HL Deb 30 October 1986 vol 481 cc875-80

31 Clause 25, page 22, line 36, after "roe", insert "or eggs". 32 Page 22, line 39, after first "for" insert "(i)". 33 Page 22, line 39, leave out "or for" and insert "; (ii)". 34 Page 22, line 41, leave out "salmon" and insert "fish; or (iii) the purpose of conserving any creature or other living thing.".

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 en bloc. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendment No. 51.

Amendment No. 31 recognises that there is a difference between roe and eggs and therefore a need to mention both in the Clause. Amendments Nos. 32, 33, and 34 ensure that the exempting power under Clause 25, which relates to acts that would otherwise be offences against provisions to protect salmon, is not restricted only to protecting salmon but could be used, where necessary, for conservation reasons to protect other species of fish or other animals. They sensibly extend the provision for a very appropriate purpose.

Amendment No. 51 is a technical amendment designed to maintain the present position with regard to exemptions relating to trout and other freshwater fish.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, these amendments deal with conservation matters. They might well involve the seeking of advice by the appropriate department or ministry. At this point it is only fair to say that we know what went on in another place because Hansard reported it. We know that, as a result of this Bill, a conservation committee has been promised which will consider problems and proffer advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland.

This gives me an opportunity at least to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that we know this committee will be set up. Those of us who wish this Bill well, as indeed I think we all do, wish it to be successful in the conservation of salmon stock and in the proper exploitation of these stocks for all purposes. We are slightly sorry that the conservation committee, which will be giving advice on these matters, will not be the subject of debate in either House of Parliament so far as one can see. We are not, at this important stage, to be able to give any advice to Ministers on how they might set up this committee (that we may welcome when we know about it) which will have an important role to play in advising what salmon conservation policy will be.

I know that there is disquiet in certain parts of the salmon industry in Scotland about the composition of the new committee. It would be helpful if someone from the Government Benches could inform us a little more about this committee which will have such very important powers and perhaps might even be able to offer a suggestion that in the early part of the next Session it might be possible to discuss this in your Lordships' House when pressure on parliamentary time is not too great. This may take the form of a response to an Unstarred Question, be the subject of a short debate or something of that kind. This matter is so important. For those of us who have a real, genuine and abiding interest in the good salmon industry of Scotland in particular to allow it to come into existence without any positions being stated or discussion being made in public is wrong. Indeed, it would be for the good of the salmon industry in England and Wales. Perhaps one might even add Northern Ireland too! That seems to have been left out totally in the cold. It seems curious that the fish that swim through the Irish Sea will pass by us without the benefit of advice from anybody.

I think it would be helpful at this stage if a little more could be said by the Minister about this committee and if he could give us some indication about whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss it before it comes into being rather than being left in the invidious position of perhaps finding ourselves criticising it in some way or other after it has been brought into existence.

Lord Moran

My Lords, may I follow what the noble Viscount has just said? As we are discussing conservation matters, I should like to say first of all that I warmly welcomed in this House the setting up of the advisory committee which the noble Viscount has just mentioned. Equally I warmly welcome the appointment of Professor George Dunnet as its chairman. I think this will be a great encouragement to everyone interested in salmon conservation, because the appointment of such a distinguished chairman shows that the committee is going to be a serious one and that the Government are going to take its work seriously. That I warmly welcome.

I should also like to mention to the House that last week there was held in Biarritz, under the sponsorship of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and l'Association Internationale de Defense du Saumon atlantique, the international symposium on Atlantic salmon. It was attended by 17 countries, which brought together experts on this species from all over the world. This symposium passed a resolution which, with the leave of the House, I will read out. It is very brief and it states: In view of the greater income and employment potential of salmon angling and its appreciably smaller harvest of limited salmon populations, each national government of salmon-producing countries is urged to declare a salmon policy which will institute, as a conservation measure within its area of jurisdiction, management programmes to reduce commercial harvesting of salmon with a view to increasing salmon stocks and improving recreational salmon fisheries". In the light of some of the remarks made on Third Reading in another place by Mr. John Gummer, when he stressed that salmon is of limited importance as a food resource but is of great importance as a recreational and economic resource, particularly in under-populated areas, I think that recommendation should be welcome to the Government. I hope very much that they will consider it and take it seriously.

I should mention also that the symposium made four other recommendations. These were, first, that NASCO investigates the value of a salmon-tagging scheme such as is in operation in Eastern Canada and Spain, and that it recommends the adoption of this by all member countries for both a more reliable collection of catch data and a more effective control of illegal fishing. It recommends, secondly, that all methods of enmeshing salmon, such as drift nets and fixed hang nets (excepting the operations off Greenland) should be phased out and that fishermen relying on these methods should be given other opportunities to participate in the salmon fisheries of related industries, including salmon farming and ranching.

The third recommendation is that we should support the recommendation of the rapporteur to the European Community Sub-Committee on Fisheries that Community funds should be made available to improve and co-ordinate national salmon fisheries inspectorates. Fourthly, following the action taken by Canada, the recommendation was that each nation, through its salmon conservation bodies and sport fishing organisations, should encourage the introduction of a reasonable daily and season rod-catch quota, prohibit the sale of the catch and consider the adoption of a "catch and release" philosophy.

The symposium was a success and was very useful. I hope very much that the Government will study its recommendations and will take them very seriously. I hope that, where possible, they will act on those recommendations which are directed to individual governments. That is especially so as, in his final speech to the symposium, the American delegate, Mr. Buck, listed what a great many governments are doing, including the United States, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, the Soviet Union and a great many others who have banned the selling of rod-caught fish, drift netting and other matters. He was critical of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, saying, Sad to say, in both these nations, which produce around one-half of the world supply, there has not been a major forward movement. Drift netting is condoned, and illegal operations continue unabated". I hope very much that when the next salmon symposium is held we shall not be the subject of criticism of that sort.

I should like to make only one other point, and that relates to Wales. I see that both the chairman and the deputy secretary of the new advisory committee are to come from Scotland. That seems very appropriate, because Scotland produces more salmon than any other part of the United Kingdom. The secretary is to come from MAFF in London, but nothing has been said about Wales. I hope very much that there will be arrangements to ensure that Wales is properly represented on the committee, particularly as Welsh requests for a salmon-tagging scheme in the Principality—which were supported very eloquently on Third Reading in another place—have been rejected by the Government. I hope that they will think about that.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the words of the noble Viscount, particularly in his reference to the forthcoming committee. I should like to say that on this side of the House we look forward with the greatest interest to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister is going to say about the future.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am glad that both the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, welcome the establishment of this committee and the fact that Professor Dunnet of Aberdeen University has agreed to lend his very distinguished services to the committee as chairman. Of course I am well aware, as your Lordships might expect, of the need to concentrate on conservation. There is always a balance to be struck in these things, but I believe that the advisory committee is an appropriate body to deal with the interests set out by the noble Viscount.

The Scottish interest in this committee is readily acknowledged by the Government. As my right honourable friend said in another place, the membership is bound to have a Scottish focus and the first chairman of the committee is a Scot—not only a Scot but one who is actually domiciled in Scotland. We hope and expect that this committee will be taken very seriously, and therefore we will give great attention to its structure, its balance and its spread.

If the committee is to have as its objective a national policy, it really must represent the whole of Great Britain. As for Northern Ireland, that falls outside the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. For this reason the secretariat will be London based. The secretariat will be headed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with the deputy secretary, as the noble Viscount indicated, coming from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. For the reassurance of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, there will be a Welsh Office input as well.

It will be up to the committee to decide how often and where it should meet, and we shall shortly be consulting interested bodies about nominations to the committee. The committee will be charged with considering and reporting on salmon conservation issues referred to it by the three fisheries Ministers in Great Britain. In the early stages, we shall be asking the committee to look particularly at aspects of the availability of information on salmon stocks.

Lord Ferrier

Hear, hear!

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am glad to hear that that is approved by my noble friend. It will also be asked to advise on the influences on the level of those stocks, including the effects of predators and fishing at low water levels. I realise that concern was expressed about those particular points in your Lordships' House at an early stage of the Bill. Once we have obtained some experience of the working of the measures in the Bill, the committee will be asked to look at the effect of those measures on poaching. So far as concerns debating this matter further, the noble Viscount will be well aware that this is a matter for him and the usual channels to decide. I leave it to him to do that in the usual way.

However, in answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the symposium at Biarritz, perhaps I may briefly respond to him. As regards the resolution, the importance of angling is of course fully recognised in Scotland. The policy has been for many years to limit the commercial catch so as to protect and maintain stocks. That is clear from the Whole basis of the legislation and most recently from the measures against increased salmon fishing in the sea. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that this Bill will better enable us to implement that policy.

On the question of the recommendations (and perhaps I may deal with the NASCO resolution first) the Government recognise the importance of game fishing for salmon and are fully committed to a conservation policy which includes the limiting of the commercial catch. This recommendation seems not only to suggest an investigation but also anticipates the outcome. However, I certainly look forward to seeing the result of any investigation that NASCO may make.

In regard to recommendation 2, in Scotland the use of drift nets and other hang nets for salmon fishing is already prohibited. On recommendation 3, I am aware of the recommendation of the rapporteur and note that the Biarritz symposium supported it. We have noted the fourth recommendation and will be interested to see what comments the various sport fishing organisations make.

I believe I have been able to cover most of the concerns that have been raised and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me notice that he would raise this particular point. I hope that he has been reassured.

Lord Moran

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him one question? I should first like to thank him very much for the information he has just given us. However, I wonder why the Government have resisted pressure from many of us to write this new advisory committee into the Bill so that it becomes permanent and statutory.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, it is not statutory. I think that is the point.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I wondered why the Government had resisted pressure to make it so.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, having in the past dealt with the Red Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act, which the noble Viscount will remember, I seem to recall that very serious objections could be put up to making every committee of this kind statutory. If we have a non-statutory committee, such as the one which is suggested here, we end up with a committee which is almost overbearingly inflexible and unable to compete with the changes, and which does not have the degree of flexibility required in a case such as this. That is the main reason, and I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.