HL Deb 07 December 1993 vol 550 cc934-40

10.38 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill amends the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, which is the main statute governing fishing operations in Scottish inshore waters—that is, within six miles of the Scottish coastline. It is an enabling Bill which gives the Secretary of State power to control the use of vehicles and equipment, including tractor dredgers, for the taking of shellfish, particularly cockles, from the foreshore in Scotland. The Bill also extends the enforcement powers of British sea fishery officers to such vehicles and equipment.

The 1984 Act allows inshore fishing within the six-mile zone of Scottish waters to be controlled by order. Fishing carried out from vessels can be controlled through prohibitions in respect of one or more species in certain areas, and at certain times of the year. It was not visualised that land-based fishing operations would need to be covered. In fact, there was very little activity of that kind in Scotland in 1984.

In recent years, however, there have been developments round the Scottish coast, particularly in the Solway, Cromarty and Dornoch Firths, of tractor dredging for cockles. This method has become particularly attractive to tractor fishermen over the past year as a result of a steep rise in the price of cockles.

Recent monitoring of the cockle stocks in the Solway Firth has shown that they are in a poor state. While those stocks can fluctuate considerably for natural reasons, the heavy fishing pressure, brought about largely by the influx of tractors, has undoubtedly had a significant impact on cockle mortality. An order did come into effect in October 1992 which prohibited vessel-based fishing. But because the scope of the 1984 Act only extended to vessels at sea, nothing could be done in that order to control tractors.

The tractor's activity is damaging for two reasons in particular: first, heavy dredging on the foreshore means that very few cockles remain untouched. Secondly, that dredging takes place at low tide which means that other aquatic organisms dredged up will be left high and dry, and that may kill them. That has a detrimental effect on the food chain for marine and shore wildlife.

The mass removal of shellfish has a damaging effect on another and important form of wildlife —birds. Shellfish are an essential part of the diet of certain seabirds including oyster catchers, eider duck and knots. Over-fishing of cockle and mussel beds would so deplete stocks as to reduce seriously the wild birds which depend on shellfish. I can tell noble Lords that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a strong supporter of this Bill, and so are the shell fishermen who use traditional methods from fishing boats, now prohibited until stocks of shellfish are considered to be satisfactory again.

As I mentioned, the prohibiting order under the 1984 Act has been in force for over a year, but it cannot apply to tractor dredging which was not contemplated in that Act. I understand that in England and Wales sea fisheries committees already possess powers to control shellfishing with tractors. It seems that they could respond if dredging on a similar scale for cockles and mussels develops south of the Border. I do not know the position in Ireland, but I sincerely hope that there will be no developments there which could threaten the trade of the successors of sweet Molly Malone. Systematic dredging on the shore with tractors can virtually remove whole cockle beds. As with other fisheries, conservation measures are necessary.

The Government support the Bill, I am glad to say, and I have had the benefit, therefore, of the assistance of a Scottish parliamentary draftsman. I understand that any additional costs or manpower under the Bill would be insignificant. The Bill has been deliberately drafted to give the Secretary of State maximum flexibility in how he applies the powers. He could apply bans, either seasonal or for a year, on both vehicles and vessels—or he could differentiate between them. Equally, if future developments showed that certain types of equipment, whether marine or land-based, were more acceptable than others, those methods could be granted more favourable terms under such a control order. I am assured that Ministers intend to consult interested parties, making available scientific advice so that their responses can take that advice into account.

The Bill has become necessary due to events unforeseen when the last legislation on the subject was passing through Parliament. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

10.45 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, I should like to welcome this small but important measure which has been introduced by such a distinguished sponsor. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has described its purpose clearly and I note that the present Secretary of State for Scotland has said: Tractor dredging for shellfish has become an increasing problem in many parts of Scotland. Already stock levels are being affected and this has a serious impact on traditional fishermen in these areas". The Bill will help to serve the long-term interests of cockle fishermen as well as helping to conserve marine wildlife. By conserving shellfish stocks, the Bill will help to conserve those species of sea-bird which depend on shellfish for food during the winter months.

The noble Lord mentioned the effect on birds. Although we cannot in all cases be certain that an observed decline in birds in estuaries is directly attributable to the over-fishing of cockles, there are some recent worrying examples. Studies in the Dutch Wadden Sea indicate that a shortage of shellfish contributed to the death of 10,000 eiders in the winter of 1990–91. Oystercatcher numbers in the Wash suffered a 50 per cent. decline between 1990 and 1991. This is thought to be linked to a reduction in shellfish in the Wash. Therefore, it seems necessary to adopt a precautionary approach. I am glad that this change has been proposed for Scottish waters. The essential thing is to have an improvement in controls on cockle fisheries. We need to ensure that sustainable fisheries are properly managed, taking full account of environmental considerations.

In that context, I should like to mention briefly the similar problems in Wales. On the Welsh Dee, new by-laws have recently been advertised by the National Rivers Authority, which is the sea fisheries committee for that area. They are aimed at protecting the cockle resource and managing it more effectively, while at the same time taking into account conservation interests. They also seek to control vehicle access to cockle banks. At every stage in the drafting of the by-laws the NRA Welsh region consulted the conservation bodies, and I think that the result is a good one.

It is true that cockle resources are extremely important economically. On the Dee estuary, cockle fishing is now a multi-million pound industry which provides a great deal of work for fishermen, both local and from other parts. Heavy investment is going into it. Cockle fisheries along the coastline are growing in importance and integrating with the fisheries industry in Holland. But there needs to be a balance between the interests of the commercial cockle fishermen and environmental considerations. There is also need for research and for a greater understanding of what is needed for proper management of the resource. In this instance, greater management control should be of help.

The situation is different in Conwy Bay. There the authority concerned is the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee and not the NRA. It has recently granted licences to vessels to harvest cockles by suction dredging. I suspect that its consultation arrangements were not as thorough as those of the NRA. However, I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB have applied to the Secretary of State for Wales for a nature conservation order to stop further suction dredging from the SSSI and the special protection area. Apparently in the past eight weeks several thousand tonnes of cockles have been taken, which in the opinion of the RSPB has damaging implications for wintering birds, including oyster catchers. The RSPB believes that that may cause the UK to be in breach of the European Community birds directive. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to take up that matter with his colleagues in the Welsh Office and ask them to consider urgently the request that they have had from the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB.

10.52 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I must apologise for not having my name down on the list of speakers. That is entirely due to my incompetence in not telling our efficient Whips' Office in time. The fact that my name is not down may account for the empty Benches on the Government's side of the House.

Of course, we on these Benches—as they say—welcome the Bill. It is necessary, and it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the result of a continuing advance in techniques, the ability to trawl and to use tractors in inshore waters and all the other appalling advances, which include seven-mile long drift nets in various places; the nylon nets that we have had for some time which enable salmon to be caught off the Northumberland coast, to the great detriment of Scottish fishermen, about which the Government are doing nothing; and a whole range of dangerous practices which must be coped with. At present the tie-up policy does not seem to be working, and is now under legal threat before the European Court.

I welcome the Bill, but I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, should be able to tell us whether the Government are willing to spend the money to provide the people to police the measures necessary to assist the fishing industry. As I understand it, the fisheries protection fleet has not been increased. Is there any intention that it should be? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that the money would be provided. But we need an assurance that money will be provided for the people to police this measure and to deal with the many troubles we shall have in future in the North Sea, especially if EC legislation widens the field to all EC vessels. That is an important point and I should like the Minister to comment on it.

The Bill as it stands is good and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, deserves credit for introducing it and the Government for helping him to do so.

10.55 p.m.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I was happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in order that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, could appreciate the unanimity of support across the Benches of this House for the measure which he has introduced. On behalf of my colleagues who normally occupy the Benches behind me, I am happy to express our support for the measure. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and thank him for bringing it forward.

As he said, this closes a loophole in the 1984 legislation, which I accept was not then foreseen. We are now faced with two significant problems in relation to shellfishing. The first is tractor dredging, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The second is suction dredging, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Both are highly economical methods of shellfishing but, tragically, they deplete the stocks at a rapid rate. If we are to have conservation, something must be done. That something is precisely the measure submitted tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.

I know that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation strongly supports the measure. Certainly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds strongly supports it. The issue of sea-birds using shellfish for their winter feed puts in jeopardy the existence of the sea-birds because of the depletion of the fish as a result of tractor and suction dredging.

With those few words, I give our full support to the Bill. We shall do all in our power to speed its passage through your Lordships' House.

10.58 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)

My Lords, it may be appropriate if I indicate the Government's position on the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has indicated, recent experience—in particular since the matter was legislated upon—has shown that land dredging for shellfish can have as serious an impact on stock levels as vessel dredging. It follows that if we are properly to protect shellfish such as cockles, we must be able to control the activities of everyone who fishes against the stock by whatever means.

It is also important that everyone involved makes their contribution to stock conservation. In general terms, noble Lords have referred to the effect which this kind of activity has on bird life. That can be seen as part of a pattern of protection throughout the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to an issue raised by the Countryside Council for Wales. I do not know the detail of that matter but I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for wales and ask that he replies directly to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, also raised a number of issues. In particular, he asked what is being done for conservation. A great deal has been done by the Government. In connection with salmon, there has been the monofilament gill net order which the Government have pursued and defended all the way to the European Court.

The Government take very seriously the matter which the noble Lord raised with regard to the conservation of fisheries. They are satisfied that proper resources are being provided for the necessary measures. I should observe that the other place will have an opportunity to debate the matter next Monday.

My noble friend's Bill will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to apply whatever comprehensive conservation measures are merited for a particular area. As my noble friend indicated, this provision contains a welcome and appropriate degree of flexibility. Existing powers do not allow the matter to be tackled, and I can therefore confirm the Government's support for the Bill before us this evening.

11 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised a point about Wales and I am glad that my noble and learned friend has taken note of that and has undertaken to pass it on, as I felt sure that he would. Of course, that is very appropriate because in the near future he has the unexpected task of piloting through this House the Bill on the reorganisation of local government in Wales. I understand that he is already preparing and familiarising himself with the geography of Wales—and more important still, the pronunciation of the Welsh names involved. I congratulate him on all that.

In passing, I should mention that the National Rivers Authority has no functions in Scotland, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I was one of those who complained when it was named the National Rivers Authority because the media and the public in Scotland were completely misled and thought it covered the whole country.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised wider issues which I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate on other occasions. But I must emphasise that this Bill is restricted to the six mile band, six miles from the coast. That is an area which has little interest or effect as regards foreign fishermen unless they are working in co-operation with our own fishermen.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, raised the question of suction dredging. The present position is that if it is suction dredging from a vessel, it can be and is controlled by the present order. But if it is suction dredging on land, it will be possible to control it in future if, as I hope, this Bill is passed. Therefore, the orders can distinguish between all kinds of fishing for shellfish, whether it is suction dredging on land or from vessels or whether it is tractor dredging on land. It gives the flexibility which does not exist in the present legislation. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate, and I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.