Clam Farming: Exe Estuary (Hansard, 7 May 1985)

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

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, I understand that private shellfish cultivators have laid relatively small quantities of manila clams in trial plots in the Exe estuary. I am informed that these shellfish are held in captivity under mesh or in containers, on private layings.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm that the cages in which the clams are held will prevent the larvae escaping? Is he aware that if that happened it would be in contravention of Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Can he assure the House that there is no chance that these clams can establish themselves in the wild?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I cannot quite give the assurance for which the noble Baroness asks. Water can come into the containers, they can feed on plankton and the larvae can go out. I am advised, however, that it would require exceptionally high water temperatures for manila clams to breed successfully in our waters. For that reason, we do not believe that there is a breach of Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

§ The Earl of Radnor
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there was an accidental release of clams in the Solent from the "Queen Mary" coming back from America; that they have multiplied greatly and that they have been of tremendous commercial value to the area? Is he further aware that these unpronounceable clams now in the Exe estuary stand the chance of being killed by tin based anti-fouling paint from the keels of yachts?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, let us keep off yachts for today. All that I can say is that if the clams off the "Queen Mary" bred, they were very remarkable. It really needs a succession of highly unlikely events, one following another. I am advised that it would take exceptionally high water temperatures for manila clams to breed successfully. If they did breed, development would be exceptionally slow. They 527 would be subject more than usually to predators. For the clams then to become established as a colony, the process would have to be followed through all over again. This leads me to say on behalf of the Government that we believe that there is no contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

§ Lord Melchett
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that it is not unusual in the natural world for a succession of unlikely events to take place. Did the Government ask advice from their statutory advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, about the introduction of the clams? Secondly, is he able to assure the House that information about alien species of this sort, which may introduce serious damage to commercial and other fisheries and other interests in the countryside, is made readily available to those who are interested?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we have not asked the NCC for its advice. We have told it what our view is. The council has not informed us that it disagrees with our view.

§ Lord Melchett
My Lords, will the noble Lord be able to answer the second part of my question?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have to admit to the noble Lord that I did not really listen to the second question because I am only listening to one question at a time.

§ Lord Melchett
My Lords, in that case, may I ask the noble Lord a second question? I was trying to save time. Is it possible for the noble Lord to assure the House that information about the release of alien species of this sort, which may be damaging to sport fishing and other interests, is made readily available to those with interests in the subject?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, this exchange of information about manila clams has been very useful. If the noble Lord has other species of fish in mind and cares to put down a Question, I shall endeavour to answer it.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether this a new rule? If a question has two parts, is it the case that the Minister has been instructed not to answer the second part?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)
My Lords, it is not a new rule. However, the noble Lord, who is very assiduous in these matters, will have noticed that the Procedure Committee said that, on the whole, one question should be answered and Ministers should not be obliged to answer more. Indeed, Ministers were criticised by the Procedure Committee previously for answering too many questions. To that extent it is new. However, of course it is a matter for the discretion of Ministers. If the question is both new and goes outside the original Question, then I think that it is reasonable not to answer it.