AQUACULTURE DEEMED TO BE AGRICULTURE

HC Deb 19 October 1976 vol 917 cc1130-75

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 25, after Clause 4, insert New Clause A: A.—(1) Aquaculture shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be a part of agriculture and all enactments applying to agriculture shall, as appropriate, apply to aquaculture. (2) Aquaculture is the culture and the harvesting of animals and plants in water.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

As the House will be aware, this clause was inserted during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, being moved and supported by certain Members who are well known for their strong concern for the fish farming industry and their faith in its future. The Government recognise and respect their feelings but remain of the opinion that the insertion of the clause is not the best, or even an appropriate way to assist fish farmers. As a Front Bench Opposition spokesman commented during the debate in another place, it could produce legal complications and difficulties if it reached the statute book.

I should like to refute the suggestion that the Government have been uncertain in their handling of this matter. We are well aware that existing laws are to a degree uncertain, and perhaps in some cases unsatisfactory, in their application to fish farming. That is understandable, given the very recent development of the industry. Over the past year the Departments concerned—that is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland—have been discussing these and other questions with representatives of the industry to identify points of difficulty and consider how to deal with them. In Scotland, the opportunity has already been taken to use the recently enacted Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 to remove from Scottish fish farmers many of the constraints arising from the application to their activities of legislation designed to protect wild stocks. I expect these discussions to be resumed in the near future. The problems are diverse and I am satisfied that they need to be dealt with individually. A panacea such as the clause purports to be is not available.

Thus, we do not consider that the clause would meet the needs of the fish farming industry. An even more cogent objection in our view is that the clause could be expected to entail additional Government expenditure. Clearly, this could not be accepted at the present time unless overwhelmingly strong arguments were advanced for it. But that is far from being the case. We must remember that this expenditure would be for the benefit of an activity which seems to be doing well and is rapidly expanding. Commercial interests arc participating with large resources at their disposal. Whatever the initial cost of the clause—a point on which its sponsors were unfortunately silent—it represents an open-ended commitment. That is a very important point.

I find it strange that the arguments put forward by those speaking in favour of the clause rest upon drawing a simple analogy between aquaculture and agriculture. Both activities cover a wide field, and it is not clear which analogies are in mind. A substantial part of fish farming is related to restocking of water for angling and is not even primarily for the production of food. Quite apart from this, however, we consider that it is wholly wrong to legislate in this way even if the analogy were apt. What is required, and what has been lacking in the case advanced by fish farming interests, is a substantive economic case for subventions, and open-ended ones at that, to be made by the taxpayer.

Our own economic analysis, based upon the limited data available, suggests that the forecast of production of farmed fish over the next decade or so have been optimistic, to put it mildly. The likelihood is that production even by the mid-1980s is extremely unlikely to provide more than a very small proportion of our total fish supplies. It should be remembered that such supplies as are likely to be available from fish farming are of fish at the top end of the market—salmon, rainbow trout, Dover sole and turbot—which are hardly realistic substitutes for the traditional species.

I should like to stress that we are already assisting the industry in what I believe to be the most appropriate way, by providing a substantial programme of research and development work. In 1975–76 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spent £500,000, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland and the White Fish Authority spent nearly £250,000 each, and a smaller amount of relevant work was also done by the National Environment Research Council. The main aspects were related to the cultivation of marine fin fish—particularly turbot and Dover sole—and salmon; the control of disease, which is a major hazard of fish farming; and work on shellfish cultivation.

The overall cost, at over £1 million, is a significant part of the total spent on fisheries research and development and a respectable proportion of the grand total of Government support for fisheries having regard to the scale of the industry.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Before the Minister leaves his passing reference to the type of fish, may I ask whether he is saying that salmon, trout, Dover sole and turbot are not good fish, or is putting the proposition that because, when caught in the sea and rivers, they are expensive they would not be a good food if they could be produced cheaply by fish farms? I suspect that he is confused in his own mind about which proposition he is putting. Why is it meritorious to produce cod and not salmon in a fish farm? Has not the Minister lost the whole point—that we are talking about foods and not about a patrician diet or a proletarian diet?

Mr. Bishop

I suggest that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) should not ascribe to me comments which I did not make. I claimed that salmon, rainbow trout, Dover sole and turbot were hardly realistic substitutes for traditional species. That is not a comment on whether one species of fish is better than another. If those who want the clause ask for help on the ground that it would increase the production of the fish we need, the other aspect I mentioned must be drawn to the attention of the House. I am not demeaning the species of fish I mentioned. I am saying that they are not the traditional species to which many people are accustomed.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

The Minister keeps referring to traditional species. Is he not aware that a century or so ago salmon was a traditional species in the sense that contracts for employment used to include a clause which stated that employees in certain types of employment should not be expected to eat salmon too often, because salmon was so common and cheap to provide? With fish farming, that might happen again.

Mr. Bishop

There is no discrimination by the Government on the ground to which reference has been made. The claim that fish farming can supply a substantial amount of food in the near future is not sustained. It will take a considerable time for the research and development to proceed before the species I mentioned and the more traditional species become available.

The Government are convinced that the clause is unsatisfactory in its wording and uncertain in its consequences. Moreover, it would give rise to expenditure from central Government funds. I am sure that in the present economic situation hardly any hon. Member would wish that to happen, apart from the fact that no one seems to have costed the effect of the clause. For these reasons, the Government must ask the House to remove the clause from the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

I call attention to the fact that privilege is involved in this amendment.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

I find that a disappointing reply which does not measure up to the needs of the situ- ation or of the industry. We had an interchange about traditional species and the fact that fish farming on the whole was not breeding traditional species. But everyone accepts that in view of the events in the seas and what is happening to the fish industry it would be a positive advantage to take steps to develop species which are not traditional, and I think that we shall have to do that. The House is indebted to the other place for inserting the clause and for compelling us thereby to address our minds to an a11 too little discussed topic.

The Minister said that the industry has grown rather rapidly recently and is emerging. The reason why the other place insisted upon carrying the amendment was despair that the Government did not appear to be taking any action to help and to encourage this new method of providing food. We could be fairly accused of paying too little attention to fish farming, as yet a very small industry but one with a great potential. With the world in the throes of a population explosion, there is no aspect of food production that we can afford to ignore, and I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said in his intervention.

In the United Kingdom, we have not ignored fish farming altogether, but our efforts could and should be increased. I cannot give an exact estimate of the expenditure involved, and the Minister did not attempt to do so. But those who have tried to do so have shown that it is a modest amount and one which could be more than repaid by saving on imports. The cost of our research effort alone is about £1 million a year altogether, which is far from being a negligible sum. Yet there are far too many constraints and discouragements on investment in commercial production, and clearly the commercial production of fish is the object of the exercise. In the end, it is the volume and the value of the commodity produced that counts.

The new clause is designed to remove some at least of these constraints, and consequentily to give a boost to this at present under-used source of protein supply. As legislation exists, there is discrimination that is unfavourable to fish farming as compared with agriculture, and there seems to be no good reason for that. It has happened by accident, by default, as it were, because there is no legislation on fish farming. We think that there should be.

In view of the Government's commitment to extending the production of food from our own resources—the principle of which the Opposition entirely endorse—this would seem to be the appropriate moment to lift the handicaps suffered by fish farmers and to give them positive encouragement and support. The new clause would by no means meet the full requirements of the industry, but at least it would help. What is required is a separate Bill to establish a proper legal framework for fish farming and to put it on a sound footing with good prospects. But in the absence of a separate Bill, the new clause would clear up some of the difficulties now faced by the industry.

First, there is the doubt about rating. It is true that the Lands Tribunal has found in favour of fish farming, but the Inland Revenue continues to make assessments and to oppose appeals. Obviously, that is a costly business in time and money both to the private person and to business as well as to the taxpayers. If aquaculture is treated as agriculture, as the new clause proposes, that argument will be resolved—subject, of course, to the frightening possibility that the Government might toe the line of the Labour Party National Executive and decide to rerate all agricultural land and buildings. We hope that they will do no such thing and that they will shortly announce that they have no intention of doing so.

Secondly, there is the matter of capital grants. The position today is that assistance is available to the industry under the farm and horticulture development scheme, but in practice fish farmers have found it almost impossible to meet the requirements laid down in the scheme, and therefore little advantage has been taken of it. In other words, in practice there is little to take advantage of because the tests applied are too difficult for fish farmers to meet. The new clause would have the effect of bringing fish farming into the scope of the farm capital grants scheme, and that would be helpful and is certainly an urgently needed change.

Thirdly—a small point—there is the confusion about the difference in treat- ment in obtaining goods vehicle licences. What is the case for treating fish and other farming differently in this respect? I do not believe that there is such a case. The trouble is that the Government have not yet got round to smoothing out this minor complication. The new clause would achieve it, however.

Fourthly, would not the new clause overcome the disparity of treatment in compensation when stock has to be destroyed as a result of disease? As things stand, the position is, I believe, that an agriculturist is entitled to claim compensation when this type of disease afflicts him, whereas the fish farmer is not. It would be fair, reasonable and sensible treatment to look after them both on the same basis.

There are many other problems faced by fish farmers with which the new clause does not and cannot deal. For example, there are the planning and procedural complications in setting up in the business the precise legal rights of an owner to protect his fish, and the definition of ownership and the definition of pollution. I do not think that anyone is sure how the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be interpreted and implemented, and that is highly relevant to the fish farming business.

For all these matters, and no doubt for many others, a separate Bill dealing specifically with fish farming will be necessary. I cannot think that such a Bill would be contentious, nor that it would contain any party political complications of any significance. What are the Government going to do? I appreciate the point the Minister made about the legislative difficulties of accepting the new clause, but I do not think that we should allow this potentially very significant new food producing industry to continue to struggle on its present unsatisfactory and meagre basis without firmer assurances by the Government that they intend to bring forward a Bill to deal with its difficulties.

I quote some figures to put the industry into perspective. Our total production is a meagre 4,000 tons a year out of a world production of 6 million tons a year. Obviously, we have the capability, if we set our minds to it, of becoming top at least of the European league table. Our European partners treat agriculture and aquaculture on the same basis, and so our own fish farmers are suffering disadvantage compared with those in Europe, and it would be well to put that right. What is more, we have coastal sites which are ideally suited to the purpose of fish farming—one of our few natural resources, perhaps, which we should develop. If we could achieve this while remaining free of fish diseases which have become a serious problem in other countries, there is great scope for increasing food production in this way, and also for providing jobs in the more remote areas.

Whilst I recognise the legal complications to which the new clause could lead, and accept that it has its limitations and would not meet all the needs, I believe that it would go some way towards meeting the needs. I do not think that we should simply accept what the Minister has said without obtaining from the Government a much clearer, much more definite assurance that it is their intention, as a result of any discussions they are having with the industry and others, to bring forward quickly a separate Bill, which I do not think could be politically contentious, so that we can pay much more attention to a potentially very useful source of protein supply.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

I do not mean this in a personal sense, but I regret the somewhat offhand reply with which the Minister has been provided by his Department on this very important matter. He seems to think that this is a matter of no importance, that the difficulty is too great and that in any case the Department has not had enough time to think about it. No one denies, however, that we are lagging behind in fish farming. Spain produces 180,000 tons from fish farming every year, France produces 100,000 tons and Japan—where, as we know, there are special reasons—produces over l million tons. We produce only 4,000 tons a year, yet this country has possibly greater opportunity than any of those other three countries.

I was therefore amazed to hear the Minister say that not enough is known about fish farming and that an enormous input into research and development will be necessary before we know whether it will be possible to farm fish successfully in this country. Every other country does it without the slightest diffi- culty under far more difficult conditions than we have here. It has to be very expertly done, but there are no overwhelming difficulties which people in other countries have not managed to overcome. All that the Ministry can do this afternoon, however, is to say "It is all very difficult, and the research and development will be too much for us." We spend £80 million a year on importing fish into this country. It would be very easy to save that amount by farming fish here.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister said that we would be asking for very large handouts at a time of public restraint. It is, indeed, a time of public restraint, but that is not the fault of the fish farmers, and we are not asking for very large handouts. We are asking only that the fish farmers should be treated in the same way as other primary producers of food—for example, land farmers—are treated. I do not see why this cannot be done. I do not see how it can be denied that fish farmers could, with the right sort of assistance, produce food that we very badly need.

I, like my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), regret that the Minister appears to be unaware that in Elizabethan times it was common for deeds of apprenticeship to lay down that the apprentices in London should not be fed more than three times a week on salmon taken from the Thames. It should be perfectly possible in the future for this fish, which is now so highly priced and is a luxury commodity, to take the place of cod, which is highly priced and is becoming a luxury commodity to some extent because of the policies of the Government.

I believe that the reason why the Minister came to the House with such a skimpy little speech about this important matter is that the Ministry of Agriculture is far too occupied in thinking about the 200-mile limit, about cod and about the sea fishing which goes on all round us, and that it has not concentrated at all on this important matter which is right under its nose and ought to be exploited.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

I had not intended to speak in the debate. I seem to open most of my speeches by saying that. But I hope that we shall not have a vote on this amendment today, for the simple reason that most of us recognise that from a legislative point of view the clause in its present form cannot be implemented.

The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) raised a number of important problems that would arise, apart from the great difficulty of adjusting the various kinds of legislation. I accept what he said about the importance of the subject, and it is for that reason that I hope that we shall not divide. I hope that the Government's viewpoint will be accepted, for on both sides of the House great stress has been put on this very important subject.

We have to face the fact that the world population will double in the next 25 years and that, far from "Food from our own resources" being a far-sighted document, if anything it is too limited in relation to the kind of food procurement policy that we shall require for the remainder of the century in this country. A great deal of money will have to be put into carrying out this policy.

There are those who say that we do not need to devote resources on any sort of scale to research and development. That argument is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of disease and seemed to indicate that in this respect we should be better off by having fish farming. But, unfortunately, as soon as fish are brought together in large quantities in restricted areas, the problem of disease is magnified and not minimised.

This is precisely one of the problems which we have encountered in experimentation in Scotland. The difficulties with salmon in fish farming can be imagined when we consider such diseases as ulcerated dermal necrosis, affecting salmon even in our free-moving rivers. The position is quite the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman appeared to indicate.

Another major problem is that so far an enormous amount of protein food has been required in order to get a proportionately small return. In the experiment at Hunterston we have plaice growing and maturing earlier because of the use of the waste warm water from the atomic power station. The problem is that although the fish are matured in two years instead of three, it takes 8 lb of protein feed to get 1 lb of fish in return.

We have to remember that an important element in the drive to secure food for the population of this country and the world is the more efficient use of protein—for example, soya—in all sorts of ways. A great deal of research and development is necessary on these aspects before we try to equate or adjust all their agricultural legislation.

On the west coast of Scotland a whole fish farm of plaice was wiped out as a result of the incidence of crabs. I believe that this happened in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick).

The twin problems of sea water and fresh water fish farms both require a good deal of thought. It is not sufficient to say that we have a long coast line and that therefore it is easy to find sites.

It was not the London apprentices, incidentally, who complained about the large amounts of salmon. It was the Glasgow apprentices in the eighteenth century. It was written into their articles that they would not be fed on salmon more than twice a week.

I hope that from both sides of the House emphasis will be placed on the importance of putting money into fish farming, and into all the efforts which can be made to increase food production from our own resources in this country.

One measure we could take in this respect would be to alter the balance in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by calling it the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. That would indicate the proper balance that we require. It would not demote the position of British agriculture. On the contrary, it would enhance its importance. It would show that food production is recognised as one of the major questions that we shall face over the next half century in this country.

I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendment to a vote, and that they will recognise that something must be done urgently about the problem of food production. I hope that we shall at least be united on that issue.

Mr. Iain MacCormick (Argyll)

It must be most unusual to hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) behaving in such a constructive manner and pouring oil over troubled waters.

Mr. Buchan

It is quite usual. However, I forgot to attack the Scottish National Party.

Mr. MacCormick

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was, I believe, quite correct in drawing attention to the Minister's throw-away remark, when he talked about fish being at the top end of the scale—to use a ridiculous pun in the circumstances. It betrayed the fact that the Minister has approached the whole problem from within his usual doctrinaire straitjacket.

We have been reminded that apprentices used to grow tired of being fed on salmon. The Minister spoke of the traditional species as if they were something apart from other types of fish. If the Government continue with their present polices, we shall not have any of the traditional species left. There will not be any herring, cod or haddock. For this reason, we may well find ourselves forced in the next 50 years to produce exactly the kinds of fish normally eaten by rich people in restaurants in London. Surely if the Minister were true to his principles he would want his fellow workers to enjoy eating salmon, salmon trout, and so on. There were great paradoxes in virtually everything he said.

Last Friday, together with members of all parties, and Members from another place, I attended a meeting of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Inverness. One of the most important topics discussed was fish farming. It cannot have escaped the Minister's attention that, for simple geographical and physical reasons, much of the fish farming activity takes place on the West coast of Scotland. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West said, much of this activity takes place in my constituency of Argyll.

I can foresee a time when virtually every inlet will be involved to some extent with some kind of fish farming. This must happen. It is odd that the Government are not playing a more active part in ensuring that it happens.

I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said about the rating problem. He must have been speaking from a purely English point of view, because in Scotland the rating problem certainly has not been solved.

Fish farmers in Scotland suffer severe problems in respect of activities in the agricultural sector. In the absence of an absolute Government commitment to remove that disadvantage from Scottish fish farmers, I hope that the House will divide on this issue and ensure that something is done about it.

Mr. Pym

May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not deal with Scotland. That is why I did not deal with the Scottish aspect of rating.

Mr. MacCormick

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. He may also appreciate that at present the Bill gives us the only possible springboard that we have for talking about this subject. We want to give it as good an airing as possible. Every fish farmer in my constituency has written to me about this debate. They want to see something happen, and they want to hear that the Government will be prepared to do something about it.

It has always been disappointing to me that, even when the whole country is tottering as near as possible to bankruptcy, time and again all hon. Members find it difficulty to get the go-ahead in relation to planning matters, and so on. That applies in rural areas to fish farming, which could help the whole country in the future and give employment to the people now. We want the Government to give a clear commitment to help fish farming, which would help not only the small communities in my constituency but the whole nation in days to come.

Mr. Buchan

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has sat down.

Mr. Buchan

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps there is a printing error in the Bill, because it clearly states— this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland". In view of the statement that the measure does not apply to Scotland, perhaps that can be cleared up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that parts of the Bill exclude Scotland and that other parts of the Bill include Scotland.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

We are dealing with a serious matter in a context in which we as a nation import large quantities of food for which we simply have not the foreign currency available. That is one of the principal reasons that we are in the financial crisis in which we find ourselves.

The Minister has made the sort of unimaginative and reactionary speech that one has come to expect from Socialists and from this Government in particular. It was the sort of speech which would have been produced to explain why we should still walk rather than travel in motor cars or why no technological industry in this country should be established and that we should continue as we were. It was the sort of speech to explain why we should weave by hand, or why we should cultivate the land by hand rather than using draught animals, or eventually, tractors.

Even the Minister must be ashamed of his contribution to this debate. He will probably feel ashamed too late—perhaps when he looks back, rather than in the course of the debate. As to his comments about fishing, I detected, no perspicacity of thought, with just a little jealousy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman associates salmon with something that he cannot afford. If salmon is mass produced in fish farms, it is likely that a large spectrum of people will be able to afford it. The Minister's resentment against turbot, and against trout, is not rational. It is just resentment, and nothing more than that. He has not criticised these fish on the basis of their value as an ancillary part of our diet. He has just presented it as if it is self-evident that these are types of fish which may not seriously be considered as offering potential for the diet of this country.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward the argument that there is a deficiency in protein or fat, or the other attributes of the food, he is perfectly at liberty to advance that argument. But he has not done so. I suspect that they are in his category of "jealous" fish—fish which must not be produced because someone could enjoy eating them, which would be unforgiveable.

4.45 p.m.

Many of the traditional fish will not be available within the next 20 years, as herring and cod are fished out. If we are doomed to live with traditional fish, we shall be living without fish. It did not seem to occur to the Minister that unless he takes urgent action, mackerel will be in the same class, too. We may well be facing a situation, not in 15 years' time, or 10 years' time, but in five years' time, where if our fish is not produced in fish farms, we shall have no fish to eat. That is why there are two Select Committees considering this subject at the present time—the Expenditure Committee's Trade and Industry Sub-Committee and the Sub-Committee of the European Communities Secondary Legislation Select Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has been chairing.

I hope that the Minister, when he gets back to his Department, will express himself very strongly to whoever it was who produced the ludicrous brief for him today and will use his time during this debate to slip a note to his Chief Whip stating "I have been led up the garden path. I realise it now. I certainly realise that this is not just an acceptable amendment—it is an essential one. I should have picked this up long ago".

The House of Commons still has a function, part of which is to educate Ministers should they neglect important topics. I hope that in the course of this debate the education of the Minister, begun about 25 minutes ago, will continue to a useful fruition.

Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)

I should like to follow the usual temperate tone of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for it is quite clear that no one on our side of the House underestimates the contribution that fish farming, both freshwater and marine, can make to the wellbeing of the country.

What I would like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend, and of hon. Members opposite, is the particular problem associated with our membership of the Community and certain recent proposals in terms both of international fishing and of freshwater agriculture, which have come from Europe. There are already, or there will be shortly, grants available for research and development if, and only if, this country gets its legislation right to enable our fish farmers to apply for them. The real difficulty has been the reluctance of successive Ministries in this country to grapple with the extremely complex series of problems associated with fishing over both the whole area of the tideland, where one gets into brackish water, as well as fresh water.

I speak as an old-fashioned anti-Marketeer. It is clear that the Community will force reluctant Governments, independent of their political persuasions, to come to the right answer on fish farming. We have to abandon man the hunter, whether he is hunting fish in streams or in the oceans.

We have to get that right. What is absolutely clear is that the amendment from the other place would set back that process rather than bring it nearer. It would create more problems particularly when seen in the terms of the Community instrument, to which our own fish farmers are being denied access. I hope that, under the pressure which has come from all sides of the House during this debate, my hon. Friend and the Ministry of Agriculture will take the opportunity to to give a firm undertaking to look closely at how far we are disadvantaged in utilising the opportunities provided under FEOGA's term under the present arrangements.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Can he tell the House why, in the course of this Bill, he has not pressed his hon. Friend to attach an appropriate amendment so that we could deal with this matter now? The hon. Gentleman has expressed urgency.

Mr. Hughes

The answer is, first, that I acted as rapporteur for the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament and the Bill had left this place to go to the other place. Secondly, it was only after I had ceased to do that piece of work in Europe that I was able to devote my energies and attention to researching the complexities. Clearly, a single, simple clause would do far more damage than good in setting up the legal framework for fish farming in Britain.

Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)

I listened with interest to the Minister. I cannot accept his reasoning in opposing the amendment. The view of the National Farmers' Union is that we should support the amendment, and I believe that we should.

Although I cannot accept the Minister's reasoning, I accepted some of his conclusions when he said that the fishing industry is a thriving industry. When we have a thriving industry in Britain, I believe that that is the time to give that industry a boost.

We need for fish farming a similar policy to that which we need for agriculture—a long-term policy. We need a 10-year programme, especially for fish farming and the fish industry. There is a great future for fish farming in Britain, especially in the rural areas where we have high unemployment rates.

I have read with interest what the NFU has said. I acknowledge that the Minister himself has read it. I do not know whether he agrees with the NFU's view. The NFU has said: Greater United Kingdom production of farmed fish would mean a net import saving through direct replacement, export opportunities and product substitution. There is one point that the NFU has made with which I entirely agree. The NFU says: The British are good stock farmers. Farming has avoided the socially divisive attitudes which now plague much of the nation's industrial activity. The next paragraph is even more important: There are literally thousands of young people including hundreds of qualified biologists seeking opportunities in British fish farming. Therefore, I believe that we should give the same opportunities to fish farming aquaculture, as we give to agriculture in Britain by having a long-term programme. We should accept the amendment and thus be able to give the necessary boost to the aquaculture industry.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in their criticisms of the content of the Minister's speech. It verged on the trivial. We were reaching class consciousness about fish.

The Minister also disregarded, in relation to this particular species alone, the good that we can obtain from exporting. The fact that we can export fish of this kind and shell fish is very much proved already. For example, the first dish that I was asked to sample at the Mandarin Hotel in Hong Kong was of Morecambe Bay shrimps—and I had just come from Morecambe Bay. The possibilities for exports are immense. I am certain that many of the lobsters caught around Scotland go not to the Scottish market but straight to the Continent. The Minister did not refer at all to the potential for exports. That must be taken into account.

What disturbs me most is the lack of urgency. The hour is much later than the Minister's brief indicated, because next month our agreement with Iceland runs out, and if nothing replaces it we shall lose 200,000 tons of white fish caught off Iceland. That may come here in another form, but it will not be coming here in British vessels. We shall have to pay for it in foreign exchange, which we do not have to do at present.

Moreover, all around our coasts the fisheries are either fished out or are under attack. The hake fishery off North-West Scotland was fished out within the last decade. The herring fishery in the North Sea is nothing like what it was. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has said, the mackerel fishery off the South-West coast is equally under attack.

We cannot afford to delay measures to encourage fish farming. As has been said, it may well be that in the next few years we shall have to rely far more on this source of food for our people. Truly, 4,000 tons compared with the 1.2 million tons at which Japan is aiming is a very small amount indeed. This shows the possibilities. If Japan can do it, there is no reason why we should not do the same.

If the fish stocks around our shores were unchallenged, it would probably be uneconomical for fish farming to take the place of the fish that are caught there However, that is no longer so. Our fishing fleet is restricted as to the grounds on which it can fish. If it has to retreat into home waters, this will exert increasing pressure on the stocks around our shores. I beg the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

I draw attention to the very important remarks of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). This involves the same problem as exists in regard to slaughterhouses. Because they are not recognised for grant by our Government, they are therefore denied the FEOGA grants which are received in all of our partner nations within the Nine.

In asking the House to reject the amendment, the Minister used exactly the same argument as his colleague in the House of Lords. It ran roughly as follows: "Fishing does not belong in an agriculture Bill. Therefore, however desirable it may be to deal with aquaculture, we should not put it in this Bill."

The error in that argument is the assumption that we are talking about traditional fishing. I suggest that as long as we entertain that error we shall not give the necessary boost to fish farming in Britain.

I draw attention to the definition of "aquaculture" in the amendment. It reads as follows: the culture and the harvesting of animals and plants in water. In other words, this activity is quite different from traditional fishing. Indeed, as was said by the hon. Member for Durham, fishing is the last of the great hunting industries. Aquaculture is the farming of fish on a settled basis. It is the piscine equivalent of the domestication of animals. It is not the hunting of fish.

Indeed, aquaculture is doing with fish today, at the end of the twentieth century, what the farmers of the Fertile Crescent in the Near East did with sheep some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago and what they did with pigs in the eighth millennium. My researches tell me that cattle were not domesticated until about the sixth millennium BC. Farmers are now doing with fish what they have done with domestic farm animals.

I believe that bringing the settled ways of agriculture to the breeding and growing of fish is extremely important, for reasons that have already been deployed. Already a variety of husbandry systems in fish farming have been developed. With all of them, the expertise involved is similar to, if not exactly the same as, that involved in other types of livestock farming. Let me mention four: breeding and hatching techniques, stock selection and genetic improvement, disease control through husbandry disciplines and medication, and, above all, controlled nutrition.

I suggest that the breeding and husbandry of domesticated fish is an entirely different matter from the hunting of what I might call wild fish in their natural state. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and others have drawn the attention of the House to the extent to which stocks of wild fish, not only in our home waters but in the world at large, are at risk. There is no doubt that due to over-fishing, inadequate conservation and pollution, stocks of wild fish are at risk. I draw attention to an admirable paper read recently by Commander Ranken, a great marine engineer who is well known to hon. Members who follow these topics. He said: Modern technology makes possible gross over-exploitation of fish stocks, through efficient fish-finding and catching methods in conjunction with an excessive number of catchers putting too high a pressure on each major fish stock and all of these are now said to be affected to a greater or lesser extent. That simple statement illustrates the danger which worries all of us concerned with these topics.

5.0 p.m.

We have seen recently off the coasts of Cornwall and of Southern Ireland the modern Attila the Hun in the form of the Russian trawlers coming in, vast vessels complete with radar and sonar equipment to find the smallest fish in our home waters, and scooping up the bottom of our seas.

There have been references to expensive fish. I believe that the time may well be coming when we shall have no herring at all—the traditional cheap fish for most of us. It will not be a question of price. There will be no herring. This is not a matter to be taken gently. It is urgent. We have the support of the Cameron Report. I shall not detain the House by quoting it at this stage, though I commend it to all who are interested in studying the case for a bigger national effort in fish farming. The case is there admirably deployed.

My hon. Friends have already pointed out that at this point in the world's development nearly 10 per cent. of world fish consumption comes from fish farming. Various figures have been given showing what other advanced industrial nations are doing. We as a nation have made quite a good effort on the research side—I have paid tribute in the past to the Torry research establishment—but we have been very slow to exploit that knowledge into the production of fish by fish farming techniques.

It is the old story that we have heard so often. We take the lead in research and in new methods, but we do not carry it through to the exploitation of our research. That is my great concern, so my plea to the House today is that we must get on and exploit our present knowledge.

The Minister of State suggested that this is the wrong place to put such a clause and that it should be in a separate Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) asked, if we are to accept the Minister's advice today, he must give an undertaking that he will introduce a Bill to deal with these problems in the next Session.

We are told that the next Session—God and another place being willing—will start on 17th November. Let the Minister give an undertaking that, along with all the things which the National Executive Committee of his party asks to have put into the Queen's Speech, there will be just one line saying that the Government will introduce a Bill on aquaculture. I am sure that if he did that we should all be happy. As my right hon. Friend said, it is unlikely to be politically contentious, although I think that it would have a rigorous examination in Committee because there would be many detailed matters which hon. Members on both sides would wish to get right. If, on the other hand, the Minister denies us that, we are in a difficult position, because I do not see that we can wait much longer to get these things right in law and in purpose.

Finally, I remind the House that under Clause 4(5) agriculture includes horticulture and forestry. If forestry is included in agriculture, there is no reason why aquaculture should not be. The proposal which has come to us from the other place is both reasonable and necessary. If the Government reject it and do not offer us the promise of a new Bill, they will be both unreasonable and wrong. Above all, they will have failed to understand that fish hunting will have to give way to fish farming. It would be an odd state of affairs if the Labour Party became the party which stood for the preservation of the hunting rather than the domestication of animals.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I begin by declaring an interest in a shell fish company—not very prolific, but none the less an interest. I join in the almost universal condemnation of the Minister of State's speech, not so much for what he said as for his attitude. I think that it can best be summed by the description "extremely apathetic". It was not that he failed to appreciate the problem. He did not seem to care that the problem existed. He seemed merely to present a ministerial brief and did not really think that the matter was any concern of his.

Mr. Bishop

I hesitate to intervene, but this complaint has been made several times, with references to my "brief". The speech I made was my own. If I may say so, with due respect to hon. Members, I may have overestimated the amount of their background knowledge. If I did, perhaps the House will give me an opportunity later to make amends and to refer to some of the points which have been made. This is a matter on which I have been deeply engaged behind the scenes. The speech I made was my own, and I hope to have an opportunity to expand on these matters later.

Mr. Farr

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I apologise for any suggestion which I may have made to the contrary, but the impression I received was that it was a ministerial brief, and I am glad to know that I was wrong.

The significance or character of what the Minister said, however, can be summed up in a couple of sentences. First, he said that now was not the time. The national cost of promoting aquaculture could not possibly be contemplated now. He sheltered behind the question of cost and used the present economically difficult time as a reason for not displaying further interest. Then—I thought this very damning—he said that in any even his advisers had told him that our national production of farmed fish will be only a very small percentage of our total fish consumption in the years ahead. If he checks Hansard, I think that he will find that that is what he said.

The truth is that we are not likely to have an increased percentage of farmed fish consumed nationally when there is no policy. We are about the only country in Western Europe which does not have a fish farming policy. Hon. Members have already pointed out that our partners in the EEC have a fish farming policy. Aquaculture is included in grants, assistance and schemes of the nature which the amendment from the other place proposes. In my view, those of our constituents and others who are concerned with fish farming are losing because of the Government's lack of interest.

The Minister forecast that our consumption of fish from farmed sources would be very small in the years ahead. It is pathetically small now—about 4,000 tons out of the 6 million tons farmed annually in the world. Since Britain has just about the largest coastline in the EEC, it is a crying shame that the Government are not paying more attention to this matter.

I am not convinced that it is absolutely right to accept the amendment—it may not be in the right place, perhaps—but I hope that the Minister will give the sort of assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) asked. If the Minister asks the House not to accept the Lords amendment to this Bill, let him at least give an undertaking that he will recommend the inclusion in the Queen's Speech of a Bill to put this matter right.

I may be wrong, but I believe that the purport of the amendment could well remain in the Bill and go forward for Royal Assent. I am sure that the cost would not be greatly significant compared to the sums already spent on agriculture, horticulture and forestry. The green light would be given to those who are struggling, in the face of Government indifference, with fish farming, shell fish farming and all the other associated problems.

It would be a great message of hope if the Minister could say that he is at least interested in the matter and that the Government are aware that in years to come we shall have to rely more and more on farmed fish because the wild creature will cease to exist.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

I, too, must declare an interest although it is small. In front of my house I have a lake in which we normally stock 200 to 300 rainbow trout. It is not only a very profitable sideline but my deep freezer is full of pleasant rainbow trout. That sort of thing could be done by many people if there were greater encouragement of fish farming.

I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). The matter should be considered and taken seriously. It cannot be dismissed by the Government. Many people are trying hard to move ahead and to realise the potential but further official encouragement from the Government is required and the amendment seeks to achieve that. Some people are trying hard with no encouragement or help. They should be given the confidence that one day at least the Government will take the subject seriously.

In my constituency, there is an oyster farmer. Before hon. Members opposite howl in protest they should know that producing oysters is an extremely profitable thing to do. There is an oyster farm at Steer Point near Plymouth and I understand that the potential of that farm is great but that it is expensive in terms of the capital and research required. My constituent has made it clear that the export potential is enormous.

Large numbers of shell fish and other similar fish are exported to the Community from the South-West of England. Two aeroplanes a week fly from Cornwall to Paris markets with shell fish. My constituent says that we should be exporting more oysters, and that is right because although we may not all want to eat them here, they have great export potential. In the Common Market countries, large quantities of shell fish and oysters are consumed. It is important that while we are importing large quantities of produce from those countries—such as cheese and butter—there should be a return load of fish going back to the Community.

Mr. Jopling

Is it not strange that the Department of Agriculture should have an experimental station on the Menai Straits which I visited by chance during the summer? I attempted to buy some oysters from the station where they are being bred, but I was told that they were not allowed to sell them but had to let them die. Is it not a pity that the Department does not go about that experiment in a more commercial manner?

Mr. Mills

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have always known that he has a vast knowledge. He has put me right. Before the end of the debate, it would be helpful to hear the facts from the Minister because the situation described by my hon. Friend appears to reveal a terrible waste. I shall consult my hon. Friend to see whether I can dig up any tips to pass on to my constituent.

Mr. David Price

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Paris oysters are a normal proletarian dish? I could take him to Les Halles, the Covent Garden of Paris, where he could see porters consuming oysters with extremely good wine during their break.

Mr. Mills

That proves my point. I cannot wait to go with my hon. Friend to taste these delicacies at his expense.

My memory is not always good, but when I had the privilege of being a Minister in Northern Ireland, fish farmers were given much encouragement and help, particularly towards the production of eels, which are exported in great quantities. I should have thought that anything Northern Ireland could do, the rest of the United Kingdom could also do.

My son has just returned from a kibbutz in Israel where fish farming is encouraged. In that country they realise how important protein is to their nation and they take the matter very seriously indeed. Why cannot we follow that pattern? The Minister talked of cost. It may be difficult in our present economic state to divert much money to the encouragement of fish farming and to put it on the same plain as agriculture, but at least the Minister could give a commitment to do something in the future. That would have a real effect on those who are struggling without any help. I hope that the Minister will treat the matter seriously. Although I am not a prophet, I am sure that a Tory Government will be in power before long and that they will take this business seriously because, whether Conservative or Socialist, any Government will be forced to do that in the future. At least the Minister could now start to sow the seeds of confidence by supporting the amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. George Reid (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

The trouble with aquaculture in the United Kingdom is that the fish farmer is nobody's child. He is neither fisherman nor farmer. He has none of the advantages of those professions and he suffers from the disadvantages of both. The Minister said that the proposal would lead to legal complications and difficulties, but these already exist for the fish farmer today. He is currently bandied about from Ministry to Ministry with the Inland Revenue, Department of Industry and the Scots and English Departments of Agriculture taking divergent views on his status and legal rights. He suffers from bureaucratic bumble and the lack of will by successive Governments to make his enterprise succeed.

My hon. Friends and I are delighted that the amendment was passed in another place because it shows an appreciation of the current frustrations felt by the fish farmer, especially those who know the potential for development which exists north of the Border. Even if the Treasury Benches trundle in their heavy battalions to vote the proposal down, the amendment gives the House the opportunity to debate the potential of fish farming in the United Kingdom's battle for food. Nowhere is that more important than in Scotland. North of the Border we have enormous potential to produce protein for human consumption on a scale comparable to that of EEC countries, Japan, the United States, the Soviet Union and Israel.

We have 2,300 miles of coastline in Scotland—almost as much as England and Wales together and comparable with the Eastern seaboard of the United States. We have a plethora of sea lochs and 610 square miles of inland water, much of which is ideal for aquaculture. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has done much excellent work here. It has recognised both the worldwide implications of food shortage and the importance of crofter participation.

In a letter a fish farmer told me:— We must develop this industry in Scotland, since I am sure that when Scottish indepen- dence eventually arrives it is one industry which is very much in tune with the maintenance 01 our traditional Scottish way of life in remote areas. Scotland's 200 fish farms currently produce about 1,200 tons of fish a year, 1,000 tons of rainbow trout and 200 tons of salmon. That may seem a drop in the ocean to English hon. Members, but I caution them against that view since the United Kingdom currently has to import 50 per cent. of its foodstuffs, whereas Scotland—in terms of food exports and imports—balances out. The United Kingdom currently imports 80 million pounds of fish a year and when the Minister talks of the cost of this amendment he should welcome any move which would reduce that figure.

The projected output for 1986 from fish farming in Scotland, as agreed between the Scottish Fishfarmers Association and the Scottish Office, is, despite the Minister's doubts, 15,000 tons of rainbow trout and 3,000 tons of salmon, not to mention crustaceans and flatfish. The potential North of the border could be much higher if only the industry had a centralised back-up from the Government.

It is not as though the opportunities are unknown. Nine years ago no less a person than a Senator of the College of Justice, Lord Cameron, was appointed to investigate the future of the industry. In 1970 he reported: Of all the developments and impending developments in fisheries, the one which promises to bring about … the most radical change is fish cultivation or farming. Lord Cameron foreshadowed much of what has happened in the fishing industry since then, particularly the disgraceful lack of purpose of successive Governments in their negotiations with the EEC and other fishing nations to do something about the slow destruction of our sea fisheries. He said: It seems certain that the demand for fish must ultimately exceed the reproductive capacity of the wild stocks. So it is proving.

Meanwhile, nearer our home shores, the Government have continued to make enthusiastic noises about aquaculture, but they have done precious little. They have boasted, as the Minister did today, about the £1 million spent on research and development, but have never explained what sort of aquaculture research the money is going into. There are deep suspicions in the industry North of the border that, as one fish farmer put it to me, the research is being carried out by redundant trawler experts, fishery biologists and administrators, and that there is little understanding of the specific problems of aquaculture. Whatever the reason, the net result has certainly been to stifle initiative and investment.

I have a twofold interest in the matter. First like any Scot who travels around his country, I have been much impressed by what is happening in Lochailort, the Uists, Ardrishaig, Galloway and Crook of Devon, and by the potential of the industry. Secondly, I have a constituency interest, as researchers from Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire work at the Unit of Aquatic Pathobiology in Stirling University. An academic staff of about six headed by Dr. Ron Roberts and 30 postgraduates are doing much valuable work on fish farming—the practical business of fish farming, economic viability, techniques, disease problems, parasitology and so on.

I can best illustrate the difficulties facing the unit by recounting the story of what happened to one fish farmer last Christmas when he found that his stocks had what he thought was a notifiable disease. He telephoned the Directorate of Fisheries Research at Aberdeen, but it was closed for the Christmas period and it was not possible to get in touch with anybody for two or three days. He called the Stirling University unit and scientists from there gave up their Christmas Day holiday to carry out the necessary diagnostic tests.

I am glad to see the junior Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, who also represents a Scottish seat—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) —on the Government Front Bench. He will know that the unit, the academic unit doing most for fish farming in the United Kingdom, is threatened with closure. It exists, hand to mouth, on a Nuffield grant and receives nothing from the University Grants Committee, except indirectly through the building in which it is housed.

Because aquaculture is not agriculture, Stirling's Department of Aquatic Pathobiology does not qualify for grants from the Agricultural Research Council or the Agricultural Training Board for its short courses, and the postgraduate students do not receive grants from the BAFS agricultural training schemes. If nothing else is achieved by this debate, I hope that we may at least receive assurances from the Government Front Bench that the position at the University will be looked into in the near future.

The Minister touched on the £1 million being spent on research and development. I can only report what fish farmers have told me in recent weeks—that much of the money is going into wild salmon research, which will be productive in 20 to 25 years' time, and on marine flatfish, the very sector that has failed to expand. They say that most of the research problems concerning rainbow trout and salmon which the Ministry is to cover have been tackled and solved by the industry itself, and the Government are now trailing behind, failing to tackle the outstanding problems of fish farming: first, a disease diagnostic service; second, the best use of water—for example, recycling; third, water parameters for optimum production; fourth, nutrition and nutritional diseases; and, fifth, artisanal courses for people who wish to work in the industry.

I now turn to the simple proposition that aquaculture is agriculture. I shall give four reasons. First, to all intents and purposes, aquaculture is an integral part of livestock farming. Fish are bred, enclosed, fed, treated for disease and managed in a way very similar to conventional livestock. The way of life and disciplines of the employees are essentially agricultural. Breeding and hatching techniques, stock selection, genetic improvements and so on are agricultural. Just as a farmer fertilises his land for dairy cattle, so the fish farmer fertilises his enclosure for plant growth. It is an anomaly that aquaculture is not treated as a branch of agriculture, as distinct from majority EEC practice. The business calls for long-term investment of capital and constant management of stock through varying seasons and through nature's hazards, and it requires the same framework in law and administration.

Secondly, the EEC recently called for expansion in fish farming, through various directives. It is already getting on with the job, leaving the United Kingdom sadly lagging behind, with 100,000 tons of fish from fish farms in France, 50,000 from Italy, 40,000 from West Germany, and a meagre 4,000 tons from the United Kingdom. In most of the EEC countries aquaculture is agriculture. Why should that not be the case here? The Minister should also look at Japan, where production is 950,000 tons, rising over the next five years to a projected 1.2 million tons. Aquaculture is agriculture there, too. Similar legislation is before the United States Congress.

There is already provision for EEC grants. Under the Commission's Directive R/2988/75, marine fish farmers can obtain a grant provided they qualify for a grant from the national Government. They cannot do so in the United Kingdom outside the area of the Highlands and Island Development Board, until the Government take the same view as their European colleagues.

Thirdly, is it not true that Ministry vets have already made a tentative start on the matter, since they are already being asked by the Ministries both in Scotland and England to inspect fish farms where notifiable diseases have occurred? It is not true also that private vets are being encouraged to service the day-to-day needs of the fish farming industry?

Fourthly, despite the Minister's doubts, the NFU in both Scotland and England, accepts aquaculture as agriculture.

The practical advantages of the amendment have already been listed from the Opposition Front Bench, and therefore I shall go through them very quickly. First, the industry would benefit through eligibility for building and equipment grants. That is particularly relevant to Scotland, where, unlike England and Wales, derating along the lines of rating concessions for farm buildings and land would be granted. The next advantage would be the introduction of legal rights for fish farmers, who are not at present technically owners of their fish stocks until the stocks have been harvested. Most of the removal of stocks is done not by otters or birds but by two-legged predators.

Mr. Mark Hughes

I accept the desirability of giving protection to fish stocks, but, regrettably, the wording would not give that protection.

Mr. Reid

I understand from fish farmers in Scotland that the breadth of the clause is such that the amendment would provide protection, but I am open to correction on this matter.

Why has there not been a Government commitment to fish farming in the United Kingdom, given that the Cameron Committee reported about seven years ago? As so often at present, there seems to be a sad lack of initiative in this House. The Scots Assembly or Scottish Parliament would not be so slow, because the industry is obviously important in Scotland. Already members of the fish farming fraternity north of the border have made approaches—certainly to me and my colleagues—to push for a Scottish aquaculture authority on along the lines of the Japanese organisation.

We have been hearing goodwill noises from the Treasury Bench for too long. The industry has been kept waiting for far too long. I believe that only a lack of bureaucratic will has kept the industry within its present economic and legal constraints. It is time to take aquaculture out of its present limbo land. The clause would serve as a holding operation until a fresh Bill could be introduced, either here or in Scotand.

I will leave the Minister with one simple thought. Fifty per cent. of the fish consumed in Israel are produced currently from fish farms in the barren Negev desert. If the Israelis can do it there, why can we not do it here?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson (Galloway)

In commending the amendment I wish to urge the Minister and his Department to take a leaf out of the book of the Leader of the Opposition. She is visiting my constituency this weekend in order to take a farm walk. I hope that the sun will shine upon her in the meteorological sense, although I have other hopes in the political sense, of course. Her example, however, should be commended. The Ministry could send its civil servants on a fish farm walk. I wish, too, that the Treasury would send its civil servants on a forest walk. Such walks would improve their health and broaden their outlook.

In supporting the amendment we are asking the Government to do three things. First we are asking them to recognise that fish farming is an important industry in its own right. Some people may ask how important can it be when in 1974, according to the latest report on Scottish fisheries, production was 900 metric tons of rainbow trout plus other lesser products. But the answer is obvious.

The increasing world population will demand increasing food production. As the demand for food production grows in other parts of the world we are bound to produce much more food from our own resources. It is rather shocking that in their document of that name the Government did not mention fish farming at all. When the seas have been over-fished we shall need to farm fish for our own needs. To do that we must build up expertise now. Certainly we have led the way in research and development, although I must confess that I had to visit a lobster fishery in Ireland many years ago to discover how much research had been done in Scotland. It was a revelation to me. I thought then that we might have been better educated in Scotland on this aspect of what we were doing.

But unless fish farming builds up, research and development will not be able to continue as they should because there must be an interaction between the fish farmer and the research scientist. It might be said that the industry is not important because the numbers employed are small. In my local fish farm between 10 and 15 people are employed in the course of the year. In the summer it takes on university students. Our largest village has only 400 inhabitants and the nearest village to the fish farm has only just over 300 in population. In that context 10 or 15 jobs are very important. We must not neglect fish farming on the grounds that the numbers employed are very small.

The second thing we are asking is that the Government should give fish farming the status it merits as one of the food producing industries and as the husbandry of livestock. To get some examples about the confusion surrounding the status of fish farming we need to go no further than the report of the working group entitled "Issues Considered by a Working Group Convened to Identify and Examine Legislative and Administrative Matters Affecting Fish Farmers" and issued on 13th January this year. It points out that the position on the rating of fish farms varies as between England and Scotland, although it is difficult to see that there can be a particularly logical reason for that.

The report then says, quite rightly, that capital allowances could be set against tax for expenditure on farm buildings and other capital investment. But the Inland Revenue says that fish farming is not husbandry and therefore allowances are not available. However, extra-statutory concessions take husbandry to include the intensive rearing of livestock on a commercial basis for food for human consumption. The Inland Revenue says that this could include fish farming. I like the tentative nature of the word "could".

The report then looks at the question of capital transfer tax relief for fish farming, and a reply is still awaited from the Inland Revenue on that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that reply is now available, because it seems that from January until now is sufficiently long for even the mills of the Inland Revenue to have ground out a reply.

I was tempted to say that this situation was a Lancashire hotch-potch, but in the present circumstances one would feel compelled to describe it as a grand old dish of legal bouillabaisse, although no Provençale housewife could have included more bits and pieces than the working group managed to get in their report.

The Government must classify fish farming in some category or other. If they do not do so, the industry will fall not between two stools but between many stools, and that would be an extremely uncomfortable position for any fish farmer. In any case, do we not owe it to the civil servants who have well-educated, tidy minds, and who may well have studied Aristotle in the past, as I did, although not to any great advantage in my case? We should put fish farming into a particular class so that the civil servants can get to work on the industry's real problems. We are asking the Government positively to encourage fish farming in the way in which it has been encouraged in places such as Norway, Israel and Japan.

The question of grants involves the most extraordinary anomalies. Grants are available in Northern Ireland. The Highlands and Islands Development Board gives grants. We do not get them in the South of Scotland, and I take it that the same situation applies an England and Wales. Where is the logic in that? We must encourage people to eat more fish. I had to travel to Brittany in order to have my palate educated to consume shellfish. The first time I was offered oysters for lunch I sent them back. The proprietress of the restaurant in Kemper —or to abandon the Breton spelling and use the French, Quimper—was aghast and said she could offer instead only a slice of boiled ham. She was even more surprised when I accepted that with alacrity.

A month later I was invited to dinner, and to honour the Breton lady who had taught me, by correspondence, the intricacies of the Breton language I thought I had better try to eat oysters. I enjoyed the experience very much and I pay tribute to Miss Marc'harid Gourlaouen for having awakened in me a devotion to both the Breton language and the oyster, a devotion which has never diminished over the years. Because of that great devotion to Brittany I have never yet been able to convince myself, although I like Guinness, that Guinness is the true accompaniment to the oyster. I prefer a nice glass of Muscadet.

That proves conclusively that the Government and others should educate people with conservative tastes—I stress that it is a small "c", because I would not swallow anything that came out of Smith Square—to enjoy shellfish. I hope that prices will become sufficiently low to enable us to do so more frequently.

How can these three aims be achieved? They can be achieved either by accepting the amendment, or by bringing in a Bill designed specifically to deal with fish farming. To take the latter alternative. What likelihood is there of a Bill? On 9th April 1975 in another place Lord Hughes gave an assurance that the Government were anxious to deal with legal anomalies because they believed the legal position to be unsatisfactory. Needless to say, the Government did not allow themselves to be stampeded by this consideration into hasty legislation. The noble Lord gave no guarantee of the likelihood of immedate legislation. However, he guaranteed early action on its consideration. That at least is moving slowly some way along the road.

If the Government do not want to see this amendment pressed to a vote, the Minister will have to make a definite statement that next Session we can expect a Bill to deal with this matter. It is not a politically contentious subject, and if the Government produce a measure I am sure that we shall all lend it support. At the moment we are no further forward.

There was a debate on this Bill in another place on 9th April this year when the Government—this time through Lord Strabolgi—said that they were still awaiting a reply from the fish farmers, about the working group report, and that until that happened nothing could be done. I suppose that the fish farmers were so busy that they did not wish to spend time answering queries to which they had already given their considered opinions. If it is objected that fish farming should not be legislated for in this Bill, which we would in Scotland describe as a gather-up measure, I would agree, but it is better to be legislated for in this way than not at all. Therefore, unless we are given a firm assurance by the Minister, I believe that we should press the matter to a vote. That at least will separate the friends of the rainbow trout from the purveyors and consumers of Civil Service red herrings on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Bishop

I am very pleased that the House has shown such a great interest in this subject. Perhaps in opening the debate I unduly restricted my remarks to the Lords Amendment and the complications and difficulties that could arise if that amendment were accepted. However, I say sincerely that this has been a useful debate. It will enable me to convey to the House the Government's concern on this matter and also to explain how greatly my hon. Friends and I have been involved in this matter.

Many hon. Members will know that I have a great interest in the industry. I have undertaken visits to 30 ports and fishing areas, including Brighton, ports in the South West, the North East and the North West. I have also visited the Torry Research Station at Aberdeen, which is a great asset to that area, and more recently I visited the Lowestoft area. Therefore, a considerable amount of work is being carried out in this sphere by the Ministry. I know that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues in the Ministry have also played their part in this process. Therefore, I can contend with some certainty that the fishing industry has occupied a fair amount of our time in the last few years—and rightly so in view of the great changes that are taking place in all aspects of the industry. We have always been available for consultations with fishing interests—not only the deep sea and inshore sectors, but fish farming areas, too.

5.45 p.m.

I should like to deal briefly with some of the points raised in the debate, and I hope to emphasise the Government's interest in and anxiety over these matters in our attempts to make greater progress.

I should like to thank the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) for drawing attention to the document "Issues considered by a working group convened to identity and examine legislative and administrative matters affecting fish farmers" because I believe that that document has been accorded too little attention. It draws attention to certain discrepancies arising from the treatment of different activities in the agricultural sector and those undertaken by fish farmers. The document continues: It was argued that this was unfair and detrimental to the fish farming interestֵ particularly where they were engaged directly in producing fish for food. One of the difficulties in focussing discussion of these matters was the lack of any national body to speak for the fish farming interests. I believe that the House should bear that matter in mind.

The document to which I have referred then says: However, with establishment by those engaged in this industry of the Fish Farmers' Union within the NFU of England and Wales it became practicable for such discussions to be held. This report, which deals with the situation in England and Wales, summarises the outcome of meetings of the working group which have recently taken place between organisations and the officials of the Ministry. The document then sets out a list of organisations so represented. They included the NFU Fish Farming Section, the Salmon and Trout Association, the Fisheries Organisation Society, the British Trout Farmers' Association, and the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

I understand that in another place it was said that this document was the basis of consultation between the Ministry and those organisations and others and that it was said that we were awaiting a reply. That reply has now emerged and the matter will have to be studied.

I wish to convince the House of the genuine concern by the Government to maximise production of food from this sector, small though it may be. I hope that I did not give the impression in my earlier remarks that this sector of the economy did not matter, because it most certainly does. However, it must be said that many difficulties still remain in sorting out some of the problems and that the Lords Amendment, if accepted, would make it impossible for us to undertake that task.

Let me mention some of the subjects considered by the group. Its work covered legal protection for stock; offences; exemption of fish from minimal size and seasonal restrictions; disease control; registration and inspection of fish farms; codes of practice; and definition of fish farms—which is somewhat more limited than hon. Members suggest. The group also considered the question of rating, development control, planning permission capital allowances, vehicle and fuel licence duties, grant aid, capital transfer tax, training and apprenticeship schemes, the Community Land Act, water authorities, and fish farming activities.

I do not apologise to the House for having set out those matters, because they only underline my argument that this subject is one of great complexity and cannot be dealt with overnight. My colleagues and I in the Ministry have been involved in discussions with the industry for some considerable time. I hope that the House will appreciate that a great deal of work has taken place behind the scenes in seeking to make progress.

I should like to administer a slight reprimand to some hon. Members and point out that over the years this subject has not been fully ventilated. There have been few Questions on the subject and few debates. I am not critical of the Opposition, because the opportunity for such debates is open to other hon. Members, too. On Second Reading and in 25 Standing Committee sittings I cannot recall—I apologise if I have overlooked anything—any mention of fish farming. At least we should be grateful to the other place for having drawn attention to this matter and giving us the chance to debate the clause. Had I realised the hidden interest of the House in the matter, I might have dealt more fully with the various aspects that have been raised at the beginning of my speech. I shall refer to one or two of the points that have been raised so as to stress the complexity of the matter.

Fish farming is an expression used to cover a number of activities. Broadly speaking, it can be divided into four main sectors. One sector is the rearing of rainbow trout in fresh and salt water. I believe that that activity produces between 1,500 tonnes and 2,200 tonnes per year. A proportion of that production goes direct for food. The second category is the rearing of salmon in fresh and salt water. Several companies in Scotland are now producing small quantities of salmon. About 200 tonnes were produced in 1975. The third sector is shell fish rearing. There are a number of hatcheries producing seed oysters for the industry. Marine fin fish farming is still at the developmental stage. A small number of turbot have been produced for marketing trials.

Several hon. Members upbraided me—I hope not too seriously—for appearing to suggest that the species of fish involved in fish farming, such as turbot, Dover sole and salmon, are what might be called non-traditional varieties. I was not in any way under-estimating the value of those fish. I think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) helped me, perhaps unwittingly, when he said that fish farming is involved with species rather different from deep sea fishing. I was merely referring to the species involved in fish farming and not pooh-poohing the value of the particular species.

The aim of the clause and of fish farmers is to obtain subsidies from central funds. No explicit justification has been given for such a commitment beyond the argument that aquaculture is to be equated with agriculture. In effect we are being asked to enter into an open-ended commitment by the drawing of a rather doubtful comparison. I stress that the Government are sensitive to the needs of the industry and to the development of new ventures within it. However, we consider that the use of central funds can best be directed at this stage into basic research, and that is what we are doing. As I have said, the benefits will be felt by the whole industry.

The clause represents a continuation of the efforts that have been made to equate the two industries. I believe that its simple approach is unacceptable. That is because we cannot accept legislation by analogy. Moreover, the proposition would create many problems. It would be difficult to trace all the effects through extent legislation to determine that aqua-culture, by being equated with agriculture, qualified under the relevant grant provisions, and still more difficult to suggest that such a course was justified at this time.

The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred to rating. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, fish farmers' installations are ratable, whereas in agriculture the farmer is free from paying rates on land and buildings. Fish farmers quote instances where they own agricultural building and fish farming buildings on the same site. They point to the absurdity of being rated on one and not on the other. We have taken up these issues with the Department of the Environment.

However, as the House will know, rating has been under review by the Lay-field Committee. The Government are considering the report. I think that it is now being considered by members of all parties. It is a valuable report. It would be unrealistic at this stage to press for any change until the conclusions on the committee's report have been reached.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to planning and to the need for exemption under the General Development Order. That is a part of the discussion programme that has been undertaken between the Ministry and the industry.

Reference has been made to the value of import savings. I should not like the House to think that I wished to indicate in my opening remarks that such savings did not matter. All food is very important, and food production should be encouraged as much as possible.

Some fish farmers argued that Government support should be given to their industry to produce import savings or to promote exports. In fact, much of the rainbow trout eaten in this country is imported from Denmark and elsewhere. The claim that an increase in domestic fish farming would save imports to any significant scale appears to be rather exaggerated.

A number of other factors have been raised, and I shall refer to some of the aspects that are involved in legislation besides the consequences of passing the amendment. Fish farmers complain that the Bill is not appropriate to their needs. I refer to the legal framework. Perhaps the fish farmers are not being unrealistic when they say that the legislation is designed to deal with the catching industry. That is the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. It is also designed to deal with the conservation of wild stocks.

We have undertaken to provide in legislation, when it proves possible, a remedy for a number of difficulties. I shall spell out a number of them. We shall seek to make it possible for immature farm fish to be sold legally, to permit fish farmers to sell their produce in the close season for wild fish, to up-date penalties for offences against the rights of owners of shell fisheries and to make it clear that the area allocated by a Several Order includes the column of water over the sea bed. The ownership of fish within sealed-off bays or lochs also requires clarification.

Steps have already by been taken in Scotland to exempt fish farming activities from measures intended to conserve wild stocks. I refer to close seasons, close times and minimum sizes. As regards grant aid, farmers of fresh water fish for food may be eligible for grant aid at 10 per cent. of the approved cost of a development plan under the provisions of the Farm and Horticultural Development Scheme. The scheme is designed to help the farmer reach a level of income comparable with the average in other industries. The scheme implements a general EEC Directive—namely, No. 72/159/EEC. Under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 fish farmers in designated assisted areas may also be eligible for financial aid if they are not assisted in other ways.

Grant may be obtained from FEOGA funds for individual projects that promote the common agricultural policy. That aid is available only for large-scale projects costing over £75,000. Member States must approve and contribute to the financing.

I believe that those are the main points that I should mention. I have some figures referring to the production of trout and salmon. In 1975, 2,000 tonnes of trout and 100 tonnes of salmon were farmed. In the same year 250 tonnes of trout and about 360 tonnes of salmon—that is in Great Britain only—were taken by rod and line. The other figures are available if hon. Members wish the information to be given.

The Department is well apprised of the importance of fish farming. Indeed, the Ministry has been leading the way and pressing on the industry the need to enter into consultations to resolve some of the problems which will have to be faced and which will be the basis of legislation as and when time becomes available. Discussions have been taking place with the interests concerned on a range of legal and administrative points. I have referred to some of those matters today. I know that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and his hon. Friends have done so as well as some of my hon. Friends.

The Government will do whatever is reasonable to meet the industry's point, short of increasing expenditure at this stage. The main objection to the passing of the amendment is that there is no indication from Members of the other place, or from anyone in this place, about the effect that the passing of the amendment would have in six months' time. It would not only be an open-ended commitment at a time when money is not available in unlimited amounts. It would also mean that the House would have to face the fact that money budgeted for this purpose would be taken from other grants given in the farming sector. We are pressing on with this matter.

I hope that the House will continue to press the Government, because we want to show that the fish farming sector is of importance. I would appreciate more opportunities of saying what we are doing as well as the opportunity for consultations with hon. Members about this. I am prepared to send copies of the memorandum to which I have referred to those who need it.

Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to give us an assurance that the Government will introduce a Bill in the immediate future?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Bishop

The House will not expect me to anticipate the Gracious Speech. I have given an assurance and have made reference to the aspects of this subject which will require legislation. It would be unwise of me to give the assurance the hon. Gentleman seeks, although I appreciate the demand for it. There is much consultation which must continue before this matter is resolved. The basis of legislation cannot be anticipated. We cannot anticipate the timetable. I hope that the House will accept my assurance that we shall do our utmost to press on with the consultations and to reach conclusions which may form the basis for legislation which will be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Pym

I agree that this has been a useful debate but I regret that the Minister's second speech, which was longer than his first speech, did not allay the anxieties expressed in all parts of the House. The background to this debate is the plight of our fishing industry, the need to use and develop to the best of our ability all new sources of food production, the significance of this small, emerging new industry and the reluctance of the Government to put it on a foundation which will aid its development.

Everyone has expressed his great concern. We all know that a great deal of discussion has been going on. In my opening remarks I listed those limited areas where I thought that the clause would be of assistance and set out a whole range of areas in which it could not assist. I said that what we required was a Bill specifically dealing with fish farming, to set this industry up properly. I asked for an assurance that action would be taken by the Government. I regret to say that I did not detect that assurance in sufficient degree.

The Minister said that in due course, when the consultations were over, something would happen. That is rather vague. The other place debated this at the beginning of June. Nothing seems to have happened since. Many of us had hoped and expected that, as a result of the clause, the Government would have had the time to take this matter further. The Minister said that the Government were available for consultation. We would hope so. He said that the Government were genuinely concerned about the industry, as we would expect. The Government, he told us, are sensitive to the needs of the industry. Of course they are. It is all discussion, all talk of concern, and no action.

I would have thought that the Government would have been absolutely clear that we want action. If they do not understand that all of our principal traditional fish stocks are now threatened, certainly everyone else has shown that they are concerned about this. Others have spoken of the steps which are being taken by countries in Europe and elsewhere to replace traditional supplies of fish by the development of fish farming techniques.

When the debate started I did not want to have a vote on this clause. I asked for a firm assurance that, if we were not to get some assistance by way of the Government accepting the clause, other steps would be taken which would do a thorough and better job. Labour Members who have spoken said that they did not want to vote, for reasons I entirely understand. We were expressing the same views. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) wanted an assurance concerning Government intentions which is basically what I was saying. Frankly I do not believe that we have had that assurance except on terms which speak of some action some time in the future, which is too vague for the reality of the situation.

I am afraid that in interrupting the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) earlier I made a mistake. The clause inserted in another place was inserted in that part of the Bill which does apply to Scotland. Therefore, this rating matter would be covered by the Bill. The Minister must know that the Layfield Committee has reported and that the Government are reviewing the matter, as are the Opposition. The point is that, regardless of the outcome of that review, fish farming ought to be treated on the same basis as agriculture, as it is in essence the same type of activity. There is nothing to wait for. Both these types of food production ought to be treated on the same basis.

I recognise the limitations of the clause and the fact that it does not do the job required of it. The House is not satisfied with the Government's attitude. Although I accept that, strictly speaking, the clause is of limited value, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to register the importance they attach to this subject and their objection to what appears to be a vague, lackadaisical approach, however intense the discussions. Time is being lost which ought

Division No. 329.]	AYES	[6.7 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Gould, Bryan	Orbach, Maurice
Allaun, Frank	Graham, Ted	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Anderson, Donald	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Park, George
Archer, Peter	Grant, John (Islington C)	Pavitt, Laurie
Ashton, Joe	Grocott, Bruce	Phipps, Dr Colin
Alkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Price, William (Rugby)
Atkinson, Norman	Harper, Joseph	Radice, Giles
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Bates, Alf	Hatton, Frank	Richardson, Miss Jo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Heffer, Eric S.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bidwell Sydney	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Bishop, E. S.	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Roderick, Caerwyn
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Boardman, H.	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Rooker, J. W.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Rose, Paul B.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Rowlands, Ted
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Ryman, John
Buchan, Norman	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Sandelson, Neville
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Sedgemore, Brian
Campbell, Ian	John, Brynmor	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cant, R. B.	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Carmichael, Neil	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Cartwright, John	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Clemitson, Ivor	Judd, Frank	Silverman, Julius
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Kaufman, Gerald	Skinner, Dennis
Cohen, Stanley	Kerr, Russell	Small, William
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Conlan, Bernard	Lambie, David	Spriggs, Leslie
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Lamborn, Harry	Stallard, A. W.
Corbett, Robin	Lamond, James	Stott, Roger
Crawshaw, Richard	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Strang, Gavin
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Leadbitter, Ted	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Davidson, Arthur	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Lipton, Marcus	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Deakins, Eric	Litterick, Tom	Tomney, Frank
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Loyden, Eddie	Torney, Tom
Dempsey, James	McCartney, Hugh	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Doig, Peter	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dormand, J. D.	McElhone, Frank	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Ward, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.	MacKenzle, Gregor	Walking, David
Edge, Geoff	Mackintosh, John P.	Weitzman, David
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Whitehead, Phillip
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Marks, Kenneth	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Marquand, David	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Faulds, Andrew	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Wilson( Alexander (Hamilton)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Maynard, Miss Joan	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mendelson, John	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Ford, Ben	Mikardo, Ian	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Forrester, John	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Woodall, Alec
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Molyneaux, James	Woof, Robert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
George, Bruce	Newens, Stanley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gilbert, Dr John	Noble, Mike	Mr. David Stoddart and
Ginsburg, David	Oakes, Gordon	Mr. James Tinn.
Golding, John	Ogden, Eric

NOES
Adley, Robert	Beith, A. J.	Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Arnold, Tom	Bell, Ronald	Biffen, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Boscawen, Hon Robert

not to be lost. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to register their disapproval of the Government's slowness in dealing with something so important.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 160.

Braine, Sir Bernard	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Kimball, Marcus	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bryan, Sir Paul	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Budgen, Nick	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bulmer, Esmond	Knight, Mrs Jill	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Knox, David	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Lane, David	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Salnsbury, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Scott, Nicholas
Clegg, Walter	Lawrence, Ivan	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Shepherd, Colin
Crawford, Douglas	Lloyd, Ian	Shersby, Michael
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Loveridge, John	Sillars, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Luce, Richard	Silvester, Fred
Drayson, Burnaby	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Sims, Roger
Durant, Tony	MacCormick, Iain	Skeet, T. H. H.
Elliott, Sir William	Macfarlane, Neil	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Madel, David	Speed, Keith
Eyre, Reginald	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Marten, Neil	Sproat, Iain
Farr, John	Mather, Carol	Stainton, Keith
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Mawby, Ray	Stanbrook, Ivor
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stanley, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mayhew, Patrick	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Forman, Nigel	Mills, Peter	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Freud, Clement	Miscampbell, Norman	Stradling Thomas, J.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Morgan, Geraint	Thompson, George
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Griffiths, Eldon	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Grist, Ian	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Trotter, Neville
Grylls, Michael	Neave, Airey	Viggers, Peter
Hall, Sir John	Nelson, Anthony	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Neubert, Michael	Wall, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Newton, Tony	Walters, Dennis
Hampson, Dr Keith	Onslow, Cranley	Warren, Kenneth
Hannam, John	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Watt, Hamish
Higgins, Terence L.	Osborn, John	Weatherill, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn	Page, John (Harrow West)	Welsh, Andrew
Hordern, Peter	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Pardoe, John	Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Parkinson, Cecil	Wigley, Dafydd
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Pattie, Geoffrey	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Penhaligon, David	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Hunt, John (Bromley)	Peyton, Rt Hon John
James, David	Price, David (Eastleigh)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Prior, Rt Hon James	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Mr. W. Benyon.
Jopling, Michael	Reid, George

Question accordingly agreed to.