater fishery interests is the cost of the boards, which will fall in part on the freshwater fishers through rod licences at a time when other costs are going up. Moreover, it is feared that the imposition of what is perceived could be unnecessarily bureaucratic régimes would soak up money which many of the freshwater fishers would prefer to see invested directly in their sport.

A third consideration, which cannot be ignored, although it is often not explicitly stated, is that they fear that salmon interests will prove more powerful in a clash of view on particular issues between freshwater and salmon. Lastly, the very existence of the 1976 Act means that area boards could have no obvious role in the making of protection orders for freshwater fish. This has been a major consideration and may well have explained the measure of support which the 1971 White Paper appeared to obtain at the time from the freshwater interests. I should like to stress that these arguments are not just from what some may see as politically motivated angling groups, but from a wide range of freshwater angling interests, often speaking from the knowledge and experience of owning and running their own fishings. All these views tend to discount the opportunity that area boards would bring for co-operation between fishing interests, the coordination of management systems, the broadening of the income base of boards, and even the scope that some system of rod licensing might provide on its own account for the better regulation of angling and freshwater fisheries. The Government for their part, while not yet having reached a final conclusion, are bound to ask whether the imposition of what may he seen as an ideal but, for the reasons that I have given, unwelcome structure, would be appropriate or wise.

There is another possibility, and this one has arisen in discussion with the salmon interests. It would be to create a formal permissive right for freshwater interests in district salmon board areas to obtain a seat on the boards in circumstances where the local interests all felt that this would be appropriate. Some areas in Scotland already have what I understand are known as improvement associations, where both salmon and trout interests try to work together. Clearly in these circumstances there would have to be some financial arrangement affecting both freshwater and salmon interests—but mainly the freshwater interests. However, this idea merits very serious consideration.

I am very aware that one consideration which inevitably lies behind the salmon interests' concern to see some improvement in the present arrangements is that of finance. Much comment has been made about the financial difficulties that some district boards are facing, with the associated risk of a decline in the standards of stocking and management of various rivers.

Salmon have a very important role to play in many parts of rural Scotland, and this is well understood by the Government. On that account, we would not rule out the need for some way of widening the base of the income for the boards. But that would need to be considered against the background of our commitment to containing public expenditure and reducing the burdens on local authorities.

The vexed question of the number of district boards is very important, as is their incomplete cover over Scottish rivers as a whole. The noble Viscount earlier mentioned the great gap between, I think, Cape Wrath and the Clyde. We heard earlier today about these administrative gaps, and we would very much agree with the noble Viscount on that particular point. I am not entirely sure that a poll of your Lordships' House would be likely to come up with any single, agreed figure for a new pattern or number of boards—whether such boards were to be for salmon alone, or were to cover both freshwater fish and salmon. Perhaps, therefore, your Lordships might consider it unfair to look purely to the Secretary of State to impose a pattern of amalgamations. On the other hand, amalgamations of existing boards in appropriate circumstances could well lead to considerable administrative savings. One possibility might be to encourage voluntary amalgamations, subject to the Secretary of State looking for a rational pattern developing through local discussion. But current legislation rules out complete amalgamations of existing boards, even when each party is willing. Here then is an area where legislation might well he helpful, and it is certainly one of the matters that the Government are actively considering.

There is also the need to consider the question of possible new powers for the district boards. I well understand the wish expressed by some of the boards to see an opportunity to change close times for salmon fishing, amend estuarial limits where these are no longer relevant, remove obstructions by compulsion, and to have other such powers. What must be remembered is that the creation of larger area boards as the Government had envisaged them would have meant the appointment of members representative of a broad range of interests. District boards, even if larger than the present boards, which were representative only of salmon interests, might not be seen by Parliament, or indeed the public, as appropriate recipients of powers which were too widely drawn. That does not mean that the Government see no scope for change, but there is a need for detailed discussion of this aspect in the light of wider decisions which we should have to take on both structure and finance.

The noble Viscount's Question is very relevant. I am sure that he and others will be impatient to see change. The Government, for their part, have an open mind on this, but we would stress that we wish to see any changes receive the broadest possible support. In this context the Government have noted that the real pressure for change is from a number of the main salmon interests, and of course we are bound to take account of this.

I shall try to answer most of the questions that have been raised by all the very expert and distinguished speakers who have taken part in the debate. If I miss any of the points, I am sure that the expertise of your Lordships will reach through to me and I shall have to make amends by answering at a later stage, or possibly in written form.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough, raised the vexed problem of drift netting. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, also raised the problem of drift net fishing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already indicated that he is to consider making permanent the ban on drift netting in Scottish waters. That that has not yet been done in no way detracts from the existing order, which keeps the present ban in force.

The question of the Northumberland drift netting is a source of constant irritation to those concerned with Scottish salmon, including those who wish to fish them, but, in the light of the document of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Scottish interests, it is now open to press for changes. The document already suggests that the Government are prepared to look at change in this particular aspect.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I think other noble Lords, also raised the question of seals. I am sure that the Scottish salmon interests and those who fish for salmon have for a very long time been the main proponents of action by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to manage—and in using that term I shall be quite blunt and say to reduce—the seal population. The House will have been fascinated to hear the figures quoted earlier by the noble Viscount. We think of the world's human population rising sharly, but the seal population around the United Kingdom, and in particular around Scotland, is moving at such a pace that I am sure the House would agree that my right honourable friend should take necessary and, above all, swift action, which I am sure he intends to do.

My right honourable friend has done his best to license people to take seals in order to protect their nets, but the wider question of proper seal management, as well as the whole problem, is under review. The licensed Orkney pup hunt is not necessarily a matter that I should want to go into this afternoon, apart from considering it as part of the wider issue of managing the entire seal population. On that wider issue, my right honourable friend has set up a consultative process and is looking for further research which he hopes will enable progress on an agreed long-term scientific basis towards reducing the population of the seals; but I am afraid that agreement as to the precise levels of seal population have not yet been reached. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised a question on research in relation to seals. Certainly research into the population, and indeed the conduct, of seals has been commissioned by the Natural Environment Research Council, but this research is not yet complete and certainly we would estimate that it will take more than a year.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I think mentioned that he would look for a detailed list of the powers of boards. I would not want to go beyond the generalised comments I have made so far in my speech, and I hope the noble Viscount will accept that I would not want to go further this evening. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel raised a point which was of interest to, I am sure, the whole House, but especially to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, concerning Greenland fisheries and, indeed, the Faeroe problem. On 29th September this year the European Commission agreed to arrangements for reciprocal fishing rights with the Government of Canada. These included limitations on the salmon fishing around Greenland by way of quotas, on mesh sizes and on the date of starting fishing, as well as on one or two other detailed considerations. The arrangements have not yet been agreed by the Canadians, but this year's salmon fishing around Greenland is being operated as if the agreement was in full force.

In the view of the Government the quota fixed represents a realistic compromise between the needs, certainly of the Greenlanders, who depend on this particular fishery for their livelihood, and of the states of origin, such as Canada and ourselves. I understand that the quota this year around Greenland is 1,270 tonnes—that word is spelt "tonnes", it is metric tonnes—so the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was very accurate in his preliminary strike at a figure in the question he was asking. On the question of the Faeroes, your Lordships will be pleased to learn that next week, through the European Commission, the Government will be participating in talks with the Government of the Faeroe Islands with a view to reaching a definite agreement on the limitation of that particular fishing of salmon—and I think the concept of interception fishing is particularly relevant so far as the Faeroes are concerned.

I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Home, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as well as to other Members of your Lordships' House, who will see that the Government are confident that an agreement on the limitation of the interception of fish, both around Greenland and around the Faeroes, can be reached.

My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised the question of the need to co-ordinate policy on fishing. We regard it as very useful and very helpful that he made this point at a time when legislation on salmon is being examined in depth both by my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, by other noble friends who are responsible for fisheries south of the Border. I also appreciated very much the comment of my noble friend about the fact that salmon have no votes, and, indeed, the trout that pass not 250 feet from where we stand now. We appreciate his expertise in fishing both south of the Border as well as north.

My noble friend Lord Gisborough raised the problem of dealer licences. Indeed, dealer licences have provided an old chestnut of a problem. Certainly this has been raised off and on for about 100 years. The main purpose of a dealer licence is to obtain a back-up to the existing bans on poaching. Certainly the difficulty has always been one of finding an effective method which is not far too complex administratively or, indeed, too expensive to operate; but I would stress to your Lordships that the possibility is again under active consideration both by Government and by those bodies with an interest in this particular field.

The question of rod licences on their own is a matter of controversy in Scotland, though it may be that licences for salmon anglers would be less controversial than the introduction of rod licences for trout. Salmon catch statistics in Scotland are already returned to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State; these are given in statutory returns already.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised one more point on research into fish farming. The Government are indeed well aware of the very great importance of fish farming, and, indeed, research is going ahead very strongly in universities and in Government laboratories, as well as under the auspices of private enterprise. One of the points made in my right honourable friend's recent consultation paper is the need to ensure that all the results of research are made generally available, but this is certainly something which needs regular contact with both the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the scientists. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, spoke about the team at Stirling University. I think it is Dr. Robert's team; I hope he is the right gentleman.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Yes, my Lords, but the point was: Have the Government cut back on the finance available to him? Half of its finance comes from elsewhere. It comes from the ODA, it comes from commerical interests and it comes from the likes of the FAO and UNESCO. But I have a fear that there may well be a cut-back in research because of what the Government are doing.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am afraid that at the moment I have not got the breakdown of the financing of research at Stirling or, indeed, over a wider field. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord with such statistics as I can find and as might be relevant. Perhaps I could cover that point by letter.

My Lords, I would apologise for such a lengthy wind-up speech but I am sure that your Lordships would agree that the Question which has been asked by the noble Viscount is fascinating. Certainly I wondered quite what kind of speeches would be made this evening, and in every case I have been fascinated and have learned something. I am sure your Lordships have been impressed by the expertise in all fields of both salmon and freshwater fisheries that we have witnessed this evening.

The Government fully recognise that the salmon industry is very important, not just to those who are directly concerned as lovers of the sport of angling salmon, or indeed who make their living from the commercial salmon netting industry, but also to all of us who are concerned with the conservation of what is, after all, our national heritage. Some of the existing legislation on salmon is over 100 years old, but some of it is ripe for chance. I would assure your Lordships that the points which have been made so succinctly this evening all round will be considered very carefully by the Government before final decisions are taken about the content of any new legislation.