HL Deb 02 April 1984 vol 450 cc474-6

2.55 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government why the objections of the Wessex Water Authority were overriden, to allow the importation of American signal crayfish, when those objections foresaw the destruction of the native crayfish in the Hampshire Avon.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, in a letter dated 5th October 1983, the Wessex Water Authority reported the concern of their fisheries and recreations advisory committee about the import of live non-native crayfish, and asked for information on the availability of legislative controls. A reply was sent on 18th October which stated that no controls for such imports were currently in force but indicated how an import prohibition might be introduced. No objections have been received from the Wessex Water Authority.

The disease known as crayfish plague takes some three to five years following its introduction before significant mortalities occur. Evidence now available suggests that the first major mortalities from the disease among native crayfish probably occurred in 1981, when the disappearance of stocks in stretches of the Rivers Lee and Bristol Avon was reported. Regrettably, in 1981 the significance of the disappearance of these stocks was not fully appreciated. In view of the considerable practical difficulties involved in combating a disease of wild creatures in their natural environment, efforts now to eradicate crayfish plague would amost certainly be unsuccessful. Moreover, the necessary imposition of restrictions on all imports of live crayfish, including those for the table, and of controls on their movements thoughout England and Wales would be highly disruptive to trade and extremely onerous to enforce.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he not aware that Dr. Newbold, of the Nature Conservancy Council's scientific team, wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food in December 1977 expressing concern about this disease? Is he not further aware that the first regulations on the control of this disease were actually made by the Hapsburgs in the early 16th century, even though they were not then aware of it? Can my noble friend not agree that it would be an excellent idea to introduce the same sort of health controls on movements as are involved in foot and mouth or any other notifiable animal disease, because of the catastrophic effects of this disease? There is a lake in Sweden, Hjálmaren, (its name is totally unpronounceable), where they used to sell five million crayfish a year. In 1910 they had a disease, and that business was totally wiped out. Is the noble Lord the Minister not aware that, with these factors, something has got to be done about the control of imports and exports? This is what both the industry and the water authorities would like.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am genuinely sorry not to be more helpful to my noble friend because I agree with him that this really is a tragedy. But the fact of the matter is that if there were to be import controls they would indeed have to be accompanied by movement controls—and that is made clear by my noble friend's supplementaries—and these would be enormously difficult to enforce. For instance, I understand that finfish moved from one river to another or swimming from one river to another could transmit the spores of the disease fungus to a new area. That is to give just one example, quite apart from the onerous nature of the manpower requirements to police the matter of imposing controls.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, in regard to that answer, does my noble friend therefore accept that the native English crayfish will be totally exterminated by this disease because nobody is prepared to do anything about it?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, no. It is true that there can be 100 per cent. mortality. On the other hand, this is not necessarily the case. But where I do agree with my noble friend is that this is very serious and very much to be regretted.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, would the Minister confirm that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, releasing any exotic fish, bird or beast from abroad is against the law? But I understand—I am not sure of this, but perhaps the Minister can confirm it—that the disease is spread not so much by the contagious contact with the crayfish as by the release of the water from the crayfish beds, or wherever they are kept, and would not that come under the pollution Act?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord is indeed right; Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to release signal crayfish among other crustaceans or fish and allow them to escape into the wild; and no licences for these releases have been issued. My understanding is very similar to that of the noble Lord about the effects of moving the disease through water. However, I am not advised that it would come within the scope of the pollution Act.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, will the Minister accept that, although the disease can be carried by adult crayfish imported from the wilds, there is no risk in the case of juvenile crayfish reared in Sweden under highly controlled conditions and imported with a veterinary certificate?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am interested to hear what my noble friend says on this particular matter.