Lords Sitting of 19 April 1951

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Jessel, having affirmed—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Prayers

  ABINGDON CORPORATION BILL
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  SAINT BENET GRACECHURCH BILL
  Read 2a.

  H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY"
  4.6 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any further statement to make on the disaster to His Majesty's submarine, "Affray."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, I regret to inform the House that although fullscale air and sea searches have continued during the past twenty-four hours, including search sweeping on the sea bed, the Submarine "Affray" has not yet been found, and hopes that any lives will now be saved are dwindling. The search is continuing. I should like to repeat what I said yesterday as to my deep sympathy with those people who are suffering such anxiety at the present time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for keeping the House in touch with the latest developments in regard to this submarine. I only wish that they had something more definite to announce. In the meantime, on behalf of all those who sit on these Benches I should like to join with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in tendering our deep sympathy to the relatives and friends of the crew in their cruel anxiety.
  LORD REA: My Lords, it is hardly necessary for me to add that we on these Benches wholeheartedly associate ourselves with what the noble Marquess has just said. We await further news with great anxiety and great hope.

  PACIFIC DEFENCE ARRANGEMENTS
  4.9 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the second Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make with reference to President Truman's announcement about defence arrangements in the Pacific.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the House will have seen the statement made by President Truman yesterday regarding the arrangement proposed between the Governments of the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand to strengthen the security of these countries in the Pacific area. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, who have throughout been in the closest consultation with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, warmly welcome this development. They consider that such an arrangement will be a most valuable contribution to the security of the Commonwealth and to the safeguarding of the vital interests of the democratic countries in the whole Pacific area. The United Kingdom Government regard the arrangement as complementary to the understandings of mutual support and co-operation between our own country, Australia and New Zealand. We are confident that it will serve to strengthen still further the close and special relationship which exists between our three countries.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the statement which he has made. Noble Lords in all parts of the House, I have no doubt, welcome any steps which may tend to strengthen the pattern of the defence of the free world in the Pacific area, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government why the United Kingdom are not a party to these arrangements. I think it will be generally agreed

  407
  that we are as closely associated with the Pacific as are the United States, and almost as closely as are Australia and New Zealand, both on account of our direct national interest in the Far East and on account of our close family relationship with Australia and New Zealand, with whom we should, of course, immediately make common cause if they were involved in war. If they have not already done so, I hope the Government will make immediate representations in Washington to ensure that we are directly included in the arrangements which are in contemplation.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Marquess may be assured that these arrangements do not in any way minimise our understandings or obligations with regard to the Commonwealth, and particularly with regard to Australia and New Zealand. They are, as I said in my original answer, complementary to the arrangements for mutual support and co-operation between our countries. I welcome the inquiries of the noble Marquess, and will certainly bring them to the attention of my right honourable friends.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOT-LAND) BILL
  4.12 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to amend and strengthen the present law against the poaching of salmon and trout in Scotland, and to in-crease the weekly close time for the taking of salmon otherwise than by rod and line. It seeks by these means to protect and, if possible, to improve the stocks of fish. Your Lordships will remember that last year we had a most interesting debate on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, dealing with the subject of illegal fishing for salmon, and particularly with the depredation of gangs descending on our salmon rivers, often from a great distance. On that occasion there was a general consensus of opinion that legislation to strengthen the law was urgently required. Accordingly, in submitting this
  408
  Bill to your Lordships I do so with every confidence that it will be welcomed in principle as a necessary and desirable measure.
  The salmon fisheries of Scotland are an asset of great value. It is estimated that in 1950 they produced about 1,450 tons of fish, valued at about £1,000,000. In addition to the value of the fish actually caught, the fisheries provide a substantial amount of employment, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, their conservation is a matter of considerable economic importance. In the past few years there has developed in many parts of the country a practice of poaching on a commercial scale and by the use of indefensible methods. Gangs of men have gone by car, often over long distances, to parts of rivers where fish are lying waiting for a chance to go up the river to spawn; and have then, using nets and often explosives or poison, taken large quantities of salmon for profitable disposal in the black market. The harmful effect on our stocks of salmon of poaching on this scale requires no emphasis by me. It is not only the loss of the actual fish which are poached. These fish are taken when they are moving up river from the sea to spawn. If they are prevented from doing this, the long-term consequences to the stocks of fish will be much more serious than the immediate reduction in the season's catches.
  In 1948, a Committee, under the chairmanship of Sheriff R. H. Maconochie, K.C., was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to inquire into the situation, and to make recommendations for the protection of salmon and trout stocks. After exhaustive consideration of the evidence and a careful review of the existing law, the Committee made unanimous recommendations in favour of strengthening very greatly the present penalties, particularly for poaching and illegal fishing of the indefensible kind which does greatest injury to the stocks. The present Bill is based broadly upon the recommendations of the Committee, and the Government are much indebted to its members for the care and assiduity with which they addressed themselves to their terms of reference. In a code of law so complex as that which deals with poaching and illegal fishing, it is almost inevitable that, in the reduction of suggested amendments to legislative form, it

  409
  should be found necessary to differ in some respects from the specific proposals made by the Committee. But, in fact, the only substantial recommendations of the Committee to which effect has not in one way or another been given in the Bill are those which relate to the licensing of all persons dealing in salmon and trout, and the keeping by dealers, catering establishments and cold storage plants of detailed records of all their transactions. The recommendations have been given a great deal of consideration, but it is considered that the burden of administration and record-keeping, which would clearly need to extend to England as well as to Scotland, would be out of proportion to any results which might ensue. The proposals contained in the Bill, therefore, are concentrated on making the other machinery for the enforcement of the law as efficient and effective as possible.
  Under Part I of the Bill, offences will in future fall into four main categories. Clause 1 makes it an offence to fish for salmon without legal right or written permission from a person having such a right. It has not been thought necessary to make it an offence to fish for trout without legal right, although this will remain, as at present, a breach of the civil law, which can be dealt with by interdict at the instance of the proprietor. The maximum fine which can be imposed for fishing without legal right is being increased from £5 to £10; and, as previously, the fish caught, though not the rod, will be liable to forfeiture. This clause is aimed at the ordinary proacher, using ordinary methods of fishing. Having regard to the special and very severe penalties provided in the following clauses for the kind of illegal fishing that is seriously damaging the stocks of fish, it has been thought sufficient in this type of case merely to double the existing monetary penalty. Ordinary poaching is an offence which deserves appropriate punishment; but it is an offence very different in gravity and effect from gang poaching or the use of explosives.
  Clause 2 deals with fishing by illegal methods. The effect of the first sub-section of this clause is to make it an offence to fish for salmon in inland waters except by rod and line or net and coble, subject to a proviso which preserves existing rights. The second subsection of the clause makes it an offence to fish for
  410
  trout except by rod and line, subject to the existing rights of proprietors, if they are all agreed, to net in a pond or loch. Summary conviction of an offence under this clause carries, under Clause 18, a maximum penalty of £20 for a first offence and £50 or three months' imprisonment, or both, for a second or subsequent offence. Conviction on indictment enables the court to impose a fine of £100 or two years' imprisonment, or both. For a continuing offence, a further penalty of £10 a day in a summary case, and £20 a day in a case taken on indictment, may be awarded. Under Clause 19, fish and implements may be forfeited, and on conviction on indictment the court may also order the forfeiture of any vehicle or boat used in the commission of the offence. These provisions should provide a sufficient deterrent against illegal fishing by methods—for example, by the use of nets—which are not specially dealt with in the two following clauses.
  I now come to fishing by gangs and the use of explosives, poison or electrical devices. Clauses 3 and 4 strike at the most serious abuses. The former makes it an offence for two or more persons, acting together, to poach or to fish by illegal methods. It is aimed at the gang which, acting together, proceeds to clean up a pool—for example, by the use of nets. Clause 4, which makes it an offence to use explosives, poison or electrical devices, is aimed at the unscrupulous kind of poaching to which many gangs have been found to resort. These are the types of offence for which it is clearly right to reserve the most severe penalties. Clause 5, therefore, empowers the court on summary conviction to impose a fine of up to £50, or imprisonment up to three months, for a first offence; for a second or subsequent offence the maximum penalty is a fine of £100 or six months' imprisonment, or both On conviction on indictment, the maximum penalty is £500 or two years' imprisonment, or both. In addition, of course, the same powers under Clause 19, in regard to forfeiture, as are applicable in the case of fishing by illegal methods are available. It is hoped that these provisions, taken together and vigorously enforced, will provide an effective deterrent against the graver forms of abuse.
  The remaining provisions of Part I of the Bill are really complementary to those

  411
  which have been described. In order to put a further check on the operations of poachers who use explosives, it is being made an offence under Clause 6 for an unauthorised person to take dead salmon or trout from any waters; and as a further means of suppressing illegal practices persons found in possession of fish and instruments, explosives or poison, in circumstances which give reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Clauses 1 to 4 has been committed, may, under Clause 7, be charged with unlawful possession, and may be dealt with as if an offence had been committed. In isolated parts of the country where poaching offences are usually committed, a constable or water bailiff may be unaccompanied. It is accordingly proposed that a person may be convicted under this clause on the evidence of one witness. It will, of course, remain for the court to decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. Provision is made in Clause 9 to ensure that scientific investigations and the improvement or development of stocks of fish are not hampered because the steps which it is proposed to take for these purposes are illegal under the other provisions of the Bill.
  This brings me to the powers of water bailiffs. Under subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 10 the existing powers of water bailiffs are re-enacted and the bailiffs are given the right to exercise them in districts adjoining their own. Subsections (4) and (5) enable a constable, or a person appointed by the Secretary of State, to exercise similar powers; and subsection (6) penalises anyone who obstructs a water bailiff, a constable or a person appointed by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his duties.
  If there is reasonable ground to suspect that evidence of the commission of an offence under Clauses 3 and 4—that is, of poaching by gangs or by the use of explosives, poison, or electrical devices— is to be found on premises or in a vehicle, a water bailiff, a constable or a person appointed by the Secretary of State will be able to obtain a search warrant from a sheriff or justice of the peace entitling him to search the premises or vehicle and also any person who is found in, or who he has reasonable ground to believe has recently left, or is about to enter, those
  412
  premises or that vehicle. If, by reason of urgency, a constable (but not a water bailiff or a person authorised by the Secretary of State) finds it impossible to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle, he may nevertheless search the vehicle and anyone in it, or entering or leaving it, provided he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence against Clauses 3 and 4 has been committed and that evidence of its commission is to be found in the vehicle. Under subsections (4) and (5) water bailiffs and persons appointed by the Secretary of State are given a similar power to search a vehicle (but not a person) on private land.
  I now come to powers of arrest. It is proposed that, in future, powers of arrest for the enforcement of the Salmon Fisheries Acts and of the Bill should be given only to constables, water bailiffs and persons appointed by the Secretary of State. In future, offences of poaching or illegal fishing will be ordinary criminal offences and will be prosecuted as such by the criminal authorities. The system of private prosecutions is not being continued for offences created by the Bill. It accordingly seems appropriate that the statutory powers of arrest should conform as nearly as possible to those which apply in the case of other criminal offences of comparable gravity.
  I should now like to say a few words about the extension of weekly close time. In the interests of stock conservation, annual and weekly close times, during which fishing is not permissible, have been laid down. The weekly close time for salmon fishing otherwise than by rod and line extends for thirty-six hours from 6 p.m. on Saturday to 6 a.m. on the following Monday. This period was fixed nearly a hundred years ago and its value as a means of conserving the stocks of fish is beyond question. It is proposed in Clause 13 of the Bill to extend the weekly close time by six hours, making it run from 12 noon on Saturday till 6 a.m. on Monday morning. It is believed that in this way a substantially increased number of fish will be able to ascend the rivers, and that accordingly the spawning, and consequentially the stocks of fish, will be improved. This extension was not recommended by the Maconochie Committee—the subject was outside their terms of reference—but it is believed to be a constructive suggestion which is fully justified, and it has been included in the

  413
  Bill with the general agreement of the salmon fishery interests. The operation of the new arrangements for the weekly close time will, under Clause 14, be subject to investigation after an initial period. It is proposed in Clause 15 to give statutory authority for undertaking scientific investigations into salmon and freshwater fish and for the collection of statistics of salmon catches. This provision is necessary in order that we may have a solid basis of facts on which to build our future policy for the protection and development of the fisheries.
  Clause 16 provides that salmon, sea trout or trout is not to be sent by any common or other carrier unless the package containing it is marked conspicuously with the word "Salmon." "Sea trout" or "Trout" and with the name and address of the sender. Power is given to persons appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State, to officers of district boards and to constables to open any package suspected of containing salmon, sea trout or trout; and, if the package is found to contain salmon, sea trout or trout and is not marked, it may be detained pending proceedings for an offence against the Act. These powers should greatly facilitate the detection of offences and also act as a deterrent against the marketing of fish which have been illegally come by. The remaining provisions of the Bill— with the exception of those in Clauses 18 and 19 relating to penalties and forfeiture, which have been described incidentally— are for the most part of a minor or procedural character. Clause 17 removes the limit of the assessment which can be imposed by district boards. Clause 20 provides for the disposal of fish which have been seized under the provisions of the Act. Clauses 21 and 22 deal with the position of the River Esk and the River Tweed—the Esk is to be regarded as wholly in England and the Tweed as wholly in Scotland. I hope that I have explained the provisions of the Bill to your Lordships' satisfaction. The Schedules are generally formal, and I need add only that the Bill will come into force on the day it receives the Royal Assent. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Morrison.)
  4.31 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are
  414
  grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for his clear exposition of this Bill. Did they but know it, I think it is a happy day for the salmon swimming in the sea, because this undoubtedly is a most helpful Bill and we are grateful to the Government for having brought it forward in their legislative programme. It is a non-Parly Bill. It has been the subject of careful scrutiny in another place, where it went through a Committee stage which lasted some three days. The best service that we can do to the salmon industry and to the salmon themselves is to get the Bill on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. I cannot pass from this matter without saying that I feel that your Lordships' House has played a considerable part in initiating the necessary action for the Bill. It was the enterprising action and informative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, last June, which brought this matter to a head. I know that the Government were seriously concerned about the matter before that time—successive Governments have been concerned about it—but it was only the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which, I think, tipped the balance in favour of Government action.
  The Bill is not a perfect Bill. It is, to some extent, a compromise Bill. Later on in this debate noble Lords will no doubt draw attention to various points which they regret have not been dealt with. I personally regret that Sheriff Maconochie's strong recommendations with regard to the licensing and control of dealers in salmon have not been introduced. But, on the other hand, I appreciate the administrative difficulties which would be involved. On balance, I think it is better to get a Bill without those provisions than to stick out in order to try and get those provisions at some later date. Equally, I regret, so far as fishing is concerned, that the retail sale of this valuable substance, Cymag, has not been dealt with more stringently in this Bill. There was in another place an Amendment to Clause 4 which was not called, and which would have had that effect. I must say that we have had the courtesy of the advice of the noble Lord's departmental officers. I appreciate that efforts to tighten up the retail sale of Cymag would not be appropriate to this particular Bill, and that it would be necessary to go back to the food and poisons legislation. I think the Pharmacy

  415
  Act of 1933 would have to be amended, and agricultural interests would have to be assured of their necessary supplies of Cymag. I believe it could be done if we all put our shoulders to the wheel and co-operated. However, it would be a long business before further legislation could be introduced, and it would undoubtedly delay this Bill. I say again that this Bill does not give us everything we want, but I should prefer to have what the Government are giving us now rather than run any risk of delay.
  I am glad that the Bill will heavily increase the penalties for the wicked blowing up of salmon pools with gelignite. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from a letter I received from a very respected fisherman—an old gentleman now—who has fished for many years the River Teith in Scotland. He was kind enough to let me stand in the ice-cold water for two days at Easter. He writes as follows:
  "No wonder you got no fish when you were with us. The pool at Deanston, the 'Ladder' pool was gelignited about two days before, and I fear a large proportion of the Spring run destroyed as usual. This pool, as I explained to you, is vital. It is a big and a deep pool and has an old ladder by the weir which works well when the water gets to about 44 degrees. But at 38 degrees. no fish will go near it. So they collect and collect and collect in this pool until the geligniters think there are enough for their purpose and in goes the charge. This has been going on to my certain knowledge ever since I first fished Cambusmore in 1919."
  He finishes his letter in this way:
  "We have had another blank week. I always associate the blowing up of the Spring run with two other events. During thirty years the sequence has been, (1) the blasting of the ' Ladder' pool, (2) the Liverpool Grand National, and, (3) the University Boat Race. None of these have ever yet failed."
  This is the first major Scottish legislation on this subject for twenty-eight years. The problem is a grave one and has become increasingly threatening. Indeed, it has been increasingly harmful to the industry, the value of which there is no need for me to stress in this House. I should like to associate myself and, I am sure, all other noble Lords, with the expression of thanks to Sheriff Maconochie for the fine work he did in investigating and preparing his Report. Whether your Lordships are fishermen or whether you are not, I feel you will appreciate the purpose and value of this Bill.
  416
  Those of your Lordships who are fishermen may agree with the sentiments expressed in that little verse which reads:
  "Of all the world's enjoyments
  That ever valued were.
  There's none of our own employments
  With fishing can compare."
  On the other hand, there are some of your Lordships who may feel like Samuel Johnson:
  "A fishing rod is a stick with a hook at one end and a fool at the other."
  You may take your choice of the way in which you regard the person who indulges in the art and sport of angling. Nevertheless, irrespective of what your Lordships' views may be, I feel sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that this is a valuable Bill for which we are grateful to the Government, and we hope to see it passed into law at the earliest possible date.
  4.38 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, for his very complimentary remarks about myself, although he did me too much honour. I only happened to bring the matter forward in your Lordships' House, and I was very strongly supported by noble Lords in all parts of the House. Really, the main thanks of your Lordships are due to my noble friend Lord Morrison, who I know has taken a strong personal interest in this matter, and I think we are indebted to him in large part for this very valuable legislation. The noble Lord who preceded me spoke about this being a good day for the salmon. I know his great love for salmon and, especially I suppose, he loves the monster who gets away— but I know what he means. After all, the salmon need not take our lures; he need not take our flies, however skilfully cast. But the poor wretch in the pool, with his spawn inside him, who is dynamited or gelignited, has not a chance. That is something which affects not only the salmon going up to spawn but all other fish and insect life in that part of the water, and anything that can hamper and hinder these misdeeds will, I am sure, command your Lordships' welcome and support.
  According to my noble friend, the Bill is to be effective from the day of the Royal Assent. Therefore I would support the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of

  417
  Inchrye, in pleading that we should pass it as soon as we can. I hope there will be no Amendments, because that would mean more delay—and every day counts, especially at this time of the year. It happens to be a late season for salmon in Scotland, owing to the cold water and other factors. The next weeks will be vital for the next spawning season, on which salmon production will depend for some years ahead. Therefore if we can get this Bill through your Lordships' House as soon as possible, I am sure it will be all to the good. May I welcome the extension of the provisions regarding increased close time for netting? I am sure that this is an admirable step, and one which will bring about a great improvement. Perhaps I may be allowed 1o draw the noble Lord's attention to what happened on the River Wye some years ago when there was overnetting. Those interested took action; the nets were reduced; and the Wye returned to its position of being the finest salmon-fishing river in England. There is one other matter about which I feel anxious, and that is how the provisions of this Bill are to be publicised. I hope that the Scottish Office and His Majesty's Government will take care to make known its provisions by means of short and simple posters, placed in post offices and else-where in the river districts. The obligation, for example, to label packages containing salmon or trout is very important, and the ordinary person may not know about it. I think it will be necessary to make a special effort to make known this and the other provisions of this valuable Bill.
  I regret that the Bill was not introduced in your Lordships' House in the first place. I think we should have dealt with it, if I may say so without offence, in a more realistic manner than in another place. It has been "knocked about" a little, in another place, but still it is a valuable Bill. I hope that a similar Bill to this will be introduced for England and Wales. These highly organised commercial poachers may come away from Scotland and turn their attention to rivers in England and Wales, and I should like to see provision made to meet this danger. There is already a good deal of poaching in these countries; I would mention only the beautiful county of Devonshire. I am sorry to see that the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, the Lord
  418
  Lieutenant of the county, is not here to-day, for he could say that he knows well that poaching is rife in Devonshire. On the whole, it is not at present commercial poaching; but if the commercial gangs shift their activities to Devonshire or to Wales a great deal of mischief may be wrought. I hope that the Government will consider a similar Bill with the necessary variations for England and Wales; I am sure that it would be of great value. I am glad that Lord Balfour of Inchrye has welcomed this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I join with him in congratulating my noble friend Lord Morrison and His Majesty's Government on introducing it.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I feel there is little I can add to the commendations of this Bill made by the two noble Lords who have preceded me. Like them, I feel that the most important thing of all in connection with the Bill is that it should pass into law as expeditiously as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has just said, in this case time is not on our side; every hour of delay may mean more grievous damage to our fish stocks in the rivers of Scotland. Therefore, although we may not feel that this is a perfect Bill, it has been well sifted in another place and, to my mind, is a most useful Bill. I know that that is the view of the Scottish Landed Proprietors' Federation, and I believe that I am voicing the views of most river proprietors in Scotland in saying that they would like to see it go straight through without any amendment or any Committee stage.
  I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on his moving of the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill seems to go a long way towards countering the menace of the organised poaching gangs which, I remember, were described by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of lnchrye, in a previous debate on this subject, as "commando raids" on our rivers. I thought that was a most apt description. At the same time, the Bill deals in a lenient fashion with the ordinary average poacher—who emerged from the previous debate in your Lordships' House with something very like a halo round his head. However, it is right that we should make a clear discrimination between these two kinds of

  419
  poacher. There is a great deal of sympathy with the man who goes to get a fish either for the sport, or to supplement the family larder, or for both purposes. And, my Lords, in case anyone thinks that this ordinary rod-and-line poacher has been harshly dealt with by having the maximum fine stepped up to £10, let him remember that there is no provision now for the forfeiture of the poacher's rod and line and gear. That is an important point, because a £10 maximum fine without the forfeiture provision represents a much lighter penalty than the old £5 maximum with forfeiture of the rod and line—simply because of the difficulty of replacement of these things to-day.
  There are one or two points which I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain, since his doing so may allay certain anxiety among owners in Scotland. In Clause 7, subsection (3), it is provided that a person charged with being in possession in suspicious circumstances of a salmon or trout, or of the explosives or instruments which are used illegally to kill them, may be convicted on the evidence of one witness. We have no quarrel with the provision for only one witness in such cases, but does it mean that under other clauses of the Bill two witnesses will be required to obtain a conviction? That would not be quite fair. I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to clarify that.
  Clause 11 deals with the powers of search. Under subsection (4) water bailiffs are empowered to search vehicles on "any private land adjoining any water." Is that to be interpreted in an elastic manner or not? That is important. Does this subsection mean that a vehicle may be searched only on or close to a river bank? It seems to me that an intelligent gang of poachers—and I imagine that most of these gentlemen have their wits about them—would toe the last to leave their vehicles anywhere near the river. I should have thought that they would hide them away as far from the river as possible, and carry their fish away to the vehicles under cover of darkness. It has been suggested that water bailiffs have no right to search on any land in their fishery board district or on any highway which appears to be restricted to constables, as in subsection (3). It
  420
  all depends on what the word "adjoining" is intended to mean.
  I now pass to Clause 12 which, so far as proprietors in the remoter areas of Scotland are concerned, has given more anxiety than any other clause in the Bill. This clause deals with the apprehension of offenders, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, pointed out to us in his opening speech. Under it the power of arrest which they enjoyed under the Act of 1868, is taken away from proprietors and keepers, and is vested now only in water bailiffs. constables and "persons appointed by the Secretary of State." In many of the sparsely populated and remoter districts of Scotland, water bailiffs are very few or, in some cases, nonexistent—because in some places there are no district boards, no fishery boards; and in these remote districts very few constables are available. It appears, therefore, that unless the power of arrest is given to persons other than these water bailiffs and constables the depredations of these poaching gangs will continue— indeed, they may increase, because the gangs will always try to operate where there is the greatest opportunity and the least likelihood of their being caught: the more scattered the area, the greater the opportunity. If it is intended that the owners or their employees are to come within the scope of this Clause 10, so that they will be included amongst the "persons appointed by the Secretary of State," the position can be satisfactory. But I do not see any definite undertaking that they will be so appointed. Can the noble Lord give us an assurance on that point when he winds up?
  Let me assure him again that I want to do nothing to impede the swift passage of this Bill into law. I hear it commended on all sides as being an excellent Bill, and most important for the future of our fishing stocks. The extension of the weekly close time has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. We expected this provision to be strenuously opposed, particularly by the netting industry; but, on the contrary, I have heard it commended, in some cases by fishermen themselves, as being likely to improve the fishing stocks of the rivers. So I think that that also is a good provision. It takes a long time for salmon to grow to maturity. As was pointed out during

  421
  the last debate on this subject in your Lordships' House, it takes five to six years for a salmon to attain maturity, so it may well be some time before we can fully appreciate to what extent the damage done in these post-war years by these organised raids on our rivers has affected our fish stocks. But at least we should congratulate ourselves that we are now doing something to ensure that even if they are not stopped, at least they will be greatly curtailed. We should congratulate His Majesty's Government on having acted so speedily and energetically on the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee.
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those which have uttered appreciation of this Bill. I speak not as an owner but as a man who is keen on fishing, and I propose to dwell rather on the economic and food position of salmon. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said at the start, the salmon fishing industry is of great value, not only from the point of view of rod fishing but also of net fishing which takes place in the mouths of our rivers and in the sea. It is from the economic viewpoint that I ask your Lordships to consider a point that I have to make in regard to the operations of the Hydro-Electric Board as they have affected the Perth County Council, as the rating authority. As a result of the work of the Hydro-Electric Board, the Perth County Council have already lost a large sum of money, running into five figures, in the reduction of rateable values. We shall look to the protection and preservation of salmon to maintain rateable values in Perthshire.
  The salmon on the Tay, and particularly those on the Tweed, represent probably one of the biggest rateable values in Scotland, because of the value of the letting of the salmon fisheries. As your Lordships know, we have completed one large scheme, the Tummel-Garry Scheme, which is now commencing to work, though not yet fully developed. This scheme means the provision of a large number of new dams, sluices and salmon ladders. It also means the destruction of a large number of spawning beds. I should like to give full credit to the fisheries committee of the Hydro-Electric Board, and to the experts employed by
  422
  the Scottish Office, for the great care they took in doing all that was possible to preserve the salmon. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has just said, it will be five years at least before we know the effects of these schemes on the survival of the salmon. Five years is a long period, and I should have liked an assurance that the Hydro-Electric Board would wait and see how the present hydro-electric scheme affected salmon fishings and the quantity of salmon in the river before they proceeded further. But now an important further scheme, the Breadalbane Scheme, has been announced. The scheme has been laid on the Table of the House, and I think there are another three or four months within which people can object to it. If approved, that scheme will mean a greatly increased number of dams and ladders, and the destruction of more spawning grounds, and will represent a further danger to the survival of the salmon in the Tay.
  As I say, in these days we can hardly ask the Hydro-Electric Board to wait five years, or even more, until they know the effect on salmon fisheries of the Tummel-Garry Scheme. I suppose, unless some objectors get their way, that the Breadal-bane hydro-electric scheme will proceed. As a private individual, I cannot help wondering how this scheme will affect the rateable value of the Tay, and the important food supply that the Tay salmon afford. As your Lordships know, every day a special train carrying Tay salmon comes to the London market. It would be a sad loss to Londoners if they did not have their Tay salmon day by day.
  A small point has been made by the fishery boards with regard to these dams, sluices and ladders that I have mentioned. Under the Bill, the right of members of these boards to visit these dams and the various operations of the hydro-electric schemes, will be taken away, and the Tay Fishery Board have asked that their members may still have the right to visit these dams on the river. I may say that that proposal is supported by the Association of District Salmon Fishery Boards. As we all want to preserve and protect the salmon, it would seem to be wise to listen to the advice of the people who are in daily contact with the problem, and who probably know the best way of securing

  423
  What we all want. I hope that His Majesty's Government will consider this request from the district fishery boards, and will give their members the right to continue visiting the works of the Hydro-Electric Board. It would be simple to allow that under Clause 10. I suppose that it might be possible under this Bill to make the fishery board members water bailiffs, but I doubt whether that would be a convenient solution. I entirely agree with what has been urged by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, that we do not want to take advantage of this Bill, but I hope that this point will be considered by His Majesty's Government.
  5.3 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, wishes that every Bill that he produces in this House may receive the warm welcome which to-day has been given to the Bill now under consideration. It is astonishing to find that in regard to salmon fishing, which must have been under the consideration of Parliament for many years, perhaps even for more than a century, it is nevertheless necessary to produce a Bill which is entirely different from anything that has gone before, and one which, in itself, is not a very simple Bill. That emphasises the complexity of the matter, and therefore we appreciate all the more the manner in which the Government have handled this very complex subject. The Bill is based on the Maconochie Report. We have expressed fully our appreciation of all the Sheriff has done in this matter, and I think we should also express our appreciation of the extension of the close time, which the Secretary of State has said was his own idea. We are grateful to him for having brought in that innovation.
  There are one or two points connected with the Maconochie Report to which I might make reference, but I do not propose to do so because I think we all want to see this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible. Nevertheless, I think it is fair that we should have one or two explanations, and I am going to press the noble Lord to see whether he cannot answer one or two points, either now or perhaps even on Third Reading. One point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, dealt with the position of members of a fishery board who are not to be
  424
  allowed even to visit their own river. That is outrageous. It may be that the Secretary of State will be able to get round the difficulty by giving a certificate to all members of the fishery board. I shall be glad if some explanation can be given about that matter. Then there was the point raised by Lord Haddington on Clause 7 with regard to the provision relating to a single witness. That provision would seem to apply only to the clause referring to illegal possession, but subsection (2) is of a somewhat complicated character, and it appears to me to draw within its orbit the full force of Clauses 2, 3 and 4; therefore the provision regarding one witness would apply equally to all the major offences outlined in this Bill. That is my interpretation of it, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could say whether it is correct, because the crime of unlawful possession is only part of the whole matter. I now come to the point about labelling parcels. What is the position with regard to a parcel which has come into the Post Office and is under the control of the Royal Mail? Can the water bailiff step in and ask to see packages under the control of the Royal Mail? I ask that question merely for information, because I do not know how the matter stands. Naturally, the Royal Mail stands high in our regard.
  I pass to the other point which I should like to raise—namely, the question asked by Lord Haddington in regard to apprehension; that is to say, the arrest of people who are found immediately committing some offence under the Act. This is an important matter owing to the extremely isolated nature of the places in which these offences are likely to take place. I could not help feeling that some erratic remarks were made in another place in the course of the discussion on this Bill, and I was not very impressed with the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for giving up these powers. He said it was because under this Bill private prosecution was to be discontinued. Personally, I entirely agree with the principle that prosecutions should be conducted by the Crown. But that has nothing whatever to do with the question of arresting a man caught in the flagrant committal of some crime. The two things were connected in the noble Lord's speech, and they appear to me to have no

  425
  connection whatsoever. As I understand it, a civilian has precisely the same duties as a policeman in regard to arresting without warrant. My authority for saying that I take from Dicey's Law of the Constitution. With your Lordships' permission I will read from page 289, where it says:
  "It is also clear that a soldier has, as such, no exemption from liability to the law for his conduct in restoring order. Officers, magistrates, soldiers, policemen, ordinary citizens, all occupy in the eye of the law the same position; they are, each and all of them, bound to withstand and put down breaches of the peace."
  I am wondering whether or not the law is materially changed by amending the Act of 1868.
  Dicey's work is, of course, concerned with England, and it is possible that it may not be considered to apply to Scotland. Therefore I have made reference to Hume on Crimes, which relates to Scotland. Dicey has the character of explicit writing, and Hume may not be quite so explicit, but I will read what Hume says at page 74:
  "The same power of arresting which a magistrate or constable has, when present at an atrocious felony, or on certain information from those who saw the thing done—the same is permitted by the law, for the advancement of justice, to those persons themselves who are present on such an occasion, immediately on the fact, and in situations where the delay of applying to a magistrate or constable would enable the malefactor to escape."
  That deals with substantially the same position, and I feel that we are entitled to some form of explanation. A situation which it is relevant to mention in this connection occurred only this week in Sloane Street in broad daylight. A car drew up at a jeweller's shop and four men got out to make a raid. A policeman in plain clothes happened to be passing, and he intervened. He was struck over the head with a crowbar, but two civilians arrested one of the malefactors. Would not the position be the same if I or anybody else were to see someone placing a lump of gelignite in an outlying loch? Would not I or the other person who witnessed this action have the right and the duty to arrest such a person and at the first opportunity to hand him over to the police? Is that not right by Common Law in this country? I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell us whether that is so or not, because this is a matter of some importance. I will not delay your Lordships longer except to say that
  426
  we should like to see this measure become effective as soon as possible—that is to say, on the day on which the Royal Assent is given. We want to expedite it as much as we can, and we ask the noble Lord now only to give us some explanation of these points on which, with great respect, I think we are entitled to some information.
  5.11 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the debate on this Bill. In the first place, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that he is entirely wrong in suggesting that there is any credit due to me for the provision of this Bill. It is true that after the debate which he initiated in your Lordships' House I took the opportunity of going up to the far north of Scotland and trying to find out as much as I could about the situation on the spot. I certainly came back with a great deal more knowledge of what was happening than I had before. But it is quite wrong to suggest that I am responsible in any way for the Bill, though it has been my great good fortune to hear many more complimentary things said about me in this House then I have ever heard on a previous occasion when Scottish legislation was under consideration.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. raised a question concerning the sale of Cymag. I think he will agree that he practically answered the question himself. This is a. matter which could not be suitably incorporated in this Bill. Cymag is a commercial preparation containing calcium cyanide. It is sold for the destruction of agricultural pests, chiefly rabbits and rats, and it is subject to the provisions of the Poisons Act of 1933, which provides that it can be sold rightly only by an authorised seller of poisons on premises registered under the Poisons Act. The sale must be by or supervised by a registered pharmacist, and purchasers must be known by him or by some registered pharmacist in his employment or have a certificate in accordance with the requirements of the Poisons Act. The seller must also make an entry in his poisons register—and so on. I think that is further evidence that the noble Lord was quite correct in accepting the position that, however much it may be necessary

  427
  to tighten up provisions regarding the sale of Cymag, it could not be done in a Bill which deals with salmon and fresh water fisheries.
  That brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who raised two matters. In the first place, he said that he hoped there would be adequate publicity for this Bill, so that its provisions might become well known. I would remind him that the Bill has already received very wide publicity in Scotland. After it becomes law every effort will be made to make sure that its provisions are not only known but understood. In the second place, the noble Lord made a suggestion—also a useful one—that a Bill on somewhat similar lines applying to England and Wales should be brought forward. I will see that that suggestion is passed to the right quarter. Now I come to the interesting questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington. His first question—if I followed him aright—was whether a rod and line could be forfeited for production in court as evidence, and thereafter, if thought necessary, returned to the owner.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: The noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting. That was a question which I sent to him in writing. I omitted to mention it in my speech.
  LORD MORRISON: The answer is that it is true there is no provision for forfeiture of gear under Clause 1; therefore the Bill does not provide power of seizure. But when a police constable arrests a person he seizes with him any property in his possession at the time of arrest. It is within the discretion of the constable whether any of the property taken should be retained pending court proceedings as evidence of the charge libelled. The next question related to Clause 7 of the Bill, and it was whether two witnesses will be required. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, also referred to this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, is right, and except for Clause 7 (3) the rule of Scottish law which requires at least two witnesses to secure a conviction, will hold. Under the Bill the right of arrest is limited, as the noble Earl has said, to constables, water bailiffs appointed by the district boards and persons appointed by the Secretary of State. The statutory right
  428
  of "any" person to arrest a poacher is withdrawn. A prosecution for poaching has now to be taken in the public interest, but it is considered that power of arrest should be brought more closely into line with the general law. Further, there are objections to the power of arrest being exercised by any person without either uniform or written authority.
  The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, seemed to have considerable doubts upon this point, and he has quoted two legal luminaries with whom the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, of course, has a much closer acquaintance than I have—Dicey and Hume. Inadvertently, no doubt, the noble Earl omitted to tell me that he was going to bring forward this heavy armour, and I confess at once that I have not read the observations of the two gentlemen in question on this matter. All I can say now is that at a later stage of the Bill—if there should not be a Committee stage owing to no Amendments being put forward, then on Third Reading—I will do my best to give the noble Earl an answer. For that purpose I will consult the legal people who are versed in such matters. I would draw attention to the fact that a similar proposal to extend the power of arrest was debated at length in another place, and it was firmly resisted by the Lord Advocate himself. I need not tell the noble Earl that I am not myself experienced in the law, but I will endeavour to get an answer from people who are competent to supply one on the points which the noble Earl has raised. If he cares to bring them up again on the Third Reading, I can assure him that I will give him as satisfactory a reply as possible on that point.
  Lord Haddington asked how far from the water search will be permissible—in other words, what is a reasonable distance. I am advised that it is not possible to make any general statement on the distance from the water that would be covered by the words in the Bill "private land adjoining water," as it will depend on the circumstances of each case. The courts will interpret those words in the light of the circumstances of any case brought forward. I am advised, however, that, speaking very broadly, the term would seem to include any private land physically adjoining water and connected with the water by

  429
  the circumstances of the suspected offence.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: But not on a highway?
  LORD MORRISON: If the noble Earl will look closely at that answer, I think he will find it satisfactory. The noble Earl also asked me whether enough persons would be appointed in sparsely populated districts. The answer is that in the exercise of the power conferred on him, the Secretary of State for Scotland will no doubt take into account the requirements of the neighbourhood and also the reasons, if any, why a district board cannot or has not been formed in that district. Where a district board can be formed, the Secretary of State's powers to appoint persons will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
  The principal point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, was in regard to the possible effect upon salmon fishing of hydro-electric undertakings in Scotland. The question whether any hydro-electrical scheme should be held up because of possible damage to the salmon fisheries seems to me to be one for consideration in every particular case, and the statutory provisions under which the Hydro-Electric Board operate secure that the interests of fisheries are fully considered before any works can be commenced. The noble Lord probably knows this matter better than I do, but I would remind him that before the Hydro-Electric Board can undertake any work they must submit a scheme for confirmation to the Secretary of State. There is a statutory opportunity for objections, and for inquiry if necessary; and if the scheme is confirmed, it has to lie before Parliament, subject to a negative Resolution, for a period of forty days. Further, there is a statutory Fisheries Committee to advise the Secretary of State and the Board with a view to avoiding damage to salmon stocks so far as possible. The Committee includes persons experienced in salmon fisheries and water engineering. Of course, I am not able to prophesy what effect all the hydro-electric schemes in Scotland will have, but I can say—and perhaps the noble Lord may derive a little comfort from this—that the Galloway scheme, which has been in operation for a long time, has not resulted so far in damage
  430
  to the stocks of fish in the district. I am sure the situation will be closely watched.
  With regard to the noble Lord's difficulty about the rights of inspection of members of district fishery boards, I think I have already covered this point. There is no restriction of the freedom of members of the boards, except that they are not given a statutory right to inspect dams. There is no question of their being prevented in any way from going to see the dams for which they are responsible. But they are not given a statutory right to inspect them. If necessary, the Secretary of State can appoint a member of a board, or, as Lord Kinnaird said, a district board can themselves appoint a member, as an officer for the purpose of inspecting dams. What is withdrawn is the general right of all members of the district boards to become inspectors of dams. I have endeavoured to answer most of the points which have been raised, and as there is further Business before the House, also connected with fishing, I will rot detain your Lordships further. I thank noble Lords for the friendly reception they have given to this Bill. It is a pleasure to me to move the Second Reading of a Bill which has been commended in all parts of the House, and I conclude by hoping that we shall soon see it on the Statute Book.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
  5.25 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRI-CULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I can only wish that my Bill may be given as smooth a passage by your Lordships' House as that given to the Bill moved by my noble friend Lord Morrison. I must admit that I have prepared a rather lengthy speech. Such a speech would be inevitable if I were to cover the whole of a rather long Bill, but I think it will be your Lordships' wish that I should shorten my remarks and cover only the essentials of the Bill.

  431
  I am extremely fortunate that my first duty in connection with fisheries in your Lordships' House is to commend a Bill which promises to do so much for the fishing industry. I wish I could feel that my good fortune was matched by my knowledge of the industry itself. But even those who know little about its operations recognise the important part that it has played, and still plays, in our national life. Millions of consumers want a plentiful supply of fish at a reasonable price. This need is particularly urgent at the present time, because fish provides a protein factor in our diet which can compensate for the shortage of meat. Moreover, like all islanders, we are by nature and long tradition a seafaring people. The qualities of the men who go out in our fishing fleets are typical of much that we value in our national character. Hard living, risktaking and the spirit of adventure are developed by the seafaring life. I know your Lordships will agree that we should try to safeguard the future of our fishing community by giving the industry stability at a reasonable level of prosperity. Your Lordships will not have forgotten what the fishing industry did to defend the country in the last war. Out of a total of 1,030 steam trawlers in existence at the outbreak of war, 800 were keeping open our sea routes at one time or another while the war lasted. They suffered much damage and loss of life, and everyone hopes that we shall not have to call upon these vessels and their gallant crews again. It is well, however, that they should be available in case of need.
  There is no need for me to detain your Lordships by describing at length the difficulties of the industry. They are still essentially those mentioned in the Report of the Duncan Commission in 1936. Various unsuccessful attempts have been made to deal with the industry's difficulties on the basis of the Duncan Report. In 1938, an Act was passed setting up a White Fish Commission, and providing for marketing schemes covering separately the various sections of the industry. But in 1939 war broke out, and the Commission's work had to be shelved. It has since become clear that the industry needs more help than the Commission were able to give within the limits of their authority. There is, I think, a general feeling, both in Parliament and in the fishing industry
  432
  itself, that its problems require tackling by a co-ordinated plan. Such a plan can be drawn up only by a central authority for the industry, with suitable powers in relation to production, marketing and distribution. The revival of the White Fish Commission would not now be enough to restore the efficiency of the industry. The Government have decided that responsibility for reorganisation should be given to a strong independent body, with sufficient power to ensure that the job can be effectively carried out. That is the line that has been followed in the Bill, more particularly in the first six clauses, to which I would especially invite your Lordships' attention. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 deal with the White Fish Authority, the Scottish Committee, and their Advisory Council, while Clauses 4, 5 and 6 describe the powers that the Authority will be able to exercise.
  Clause 1 provides for the establishment of the Authority, and gives a general outline of its functions. In this Bill, we propose that it should be a small, independent and impartial body. It will take advice from all the interests concerned, but will be subject only to the authority of the Ministers and Parliament. The proposed Authority will consist of five members, appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Minister of Food. No person may be appointed who has any financial or commercial interest likely to affect him in the discharge of his duties. The chairman and members are in no sense representatives of the industry or any section of it. The views of the various sections of the industry will be represented on the Advisory Council which is set up under Clause 3. The members of the Authority are individuals chosen for their personal qualities and wide experience. The chairman and members were appointed as a designate Authority last September. As your Lordships will be aware, Admiral Sir Robert Burnett and his colleagues on the board have lost no time in acquainting themselves, on the spot, with the circumstances of the industry. They have already made an excellent impression wherever they have been.
  Clauses 2 and 3 provide respectively for the Scottish Committee and the Advisory Council. As your Lordships have already heard at some length, the fishery

  433
  problems of Scotland differ in some important respects from those of England and Wales. This Scottish Committee will be able to advise the Authority on peculiarly Scottish fishing problems, and also to exercise delegated powers. The Advisory Council will be widely representative, and will be a permanent link between all sections of the white fish industry and the new Authority. The main powers and duties of the Authority are set out in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. Those in Clause 4 are needed immediately, and will be exercisable as soon as the Bill becomes law. The powers in Clause 5 will not operate until the regulations are confirmed by Ministers, and, of course, they can be annulled by a negative Resolution of either House. The wider powers under Clause 6 require not only the approval of the Ministers, but also affirmative Resolutions in both Houses.
  Clause 4 gives the Authority a fairly long list of powers for immediate use. Some of these, such as the power to carry on research and experiment, need little explanation or justification. But there are powers in subsection (1) (c) and (1) (d), the need for which may not be quite so self-evident. The Authority will not, of course, as a rule, act as agents for the first sale of white fish. It will not usually undertake the purchase and sale of fisher-men's requisites, or necessarily become the sole agency for the sale of white fish and fish products abroad. This is the important condition attaching to the activities of the Authority in these respects. Where it is clear that existing facilities are adequate, the Authority cannot use these powers. But conditions in different places vary considerably, and powers of these kinds are likely to be needed in some of the smaller inshore ports.
  The powers in this clause to provide fishing vessels to be operated, under charter, to give financial assistance by way of loan for the provision of fishing vessels, and to acquire shares in companies which operate them, will serve the important purpose of re-equipping the industry. A great deal of scrapping and replacement will have to be done in the near and middle water fleet if it is to be made efficient and economic. Over 80 per cent, of the vessels in this class are more than thirty years old. This section of the industry is vital, because it produces most of the best quality fish. It is beyond the
  434
  strength of the industry itself to finance the rebuilding programme without out-side help. That help might take the form of loans. It might also be given by the Authority taking shares in fishing companies, or itself acquiring vessels and letting them out under charter. Grants for this purpose have been rejected by the Government because the money, once paid out, is gone for ever. One alternative, proposed in the Bill, is to provide for help by means of loans. But it might sometimes be better either to equip fishing vessels for charter, or to take shares in fishing companies, because either of these ways would provide greater security and more effective control. I should like to make it clear that there is no question of this power to take shares being used compulsorily. The Authority will have no power to compel anybody to part with shares if he does not wish to do so. The power to operate fishing vessels will also be subject to consent. The terms on which the Authority can do this will have to be agreed, and the limited provision for them to operate fishing vessels temporarily is intended only to safeguard their financial interest and that of the Exchequer. The powers set out in this Clause are extensive, but similar to those already possessed by the Herring Industry Board. It should be noted that they do not involve any element of compulsion on anybody.
  Clause 5 gives the Authority power to make regulations after consultation with the industry, mainly for improving quality. One of the most important provisions in this clause is to arrange for the timing of landings, so as to secure greater regularity of supply. This is a difficult task, but the Authority believes that with the co-operation of the trawler owners something can be done to reduce gluts and shortages. Clause 6 authorises the Authority, again after full consultation, to prepare schemes for the better organisation, development or regulation of the industry as a whole, or of any part of it. It is, of course, impossible to see in advance just what ground these schemes may have to cover. Their scope is therefore described in the general terms which I have already mentioned. This is a far-reaching power, and it is right that it should not be used without most careful consideration. Your Lordships will, I feel sure, know of the safeguards which are provided in this clause, which I will not detail at length, because they are there set out: and I

  435
  have no doubt that those of your Lordships who are interested in the Bill have already studied them.
  I will not say anything about the subsequent clauses, but I will gladly answer any questions which your Lordships may wish to ask about them. In spite of its modest size, this is an important measure which has raised little controversy in the industry or elsewhere, and it appears to have been received with general approval, and even with enthusiasm. I hope that your Lordships will be willing to give it an equally cordial reception. The chairman and members-designate of the Authority have now spent six months in making themselves familiar with the conditions and problems of the industry. In doing so, they have found plenty of good will and desire to co-operate, and have left behind them everywhere an impression of their keenness and capacity. The Government are grateful to them for undertaking this important task, and I am sure that we shall all wish them every success. I know that your Lordships share our hope that the partnership between the new Authority and the fishing community will bring about a real and lasting revival in this great industry. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill foe now read 2a —(The Earl of Listowel.)
  5.37 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the aims of this Bill and the general principles contained in it. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, the purpose of the Bill is to arrest the general decline in the near, middle and distant fishing, and to improve the marketing of fish. As the noble Earl has also said, it is a great industry, and I feel that we on this side should not allow this Bill to pass without supporting his words of commendation for the contribution that this industry made during war time, and is now making to our economic problems in peace time. The noble Earl said that he knew little about the fishing industry. I share with him that ignorance, but I am comforted in the knowledge that in another place a member said that he had been connected with the industry for twenty-two years, and still knew virtually nothing about it.
  436
  This is largely a machinery Bill. The conflicts which existed between the various interests—what I may term the port interests—have been resolved in another place during a protracted but co-operative Committee stage. To-day we see the result in this Bill. There are two points which I should like to make. The first is that it seems to me that, complementary to the passing of this Bill, the Government should press for the 1946 Convention to be ratified by an ever-increasing number of countries, because until that happens we are to some extent limiting the power of this Bill for doing good to the industry. My second point concerns the import of foreign fish. As I understand it, the position is that there is at present an open general licence for the import of foreign fish, and that is in accordance with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which this country is a signatory. This General Agreement provides, however, that we can impose restrictions upon the importation of foreign fish, provided that we impose like restrictions upon the landing of our own fish. Here is another example of how our policy of blindly signing that General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is limiting our ability to help our own people. We cannot impose any restrictions upon the importation of foreign fish unless we impose like restrictions upon our own. At the moment, with the food position as it is, foreign importations of some 10 per cent, do not worry us, because there is a ready market for all the fish caught. But there may come a time when that position will change, and when that time comes I believe we shall regret the economic policy of His Majesty's Government which led us to sign that General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  There is one blot on this Bill which we shall have to deal with in Committee. It is in Clause 18, and relates to the prosecution of members of a corporate body. I am not going to argue that particular point now, because it is a legal point and I believe that my noble friend Lord Simon is going to deal with the matter at a later stage in the Bill. I should like to tell the Government, however, that we on this side of the House feel strongly about that provision in Clause 18. We had hoped that the thoughts of the Solicitor-General for

  437
  Scotland would have turned in the direction of making a Government proposal for an amendment of that provision, and it is not too late for the Government to do so now. But if they feel unable to do so, then on the Committee stage we shall be forced to take a positive and firm line upon that particular point. I felt it only right that I should tell the Minister that. Subject to those remarks about Clause 18, about the need for other countries' ratifying the 1946 Convention, and the rather sad position in which we have placed ourselves in restricting our ability to limit foreign imports, I give full support to the proposals in the Bill, and I share the noble Earl's hope that its effect will be helpful to this great history which has contributed so much both in peace and in war.
  5.43 p.m.
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I seek your Lordships' indulgence in addressing the House for the first time? I do not intend to make a speech, but there is a question I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister in charge of this Bill. The supply of fish to our country, like the supply of many other necessary foodstuffs, is characterised by shortages and gluts. Consequently, I think it is an eminently suitable product to come under the provisions of a Bill of this kind. I should like to ask my noble friend whether, under this Bill, the White Fish Authority will be able to pro-mote measures for the provision of quick-freezing storage facilities at suitable fishing ports up and down the country. The introduction of the quick-freeze method of storage has proved to be most beneficial in many kinds of foodstuffs, but it is particularly satisfactory in white fish and herring. If provision for that method is not included in this Bill, I suggest that it might be considered, because I am sure that it would be of the greatest benefit to the industry and the country as a whole. I should like to commend the measure generally to the House.
  5.44 p.m.
  THE EARL OF L1STOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all wish me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Macpherson upon his maiden speech. The noble Lord has a long record
  438
  of interest in business and politics, and I am sure we are all delighted that somebody with his experience is able to spare the time to take an active part in our proceedings. May I say how grateful I am to the House for the welcome it has given to this Bill? I am particularly glad, because I think it will give considerable encouragement both to the industry and the Authority.
  I should like to answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and the question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Macpherson. We are just as anxious as Lord Balfour that the provisions of the 1946 Convention should be implemented at the earliest possible moment. As he knows, the difficulty is that certain of the signatories have not yet ratified this Convention for preventing over-fishing in the North Sea. We are doing everything we can to impress upon those countries who have not yet acceded to the Convention the importance of doing so. I took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, said about the important matter of legal principle raised in Clause 18. I agree with him that it is a matter of very considerable importance. As a layman who is not fully instructed, I should not like to put forward a case on behalf of the Government. I should prefer to reserve my reply until the next stage of the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that between now and then this matter will be carefully examined, not only by our own legal advisers but by the Law Officers of the Crown, and we shall be glad to have his assistance if he cares to discuss the matter with us.
  The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, wanted to know whether the Authority will have power to process fish by quick-freezing them in the ports after they have been landed. I understand that the answer to that question is, "Yes." The words "quick-freezing" are not used, but I am told that in Clause 4 (1) (f) the word "processing" (and processing is one of the powers which will be given to the Authority) includes quick-freezing. Of course, the Authority will not do this, any more than the other things which it is empowered to do. if there are existing facilities for achieving the same object. The noble Lord can be satisfied that in appropriate circumstances, where there

  439
  are no facilities already, the Authority can do this.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  5.48 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (DEFENCE PURPOSES) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  REVEREND J. G. MACMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.