Lords Sitting of 22 June 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham

THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TUNNEL
2.35 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, following submission of the Channel Tunnel Study Group Report and their further proposals of July, 1960, if discussions have taken place with the French Government on the financial implications involved and on the economic benefits that could be derived from such a project, and in particular whether:

(a) any agreement has been reached concerning liability under head lease arrangements entered into by both Governments;

(b) ally agreement has been reached with regard to the "earmarking" of that proportion of the necessary private capital which would have to be raised in each country for such a project;

(c) any policy announcement can be made.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have given close study to the proposals of the Channel Tunnel Study Group and are in touch with the French Government on the subject. I regret that I can say no more than that at present.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, whilst thanking my noble friend for his lengthy answer, I would ask him how is it that, Her Majesty's Government having contacted the French Government in January of this year and said
710
that they were sending over for discussions a Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, there have not yet been discussions between the Treasury official and the Ministre de Finance? Does he not consider that it is time that his right honourable friend and the French Minister of Transport, M. Buron, discussed this matter at some length, because I believe that the last time it was discussed was in October last year at the Hague?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend is evidently working on sources of information of his own which I am not privileged to share, and therefore I am not able to comment on what he says. I think that I should tell him that these matters are being arranged through diplomatic channels, and therefore I am unable to say any thing further at present about the state of consultations. As regards the desirability of a meeting of the Ministers concerned, I do not think it is for me to pronounce on that, because that would naturally be embraced in the negotiations through the diplomatic channels which I mentioned.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, while having no information, official or unofficial, on this matter, may I ask the Minister whether he would give an assurance that this Government, with all their financial liabilities in front of them, will not enter into any financial undertakings in regard to this matter without the approval of Parliament?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I scarcely find myself in a position to produce an assurance of that kind. I think I had better say again to my noble friend that there are many far-reaching aspects of this matter which have equally seriously to be considered and which I think Her Majesty's Government and the French Government would have to keep in mind in the course of their consultations.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be better if some Government statement could be made fairly soon? I very much support the query of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. The shares of this company seem to have fluctuated between 5d. and 57s. in the course of about five years and it seems to me that generally

711
we are in an extraordinary sort of position. Could not something be done to settle this matter once and for all?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I take it that the noble Viscount is referring to the Channel Tunnel Company. I think that what the noble Viscount says is quite right; I think that a decision is required. But no unilateral decision can be made in this matter and, as I have said, there are many wide and deep aspects which require consideration by both Governments together. We are in touch with the French Government and no doubt progress will be made as best it can.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask this question? Before the Government commit themselves on this very important question of a Channel Tunnel, I presume that Parliament will be given an opportunity to consider it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, perhaps I should answer that. My understanding is that all matters which carry financial commitments cannot be undertaken by any Government without Parliamentary approval.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I was not referring to the financial side so much as to the political.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the question of my noble friend Lord Swinton was largely a question of finance. The tunnel cannot be built without money, and public money cannot be made available without being voted by Parliament. That is my understanding of it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, surely the noble Viscount will be aware that the content of the question put by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches is whether, in view of security, defence and other considerations involved—on which I am not pronouncing—the Government should not take steps to get an idea of Parliamentary opinion by way of debate before they enter into a commitment to support the tunnel? That is a prior question to the question of finance.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is nothing to stop a debate in
712
your Lordships' House, but I do not think there is any occasion for it at the moment.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask one supplementary question, as my noble friend referred to unofficial information? As I see my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Dundee on the Front Bench, would he not consult with them to see whether it is not a fact that the British Government did say that Sir Frank Lee would be going over to consult with the Ministre de Finance last January?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said—namely, that my noble friend has sources of information which I do not share. I am prepared to be reasonable and will look into any suggestion.

POLISH SEIZURE OF B.B.C. LEAFLETS
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they can give any information on the seizure of 120,000 leaflets of the B.B.C. by the Polish Government at the recent Poznan Fair.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, on the eve of the opening of the Poznan Fair the Polish authorities, on the orders of the Polish Office of Censorship, confiscated the available stock of leaflets (some 120,000) about the B.B.C.'s programmes to Poland, which the Corporation had intended to distribute from their Stand. The official reason given was that the pamphlets gave too much prominence to individual announcers and commentators on the programme by printing their photographs. Her Majesty's Ambassador, on his arrival in Poznan to visit the Fair, made representations to the Polish Minister for Foreign Trade to secure his help in the matter and also to a senior official of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. On June 15, however, the Polish Ministry for Foreign Affairs confirmed that the decision could not be altered. The B.B.C. Stand at the Fair

713
was therefore not opened and their representative returned to the United Kingdom.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply. Would he not agree that it was a quite extraordinary action to take, in view of the fact that one of these people objected to, apparently, was in his second year at the Poznan Fair and had been there twice before in the same capacity? Secondly, would the noble Marquess confirm that Her Majesty's Government would be behind the B.B.C., in any effort to dictate to the B.B.C. whom they should put up to speak for them in similar cases?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord that it was an extraordinary decision, but we are trying to find out exactly what was behind it. As regards the question of who takes part in these programmes, as the noble Lord is aware, that is a matter for the B.B.C. It so happens that the two gentlemen who were objected to have had their photographs in programmes before, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why they were objected to this time.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND ANGOLA
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the unequivocal statement, made on their behalf in this House, that it would as a matter of general principle be improper for the United Nations to interfere in the internal domestic affairs of the Congo, why they do not apply the same principle in the case of the neighbouring territory of Angola.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not accept that there has been any failure to support this principle in the case of Angola. There is, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, an important difference between the position of the United Nations as regards the Congo and its position as regards Angola.
714
The United Nations are operating in the Congo both at the specific invitation of the Congolese authorities and because the situation there has had international repercussions which are of international concern. In so far as this invitation involves the United Nations in Congolese internal affairs, they must work with the consent of the Congolese authorities. The arrest of Mr. Tschombe was, as I tried to explain on June 13, a mater of domestic Congolese jurisdiction.
As regards Angola, the United Nations have received no invitation from the constituted authorities there to concern themselves in the affairs of that territory. Nevertheless, the reports of current events in Angola have greatly perturbed Her Majesty's Government and many other members of the United Nations, and we are most anxious about their possible international repercussions. Statements made by the Portuguese themselves in the Security Council have alleged that the disturbances in Angola have been caused by outside interference. If these allegations are correct therefore, the disturbances in Angola would have an international character. The United Kingdom representative at the United Nations was therefore instructed to make it clear that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Portuguese Government should co-operate with the sub-committee of inquiry set up by the General Assembly on April 20, the purpose of which was to ascertain the facts and report back to the Assembly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I understand it from what the noble Marquess has said, the point which Her Majesty's Government make is that what has happened in Angola might lead to international repercussions. They have not, so far as I know, led to any international repercussions as yet, and it is an internal affair of the Portuguese Government to keep order in their own territories. That being the case, I still do not see why Her Majesty's Government did not oppose the motion moved in the United Nations.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend; I did not make myself clear. The point surely is that the Portuguese themselves referred to outside interference,

715
and it was for this reason that Her Majesty's Government supported the idea that the Portuguese should co-operate with the sub-committee to ascertain what the facts were. It was the Portuguese themselves who drew our attention to the possibility of the existence of outside interference.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But, My Lords, did the Portuguese Government ask for an inquiry by the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, My Lords.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that only yesterday a London newspaper carried nearly a page report from the missionaries in the Portuguese territory of the shocking disasters to the native population which are resulting from the action of the Portuguese Government authorities; that there are tens of thousands of refugees who have already gone into the Congo, and that the general effect, implicating, of course, the opinion of all African races with regard to the white man's rule on the rest of Africa, is simply shocking? Is it not correct, therefore, for the Government to say that there were great dangers of international repercussions?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is another question on this subject down on Monday, and I think the noble Viscount's question really constitutes another point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask, arising out of the noble Viscount's question, whether the letter to which he referred made any mention of the atrocities which were done by the subversive elements on the Portuguese population in Angola, long before any action was taken by the Portuguese authorities?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not believe it did. But why should not the proper kind of action by the United Nations be the inquiry which has been recommended.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I was very properly reprimanded by the Under-Secretary of State on the last
716
occasion for asking why the British representative had not intervened in Leopoldville to protest against the inducement to Mr. Tschombe to go to wherever he went and where he was arrested. I was told that it would be most improper. With great respect, I would ask him whether that is the kind of thing, this cat and mouse business, that has the approval of the Government. However reprehensible that action was, and however likely to lead to more difficulties in one of the more orderly parts of the Congo, if it is true that it would have been quite wrong for Her Majesty's Government's representative to have taken any action in that case, why then is it right for Her Majesty's Government to take action in Angola? That is without prejudice to the merits of the case. But really, can we have two entirely different policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in two different places?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with great respect, I think the noble Earl has asked the original Question a second time, and I am afraid I can give no further explanation than the one I gave to my noble friend Lord Salisbury.

LAND VALUES
2.50 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the warning given by the Minister of Housing to delegates from rural areas that some of the countryside must be sacrificed to meet the housing demand, and of his admission that serious problems will result for country areas as the demand for building land increases, the Government will consider taking the earliest possible steps to prevent fantastic speculation in land values where this need for housing development is indicated; and whether the Government appreciate the extreme urgency of sterilisation measures in this matter.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, what my right honourable friend said on this topic at the conference of the Rural

717
District Councils Association was that the continuing increase in the number of separate households and the rising standard of living must result in increased demands on land. We cannot ignore this or prevent it; we must look ahead and plan for it. His purpose in saying this was to seek the co-operation of the rural district councils in making sufficient land available for development, because, as with any other commodity, an adequate supply is the only way to prevent the sharp increases in price which result from scarcity.
In saying this he was following up the circular sent to local planning authorities in August, 1960, asking them to allocate more land for development and also to secure more intensive use of urban land. The second is as important as the first; and my right honourable friend intends to do all he can to see that the fullest use is made of land which is developed.
Sterilisation (I think the noble Lord may mean stabilisation) of land values is wholly impracticable. As land becomes ripe for development, and as demand changes, nothing can prevent the value of land changing. For example, industrial development in an area of underemployment will increase land values, and in such circumstances we all welcome it. The important things are to ensure that development is properly planned, that so far as is possible in this overcrowded island sufficient land is made available to meet the demands, and that no land is wasted or under-used. My right honourable friend is working, in collaboration with the responsible local authorities, on all these matters; and I am sure that in doing so he has the support of your Lordships.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting in this over-crowded island, as he said, it is right that the land "sharks" should hold the nation up to ransom to this extent? And if the Minister is so concerned about toning down Mr. Brooke's words, will he have something to say about the difference between speeches to the nation by Ministers, and the real case that is put in the House in answer to a Question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I was not toning down what my right honourable friend said in his speech. I was trying to explain to the noble Lord what he in fact said.
LORD AMWELL: May I point out that what Mr. Brooke said was that these "sharks" would "burn their fingers", and that the Government were looking closely at the question. Did he mean that or did he not?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the noble Lord is confusing two statements. He is confusing what my right honourable friend said in his speech, to which the noble Lord referred in his Question, and what was said in an interview which was reported in the Daily Mail last Monday. I find it myself a little difficult to see how a shark burns its fingers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in his first answer to my noble friend, he did not say—I think he did—that there was no means of controlling the upward value of land? Surely that is not so. If there is something going on which interferes with the whole social life and welfare of the nation it is open to any Government to see that there is proper control of the land required for the nation's purposes.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, without referring to the text, and paraphrasing it, I think that what I said was that the only way of preventing values from rising is to increase supply; and that is what my right honourable friend intends to do. There can, of course, be argument about who should take the value of land—the old familiar argument that since it is society that creates land values, society should reap the betterment. But that is quite a different thing from saying that values should be pegged, which is quite impracticable.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I could not possibly accept that argument. If you already have, as you have in many cases, powers of compulsory purchase at a fair price, you already exercise control in certain cases. To say that you cannot peg the value of land, with some reference to the common demand, in relation to what is the real value at compulsory purchase price, I do not understand.
VISCOUNT HATLSHAM: My Lords, I think this is almost becoming.a debate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think we are entitled to raise points on the Minister's answers.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount is, of course, entitled to raise a point, but I was suggesting to the House that this was the time for questions, and not for a debate.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl's original Answer does not indicate that the Government are pursuing largely a policy of laissez faire—of "let things rip"? Does it not mean that land prices are going up and scandalous profits are being made? And is he aware that, owing to the policy of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the green areas of Britain are gradually going? We are getting to the point now that a motor journey from London to St. Albans is nearly all through a built-up area. What are the Government doing to stop this?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would certainly agree that my right honourable friend's policy is not to modify the policy of a free market in land. It is to stimulate development; and without that free market, development would, if I may borrow the noble Lord's expression, be sterilised, as under the Labour Government.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was impossible to peg the price of land. Is he aware that during the war, and for some years after, the price of land was pegged at 1939 values?
EARL JELLICOE: I did not say that. I said that it was not possible to peg land values.
LORD AMWELL: So nothing is going to be done.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (EXMOUTH) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

LICENSING BILL
2.57 p.m.
Brought from the Commons.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask, by leave of the House—it is very early to raise it, I know, but it is important—what are the prospects for the carriage of this Bill through Parliament at this Session? At the same time, considering the importance of the Bill, and the discussions which have taken place in another place, with no Whips on, may I also ask whether it is not essential that we should know what the timetable is, and whether the Bill is likely to be carried?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the prospects are good. But I would certainly try to co-operate, through the usual channels, with the noble Viscount as to the timetable, and seek to meet the convenience of the House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are so unhappy already about the mismanagement of the Government (I am not thinking in the least about the noble Viscount the Leader of this House, but the mismanagement of this Session of Government Business as a whole) that I do not think we ought to be required to lay on extra days and longer hours, and the rest of it, for legislation which does not go through.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was glad the noble Viscount made no charge against me, but I do not think I ought to accept the general charge against the Government, either. I do not want to enter into controversial Party politics on a matter of this kind, but the noble Viscount cannot but be aware that there are members of my Party who put the trouble down to obstruction on the part of the Opposition.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he can give an assurance that if the Licensing Bill

721
is proceeded with there will be adequate time to discuss it in this House, with all its implications, which are many.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should certainly try to give such an assurance, and if the noble Lord feels that in any way we have sought to abridge a full discussion I hope he will come to me about it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Viscount say whether the Government have worked out the number of columns spoken on the measures as to which he is unhappy owing to the activities of the Opposition; also how many columns have been spoken for the Government and against the Government about the Bills in another place by Government supporters. Is he suddenly shocked about the idea of an Opposition that has a little discussion about Bills? I have a recollection that he has done it himself in his time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we all know that Governments want to get their business through and that all Oppositions are sure that they do not say a word more than is necessary. I was not seeking to canvass the merits of this discussion, which is one of the perennial features of Parliament in these islands, but all I was seeking to do was to tell the noble Viscount that there are two sides to most questions, and two sides to this.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER. OF HILLSBOROUGH: Usually the right one.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say when it is proposed to move the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am told July 4.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the Whips be off, as it is July 4?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, not in this island.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount has answered us effectively on this last supplementary. Are the Whips to be off? They have been off in the other place, are they to be off here?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the position is perfectly well understood. I think the noble Viscount is, in fact, mistaken about the position in the other place. The position was that the Government throughout had made their position plain but were rather less disturbed by revolts than they would be in ordinary cases.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to he printed.

SMALL ESTATES (REPRESENTATION) BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BRENTFORD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition asks the chances of this Bill finding its way on to the Statute Book this Session I hope very much that I should not be risking a very great deal if I ventured to give him some assurance to that effect in the affirmative.
This is not a very big Bill, but it is a useful and helpful Bill to a minority of the poorer section of our community. In the last century, when life had begun to become more complicated, it was decided by Parliament that those who sought to obtain representation of the estate of a deceased person which did not amount to more than £300 gross should be able to apply, either in person or through their solicitors, to certain Inland Revenue officers instead of to the Probate Court Registries. That system worked very well. It was brought into operation by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, and by the similar Act of 1884. The amount of the estate for which application for grants of representation could be made was enlarged to the sum of £500. Subsequently, in the natural and historical course of events, the Inland Revenue officers who were entitled to receive these applications, became, in fact, Customs and Excise officers. So the system has two considerable advantages in the cases to which they apply.
The first is that there are only 34 Probate Registries in the country, and therefore if an individual wants to make an application for a grant of representation, and is required to apply directly

723
to a Probate Registry, the number of Probate Registries to which he can go is very limited. On the other hand, there are 273 Customs offices dotted about the country, excluding Scotland. This Bill also applies to Scotland, which has 28 Customs and Excise offices of its own. Therefore, for the convenience of the individual who wants to make personal application, or wants to make application through his solicitor, in the case of a small estate there is obviously very great advantage in having a greater number of places to which application can be made. The second advantage, of course, is that the applications can be made direct in person, and, in fact, generally are. If, however, your Lordships accept the principle of this Bill, which is to enlarge again the size of the estate for which this procedure can be used, and it becomes law, it is probable that it will more and more be used by the legal profession, if the legal profession is instructed in regard to the winding up of the estate.
What has happened, of course, is that in the passage of time the value of money has fallen, and an estate of £500 gross is no longer so large as it used to be in 1884. Likewise, as time has gone on, the limit upon estates which have to bear death duties has been raised, and by the Finance Act, 1954, no estate duty is payable on an estate of less than £3,000 net. It has accordingly been considered desirable that the limits of the size of the estates for which this procedure can be used should be raised, and the purport of this Bill is to increase that limit, which it does by Clause 1, to a sum of less than £1,000 net or less than £3,000 gross.
Your Lordships may consider that the difference between the existing figure of £500 and £1,000 is perhaps not sufficient, and that the limit should be raised still further. I would point out to your Lordships, however, that the old limit was £500 gross, whereas the present limit is £1,000 net and that, of course, makes a considerable difference. The limit is also a gross figure of not more than £3,000, and your Lordships will realise that if you get a gross estate of £3,000 which is reduced, owing to debts and so forth, by £2,000, or two-thirds of the estate, there is likely to be complication in the winding up of the estate, and the
724
whole point of this procedure is that it should be very simple. The Customs and Excise officers who receive the application and pass it through to the Probate Registry are not people who are experienced, skilled or educated in the winding up of estates or Probate Law. They have, in any event, the right to decline to receive an application if it appears to them to be a complicated one and to require it to be made to a Probate Registry. The object of this Bill is simply to enlarge the size of the estate which in suitable cases can be the subject of an application for a grant of representation by this very simplified and simple procedure.
Clause 2 deals with the fees involved. I will not take your Lordships into that in detail. Broadly speaking, the fees vary as between Scotland and England at the present time, but they are upon a statutory basis which nowadays is somewhat out of date. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is that they shall be subject. as are the fees for almost all other purposes in the Judiciary now, to settlement from time to time by virtue of provisions made under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. That is the system which is now generally recognised for purposes such as this and which in consequence is being applied to this Bill.
Clause 3 deals with the date when the Bill, if it passes your Lordships' House and receives the Royal Assent, shall become law, and that in effect is as soon as the necessary machinery can be put into operation. The effect of the Act will be brought into operation by my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack, acting in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, by Order. One further point is that the Bill does not apply—and this may strike your Lordships as being an unnecessarily odd provision—to the estates of persons who died before April 10, 1946. The magic of that date is not, as your Lordships might suppose, the fact that it happens to be my birthday. It has greater relevance to the Finance Act which changed the rates of duties at that time. Curiously enough, there is still a small but steady trickle of applications for grants of representation of people who died before that date, and consequently, as the law is to be applied

725
as it was at that time the estates of people who died prior to that date do not fall within the provisions of this Bill.
The only other word I would add is that, as I mentioned just now, this Bill does apply to Scotland. I have not taken your Lordships through the slight variations in detail, though there are no variations in principle, which are applicable to Scotland, because they are of a highly technical character and I am quite sure my noble friends who come from North of the Border would accuse me of having pronounced something the wrong way. I do not think there is any material or significant alteration. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this Bill does not itself apply to Northern Ireland but provision is specifically included in it so that in the event of the Parliament of Northern Ireland desiring to apply the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland they will be in a position to do so. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Brentford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise for only two purposes; first, to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Brentford, on his introduction of the Bill, and secondly to assure him and the House that it has the cordial support of Her Majesty's Government. There is always room for argument about the financial limits, but in my view they are correctly drawn. It is a matter of judgment, but one of the important factors is that we must not impose upon the officers of the Customs and Excise too great a burden. If the financial limits were any higher than those proposed by the Bill I believe we should be in danger of doing this.
I believe the suggestion has been made that the Bill might encourage unqualified persons to tout for work as advisers to those who make applications before the Customs and Excise officers. The present Non-Contentious Probate Rules prohibit a personal applicant making his application through an agent or being attended by an adviser. In all probability these Rules apply not only to applications made at Probate Registries but also to those made to Customs and Excise officers, and in any event there would be no difficulty in issuing to those
726
officers administrative instructions with similar effect. My Lords, I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading, and I am glad to think that its content provides another reason, apart from my old friendship with the noble Lord's father and himself, of wishing him "Many happy returns."
On Question, Bill react 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, after Clause 13 to insert the following new clause:
Effect on rent of owner's cessation of rateability
".In the event of an owner ceasing to be rated in respect of any hereditament which is subject to the Rent Act, 1957, or in the event of the termination of a voluntary arrangement by an owner to collect the rates of such a hereditament on behalf of the local authority, the owner may by an appropriate adjustment of the rent convert the rent from a rent inclusive of rates to a rent exclusive of rates without any consent of the tenant."
The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with very similar matters to those dealt with in Clause 13. It arises from the fact that sometimes a local authority may cease to pay a compounding allowance to a landlord by which the landlord will collect the rates

727
due as an inclusive sum with the rent. There are also cases of voluntary arrangements with the local council which may also be put an end to summarily at the will of the council. The National Federation of Property Owners have taken counsel's opinion, and they find that, as the law stands at present, it is necessary in those cases, if the landlord wishes to convert the rent and rates from an inclusive basis to an exclusive basis, that the tenant should give his consent.
Take first the case of the compulsory rate collector—that is to say, compulsory compounding. In this case it appears that if the allowance suddenly ceases the landlord will still have to collect the rates with his rent if the tenant refuses his permission. At the same time, it appears as though the local council may serve a rate demand on the tenant personally. There would therefore be considerable confusion. In the second case, of voluntary compounding, it may be that the landlord is left holding the baby if the tenant does not consent to paying his rates directly to the council, and the result will be that the landlord will be out of pocket. This Amendment is designed to abolish the requirement of the consent of the tenant to a change from the payment of rates inclusive to rates exclusive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13 insert the new clause.—(Lord Cawley.)
EARL JELLICOE: I think my noble friend has explained the purpose of his Amendment extremely clearly; nevertheless I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. In the first place, there are slight drafting defects in it. No provision, so far as I can see, is made in the proposed new clause for the date from which the change is to operate, or for notice to the tenant showing the way in which the alteration to the rent has been calculated. I think that if an Amendment along these lines were to be accepted something would have to be inserted to deal with those points. No doubt these defects could be remedied. Therefore, without dwelling longer on these drafting points, I should like to turn to what I call the more substantive objection as we see it.
I am informed that the present state of the law has not in fact given rise to
728
difficulty—at least, those experts with whom I have discussed the matter are not aware of any difficulty; but they feel that the proposed change might invite a difficulty or possible unfairness. It might be that the tenant would not wish to resist reassessment of his rent on terms that he would be directly liable for the rates, but I do not think one should assume that that necessarily would always be the case. Tenants who pay their rates to their landlords weekly with their rent escape the painful necessity from which some of your Lordships doubtless suffer, of finding rates at longer intervals in larger sums and, in effect, in advance. Many rating authorities have made arrangements to collect rates by small instalments to meet the convenience of their ratepayers. My right honourable friend in fact welcomes this initiative. But some still do not do so, and it is our feeling that hardship could therefore result for a tenant who suddenly became liable, at the landlord's discretion, to be directly rated.
Those are the main practical reasons why I am not particularly happy about the proposed Amendment. In addition, there is a more general reason. Basically, the Amendment seems to deal more with rent matters than with matters of rates. I should not wish to argue that, from this point of view, the noble Lord's Amendment is not strictly relative to the Bill before your Lordships' House; but I should wish to make it clear that the Government, who are, as it were, the repositories of both renting and rating legislation, would feel it much more appropriate that provision for this sort of thing, should it be thought necessary, should be included in a Rent Act rather than in a piece of purely rating legislation.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to add much to what the noble Earl has just said; I agree with practically everything that he has said. But, in addition, would not this Amendment involve the breaking of a contract between landlord and tenant, at the pleasure of the landlord? If a landlord and tenant agree on a rent which includes rates, it should not be open to one party, at his own pleasure, to say, "Now I am going to depart from this arrangement. I hereby give you notice that now we are on a

729
different arrangement." I think I am right. Would that not be the effect of this Amendment? Could the noble Lord who moved this Amendment really justify that situation? I should have thought that, having made the bargain, the landlord ought to stick to it, just as the tenant should.
LORD CAWLEY: I think I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in that I do not think it is likely that any particular contract will be drawn up between the parties as to the payment of rates inclusive.
LORD SILKIN: Not in writing; but this would involve a bargain which is struck as to what the rent will be, inclusive of the rates. That bargain stands, and it ought not to be open to either party, whether it is in writing or verbally, to depart from it.
LORD CAWLEY: I think I can say that if the surrounding circumstances suddenly change—that is to say, the local council reverses its policy—that may have some effect on the contract between the parties. However, as I see that Her Majesty's Government are unlikely to alter their view on this Amendment, I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.27 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, after Clause 13 to insert the following new clause:
Landlord's notice of change in rates
".Where by virtue of a direction by a rating authority under subsection (1) of section eleven of the Act of 1925 an owner is rated in respect of a hereditament, section three of the Rent Act, 1957 (which relates to adjustments of rent in cases where the rates of dwellings are borne by the landlord) and the Second Schedule to the said Act shall have effect as if, in any case where there is an increase in or reduction of the poundage of the rates for the basic rental period, notice of such increase or reduction may be given to the tenant of that hereditament by the landlord thereof on any date not earlier than seven days after the date on which public notice of the rate is given pursuant to section six of the Act of 1925, and where notice of such increase or decrease is so given the rent limit shall be increased or decreased as from the date on which notice is given by the landlord, being a date not earlier than the commencement of the said rating period."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the collection of rates, and having been apprised by the noble Earl that the objection which is taken
730
to the last Amendment will also be taken in this case, I think I might refer to the Title of the Bill, which is
"An Act to amend the law with respect to the valuation of property for the purposes of rates and with respect to the making and collection of rates."
In my submission, this refers to the collection of rates. The law as it stands at present is that, in the case of an inclusive payment of rent and rates, if there is an increase in the rates at the beginning of the financial year, then the landlord may add the increase only when he personally receives the rating demand for his property. He may not do it at the time that the poundage is publicly announced. It is also provided that he may collect six weeks' arrears of rates and no more.
I live in the area of an urban authority which serves its rate demands within about a week of the fixing of the rate, This Amendment would not apply to such an authority; it would also have little effect if the rate increase is small. The effect, however, if the rate demand is sent to the landlord two months late, let us say, or if the rate increase is large—and it may certainly be large in 1963— is that the landlord may lose a fortnight's rates. That is a mi for point compared with the fact that the tenant may suddenly be faced with a demand for six weeks' increase of rates in arrear, which may be rather a hardship. I would say, in answer to the noble Earl, that unless he has a Rent Act before 1963 this evil is going to take place when there is a sudden rise in the rates.
The Amendment provides that if the landlord notifies the tenant at any period seven days after the poundage has been publicly announced, he may then charge the increased rent from that date onwards, I think this would be a much fairer system and it would not involve the tenant in having to pay these arrears of rates. I do not know what objection there is otherwise, but I can see that it would lead certainly to better relations between landlord and tenant. After all, the rate demand is bound to go to the landlord sooner or later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Cawley.)
EARL JELLICOE: I can quite see the point of my noble friend's

731
Amendment, and I should like to tell him straight away that the Government are much more favourably disposed towards it than they were towards his last Amendment. I grant that in this case there is a problem which may well require amending legislation. But, again, I would suggest that there are a couple of drafting defects in the proposed Amendment. For example, whereas the Amendment allows the landlord to give the tenant notice of variations in the rate poundage, it does not provide for variations in the rate assessment, which, of course, equally affect the amount of rates paid. Again—and this is more than a drafting point; I think it is a point of substance—it seems to be biased in the landlord's favour, since it allows the landlord to pass on the burden of increased rates immediately but does not require him to pass on the benefit of reduced rates until a later stage.
In addition, somewhat diffidently, we rather feel that this Amendment, or an Amendment along these general lines, would come more properly under the umbrella of rent legislation than under the "brolly" of a Rating Act. For these reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment in connection with this Bill, given the assurance, which I am glad to give him, that the Government certainly propose to bear the general difficulty which he has ventilated so clearly to-day very much in mind, it and when we can find an opportunity for suitable amending legislation.
LORD DERWENT: Having listened to my noble friend on the Front Bench I feel that, in effect, he agrees with the case put forward for this Amendment, but says we must wait for further legislation. Surely, the points he raised are largely drafting ones. It will cause certain hardship in certain cases before further legislation is brought in. Why cannot the Government take over this Amendment, redraft it and put it in at the next stage of the Bill? My noble friend has agreed to the argument. Why do not the Government handle the Amendment themselves and make it into law at once?
LORD CAWLEY: Of course, I entirely agree that the reduced rates ought to be handed on and the clause is
732
defective. But, subject to what the noble Earl may say, I may find it necessary to raise the matter again at Report stage.
EARL JELLICOE: While taking note of my noble friend's warning, I should like to draw his attention to something which, again, I do not wish to labour. A similar Amendment was put down at the Committee stage in another place and was there considered to be outside the scope of this legislation. So I would suggest to him that he should give it a good deal of careful thought between now and the following stage.
LORD CAWLEY: The noble Earl will be aware that the Rules in another place are different from the Rules here.
EARL JELLICOE: I am aware of that; and also that this Bill will go back to another place.
LORD CAWLEYIn view of what has been said, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Valuation of water undertakings]:
3.35 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "increased by" to insert "one-fifth of". The noble Lord said: rise to move Amendment No. 22 standing in my name. Amendment No. 23 is, of course, related to, if not entirely dependent upon, Amendment 22. This Amendment seeks to remove an anomaly and, as I submit, an unjust discrimination against water undertakings. I should like to be brief in explanation of the case for this Amendment, but I rather fear that the technicalities of the situation are such that they do not admit of very substantial brevity. The question of the assessment of water undertakings must be considered, I submit, in relation to the practice which is now followed in connection with similar undertakings and public services, to wit, gas and electricity undertakings. Previously, for many years, these three public utilities, all of which are essential for modern society, especially water, have been valued on a comparable and similar basis known as the profits basis. This amounted virtually to a value based

733
upon the outstanding capital debts of the various undertakings.
As regards electricity, this was altered by the Local Government Act, 1948. It is the case that prior to then—and it continues—there was a movement away from the profits basis as ascertained. It involved a considerable delay; it frequently involved disputes and it led to refunds and numerous adjustments, and so the Government of the day in 1948 decided as regards the electricity industry to change the basis, and they did the same as regards the gas industry by the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. Now, through the agency of the present Bill, the Government propose to make a similar alteration in the method of valuing water undertakings for rating.
The new method of valuing water undertakings under the present Bill is to take the present values and to adjust them in the future according to two factors. The values will be first adjusted in accordance with the general level of valuations of other property—I think that is described as "the tone of the area". So if the general level of property goes up, then the general level of the water undertakings will go up proportionately. Secondly—and this is where we complain—and in addition, the value of the water undertaking is to go up or down according to the increase or decrease in the quantity of water supplied by the undertaking.
Under these provisions as at present drafted the adjustment in valuations will be directly proportionate to the increase in the quantity of water supplied. In the formulae that were applied to gas and electricity the adjustment on output is in proportion to one-fifth (not in relation to the whole) of the increase in output. "There's the rub." For a long period of time these three major public utilities, similar in many respects and all of them, as I have said, essential for society, have been valued on a particular and upon, relatively speaking, the same basis. A new method of valuation is introduced—we do not object to that—and this is applied in more or less the same way to both gas and electricity. But for the water undertakings the present Bill provides, as I have said, a similar system which has been modified so as to put the water undertakings in a considerably worse position.
No satisfactory explanation has yet been offered as to why the water undertakings should be treated in this different and discriminatory way. As a matter of fact, I understand that never during the course of the discussions between the Ministry and the authorities concerned was it ever brought to light or discussed that in both gas and electricity the increase in the assessment was to be proportionate to only one-fifth of the increase in output of gas and electricity. The water undertakings, I am assured, were most surprised when eventually they discovered this disparity and that they were to be subject, not to a 20 per cent. but to a 100 per cent. increase. Personally, I should have thought that if there was to be a difference in treatment between the three public utilities concerned then it would be, and ought to be, in favour of the water industry, because, if one had to choose between the three, there is no doubt at all that water is the most essential of them.
It has been suggested that one of the main purposes of the present clause is to bring water undertakings closer to an average assessment per thousand gallons of water supplied, and that placing water on the same basis as gas and electricity would have the reverse effect. It is difficult to see what substance there is in that particular argument. Clearly, on the old profits basis there were considerable differences between valuations of water undertakings if one tried to assess the valuations in terms of the quantity of water supplied. However, much as uniformity may be desirable, I submit that it is going a long way to suggest that the water industry must be badly treated in order to conform to an average.
It has also been suggested that the effect of making water the same as gas and electricity would be to reduce the rateable values of water undertakings, and that this would therefore be against the interests of the other ratepayers. In that connection, I may say that it is estimated that water undertakings generally pay about 11 per cent. of their total gross income in rates, whereas electricity pays 2 per cent., I think, and gas 3 per cent.—a very wide margin, and a very heavy additional burden cast upon water undertakings.
The present proposal penalises, in effect, the water undertaking which has

735
large capital expenditures to meet in the future, and in that connection I should like to refer to the Metropolitan Water Board, of which I am a member. The shift of population from the central areas of London—the overspill, as they are called—into the urban and suburban areas of the Greater London area is having this effect; it is requiring the Metropolitan Water Board to add to its equipment, to add to its reservoirs, to add to its pipes and to add to its power stations—not to cater for additional custom, but to cater for custom and for consumers who formerly lived within the County of London or close to the central areas of London. They are the same consumers. In the result, there is a good deal of equipment, plant and facilities remaining in the County of London or in the central areas of London which is now under-used but which, nevertheless, has to be maintained. In addition, the Metropolitan Water Board is having to install new equipment, new reservoirs, new pipes and new power stations in the urban and suburban areas to which the overspill population has gone. And that, I imagine, would be the situation and the condition of many water undertakings in the built-up areas of cities and towns and the like.
In those circumstances, we say that there is no case for treating a water undertaking differently from gas and electricity. At the present time, the Metropolitan Water Board pays £1,400,000 in rates out of an income of some £13 million, which is roughly, as I have indicated earlier, 11 per cent. The expenditure of the Board continues to increase for the reasons, partly, that I have already given. In those circumstances, I press this Amendment, and ask your Lordships to see to it that water undertakings are treated fairly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, after ("by") insert ("one-fifth of").—(Lord Latham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I feel particularly shy about following the noble Lord into these watery mazes. I would grant that he has argued this case very persuasively. However, he has not quite persuaded me that it would be right for me to advise your Lordships to accept his Amendment. The first reason for that is the circumstances in which this formula was
736
elaborated, to which the noble Lord drew some attention. The formula embodied in the Bill represents, I understand, a compromise which was suggested by the Ministry between proposals made respectively by the representatives of the associations of local authorities and by representatives of the water industry, who—
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would it be fair to say that neither of the bodies—neither the rating authorities nor the water undertakings—held themselves to be bound by the compromise which ultimately emerged?
EARL JELLICOE: I am coming to that.
LORD LATHAM: I beg the noble Earl's pardon.
EARL JELLICOE: These two groups joined together in a sub-committee of the Working Party on Rating and Valuation to study the problem of finding a different method of assessing water undertakings for rating purposes. As the noble Lord has said, neither set of representatives was free to bind its principals. Nevertheless, the solution which they elaborated commanded general support subject to reservations—I would grant, subject to reservations—but they were not reservations on the substance of this particular Amendment. Since the noble Lord has raised the question of history, as it were, in connection with the proceedings of this Working Party, and has suggested that in some ways the representatives of the water industry have been "hard done by" because they were not told about or were unaware of the fact that in this important respect, at least, there was going to be a difference between the formula applied for the water industry in comparison with the formula applied for the gas and electricity industries, I would say only that the fact that a directly proportionate adjustment was proposed for the water industry was certainly made crystal clear in the discussion.
I would add that the provision for the one-fifth basis for gas and electricity is contained in no fewer than three Public Statutes, so I cannot see how the representatives of the water industry can argue that they were, in some way, tricked into this. The difference is made clear in three Public Statutes, and it was also explained in the discussions that

737
there was to be this difference. From informal consultations with representatives of the associations of local authorities since this Amendment was put down, I think it is clear that the associations could be expected to object strongly to altering one particular aspect of the formula in favour of the water undertakings, and that if any special concession were made in that direction the associations would no doubt revive some of their proposals having the opposite effect.
LORD LATHAM: Do I understand that the Ministry have directly approached the rating authority on this matter since the Amendment was put down?
EARL JELLICOE: I think there is a certain amount of va et vient in any case between the Ministry and the Associations, but I think the phrase I used—and I would wish to keep to it—was "informal consultations".
LORD LATHAM: Have there been informal consultations with the Water Undertakers' Association?
EARL JELLICOE: I think there has certainly been fairly close contact. Although it would not be fair to describe the formula as a package deal between the two sides, at the same time if either sought to change it materially to its own advantage, the other would certainly expect the whole settlement to be reopened. I feel that in considering the noble Lord's Amendment your Lordships should at least bear that in mind.
But there are more substantial reasons why I wish to advise your Lordships against accepting this Amendment. In the first place, there are certain general themes running through this very carefully elaborated new formula which acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment would completely disrupt. For example, a cardinal aim of the formula is to bring the assessments of water undertakings closer over a period of years to the national average in terms of rateable value per million gallons of water supplied; and all the members of the Working Party supported this objective. Indeed, I understand there was some feeling on both sides of the sub-committee that there was much to be said for adopting a standard rateable
738
value of rate payment per million gallons and applying it forthwith to all undertakings.
On reflection, the sub-committee recognised that an adjustment of this kind would make, overnight, as were, sudden and probably quite indefensible changes in the rate liabilities of various undertakings, which would be quite intolerable to individual rate authorities and water undertakings alike. That, of course, arises from the fact that the disparity at the moment on the old profits basis is a very wide one indeed. This proposal was therefore abandoned, but the germ of the idea was retained in a gradual and, we should hope, more or less painless move toward a uniformity of rateable value over a period of years. And this will he lost if the Amendment is accepted.
LORD LATHAM: Why?
EARL JELLICOE: I will come to that straight away. If the Amendment is accepted, the effect would be not just to slow up the equalisation process, but actually to increase the "spread" of rateable value per million gallons on both sides of the national average. As my right honourable friend explained in another place—where a similar Amendment was rejected after a lengthy discussion in Committee—a water undertaking with a low assessment, if it were to increase its water output faster than the national average, would be assessed proportionately even lower. And vice versa: an undertaking with a high assessment at present expanding more slowly than the national average would become proportionately even more highly assessed. I think I could explain that to your Lordships, but I should certainly need a blackboard to do so. Therefore, I hope you will take my word for it.
Another difficulty in reconciling the noble Lord's Amendment with the principles underlying the new formula arises with the assessment of new undertakings. The proposals for them, as the noble Lord is familiar, are contained in paragraph 10 of the Second Schedule to the Bill. Broadly, for a period of ten or more years after it starts to supply water an undertaking is to be reassessed each year at the national average rateable value per million gallons of water supplied. Then it is to be introduced

739
into the general provisions in Part II of the Bill in the first new lists prepared after the end of that transitional period. If the present Amendment were accepted, the choice would lie between assessing the new undertaking during the ten years or so—the starting years—at one-fifth of the national average, which would be absurd under-assessment; or leaving it to be assessed during those years at the full national average per million gallons supplied, with an abrupt change to the one-fifth adjustment when the undertaking enters the subsequent new lists.
The second solution would, I suggest, produce extremely arbitrary results and the greatest inequality between similar undertakings, which, because they started in different years, had different lengths of "transitional period" under paragraph 10 of the Second Schedule. I have pointed out that I think the proposed Amendment would present considerable difficulty with these new undertakings hut, having done that, I should not wish to rely too heavily on that argument, because I would agree that there are not all that number likely to come in.
The main arguments, as I understand them, in favour of the Amendment appear to be those advanced by the noble Lord: that the water industry is already badly done by in matters of rating, and that the formula, as it stands, means that the industry will be worse done by, especially in comparison with the electricity and gas industries. The complaint that water has always paid too much in rates is one with which your Lordships will be only too familiar. The complaint is not confined to the water industry; it is heard from almost every class of ratepayer. I think it is only to be expected that rates form a relatively high proportion of the outgoings of the industry in that it does not have to buy its raw material. That is a bald statement of fact which I advance only to refute the suggestion that there must be something intrinsically wrong with water assessments because they result in a large proportion of the undertakings' outgoings being devoted to rates.
It is not in any way a residual argument, as I think the noble Lord said on the Second Reading debate, for resisting this Amendment; nor is it, indeed, any
740
part of the Government's case for so doing. I do not think it is a cast iron case that the water industry is so hardly done by. According to the sample figures produced by the Working Party, the rate-able values of water undertakings represented less than one per cent. of the effective capital value of these undertakings, and that, taking the national average compared with other assessments for other classes of ratepayers, is certainly not very high. I would ask your Lordships to bear that criterion in mind, gas opposed to the yardstick of 11 per cent. comparison between rates and income which the noble Lord produced. Moreover, as my right honourable friend made clear in another place, the average rateable value of the water industry in relation to the gross income fell at the 1956 revaluation, compared with the 1934 revaluation, by about half.
Nor can I really accept the noble Lord's contention that, just because the adjustment figure for growth for the gas and electricity industries is one-fifth, the same magic formula should necessarily apply to water. The argument, as I see Lt, appears to be based solely on an assumed equivalence between the water industry and the gas and electricity industries. No factual material has been produced by the noble Lord to show that these three industries are in fact so similar with respect to their rating assessments. The only link, so far as I know, is that before 1948 they were all assessed by the profits method, and that has no relevance to the present issue, since the volume of water supplied was irrelevant in that context.
Moreover, as was made clear during the Committee stage in the House of Commons, the formulae for the gas and electricity industries are quite different in a number of important ways from the proposed new formula for the water industry. For gas and electricity, adjustments of rateable value for changes in supplies are related to supply in a fixed base year. Then for gas and electricity, yearly adjustments are made within the five-year period, but for water there is only an annual adjustment of this sort if there is an increase or decrease in the volume supplied of over 10 per cent. Again there did not need to be the same attempt in the gas and electricity formulae to move towards consistency in the relationship between the output of

741
individual concerns and their rateable value. So that there are already important differences in the formulae for the gas and electricity industries as compared with the one proposed for the water industry. I think it is a little misleading to take one difference out and look at it in isolation.
I must apologise for this long and tedious explanation of why the Government trust that your Lordships will not support the noble Lord's Amendment. May I briefly summarise the main arguments I have used? In the first place, we feel that acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment would put this carefully elaborated formula back in the melting pot. Secondly we believe that this Amendment would upset the main principle underlying that formula—a desire to obtain greater equality within the industry in the assessment of individual water undertakings—and we believe that this principle is of the greatest importance. Thirdly, we see no reason in equity why the one-fifth adjustment as it applies in the gas and electricity formulae should be adopted here. Your Lordships already know that the gas and electricity formulae themselves are shortly to be reviewed. Then that one-fifth may well become different, or it may not—no one knows. I hope I have not given your Lordships the impression that I am claiming this formula is necessarily perfect; I am not, nor am I unaware that there are perfectly genuine anxieties in the industry.
In conclusion, I would make it clear to your Lordships that my right honourable friend fully appreciates the anxiety of the industry in case the application of the formula produces inequitable results. This issue was fully debated in another place, and that is why an Amendment providing for a review of the water provisions of the Bill in 1969–70 was added to the Bill as Clause 21 in another place. Therefore there is already in this Bill a cast-iron provision for a review of this formula after it has been given time to prove itself right or wrong. In the light of these considerations I would ask your Lordships not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, should he press it.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Earl has done his best, and I congratulate him, but he 'has not answered the case put
742
forward not only by myself but also by the Water Works Association. The Association has no objection to rationalising the situation and getting away from the old profits basis as presently calculated, nor has it any objection to some reasonable scheme for uniformity but not necessarily equalisation. It is the case that a number of undertakings will be in some little difficulty under the arrangement if the one-fifth proposal is embodied, but the older undertakings which have for nearly a century been providing water for the people of this country ought not to suffer because of new undertakings which are coming along, satisfactorily no doubt. I should have thought it was possible to defer an equitable towards the old undertakings and yet reasonably provide for the new ones.
I do not want to push the analogy between water, gas and electricity too far, but I will say that the gas and electricity industries have this advantage: that they engage in considerable ancillary activity—for example in providing domestic equipment, "consumer durables" as they are described—whereas a water undertaking has no such ancillary income. For the most part its income is from the sale of water and from such interest as may be receivable from its capital resources. The noble Earl made the point that the water industry liability is no greater than 1 per cent. of the industry's capital expenditure. I think that is what he said. That is not a very convincing argument.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I said "effective capital value of its,hereditaments".
LORD LATHAM: That is all right. Capital value is the same thing. It has the same value because the money has been spent on capital elements. The more water to be supplied, the larger the demand to be met, the larger capital expenditure must be incurred, the larger capital values appear, in the balance sheet, and then it is found that as that increases the percentage of rates upon it necessarily diminishes, and therefore it is argued that the water undertakings are being under-assessed. That is quite fallacious. No business undertaking could be satisfactorily conducted on that economic assessment or ascertainment basis.

743
The noble Earl suggested that certain modifications in the formula would be necessary if this Amendment were accepted. But these differences are not basic; they are differences which could be incorporated in the formula without necessarily destroying its benefit otherwise, even were the formula so amended that in place of 100 per cent., 20 per cent. were inserted. In those circumstances it seems that the Minister was pushed back, in what I still describe as a residual argument, to an exiguous and alleged justification that the water industry does not have to buy its raw materials. That is the case; but it has to purify and store it before it becomes a usable raw material, and I am certain that the expenditure in doing that is not substantially less than the general cost of raw materials in manufacture and industry. However, the noble Earl has said that this question was argued and considered at length in Committee in another place, and that is so. Having regard to his assurance that the matter will be looked at—did I gather the noble Earl to say in 1968?
EARL JELLICOE: There is provision in the Bill for 1969–70.
LORD LATHAM: Having regard to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Ascertainment of average water supplies]:
4.11 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (5):
"For the purposes of this and the next succeeding subsection non-potable water shall not include water which is at any time made potable before supply to the consumer."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of subsection (5) is to provide for a small number of water undertakings who, in addition to their ordinary potable water supplies, give a special supply of non-potable water for industrial and other purposes. I must confess that this is a "tickler" for complexity, but I feel bound, even so, to indicate the basis upon which this Amendment is put forward and leave to the noble Earl the signal duty of clarifying it and making it understandable.
To organise a supply of non-potable water takes less capital equipment and, therefore, for these water undertakings the subsection provides that only half the quantity of water supplied for non-potable purposes is to be taken into account for rating purposes. All that is perfectly clear. As a corollary to this the subsection also provides that where a bulk supply of non-potable water is given or taken, then each of the water undertakings involved is to pay rates on one-quarter of the amount of water taken or given, so that in the aggregate the two water undertakings pay between them on one half of the non-potable water. That is, in substance, what the clause does.
But the machinery in the clause for achieving that end is complicated (there will be no dispute about that, I think) and operates in this fashion. A water undertaking giving a bulk supply of non-potable water pays rates on one quarter of the amount of water supplied to the undertaking receiving the supply. The undertaking receiving the bulk supply of non-potable water pays on three-quarters of the amount of water taken. However, when the undertaking receiving the bulk supply of non-potable water supplies it to the consumer it receives a reduction of one-half, so that in the aggregate it pays only on one-quarter instead of one-half.
There is, however, no definition of non-potable water, and as at present drafted this subsection might well create difficulties as between water undertakings giving and taking the ordinary supplies of potable water. For a water undertaking giving a bulk supply can secure the benefit of paying on only one-quarter if the water it supplies can be considered as non-potable, within the meaning of that expression used in subsection (5); and this is then to the detriment of the water undertaker receiving the bulk supply, which would have to pay on three quarters. In order to ensure that the clause operates equitably, at least some partial definition of non-potable water supply should be included. This Amendment seeks to ensure that subsection (5) operates only where water undertakings are dealing with non-potable water throughout.
I understand that the Association has been in communication with the Ministry about this clause, and since I do not

745
yet understand it, I am waiting for the noble Earl to clarify my mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Latham.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Could the noble Earl, when he explains this difficulty, help me out a little? Does it refer to the question of the water being potable or the use to which the water is put? In many cases a large quantity of water is used—for example, in dairies for cooling—which is perfectly potable, but it is being used for a non-potable purpose. I should like to be clear just what that means.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is the water itself, not what is done with it.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I thank by noble friend.
EARL JELLICOE: I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has taken your Lordships into some very deep water—
LORD KILLEARN: Potable or non-potable?
EARL JELLICOE: —perhaps a little outside some of your Lordships' depths; but if you stay to swim with me, I warn you that you will almost certainly drown. Although I feel obliged to advise your Lordships not to make the proposed Amendment, which I am sure you all understand, I do so with some reluctance, since it seeks, I gather at the desire of the water industries, to make a modification in a provision which was made in another place in an attempt to meet their wishes. That is one of its many complications.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has explained this complicated provision with masterly simplicity, and I do not propose to accept his invitation to re-explain it. But I should like to attempt to point out to those of your Lordships who are versed in these water matters or are higher mathematicians some of its possible complications. It does, we think, possibly create a number of problems. There was a hint in what the noble Lord said that one of the things the water industry may fear here is that an undertaking providing a bulk supply of water to another water undertaking might seize upon some technical excuse
746
—perhaps that the final stage of chlorination had not been carried out—to supply the water as non-potable and thus secure the benefit of the three-quarters reduction, leaving the other undertaking to carry the full three-quarters. The Amendment seeks to prevent that from happening when the undertaking which is supplied with non-potable water in bulk finishes the job of making it potable before supplying it to consumers. But the Amendment would also preclude the undertaking which really was supplying raw water in bulk, unfiltered and untreated in any way, from getting the benefit of the three-quarters reduction. In forestalling one possible abuse, it would create another possible unfairness.
If this were the only defect in this simple Amendment, my right honourable friend might be prepared, on the assumption that this was preferred by the industry as a whole, to agree that the Amendment should be made. But there are, as we see it, a number of other difficulties. In the first place, it is a little hard to see why the same volume of non-potable water supplied in bulk by an undertaking should count against that undertaking at half-volume if the acquiring undertaking sees fit to purify it, and at a quarter if the undertaking passes it on without purification. That would be the effect of the Amendment.
The quarters and halves are admittedly arbitrary, but when the production process is precisely the same, it is surely wrong that the bulk supplier's liability should be dependent upon what his customer does with the water after he has taken it over. Or, to take a more homely illustration, I take the example of somebody supplying wood to somebody else. The supplier would receive half price if something was done with that wood, but he would receive the whole price if nothing was done with it, without having any control over it either way. That is precisely the difficulty which this Amendment would cause.
LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, that is precisely the difficulty which I am told exists in the present Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: It is precisely the difficulty I am told this Amendment would cause. Unfortunately, I do not think your Lordships would understand

747
me if I tried to explain it, and I should find it extremely difficult to explain. Equally, the provision would cause administrative difficulties. Suppose one undertaking receives supplies of non-potable water from two other undertakings, pools the supplies, and purifies part only of the total. Who is to say from which hulk supply the purified water came? Again, how is the bulk supplier of non-potable water to know what the acquiring undertaker will do with that water, which he has to know under other provisions of the Bill? It may be stored a while and lose its identity but the supply has to be certified in the meantime. In the circumstances (and I confess that I have drawn rather heavily upon expert advice here) I suggest to your Lordships that the Amendment, although I sympathise with the object behind it, is defective, and would probably give rise to more anomalies than it would remove.
LORD LATHAM: Simply stated, it is this. The Water Association takes the view that the Bill as drafted is defective in regard to the basis of ascertaining the rating, as it were, of the non-potable supply by one undertaking to another? It is not a question of the price of the water; it is what is to be included in the formula in the ascertainment of the rateable value of the undertaking. That is as I understand it. That is the only purpose of this Amendment, and the people who will have to argue with the valuation authorities as to what is the proper sum to be brought in in calculating or ascertaining what the rateable value of the undertaking is, are the water suppliers themselves; and they, through their association, say that difficulties will arise from the wording of the Bill as at present drafted. The noble Earl says, "That may or may not be so, but if this Amendment were carried, it would be even worse." That is the situation. I hope that the noble Earl will ask the Department to look at the matter again, and that we might be permitted to refer to it at the next stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
4.25 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 22 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 6&7 Eliz. 2, c. 55
". With effect from 1st April, 1960, the following paragraph shall be added to the Second Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1958, that is to say:
7.—(1) The Minister shall ascertain and certify in relation to the year 1959–60 and in relation to the Generating Board the amount of rateable value for each kilowatt of the aggregate installed capacity of the Board relevant to that year for the purposes of paragraph (2) of Clause 5 of this Schedule.
(2) In respect of each of the years 1960–61, 1961–62 and 1962–63 the amount of rateable value allocated under this Act to each rating area in respect of the generating activities of the Generating Board shall be the amount so certified as provided in the last preceding paragraph of this clause by the Minister multiplied by the installed capacity of the Board in that rating area for the purposes of this Schedule respectively relevant to each such year under the provisions of this Schedule.
(3) To the extent that in each of the years 1960–61, 1961–62 and 1962–63 the aggregate rateable value allocated to rating areas under the last preceding paragraph shall be greater than it would if this clause were not in force the aggregate amount of rateable value apportioned to the distribution activities of the Generating Board shall be reduced and the value of the said activities in each rating area shall be reduced in proportion."
The noble Lord said: I explained on the Second Reading debate in some little detail the difficulty which has arisen in connection with the rating of the electricity generating stations which had been left out of the 1948 Act, and in that way caused a real grievance. I do not want to go over all that ground again in detail. The point, of course, is that the 1958 Act, recognising the grievance of the 1948 Act, and wishing to put it right, introduced a formula which, with the best will in the world, has not proved altogether satisfactory in that connection. As I explained, it has resulted in a number of the local authorities in which generating stations exist not receiving the amounts which the more expanding areas—the areas with the more expanding generating stations—are receiving, That has, in fact, resulted in a loss to quite a number of urban districts, a loss running into several thousands of pounds per annum. This matter was raised in another place, and the Minister indicated that he would be prepared to look at this, but not at once—not, I

749
think, until 1963, which is a sad prospect from the point of view of the local authorities in question.
The noble and learned Viscount who leads the House said, in effect, that these local authorities ought to be glad to have got something out of the 1958 Act, even if they still had a grievance and he seemed anxious to leave it at that. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is not at all a satisfactory answer, if it is possible to devise some means of alleviating this grievance substantially during the intervening period. I agree that the matter cannot be put right 100 per cent. all at once, but it seems to me possible, by the formula introduced by the Amendment, at any rate to remove the sharpness of the sting to some extent from this grievance.
The proposal is that the Minister should calculate the amount of rating assessments in pounds, shillings and pence for each kilowatt of installed generating capacity in commission for the first year of the operation of the present formula, and that that amount of pounds, shillings and pence should remain constant for the second and subsequent years, until some fresh legislative provision is afterwards made. That would mean that for each generating station, the rating area in whose area it was would have a rating assessment static in unit value, but which could, and would, go up or down according to whether the generating station was extended or reduced in installed capacity. The figures for working out the calculation are already in existence and, I am informed, need not give rise to any difficulty. This proposal, of course, would necessarily create a shortfall somewhere else, because the 25 per cent. of the cumulo allocated to generating stations would clearly gradually increase. It is proposed, therefore, that that short-fall should come out of the 25 per cent. of the cumulo which is allocated to the main distribution activities of the Central Electricity Generating Board. No part of the shortfall would come out of the 25 per cent.* of the cumulo which has been allocated to the distribution activities of the Area Boards, so that there would not be any grievance arising on that score.
Meeting the short-fall in that way would mean that all the rating authorities in the
750
country who share in the distribution of the 50 per cent.* of the cumulo allocated to the main distribution activities of the Generating Board would lose, but only, it would appear, a little. I understand that the amount of hardship caused in this way would be very small, because in any event that distribution is hypothetical, being based on a share-out of a national lump sum according to net annual value, and has no relation at all to the question whether or not there is in a rating area so much or so little—. or, indeed, none—of the main distribution system of the Generating Board. If I have made it clear, your Lordships will see that this is a method by which it appears that this grievance could to a substantial extent be ameliorated during this intervening period, and if that is so surely the noble Lord will be able to accept it and see that this grievance is to some extent remedied.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 22, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Chorley.)
EARL JELLICOE: I think your Lordships will all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has presented this Amendment very fairly. I will try to deal with it as quickly as possible, but I may have to detain your Lordships for a minute or two because there is a real difficulty here which the Government recognise. Perhaps, in amplification, I might illustrate the difficulty briefly with actual figures. For 1959–60 the basic value attributable to the Generating Board was £12,583,000. Half was allocated to generating activities and half to distribution activities. The generating capacity of the Board at March 31, 1958, was some 24,315,000 kilowatts, The amount of rateable value per kilowatt was thus about £0·25875. This is the amount which the Minister would be called upon to certify under subsection (1) of the noble Lord's clause.
By 1961–62 the Generating Board's rateable value had increased to about £13,004,000, reflecting an increase of 16·7 per cent. in supplies of electricity. Under the 1958 Act to which the noble Lord referred, the generating stations would again attract half of the rateable value—this would be £6,502,000—and the distribution activities would attract the other half. Rateable value per kilowatt of installed capacity would then fall to

751
£0·23495. I apologise for these approximations; in fact I have omitted five decimal places. Under the clause, generating capacity having increases to about 27,674,000 kilowatts, the generating stations would attract only just over £7 million, leaving only £5,843,000 for distribution activities. In short—and this is the point of this exposition—in 1961–62, under the noble Lord's clause, distribution activities would get 10 per cent. less than under the 1958 Act as it stands. Put another way, distribution activities would get 7 per cent. less under the clause in 1961–62 than in 1959–60, while generating activities would get about 14 per cent. more.
I think it is quite clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, and from the figures which I have given, that there is a problem to be tackled. The question is how to tackle it and when to tackle it. As to how to do it, maybe the noble Lord's way is the right way, but this is not necessarily so. About fifteen in every hundred rating areas have generating capacity within their boundaries, and the other eighty-five have not, and the fifteen, therefore, receive no part of the rateable value allocated to generating activities—no part, in short, of one-half of the Generating Board's total rateable value. It is difficult to see why they should suffer over two years a cut of some 7 per cent. in what little rateable value they do get from the Generating Board—a cut which will increase further in 1962–63. The noble Lord, with his usual ruthless logic, has rubbed salt in their wounds by making retrospective adjustments for 1960–61 and for so much of 1961–62 as has passed when this Bill receives the Royal Assent.
The noble Lord's argument, as I understand it, is that under the present formula the rating area with fixed generating capacity equally loses rateable value year by year without justification. Between 1959–60 and 1961–62 its loss will have been about 9 per cent., set off in small part by its share in the increase in distribution rateable value. Certainly there will be this loss; that is granted; but I would remind your Lordships that my noble friend the Leader of the House said during an earlier debate that it is only two years since the altered electricity formula came
752
into force, and the altered formula gave areas with generating stations, for the first time since 1948, a substantial amount of rateable value in respect of these stations. The question, therefore, is whether the rating areas which get the largest share of the Generating Board's rateable value-50 per cent. of the value shared among 15 per cent. of the authorities—should be protected absolutely against losing any of it, at the expense of foisting a loss on the 85 per cent. of local authorities who share rather less than the other 50 per cent. The point which I am really putting to your Lordships is that there is no obvious answer to this particular difficulty. The noble Lord's solution may be along the right lines but if we adopted it we should in fact be helping a minority of rating areas at the expense of a majority.
That brings me to the "when". When should this problem, and it is admitted to be a problem, best be tackled? I hope I have shown that not only is this a complicated matter but there is also a balance of advantage here. Because of this, I cannot really advise your Lordships to take a snap decision to alter, in the way proposed by the noble Lord, a settlement which was arrived at after long negotiation between local authorities and the industry. It was a settlement which was deliberated over by two expert committees. Another reason against a snap answer, I should suggest, is that the electricity formula was not discussed at all by the Working Party which preceded the Bill your Lordships are now discussing.
I wish to assure the noble Lord that the Government recognise he has put his finger on an anomaly which may be developing in the application of the electricity formula, but the decrease in the rateable value of the generating stations is not the only aspect of the formula which may be causing difficulties. Surely the sensible answer is to review the whole formula as a package. This is precisely what my right honourable friend has undertaken to do after 1963. On the general revaluation of other rateable properties for the 1963 lists, the rateable values of the Electricity Boards will, of course, fall to be adjusted. There appears to the Government to be a considerable advantage in reviewing the electricity formula as a

753
whole in the light of up-to-date values—the 1963 lists—rather than on the basis of lists which have only two years to run. For these reasons, while fully recognising that there is a difficulty here, I would suggest to your Lordships that this may not necessarily be the right way to tackle it and that this is certainly the wrong time to do so.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his sympathetic answer. I quite agree that it is obvious that we cannot make a major modification in the formula under the 1958 Act, but the whole object of this Amendment is to tide over the intervening period with what seems to me to be a sensible and possible way out. I am not sure that I quite understood the noble Earl: did he say that the result of this would be to accept the allocation on the distributive side? Because my information is that it would not affect the distributive side, although I quite agree that over all the rating authorities there would be a small loss which, according to the information I have, would be so small that it would not be regarded as a serious grievance. However, I should like to look rather more carefully at what the noble Lord said and consider the position, and possibly put an Amendment down again for further discussion at the next stage. In those circumstances, I hope your Lordships will allow me to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Short title, repeals, saving and extent]:
EARL JELLICOE: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 15, after ("Schedule ") insert ("as from the passing of this Act,
(c) in the case of the enactments specified in Part III of that Schedule ").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transitional Provisions as to Valuation of Statutory Water Undertakings]:
4.42 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment is virtually drafting, but at the same time it is designed to plug two small holes in the machinery for dealing with the assessment of new undertakings formed out of existing ones. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 19, leave out from end to ("in") in line 41 and insert ("the following provisions shall have effect for the period between the change and the coming into force of the first valuation lists to come into force after the change:—

(a) for the year in which the change takes place the rateable values of hereditaments which on the change become water hereditaments of a new undertaking shall he the same as they were before the change, the rateable value of any water hereditament of a new undertaking which is part of a hereditament which before the change was a water hereditament of another undertaking being ascertained by the Commissioners by apportionment;

(b) for any subsequent year the rateable values of water hereditaments of a new undertaking shall be such as the Commissioners may determine to be appropriate having regard to the cumulo-values for the undertakings wholly or partly comprised in the new undertaking;

(c) without prejudice to the generality of head (a) of this sub-paragraph, no alteration shall be made under section seventeen of this Act as respects water hereditaments of a new undertaking so as to affect the rateable values of such hereditaments for the year in which the change took place;

(d) in the application of the said section seventeen (for any subsequent year) as respects any period of years ending after the change—

(i) the undertakers carrying on a new undertaking shall be treated as having had in periods beginning before the change a yearly average supply ascertained by reference to the yearly average supplies of the undertakers carrying on the undertakings wholly or partly comprised in the new undertaking, and

(ii) the cumulo-value of a new undertaking shall be taken to be an amount ascertained by the Commissioners as that which appears to them appropriate having regard to the said cumulo-values;

and ".—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment also is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 50, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(b)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 1, leave out ("under head (d) thereof") and insert ("of the cumulo-value for a new undertaking for the purposes of the first valuation lists coming into force after the time of the change ").—(Earl Jellicoe).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Minor and Consequental Amendments]:
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, leave out ("proposals") and insert ("a proposal").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL, JELLICOE: This again is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned appeal before all").—(Earl Jellicoe).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after paragraph 12 to insert:
".—(1) So much of subsection (2) of section three of the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, as provides that a hereditament in which the whole, or substantially the whole, of the available accommodation is used for the letting of rooms singly for residential purposes shall for the purposes of that Act be deemed not to be used for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings shall not apply in relation to a hereditament in which the whole, or substantially the whole, of that accommodation consists of dwellings—

(a) which have at any time been approved under section one of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958 (dwellings qualifying for exchequer subsidies) or the corresponding provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to the giving of financial assistance for the provision of housing accommodation;

(b) which have been provided or improved in accordance with proposals approved under section nine of the said Act of 1958 (contributions for dwellings improved by local authorities); or

(c) in respect of which grants have at any time been paid to a housing association or development corporation under section twelve of the said Act of 1958 (grants for dwellings improved by housing associations or development corporations under arrangements with local authorities) or section thirty
756
of that Act (grants for dwellings improved by persons other than local authorities).

(2) Any reference in the foregoing sub-paragraph to any provision of the said Act of 1958 includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any enactment repealed by that Act.
(3) An alteration in a valuation list made in pursuance of a proposal made for the purpose of giving effect to sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, being an alteration which would by virtue of subsection (1) of section forty-two of the Act of 1948 (alterations retrospective to beginning of current rate period) be deemed to have had effect as from a date before the passing of this Act, shall be deemed to have had effect as from the passing of this Act."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment proposes to add a new paragraph to the Fourth Schedule. Its intention, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships, is to make certain that certain flatlets provided for old people by local authorities, housing associations and development corporations are assessed at 1939 values for the remaining life of the current valuation lists, and that they will be eligible in 1963 for any derating that may flow from an order made under Clause 2 of this Bill. I would ask your Lordships to take this Amendment on trust. Its aim, I am sure, is one which your Lordships would wish to see achieved, and its drafting, I am told, ensures that that aim is achieved. Your Lordships will note that the Amendment is in the Fourth Schedule, and it is thus classified as a minor one.
I do not know precisely how many buildings are affected by this Amendment, but it is thought to be of the order of one hundred or so, of which half are probably already valued under the existing law at 1939 values. Although this is designed only as a minor adjustment of the boundary between private dwellings and the rest, the Government commend it to you as an adjustment which ought to be made. Inasmuch as the distinction between dwellinghouses and other properties which has caused the difficulty will largely cease to be relevant after the 1963 lists are superseded, the provision is also of a temporary nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 21, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There is a Manuscript Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. In case your Lordships have not all got it, I will read it out. It is, at page 35, to leave out lines 8 and 9.
4.48 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I hope that your Lordships will excuse my moving a Manuscript Amendment, because I know they are very tiresome things, especially when they are complicated. However, this one is of the simplest nature in the world. It is to remove from the Bill the repeal of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. I cannot start without paying a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord jellicoe. We knew perfectly well that with his name he was very happy on the top of the water, but when he dealt with potable and non-potable water and swam through the current to the shore, only to be electrocuted when he got there, I think it was one of the most remarkable performances of good temper, study and knowledge, which he put before us this afternoon. I am not doing that with any idea of "buttering him up" to try to get him to accept my Amendment, because with a good deal of experience of these sort of things I have a slight doubt in my mind as to whether the Government will accept it. Never mind; I feel it my duty to draw attention to something which has occurred in the Bill which upsets me very much. I want to go on with, roughly, a speech which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made in general terms, but which I want to speak on, if I may, in detail. It is an injustice, I think, that has been brought about by this particular Bill.
I have had the honour of being President of the Royal Institution now for some twelve years, I do not know if your Lordships all know the Royal Institution. It is 160 years old. It is one of the most famous scientific societies that exists. In case you do not know where it is, it is in Albemarle Street; and it is that building with those colossal columns which you pass without knowing what the building is. It is true that under the Scientific Societies Act we are a charitable society, and consequently we are entitled to the 50 per cent. rating rebate. But this new Bill, when it becomes
758
an Act, is going to cost us £3,000 a year. We really do not know how to meet this burden, because we have already put up subscriptions; and it is a great labour of love, as you know, to run these societies taking the time of managers and people who are deserving of all praise; and at the end you get this tremendous fine put upon you.
The position of our Institution is most remarkable. It was started over 160 years ago to teach the upper classes science. Well, it has done that pretty well—we are all scientists to-day, especially noble Lords. It is, of course, technically a charity, and it is supported by voluntary membership. But I must say (although it does not sound very good from the advertising point of view) that those who subscribe to it get very little; they do it because they are interested in the spread of science. I do not know whether your Lordships know of our work. The great Friday evening lectures, I should have thought, were well known, and the Christmas lectures to what is called "juvenile auditory" are very famous. Now we have Sir Lawrence Bragg as a director.
Here I think we are doing a public service. We are giving lectures to sixth-form school boys during the week. We do something else which I think is invaluable—we get teachers on one particular subject to come to the Royal Institution and meet the greatest expert in England on that subject, and they can talk together on various matters. Your Lordships may say that that is not very exciting; that other bodies do a similar sort of thing. I should be inclined to doubt that in entirety. But where we are unique—and this is what I want to impress upon the Government—is that we run the Davy Faraday Laboratory. There is no other society that runs a lab. like ours—not even the Royal Society has its own lab. This we do out of our own funds, supported by a kindly industry. That is the point I want to stress more than anything else.
Lest you think that this is not one of the famous labs. in the world, may I draw your attention to the fact that it was in our lab. that Humphry Davy discovered iodine and also the miner's lamp. It was in our lab. that the great Faraday started all that electromagnetism which was the basis of all

759
the generating of electricity in this country about which we have been talking this afternoon. It was in our lab. that James Dewar first liquefied gas. Sir William Bragg, working in our lab., started X-ray crystal analysis, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize; and here to-day we have his son, Sir Lawrence Bragg, also a Nobel Prize winner.
Lest you should think that we have run down in experiments, and in initiative and imagination, let me tell you that it is only recently, in conjunction with the Cavendish Laboratory, that we announced to an astonished world the atomic structure of hæmoglobin and myoglobin. You may say, "What is the use of knowing about hæmoglobin?" When somebody asked him, "What is the use of your experiments?" Faraday said, "What is the use of a baby?"—good words!
I hope that I have impressed upon the noble Viscount the Leader of the House how apart we are from any other learned society and scientific society. I know that he is most keen on helping science. The D.S.I.R. support every great laboratory in our country with State funds. I approve of such a policy. We are the only lab. which does not get any funds from the State, and we are proud of our independence. If the Government do not help us, this Bill will cost us £3,000 a year extra. We are told, "Go to the Westminster City Council and ask for further relief." Of course, the people at Westminster are splendid people. But why they should pay for something which is national rather than local it is difficult to understand. With the greatest good will I cannot see that there is much hope along those lines. The Government tell us: "You will be met with a lot of sympathy, because your case will be put before the Joint Committee of the Royal Society and the British Academy." I would ask the noble Viscount to put something right. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 31, at column 865, he mentioned Royal Societies". Does he mean "societies" or just "the Royal Society"?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That was a misprint in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have taken steps to put that right.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I thank the noble Viscount. I have nothing but the most profound respect for the Royal Society; but our Institution is also most venerable, and for us to go cap in hand on rate relief to a body of scientific specialists does not appeal to us as a sound piece of procedure.
Frankly, when you look at the figures there is really a tremendous fuss about nothing. The whole amount in money which these scientific societies will have to pay is £128,000. That is the money which is at present being derived from local authorities. I think it was the Treasury, or a representative of the Treasury, who said that he would allot money to these two bodies to give to people who deserved such money. If he gave the whole amount, that of course would fix the thing satisfactorily for all. Whether he can see his way to doing that, I do not know.
I quite understand that I should have raised this matter on Clause 9. I have put this Amendment down now as a sort of substitute, rather ingeniously, on the Schedules. But I quite understand the position of the Leader of the House. I cannot expect him to accept it at this late stage of the Bill, although there is much justice in it. But I would ask him this: will he think over the anomalous position that this Bill has manœuvred this Society into as a separate entity? Inasmuch as he is an encourager of science, I hope he will realise that he is not in this case an encourager of a lab. but a penaliser of it. I am sure he would hate to think about that, and that it would keep him up at nights. In conclusion, and to save time, I would say that I will withdraw the Amendment if he will just say a word, and I will raise it again on Clause 9 on the Report stage. By then perhaps he will have given some thought to it, and will, I hope, be able to say a word in our favour. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to the position of this laboratory, for which I need hardly say the Government have only the greatest respect and regard —both for its venerable past and for the

761
distinguished scientific work which it has done and is still doing in the recent past and at present. I would thoroughly agree with him that the work which it is doing in conjunction with the Medical Research Council on protein structure is of the greatest importance. But the Amendment which is proposed does not deal with this laboratory as an independent entity; it deals once more with the scientific societies. The effect of the Amendment would be to delete the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 from the list of Statutes to be repealed in the Fifth Schedule.
This matter has been considered very carefully on a number of occasions, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. The Pritchard Committee gave very careful consideration to the case made to them in evidence by and on behalf of societies which are at present relieved of rates under the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. In paragraph 46 of their Report the Committee reported that the Act
"produced some very curious anomalies".
Often they could see
"no difference between societies within and societies outside the exemption."
The same paragraph continues:
"Some which are exempt appear to be less needy or less deserving of relief than others which have lost the exemption or have failed to gain it. Several of the societies now exempt seem to be fundamentally different from the kind of institution"
which Parliament had in mind. And then they went on to say, in paragraphs 138 and 139 of their Report:
"In many respects the arguments for the continuation of exemption for societies within the Act of 1843, and for its extension to other societies, were the same as those advanced to justify relief for charities. Much emphasis was, however, placed upon the importance to the nation, especially at the present time, of the work undertaken by scientific societies. We do not question this claim, but we do not consider that the national importance of work undertaken is a sufficient reason for complete exemption from local taxation.
"We can understand the desire of the societies to secure that as much as possible of their income is applied to the furtherance of their objects, but this is equally true of charities serving other purposes … we are not satisfied, therefore, that any of the societies exempt, or contending for exemption, under the Act of 1843 has a better claim to relief in present circumstances than any other charities."
762
The Government accepted that advice and Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill give effect to it.
The present Amendment, as my noble friend rightly apprehended, was put down to the Fifth Schedule in order to make good an omission of raising the matter in Clauses 9 and 10. Your Lordships have now been in possession of the general arguments for and against these exemptions on a number of occasions: first, when the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised it from the Cross Benches on the occasion when we were debating the work of my own Office some months ago; secondly, on the Second Reading of this Bill; and thirdly, when the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised it again and I replied in much 'greater detail than I am doing now, at, I think, an earlier stage of this Bill—I cannot remember for the moment exactly at what point.
As your Lordships are aware, exemptions from rates have given rise to two extreme points of view. One is that which was put forward only two days ago, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that charities (and for this purpose this type of society is in the same position) should be subject to rates like anybody else, because, he said, with a great deal of force, these are very largely national societies; there is no particular reason why the ratepayers of Westminster should subsidise work on, say, hæmoglobin at the expense of their rate revenue, and for this reason the societies should be subject to rates unless the local authority gave them discretion. ary relief as giving a local benefit to the inhabitants of the area for which the local authority was responsible. That is a very logical case. We did not accept it, but I think it was put forward on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Milverton, and it does represent, broadly speaking, the local authorities' point of view.
Against that, it is quite rightly pointed out on behalf of these societies that they do a great deal of very useful work. Many of them maintain libraries —indeed, in the case of the Royal Institution, I think, there is a library, apart from the laboratory to which my noble friend referred. They issue publications, all of which advance the cause

763
of science and learning. And it is said on their behalf that the subscribers today are not all very wealthy people. They subscribe out of their taxed income, and the work of science and learning could hardly go on without the cumulative effect of what they are doing. I say very frankly that I recognise the force of that case; but I still think (and I am sure that the Committee will agree with me) that to continue an anomalous Act, an Act so full of anomalies as this one passed in 1843, which has proved practically unworkable in many respects and is productive of nothing but anomalies (it gives a compulsory 100 per cent. exemption to a very limited class of societies, which is not in fact being given to charities under this Bill) really is not justifiable at the present time. On the contrary, what we have done is to rely on the advice of the Pritchard Committee to make all charities, including the societies I have referred to, subject to a 50 per cent. exemption, with a voluntary, a discretionary, exemption as to the remaining 50 per cent.
I further said to the representatives of these bodies, who came to see me in a very powerful deputation, that we would examine any hardship which was placed upon them as the result of this Act in the context of their needs—but not in the context of rate relief or of rate subsidy. I think that, on the whole, that is a not ungenerous way of handling it. There is not, as a matter of fact, any very great urgency in the matter, assuming that their case is sympathetically considered. As your Lordships will see from the terms of the Bill, I think it is three years from now before any of these rates will be paid; and the full amount will not be paid until 1968.
The situation, therefore, is that we recognise that the repeal of the 1843 Act uncovers a general problem, which is the problem that the learned societies have all been carrying on their affairs in the taxation conditions of 1961 when much of the work they do is of direct public value—that we recognise—but we consider that the remedy proposed, of reverting to the position of 1843, is
764
really not one that the House should support in the light of what we are doing for other similar bodies. For that reason I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment. In fact, I should like to say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that he made a very long speech when I told him he need not make one at all. He made it on the general point we have heard before, but he did not deal with the special point, which is that we run a laboratory, unlike any other society; and if he will bear that in mind on Clause 9 on the Report stage I shall be very much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: This is purely a drafting Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, leave out lines 14 to 16.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, leave out line 28.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 28, column 3, at end insert—"in section sixteen, in subsection (5), the words 'regulations or' and the words from 'and any' to the end of the subsection."—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, leave out lines 32 to 34.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This is a drafting Amendment, too. It is one which it gives me particular pleasure to move, as it is the last one.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—

("ENACTMENTS REPEALED AS FROM THE PASSING OF THIS ACT

Session and Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 90.

The Rating and Valuation Act, 1925.

In section sixty-eight, the proviso to the definition of 'gross value'.

15 & 16 Geo. 6. &1 Eliz. 2. c. viii.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1952.

Section twenty-five.

1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 42.

The Valuation for Rating Act, 1953.

Section six.

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 9.

The Rating and Valuation(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955.

Section ten.

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 12.

The Distress for Rates Act, 1960.

In section twelve, in subsection (3), the words from 'and the provisions' to the end.

PART III ")
—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

SEA DRIFT-NETTING OF SALMON
5.10 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to draw attention to the need for early action to preserve the natural stocks of salmon in the United Kingdom rivers and estuaries from the threat of irreparable damage through drift-netting in the sea, carried out beyond legal fishing limits and without restriction as to time, season or extent; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the most useful thing I can do is briefly to give your Lordships some facts, first, about drift-net fishing for salmon. Drift-net fishing started seriously in 1960. It is mainly carried on outside the three-mile territorial limits and outside the five-mile exceptional limit under the Tweed Estuary Act. I am mainly concerned this afternoon with the form of drift-net fishing which is carried on outside those limits, and for
766
which there is at present a complete public right Drift-net fishing within the limits is in fact illegal, as my noble friend Lord Craigton said in reply to a Question in this House recently. The illegality is, at any rate in theory, enforceable by district fishers boards.
Drift-net fishing is carried out at night. Fine-mesh nets are used, often made of nylon, and they are up to, indeed, sometimes in excess of, one mile in length. They go down to an approximate depth of twelve feet. Drift-net fishing is not new. It was tried on a small scale in the year 1880, it was tried again in 1900 and again in 1930; but it is due to improved equipment and techniques, including the introduction of these fine-mesh nylon nets, invisible to the fish, that the practice has now become possible and profitable. Drift-net fishing carried on outside the limits is permissible at any time of the year. There are no restrictions as to close season or limitation of hours during which the fishing can he carried on, except that fish caught in the close season from estuaries and rivers must have a certificate of origin before they can be sold. The certificate of origin is not, in fact, a legal necessity but an administrative convenience to comply with the law, which prohibits fish caught within the limits being sold during the close season. I would remind your Lordships that there are restrictions as to the seasons and the hours during which ordinary estuary rod and net fishing can he carried out. Those restrictions were introduced by the Acts of 1857 and 1859 and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
As to the quantities of fish caught, estimates vary, but I can tell your Lordships that from January 1 until February 16, which is the close season for legal fishing with either estuary nets or rods, no fewer than 3,500 salmon were received at Billingsgate only, mainly from Sea-houses and Eyemouth. If 3,500 are received at Billingsgate, your Lordships can well understand that many other fish were received in; fish markets in other parts of the country. It has been calculated by those concerned with the River Tweed that probably some 20,000 salmon were taken by drift-net methods last year —and that is a figure well in excess of

767
the total taken by rods and nets combined.
Your Lordships will now wish to know the number of boats. During the close season—and I want to stress to your Lordships that that is the important time—from January 1 to February 16 (when, as I have said, 3,500 fish arrived at Billingsgate) there were 9 boats at Eyemouth and 14 boats at Sea houses employed on drift-net fishing. In 1960, the maximum number of boats fishing in that particular area was 16. In 1961, the figure had risen to 31. Boats came from as far distant as the Yorkshire coast to fish off the mouth of the Tweed. There have been reports that foreign boats have come over and indulged in drift fishing just off our coastal limits. I must tell your Lordships that I can find no positive proof that foreign boats have yet come over, but I have circumstantial reports of three foreign boats off the River Findhorn. The general opinion amongst those who have studied these matters is that it would not be economic for foreign boats to come over to drift-net fish off our shores and to return to their foreign ports of origin with their catches. On the other hand, there is a strong possibility that foreign boats will soon be fishing off our coasts just outside the legal limits and that they will land their catches in the United Kingdom. That is perfectly legal and practical, and would be profitable.
Boats engaged in drift-net fishing can be fitted—indeed, some are fitted—with Asdic. That, as your Lordships know, is a radar device which we used for hunting submarines during the war and which is used for hunting shoals of white fish. But as to the extent of the practical use of Asdic, so far I cannot find any positive proof, because the salmon do not pack like shoals of white fish until they are very nearly in the river mouth. Furthermore, Asdic is rather unnecessary because, as I will explain in a moment to your Lordships, there are other ways of catching the fish very effectively. The types of boats used are a mixture between the small inshore and the smaller deep-sea classes of boat. So far, the larger deep-sea trawlers have not participated. I should tell your Lordships here that certain commercial enterprises engaged in quite legal and licensed river netting take the view that
768
if the law is not altered to protect their own commercial positions they will have to take to drift-net fishing and equip their boats for that purpose, and so avoid the annual close times and the weekly close times to which their river netting has to conform at the present time.
The ocean life of the salmon is still a fascinating mystery which, thank goodness, nobody has yet solved. The salmon in the deep oceans are widely spread over the ocean bed, but they start concentrating before entering rivers. The fish shoals are generally located near the surface of the sea up to about ten miles off the shore, and on occasions they have been spotted up to fifteen miles off the shore. Therefore, based on the knowledge of the salmon's likely course over the last fifteen, ten or five miles, the drift-net fishermen have no particular need to use Asdic, with these nets over a mile wide; and with what I would term the "chuck and chance" system, they can take a heavy toll of the fish.
Now as to the extent of drift-net fishing. The "happy hunting ground" is, at present, mainly off the Tweed Estuary, but there is definite drift-net fishing off Findhorn, Helmsdale, the Tay, the Spey, and the Dee. Beyond this I have no positive evidence, but various district boards in England and on the West coast of Scotland report preparations by fishermen to start drift-net fishing in their areas. As regards the legal position of drift-net fishing, as I told your Lordships just now, the drift-net fishermen outside the three-miles limit enjoy legal freedom, but they contribute nothing to river and stock maintenance, and nothing to preservation of salmon stocks. Conservation of stocks is, I submit to your Lordships, vital from a national point of view. Whether salmon be caught by rod or by net is immaterial, provided that the catching of the salmon is under some legal control. Drift-net fishing outside the limit is not.
Proof of the damage is not yet obtainable, but there is every evidence that grave damage has been done already and the runs of salmon are depleted this year; and far more marked fish, which have been lacerated and marked by these nylon nets, have been reported this year than ever before. The proof of damage

769
is not available, and will not be available for five years, after the event when the salmon which should have been going up the rivers to spawn would have returned to the sea. In fact, the damage of 1961 will not be ascertainable until 1966, when it will be too late to repair it if nothing is done now. I think there is a heavy responsibility on any who would advocate a "wait and see" policy, because in that case it will be too late when we do see.
My Lords, I have given your Lordships, I hope briefly, some facts as to drift-net fishing. My next submission to your Lordships is that our salmon rivers are a national asset.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether drift-net fishing is illegal inside the limit?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: "Drift-net fishing"—and I am now able to quote the Minister of State for Scotland in your Lordships' House on June 19 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232 (No. 94), col. 385]—
"within … estuarial limits is illegal and enforcement is a matter for the district fishery boards ".
That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was mainly concerned with fishing outside the limits. My submission is that our salmon rivers are a national asset. As regards employment, on the River Tweed alone some 300 men are directly employed on the river; and a like number are employed on probably six other rivers. There is a tremendous benefit to tourism in this country from our salmon rivers, and indirect employment in dozens of different industries—in transport, in catering, in hotels; your Lordships can guess as well as I the large number of indirectly concerned industries. This is no campaign to preserve the rich man's pleasure, but it is a desire to preserve an asset which all can share in and which is of national value.
I think I should just submit to your Lordships that there are certain arguments heard against any action taken. The first argument is: "Oh, only a small proportion of the total of the salmon is taken". No one river can stand 20,000 fish taken off its mouth; and what is to-day a small proportion of the total becomes greater as drift-net fishing
770
expands and as salmon stocks get smaller. The second argument against any action is: "There cannot be very much damage as river nets still get the same percentage of fish coming into the river". The answer to that is that estuary fishing, estuary netting and rod fishing, will always get the same percentage of fish entering the river, but it is the balance representing the breeding stock that is being depleted. The third argument is: "If the river nets are allowed, why not the sea nets?". My reply to that is that the river nets are controlled and limited, and river netters contribute a large amount of money to the upkeep of rivers and the conservation of stocks, but the drift-net fishermen do no such thing. I believe that those who, at present, carry out drift-net fishing should, in their own interest, be supporters of measures to control the amount of fishing if they do not wish to see all our rivers depleted in a very short time.
Finally, what to do? Some suggestions have been made. Let me say at once, I should like to see total prohibition of drift-netting. It has been suggested that, if that is impracticable, there might be a ban on the landing of salmon from the drift-net fishermen on Sundays and Mondays, which would put them on the same basis of limited hours as the estuary fishermen, who have to lift their nets from, I think it is, Saturday midnight till Monday morning. It has been suggested also that there should be a ban on the landings during the close season; that is to say, the instance I gave your Lordships of fishing between January 1 and February 16 would not be allowed. It has been suggested that there should be limits to the length of nets carried, and indeed that is right. There is already a limit of 600 yards imposed on licensed netters off the Northumberland coast. It has been suggested that there should be a heavy licence fee paid by drift-net fishermen in order to put them on some comparable basis with those who contribute something at present to river preservation. And there has been the suggestion that there should be a minimum size of fish to be taken, in the same way as there are certain limits on the size of white fish taken. All those things might be desirable; but I believe that basically the right thing to do is to prohibit

771
drift-netting, and that will require legislation.
So I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government three questions. My first question is: do the Government consider our salmon stocks a national asset to preserve? My second question is: do the Government accept the fact of danger to that national asset through this drift-net fishing? And my third, and last, question is: what action do they propose to take now? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.29 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I intervene at this point, because, of course, this is not purely a Scottish matter, though from the list of speakers before us your Lordships might have suspected it was. This is a United Kingdom matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, indeed makes clear in the terms of his Motion.
I am sure that everyone will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of lnchrye, for having raised this important question and providing this opportunity for a full discussion in your Lordships' House, which, as is so often the case, can bring much expert knowledge to bear. I can assure your Lordships that everything the noble Lord has said, and will be said, in this debate will be given most careful consideration by the Government, who are at this moment urgently seeking a solution of this problem which is both practicable and desirable. The noble Lord ended his speech by asking three questions, and I hope that, in the course of the few remarks I shall make, he will feel that those three questions and their proper answers are very much in our minds. The noble Lord said a great deal about the development of this comparatively new form of fishing. At this point I should like to say how grateful both my noble friend Lord Craigton and I are to the noble Lord for his courtesy in letting us see a copy of a carefully prepared memorandum on this subject which he has compiled. He has helped us a great deal in this way.
772
It is a fact that drift-netting for salmon on any scale started in the area off the Tweed only early in 1960 (the close season does not apply to fishing outside territorial waters) and it continued during the spring of that year. My information is that catches declined after the month of April and fell away altogether by the summer. As, however, there is no statutory requirement that returns should be made of salmon caught in this way, the Government have no precise official figures of the number of salmon caught off the Tweed in that year. Such information that we have indicates that the catches were quite considerable. I do not deny that. The fishing was, I understand, undertaken mainly by boats registered in England, and was confined to the Tweed area.
There was no further activity in 1960. Soon after the beginning of this year, 1961, drift-netting for salmon started again off the Tweed and continued for some months, falling off again last month, as it did last year. The fishing this year has been by Scottish as well as English boats, in about equal numbers. The information which we have boon able to obtain (which is not official) indicates that some 13,000 fish have been caught off the Tweed this year.
Elsewhere there has been some activity, at various points off the east coast of Scotland—particularly in the Arbroath, Montrose and Buckie areas. I have been told that there has been considerable development in these areas in recent weeks, and that, particularly in the Montrose district, a number of boats have been engaged. The activity in these areas, however, falls far short of the level which has taken place off the Tweed. I understand that fishing in these areas is not a very significant proportion of the total catch in Scotland. On the Tweed the situation is rather different, and the number of salmon caught by drift-net there must be regarded as a fair proportion of the Tweed catch.
At this point I think that I should state what so far has been the impact of this fishing in England. There has been a very little drift-net fishing in the high seas off the coast of Northumberland, south of the Tweed, and some concern has been expressed in Northumberland as to the possible effects on rivers

773
there. A point that distinguishes the position in England, however, is that the use of drift-nets for taking salmon and sea trout has been practised in some areas off the coast of England and Wales for many years. This fishing has been mostly, if not entirely, in waters inside the territorial limits, where it is carried on under licence from river boards. But this fishing in England and Wales is on a comparatively small scale, and the close and open seasons for salmon and sea trout apply.
Your Lordships will appreciate that this new development of fishing, which can be perfectly legal under the present law, has provided an addition to the earnings of a number of inshore fishermen. It is not, therefore, an entirely simple question to deal with. Moreover, since it is comparatively new, the Government are studying the matter in detail and considering all the implications with the greatest care.
Two distinct points have been made in the representations which have been made to Her Majesty's Government on this matter, and these were brought out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. First, it has been suggested, both in England and Scotland, that if this form of drift-netting for salmon in the sea is not controlled, it will have an adverse effect on the stocks of salmon; and secondly, that, if catching by this method continues, it is bound to affect the catches of river and coastal fishings. The owners of these established rights have invested considerable sums in these fishings, and on both sides of the Border these owners contribute, in various ways, towards the management and control of the rivers to which the salmon must go in order to spawn.
Let me take the first point—the effect on stocks of salmon. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has cogently expressed the concern that is felt, particularly in Scotland, about the possible effects of drift-netting on the stocks of salmon. The Government recognise that, if this type of fishing developed on a substantial scale over a wide area, it could, in the long run, have an adverse effect on the stocks of salmon; but I am sure it will be appreciated, as the noble Lord was careful to say, that this is not a matter on which it is possible at present to make any firm predictions. There
774
are many factors which affect the stocks of salmon, and it is difficult to disentangle the effect of any one of them. Moreover, in order to get any reliable information of what is happening to stocks, statistics over a fairly long period are I required, and as noble Lords will know, until the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act was passed in 1951 there were no detailed statistics of salmon catches in Scotland. We now have the figures since 1952, but that is really a very short period in relation to the cycle of fluctuations which are commonly experienced in salmon fisheries, and it is not possible yet to draw firm conclusions.
For these reasons, and bearing in mind that factors which affect present spawning stocks will not reveal themselves finally for several years, there is at present no reliable evidence to show whether the level of drift-netting which has taken place so far is likely to have a damaging effect on stocks. Research is being undertaken by our scientists on the various factors which may affect stocks, including the environmental changes in the rivers, but it is bound to be some considerable time before any definite conclusions can be drawn. I think I should say, however, that our scientists have expressed the tentative view, on such evidence as is available, that it is unlikely that the scale of drift-net fishing so far practised would have any damaging effect on the stocks, even in the Tweed. So far as it goes, that is reassuring. But we must be cautious on this matter, because it is clear that drift-netting for salmon in the sea could develop to such an extent that it might eventually affect the stocks of salmon. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the fact that it may be necessary to take steps to prevent a situation developing which it would be difficult or impossible to remedy.
The second point I mentioned was the effect of drift-net fishing on the catches of rod anglers and established river and coastal nets. I appreciate that there must be concern on this score, too, even though such catches always show considerable annual variations and there are many factors which affect them. The Government will, of course, keep this aspect of the matter under close review.

775
I must now briefly mention some of the difficulties which we encounter in considering what might be done in this matter. First, the greater part of this drift-net fishing has been taking place off the Tweed estuary, outside the Tweed District. This means that it is partly off the Scottish coast and partly off the English coast. Secondly, the law governing salmon fishing inside territorial waters in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales. It is, of course, for the courts to interpret the law, but as I understand it the right of salmon fishing within territorial waters in Scotland belongs to the Crown or to those to whom the Crown has assigned the right. In England and Wales, on the other hand, salmon fishing within territorial waters is generally a public right, subject to the control of river boards, who may prohibit or allow different forms of fishing and issue licences.
Thirdly, in Scotland drift-net fishing is prohibited within estuarial limits. I think I had better say a word on the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have a copy of the Hansard in front of me in which my noble friend Lord Craigton answered Lord Elibank's Question, and we must get this matter clear. My noble friend answered in these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232 (No. 94), col. 385]:
"My Lords, drift-net fishing for salmon within estuarial limits is illegal and enforcement is a matter for the district fishery boards".
He then went on—and the reply has to be read as a whole:
"In the case of the Tweed estuary, this prohibition applies to five miles from the shore, and enforcement here is for the River Tweed Commissioners. Within one mile of low water mark, it is a statutory criminal offence for any person to fish for salmon off the coast of Scotland, unless he has a legal right to do so, or written permission from a person having such a right".
That is the position, as I understand it, about the present prohibitions in Scotland. But that means that it is legal for the owners of the fishings to fish by drift-netting outside these limits if they wish to do so, although I am told this has not been the normal method of taking salmon in Scottish waters.
In England and Wales, on the other hand, drift-netting is an established
776
method of fishing in territorial waters. A number of river boards issue licences to fish by drift net within their areas, and the position of these fishermen has therefore to be taken into consideration. This is one of the reasons why simple remedies are not easy to apply—the simple prohibition, for instance, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would like to see put in force. If you ban salmon caught by the drift-net, should such a ban apply to fishermen who have for many years fished off the coast of England under licence from river boards since 1948, and before that from fishery boards set up as long ago as 1865?
Other suggestions are that if drift-netting must be allowed, at least it should be prohibited during the annual and weekly close times; or that steps should be taken to regulate the extent and nature of the nets which may be used. All these, and others, are suggestions which the Government are taking into account in their consideration of the matter. I should briefly like to touch on one other point. The noble Lord did not raise it, but it has been suggested in some quarters that an extension of our own sea-fisheries limits would help to solve this problem. But such an extension would not of itself prevent drift-netting for salmon by British fishermen; and as your Lordships know, the whole question of fishery limits raises much wider matters than we are considering here to-day.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government are greatly concerned about this new development. Conservation of stocks of salmon in our rivers has always been an important consideration. Salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation in both countries has had a long history, with conservation as its central aim. Under this legislation all forms of salmon fishing in rivers and territorial waters, including the old-established drift-netting in England and Wales, are subject to control and regulation in such matters in close seasons in the interests of conservation. But it is not only a question of the conservation of stocks: this matter raises also the question of individual and public rights which have been long established, and it raises problems to which there can be no simple solution. That is why I feel that this debate can be of

777
great value in giving us expert advice, and any light that your Lordships can shed on this most difficult problem will be greatly welcomed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees),

Hyde Park (Underground Parking), Carriage by Air,

Industrial and Provident Societies,

Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage,

Department of Technical Co-operation,

Printer's Imprint,

Local Authorities (Expenditure on Special Purposes) (Scotland),

Land Compensation,

Factories,

Police Pensions,

Holy Trinity Brompton.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SEA DRIFT-NETTING OF SALMON
6.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF CAITHNESS: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, I ask that you will show me the indulgence and consideration which you usually do, and I only hope that in spite of my deficiencies as a speaker I shall be able to make some useful contribution to what I believe to be a very vital issue. Although my interest in this subject is mainly concerned with Scotland, and in particular the South-East of Scotland, it is, as the terms of the Motion state, one which affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
778
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in introducing this Motion has earned the thanks not only of those who have any direct connection with salmon fishing but also of those who realise, as he has already pointed out, that the salmon is a national asset. For it is a national asset. In recognition of that fact, there has been for hundreds of years protection given to the salmon —protection, that is to say, in the methods by which it is caught and the times at which it is caught. That protection is given by various forms of legislation which have been built up over the years.
The aspect of salmon fishing which we are considering now is entirely concerned with netting, and it is important that we should all have a clear idea of what types of net fishing are at present in existence, and also certain legal aspects which affect them. In Scotland there are two types of nets—the fixed net and the sweep net. The fixed net is, as its name implies, a static net in which fish is trapped in a netting chamber. It is fished offshore up to half a mile from low-water mark and requires to be made inoperative, as the law demands. The sweep net is fished in rivers and estuaries and is operated from a boat, being swept in a circle from one point on the bank. In England, however, the practice is somewhat different. There, fixed nets are illegal, and the nets operated in England are drift-nets and sweep-nets. This drift-net to which I am referring is in certain respects slightly different from the drift-net which is the subject of this debate, in that it is a net which is made of cotton or hemp and it being fished just below the surface. It does not trap the fish like the fixed net, but the fish entangles itself in the meshes of the net and so gets caught. The sweep-net, of course, is the same, and worked on the same principle, as that in Scotland.
On the legal aspects, we had an answer from the Minister a few days ago which gave the legal aspects in so far as the bounds of permissible net fishing are concerned. But nothing was said then regarding this matter of the close time, and this is the legal aspect which I consider has a very important bearing on this subject we are discussing. There are two close times. In Scotland there is a weekly close time, and there is an annual close time. The weekly

779
close time is 42 hours over the weekend, and it operates from mid-day on Saturday to 6 a.m. on the following Monday morning. By legislation introduced in 1951 this close time was increased by six hours, the reason being to conserve the stocks of fish. During this close time all fixed and sweep nets are inoperative and it is illegal to use them. In addition to the weekly close time, there is the annual close time of 168 days. That operates over the winter months; and during that time, again, no nets are allowed to be operated. This period is chosen because it coincides with the breeding season of the fish.
As your Lordships have been told, we now have this new factor of drift-netting to contend with. This is a form of fishing over which our protective measures have little or no control whatsoever. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inch-rye, rather emphasised the point that this drift-netting was, in the main, taking place outside territorial waters. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him on that, because there is good evidence that it is taking place within territorial waters between the two-mile and three-mile limit over which we have statutory control, and also outside and inside the one-mile limit (that is, the one-mile limit from the low water mark) over which there is statutory control. Furthermore, this fishing—and I want to emphasise this because I think it is a point that has not been emphasised enough before—is carried out in the close season, and those taking part and reaping the rewards of it are making no contribution to the maintenance and improvement of our rivers, the source of all our future stocks of salmon.
On this legal aspect, I am quite sure that one of the troubles is that a large number of the fishermen who are now carrying out this practice of drift-netting are not sufficiently aware of what is the existing law in relation to these fishing bounds. I would strongly recommend that a clear and precise directive be issued to fisheries officers and notification given in the Press to explain to these men exactly what is the position regarding the prosecution by fisheries boards and the interdiction through private proprietors. I am quite sure that if that were done it would help the position. But, equally, I know that there are a number of fisher
780
men who are perfectly aware of what are the fishing bounds, but are continuing to fish within these limits in complete defiance of the statutory controls.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said something about the number of boats that are so employed. He spoke of the boats which are operating now, and have been since 1960, off the Northumbrian coast area and off the Tweed. I think, as he said, this must amount to some 30 boats. He rather emphasised the fact that the fishing was confined mainly to the Tweed area. But I would humbly submit that that is not so, and that in fact this type of fishing has spread northwards and is now as bad, in fact I think worse, on the East coast of Scotland. There are now some 30 boats operating from ports off the coast of Angus, from Fraserburgh and from the Moray Firth ports; and I have it on excellent authority that there are a further 12 boats being fitted out in the Caithness ports of Lybster, Scrabster and Ulbster.
As to the numbers of salmon being caught, your Lordships have heard already figures. There has been a suggestion that the numbers are falling off. Again, I feel certain that this is not so; and I should like to quote the figures for the deliveries of drift-not salmon at Billingsgate Market last week, in one week. They were, from the Northumbrian coast district, 27 boxes, and from the Angus coast district, 91 boxes. The 27 boxes were small boxes containing approximately 8 fish per box, which gives a total of some 216 fish from that area. The fish from the Angus coast area were in larger boxes containing 14 fish; that gives a figure of 1,300 fish from that area. I assure your Lordships that those figures are accurate; and they prove, I think, how greatly the danger is now spreading up the coast of Scotland. In fact the figures for the Angus coast are now six times as great as the figure for the Tweed coast. I should not like to give an inaccurate estimate of the numbers of fish that are being caught this year in all areas, but I am pretty certain that it cannot be less than 23,000.
Needless to say, the effect of all these practices on their own livelihood has not been lost on the net fishermen of the coast; there is a growing feeling of frustration and anger among them, and they

781
are rightly demanding to know what is being done about it. Equal concern is felt by the White Fish Association, because their fishermen are now realising what profits they can make out of salmon and are going for the catching of salmon in preference to the white fish; and as a result there is already a tremendous loss of trade in white fish. There is one further point on that aspect. These factors have resulted in the building up of a great and dangerous tension among these fisherfolk on the East coast. I think that this is an aspect of the matter which requires urgent consideration, because unless something is done to change the situation there is every likelihood—I do not think I exaggerate when I say this—of a breakdown in law and order in those areas. The feeling is running very high indeed.
Although I cannot quote it word for word, an Answer to a Question was given in another place a few days ago in which it was said that these practices could, or should, be combated by the district boards. There is one district board, that of the Northesk, which, in order to try to combat these drift-netters and to preserve the fishing within its own waters, has acquired the use of a fast motor launch. This motor launch is now operating at nights in the Montrose area in an attempt to obtain evidence on which proceedings against these offenders can he taken. I submit, my Lords, that this is not the job of the fishery boards. To acquire a fast launch is a very costly matter. It is a very worthy effort, and I think it is done partly to show that net-fishers are making some attempt to do something in this matter. I think that the proportions that this problem has now reached render it impossible for fishery boards to deal with it themselves and they must go further than that with some form of legislation. A form of exploitation as profitable as this is bound to increase unless some measures are taken to stop it.
I consider that the figures I have given your Lordships show how this increase is taking place and what the final results must inevitably be. These results, as has already been pointed out, will have very far-reaching effects. These salmon which are being caught are not only the source of our future stock of fish; they are a source of revenue (and I think that it is
782
possibly not appreciated that the Crown is one of the biggest owners of salmon fishing in Scotland) and a source of trade in which netsmen, tackle-makers, boat-builders, fish dealers, box-makers, gillies and water bailiffs are all employed. Moreover, as has already been pointed out to your Lordships, this sport provides a great source of relaxation, and plays a very big part in the tourist industry of Scotland.
A great deal of publicity has been given to this matter in the Press, certainly in Scotland, and I think that the public, or the great majority of them, have at least some knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, the seriousness of the situation has on many occasions been represented both to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, the Scottish Salmon Angling Federation, the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners' Federation are all united on this issue. However, my Lords, in spite of these representations I do not think it appears that the seriousness and urgency of the situation has been fully appreciated. Certainly in 1960 the official view appeared to be that drift-netting had not developed sufficiently for an accurate assessment of its results to be made or to justify any legislation. It appeared to me to be a most remarkable thing that in the Report on the Fisheries of Scotland for 1960, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, which included a report from the Inspector of Salmon Fisheries, the word "drift-netting" was not once mentioned.
The form that legislation should take is not for me to say. I would, however, suggest that whatever measures are taken must cover both the catching of salmon and the subsequent landing of the fish. It has been officially suggested that any measures to prohibit the landing of salmon would not deal effectively with the problem, and that any measures to deal with the catching of the salmon would be too difficult to enforce. I do not think these views can be accepted. I consider that all legislation is made on the assumption that the average citizen is a law-abiding person, and any measure to make drift-netting illegal would seem to me to be no different from other Acts which make other practices illegal.

783
British fishing boats have to conform to certain fishing regulations, but I do not think it has ever been suggested that every trawler that goes to sea should have to have a patrol boat going with it. I think that legislation dealing only with the catching of salmon or only with the landing afterwards would not in itself be enough. But I feel that legislation which combined both of these aspects would have some very great effect. Above all, I would suggest that such legislation should be a United Kingdom measure and not only a Scottish measure, because it is a matter which, as we have already heard, affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I hope that in what I have said I have in some measure convinced your Lordships of the urgency of this matter; and I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, how warmly I support him in this Motion.
6.37 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House for a personal explanation. As I entered the House only an hour ago the noble Earl the Chief Whip advised me that he had been told that a few days ago, when I asked a Question in this House about a newspaper business of which I am a director, I did not declare an interest. That is true. It was an error on my part. I deeply regret it, and I take this, the first opportunity which presents itself, of offering my apology to noble Lords.
My Lords, we have listened to a maiden speech which I am sure Members in all parts of the House will feel was a most valuable contribution to our debate from a new voice, which we much hope we shall hear again. I think that the noble Earl is to be congratulated upon his marvellous name. I can think of only one or two other Scottish names which could possibly compete with "The Earl of Caithness"; it conjures up such vistas of beauty and charm. His voice and manner in presenting his case to us for the first time were of the highest order, with clarity, certainty and marshalling of facts, which is of great value to us. I much hope that we shall have the pleasure of having him frequently speaking in our debates.
Izaac Walton in The Compleat Angler said—and I quote:
784
"God never did make a more calm, quiet and innocent recreation than angling."
I call attention to this aspect of the matter because I rather want to stress the importance of angling, though I shall, before I sit down, return to emphasise some of the points so well made by the noble Lord who opened this debate. May I say that I think all of us who are interested in rivers and the way of life which surrounds rivers and angling are much indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and to the noble Viscount who asked a similar question the other day, Lord Elibank, and to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for having raised this matter.
There are nets and rods to be considered. Now if a new way of netting has been found which is more effective than the old way of netting, then we may be sorry for the persons who own the rights in the old way of netting, but I do not think we can be any more sorry for them than for anyone else who owns a method of doing anything which is superseded by a more effective method. It is just a case of science and new materials and new discoveries causing a change in method which puts one man out of business and another man into business. I do not think that, as a country or as a Parliament, we can be very much concerned about that. But if the whole way of life as it is, viewed from the point of view of the rivers and valleys in which salmon are to be found, is threatened with change and possibly with extinction, then, indeed, Parliament should take a hand in the matter. That is why I have stressed the importance of angling.
The noble Earl who answered for the Government told us that in England drift-netting is used to a small extent. But, my Lords, it is subject to the close season. It is not permitted for the winter months, and it is not permitted for 42 or 48 hours in each week; so that the salmon has a chance of getting up the river in England, even though drift-netting is used. But in the situation described by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the fish has no chance of getting up the river. He may be caught any day, any night, any time, in and out of the close season. I am bound to say that if the Government are unwilling to say at this stage that they will ban drift-net fishing, they might have

785
gone as far as to say that they would study the question of bringing drift-net fishing everywhere under rule and under control, so that, wherever it does take place, there is the close season. Because it is this close season which preserves these rivers from destruction.
Are your Lordships aware how rare this salmon is? This fish is found only in the Atlantic. In no other ocean in the world is it found. The so-called salmon you find in the Pacific, which you eat out of a can, is not the same fish and is not even the same species—and everyone will know that it is not to be compared. There may be just a few fish in one river in New Zealand which came from the Atlantic, and there may now be just a few in the Falkland Islands. I took a hand in that myself, because. I helped to export some salmon ova from a river in Lancashire to the Falkland Islands, and I learn from Sir Edwin Arrowsmith, the Governor there, who is a friend of mine, that the fish have taken for the first time. It is worth noting that this is an export trade, and who knows but that it may not grow? But the point I am making now is that this is an extremely rare fish, and that is why it is so valuable. It is very hard to find a salmon and it is very hard to kill one, but these chaps seem to have found a way of intercepting them on their way into their breeding ground, and to take them in very large numbers.
Now how important is this industry? It is very hard to judge it in material terms, but I have been told by the Scottish Tourist Office that they estimate it is worth some £20 million a year to Scotland. I cannot measure what it is worth to England or to the whole Islands, but that is a figure to give you at least some idea of its importance and its magnitude. I am told that last year—or, rather, in the year 1959, which is the last year for which figures are available—the salmon taken by net, rod and line were worth £1⅓ million. Of that, it is said that those taken by rod and line were about one-seventh, or some 1200,000 worth. It is my belief that the numbers taken by rod and line must have been much greater, because all salmon taken by nets, of course, are sold, and front there comes the figure, but not all salmon taken by rod and line are sold. Last year I had the great satisfaction, with a friend and two rods, of killing 28 salmon in a beauti-
786
ful Scottish river, but not one of them was sold and not one of them, therefore, would have been counted in these figures. There must probably be very many more than £200,000 worth of salmon taken in Scottish rivers, and many more still in rivers throughout the United Kingdom and in the Islands as a whole. But these figures give us some idea of the measure.
Those most expert and most knowledgeable tell us that if you do not allow the stocks of salmon to be kept up, the river will be ruined in five years, and it will take fifteen years for it to recover. I do not think these are fantastic figures at all. I think they are very real figures, and they will be within the knowledge of some who have had experience of rivers that have been over-netted and have got down beyond the point of fecundity, beyond the point of reproduction. It is therefore a threat to an asset; a matter of pride, and a matter of calm contemplation for many people. It is also a matter that threatens the employment of very many people. There are 250 hotels in Scotland alone where rooms are let with fishing: not all salmon and sea trout, but in a great many of them there is the attraction that sometimes a salmon is to be taken. Any of your Lordships who are fishermen will know that it is not the salmon you take but the salmon you think you are going to take that draws you to the river.
I therefore say to Her Majesty's Government that there are two aspects of the reply given by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that I am bound to regard as somewhat unsatisfactory. The first is the impression he gave me that, "Well, until a cast-iron case supported by statistics is available, the Government Departments cannot possibly deal with this matter." By that time it will be too late. The other thing was that while he told us about the method of drift-netting in England, he gave no indication that the very strict control of drift-netting in England might be applied in Scotland. I ask Her Majesty's Government to try to bring in a Bill In the autumn; or, if not, to be sure to bring one in early next year, or to put one in the Queen's Speech, to bring satisfaction to all these people who live on or by these rivers, and who enjoy them. I cannot believe that it is satisfactory to let the matter rest with such a usual reply as we have been given. I think

787
we are much indebted to the noble Lords who have brought this matter to notice, and I would say only that I urge Her Majesty's Government to do something about this before it is too late.
6.48 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for introducing this very important Motion. Secondly, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on what, if I may say so, was a most remarkable and well-informed maiden speech. I am quite certain that there are few noble Lords who know more about salmon fishing than the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I only hope that we shall be able to persuade him to leave his beautiful banks of the Dee and come and address us in this House more often.
I am quite certain that from time to time I have incurred your Lordships' wrath and indignation when speaking in your Lordships' House, but I hope that I have never committed the crime of speaking for too long. This time, I have to declare an interest—a small financial one, but a large one in other respects. Because of this, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to speak for longer, but I am going to stick to my rule and use the fewest possible words.
I know only too well what pains the Scottish Office have been to so as to create conditions for more employment in Scotland. I am sure the Scottish Office would be the first to admit that Scotland's great natural resources, such as her rivers and her fish, have been used to help create these conditions. The salmon which come up the river, alas very often owing to heavy pollution, now in smaller numbers, not only give direct employment but also give indirect employment, for they draw not only the tourists from abroad but also the Sassenachs from South of the Border. The salmon does not discriminate between nations or between riches or poverty. It is one of the few who can turn up its nose just as easily to the dollar as to the pound.
I thought my noble friend Lord Waldegrave batted quite magnificently for the Government. He kept his eye on
788
his brief, he stonewalled and he gave away no chances. In the interests of brighter cricket, I hope my noble friend from the Scottish Office will "have a go"! I realise that we in Scotland are not renowned for wielding the willow with quite so much skill as those further South, so I think we may excuse the noble Lord who is to reply if he uses his mashie or "No. 2" so as to get him out of his difficulties. That is, we may excuse him if he gets out of his difficulties to our satisfaction.
It is indeed difficult to offer advice. Taking the long-term view, I think that we should know more about not only salmon, but also the herring and white fish. A more dynamic Government-sponsored research project into the life of the Atlantic salmon, the herring and the white fish would, I believe, be most useful. As to what should be done immediately, this is undoubtedly an extremely complex problem, and I would offer my noble friends in Her Majesty's Government my deepest sympathy over this task. My noble friend Lord Craigton must, I feel, be feeling rather like a "fish out of water"; but I am glad to see that he does not look like those poor fish in St. James's Park, where so many have given up the unequal contest. He obviously filled his lungs with good Scottish oxygen before coming to Whitehall.
I shall end by advising Her Majesty's Government what not to do. In my view, Her Majesty's Government must not say that they do not know enough about this matter; that they will watch the situation, and make further investigations. It cannot be stressed too strongly that if, in five years' time, there is a great decline in the numbers of salmon in the rivers, then it will be too late to take action, because there will be insufficient breeding stock left to influence the situation. If we want salmon in our rivers in five to seven years' time we must preserve to-day's breeding stocks. If we are to continue to derive employment and benefit from the fish in our rivers and from the seas, salmon, as well as herring and white fish, must be preserved in their correct breeding numbers, as part of our national heritage which has been handed down to us in trust from our forefathers.
6.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I would add my voice to those who have congratulated the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his admirable and thoughtful maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear more from him. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend who is sitting beside me, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on raising this topic and for dealing with it so admirably in his speech this evening. Indeed, he dealt with many more points altogether than I had thought of for the whole of my speech, so your Lordships will have the benefit of hearing a somewhat curtailed address from me, which will not disappoint you, no doubt.
I am rather disappointed with the attitude of my noble and learned friend, the Leader of the House. I know he is not here at present, and I do not in the least blame him for that, because, he is a very busy Minister. I am also rather disappointed at my noble friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, although he is an old friend who did a lot of work for me in the past, and I hope he will do better in the future. Only as recently as last Monday, the Leader of the House, of whom I am very fond and admire, got up and more or less ruled some of us out of order by quoting what is called the "rule against anticipation", when he said [col. 387 of the OFFICIAL REPORT] that it should be invoked last Monday in view of the fact that this debate was going to take place here to-day. Well, I am not unused to Parliamentary methods of that sort for stilling debate, and I certainly do not blame him at all. I got up only to ask the very brief question, in view of the Leader of the House's statement about what we hoped was going to happen here this evening, whether we could really in fact hope for a constructive statement from the Government to-day.
At this point my noble friend from the Scottish Office took over, and he disappointed me by saying that he could not do more than say he would do his best. Of course, we still have to hear from him, so there is still hope, although I must say the hope begins to fade as the hours and days go by. My real complaint against the Leader of the House, not that I expected much, was
790
that something might be said on Thursday; and this merely reminded me —although I did not bother to do it at the time—of the fact that it is the same old story: "Jam any other day, but never jam on Thursdays": Now we have Thursday, and there has been no jam to date. It is disappointing. I hope that the Government realise this is a matter which is not only serious but urgent.
My noble friend who has just sat down, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that if we could not get something done this year it should be done early next year. I must part company with him on that. The truth of the matter is that, if it is done, it should definitely be done before January, 1962. The matter is certainly urgent. I should also like to know whether there was any false impression conveyed about the present effects on the stocks of salmon, either by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye or by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. I think there is definite proof that stocks are being seriously affected now.
It is also the truth, as has been already stated, that we must take action before it is too late. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave said that there was not proof as yet, or was not sufficient proof, that stocks were being affected. But, as has been said, in four or five years' time it will be too late to restore the depleted, if not annihilated, stocks of salmon in our rivers. It is the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, sitting behind me, would agree—for example, taking the Moray Firth from Burg-head eastwards past the mouth of the Spey, the Nairn, the Findhorn ("Findhorn" comes before the Nairn; I ought to know that), to the Ness, Beauly, and so on (and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong)—salmon net stations along the coast are being actually closed down because of the shortage of stocks going up towards the mouths of these rivers. Something must be done before it is too late. I am not hidebound about the solution. What I want is the Government to state what they are prepared to do and prove to us that it will be an effective method. Previous to listening to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, I had been an advocate of the extension of the limit to twelve miles, but I see

791
his point there: that that may not be the right answer at all. I am prepared to agree.
Then, what about total prohibition? I should like my noble friend, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to tell us, if he can, what are the reasons why the Government cannot put that into operation and whether they will seriously consider it, if they have not already considered it. I hope he will be able to say something on that subject, so as to give us a little jam on Thursday. I have not much more to say. I hope I have impressed on this House and on my noble friend the urgency and importance of this matter. I do not want to repeat what has been so well said by other noble Lords. I think my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye covered the case fully in his speech. Therefore I will conclude by quoting the words of a certain gentleman, of whose name your Lordships may have heard, when he said in the House of Commons that the Government contemplated early action and some honourable Member naturally got up and asked him what he meant by "early". Then my right honourable friend Sir Winston Churchill replied that, as it was a matter which brooked no delay, "There may be an interval of time: but there will be no delay".
7.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships very long. I had fully intended to take part in this debate, but refrained from putting my name on the list because I expected to be still engaged on the work of a Committee, which fortunately was able to finish its work yesterday, though too late, I thought, for me to put my name forward. However, that would not have been a reason sufficient for me to intervene, if it had not been that all the speeches have been from the other side of the House. I should not wish it to be thought that this is a matter which concerns only one side of the House and in which only noble Lords on the Benches opposite are interested.
Looking around me, I am tempted to remark that once, when I was in the very far North of Scotland, the part I was in struck me as being the most desolate and lonely place I had ever been in. But,
792
as so many of us often are, I have been proved wrong just by living a little longer, because on that occasion I was accompanied by my wife. To-night I am alone. Fortunately, however, I can say that I am not alone in the views that I am going to express. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough had hoped to be able to take part in this debate also and stayed as long as he could; but a previous engagement has compelled him to leave.
I do not think that there is a great deal I can add to what has been stated so well by so many noble Lords. Like other noble Lords, I should like to express my compliments to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for the most effective way in which he made his maiden speech. He was able to do something which I was not able to do a short time ago. He was able to pick a subject on which he is an expert. I do not know that there is any subject on which I am an expert, so it was more difficult for me.
In the main, I agree with what has been said and would commend to the Minister in his reply the weighty advice from two former Scottish Ministers—the former Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, who advised him most effectively on the things which he ought not to say, and the former Secretary of State, who has just left us, the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and who gave him positive advice about what he might say. I do not know whether he will be able to pay much attention to either of them, but I hope that he will find it possible to do so.
One thing which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said—I do not think that any other noble Lord referred to it and I am strongly in agreement with it—was about the white fishing industry. My home is not far from the Angus coast areas to which he made reference, and a good deal of publicity has been given in our local Press to what has been taking, place off the Angus coast. The wholesale fish merchants of Arbroath have been directing attention to the fact—with what accuracy I would not venture to express an opinion—that these fishermen who are abandoning their normal activity of seeking white fish for this lucrative, and perhaps activity in salmon fishing are not paying attention to their own best interests; because after they have

793
completely destroyed this temporary market, they may find that the market they have thought they had given up temporarily has abandoned them in perpetuity. That is something which I think they ought to bear in mind.
Finally, I wish to emphasise to your Lordships that this is a case where, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, a policy of "wait and see" is no good. These fishermen have embarked on a policy of living on the nation's capital and we shall be embarking on it if we permit it to continue. One noble Lord has said that it would be fifteen years before the damage could be remedied. Others outside this House have expressed the opinion that the damage which will be done may never be remedied, because, while the fish may be back in present strength in fifteen years, there is no guarantee that the tourist trade which we should lose would be back again in fifteen years. And that is something which is very important to Scotland.
I know full well that this is not a problem the solution of which is easy to find, but it is so important for Scotland that the Minister must address his attention to it, and accept one of the solutions which has been suggested by noble Lords to-day. I am certain that not all of them are impossible. The danger to a great national asset is so grave that some risk in seeking to find a solution is preferable to waiting for the perfect solution which can be applied only when the problem no longer exists.
7.10 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I am not going, to make a speech. I am only going briefly to pick one or two holes in the remarks of previous speakers. We are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for inaugurating this extremely important debate. There was one remark in his speech Which I should like to correct and I think that he would agree that he did not mean it exactly the way he put it. That was when he acted as a kind of advocate of the Government, said that the Government ought not to be "sticky" about altering legislation to meet this great problem of the salmon population of this country, but argued that the proportion of fish (I think he said) caught on the coast and by rod fisher
794
men in rivers was the same. In other words, if 100 fish came up the river you caught only 40, and if 10 came up the river you caught only 4, or some argument to that effect.
My Lords, that would be true if the fish came up; but, like the last speaker, I know that the fish are not coming up. I speak with considerable knowledge of the Moray Firth area, which is possibly the most vulnerable in the whole of the East coast of Scotland, in that the shape of the Firth is triangular, with the wide base of the triangle on the east side, and the fish run into a bottleneck. On that coast, which consists of the Spey, the Findhorn, the Nairn, the Ness, the Beauly, the Conan and the Blackwater, we are no longer catching so many fish; and some of the fish that are being caught have the marks of nylon nets upon their bodies. It is quite evident that salmon are, in fact, reaching the point of no return. It is not only this new threat from deep-water fishing, but the scarcity of the water in the country, which is an ever-constant need—the hydro-electric, development, and a dozen other things that I will not mention. But we are coming to the point of no return. It is no good the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, saying that we must wait and see. There are records in every Highland village where apprentice boys refused to be given salmon five time a week; and that is not long ago. Salmon are getting scarcer and scarcer.
There is one thing which the Government can certainly do—and it is not for us to snow them under with recommendations, some good and some bad: they can close the netting in the sea at the same time that we have to close the netting on the estuaries and the rivers for 48 hours a week. I will not touch on the problem of rating and employment and the vast tourist industry connected with the sport of salmon fishing; but I feel that something must be done at once, and I congratulate Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, my illustrious clansman, for making the point that we cannot wait a minute longer.
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers, and therefore I propose to be quite short. I must say that I am a member of a salmon fishing board and

795
a proprietor of estuary fishings in the Forth. I, too, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, who made so great a contribution to this debate in his maiden speech, was amazed that no reference was made in the Report on Salmon Fisheries to the drift-netting outside the limits of the estuaries. I would support my noble friend Lord Lovat (I see he has now left) in his list of rivers as having been affected by this drift-net fishing. I should add the Forth to that list. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye mentioned various rivers, and, as I say, I would add the Forth, because I have positive evidence that salmon which have come up the Forth have been marked with the inevitable marks of nylon nets.
I think that one noble Lord made the remark to the effect that rivers were possibly being over-netted, or had been over-netted in the past, by the fishermen in the estuaries, and it is primarily on behalf of them that I am speaking now. That is not the case. I think that with a system such as net and coble fishing, which we have in Scotland, on, I believe, all Scottish rivers, and certainly on the forth, that method ensures that the river is not over-fished by net fishing; whereas drift-netting, with nets anything up to a mile long, means just nothing in that respect.
I believe that a great deal of progress has been made on various rivers to combat this problem of pollution, and I feel that the fishermen realise that this is happening. Pollution has been the bugbear of the Forth for many years, and we see that something is being done. The fishermen are delighted. But now, to cap everything, this drift-netting has started and the fishermen again see their hopes diminishing. I do ask the Government, quite sincerely, to take quick and effective action to bolster up the morale of the fishermen in these rivers, which have been for so long polluted and which are now once more in danger of losing their fish stock.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, like the noble Earl who has just spoken, my name is not on the list and I know that I risk unpopularity in speaking at all. I do not propose to make a speech, but as one hitherto satisfied with the pursuit of the humbler trout, like every right-thinking Scot, I am deeply interested in
796
the whole problem which has been raised by the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have four questions to ask the Government, and they strike me as being points that have not been made in the debate, to which I have listened throughout. First of all, when my noble friend comes to reply could he indicate whether similar experience has been suffered off the Norwegian rivers; and if so, what steps they are taking about it? Secondly, are there any signs of foreign poaching in the waters around our coasts? Thirdly (and I may be corrected if I am wrong here), I have not heard any indication that drift-netting may not be successful out-with the three-mile limit. Is it? And, fourthly, if this is the case, is it not the moment to reconsider increasing the limit to twelve miles?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I did not put my name down on the list of speakers, but I have only one point that I should like my noble friend, if possible, to cover in his reply. I cannot see why limited drift-net fishing off the English coast within the three-mile limit, which has not been complained about, has anything to do with the problem of which complaint is made, calling for any future action of the Government.
7.18 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech. After a distinguished career in the Gordon Highlanders, he is now in the midst of looking after Her Majesty's interests at Balmoral. We are glad that at last he has found time to come and give us the benefit of his wisdom and experience. I can confirm to him that the figures of catchings he gave are substantially according to our information. I, too, hope that he will not stay away so long before he speaks again.
This debate falls roughly under three heads. It has been a most helpful and constructive debate; and I will do my best to answer as many as possible of the points that have been raised. There are three headings: the legal position; some factual points; and then, finally, I should like to deal with some of the many constructive suggestions that have been made. On the legal position my

797
noble friend Lord Waldegrave has been most seriously maligned in various quarters because he dared to interpret the Scottish law, and he has been told he was talking nonsense. That is not the case: everything my noble friend has said in this House is correct. But for this reason,, and because I promised the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, to reply to his question on Monday, I should like to deal briefly, first of all, with Scottish territorial limits.
There are two separate points here. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in his supplementary question to me on Monday, referred to legal decisions in the Court of Session based on the old Scottish territorial limits. I was most interested in what he said. But on making inquiry, I have so far been unable to trace the cases to which he referred. I therefore got in touch with the noble Lord—who is unfortunately not able to be here to-day—and he has undertaken to let me have further particulars which I shall, of course, examine. Noble Lords will, I am sure, appreciate that the points made raise difficult questions of the interpretation of Scots law; and these are, of course, essentially matters for the courts, and not for Her Majesty's Government. I must say, however, that whatever view the courts might take of this matter. the North Sea Convention of 1882, to which the United Kingdom is a party, and which was given statutory force in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, provides for the exclusive fishery limit of three miles; and as long as these treaty obligations exist we should be in reach of them if we attempted to enforce a wider fishery jurisdiction against the nationals of other signatory countries without their agreement.
The second point refers to the powers in the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895; and this is the question which the noble Viscount opposite would have asked, had he been here. He gave me notice that he would have asked this question. Some people think that this Act extends the Scottish limit to thirteen miles. This Act contains no definition of Scottish territorial waters. All the Act did, in fact, was to give the then Fishery Board for Scotland (now the Secretary of State) power to make by-laws prohibiting beam and otter trawling within thirteen
798
miles of the Scottish coast. But it does not apply to other forms of fishing. It deals with sea fish, which excludes salmon; and, further, the powers could in any case be used only if they had been accepted by all the States signatory to the North Sea Convention of 1882 as binding on their own subjects. But in fact no by-laws have been made under this power. Noble Lords will understand, therefore, that this Act has no relevance whatsoever to this immediate problem of drift-netting for salmon.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may interrupt for a moment, I am sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, say that, because I had been looking forward to his issuing the machinery for ratification and having the pleasure of inviting Iceland, the Faroes, Norway, and so on, to be the first to support us, as they might well have wanted to do.
LORD CRAIGTON: It was because the noble Lord and others had thoughts like that, and because it has been the subject of a great deal of talk outside and inside this House, that I have made the remarks I have.
The noble Earl in his maiden speech asked for legal guidance, and he asked about the powers of the district boards. I gave your Lordships a summary of the legal position on Monday in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. The law is complex, and much of it has not so far been decided in the courts; and so any interpretation I might give cannot be taken necessarily as positive. But as this question has been asked by the noble Viscount, and as there is considerable misunderstanding in Scotland, I hope that your Lordships will be interested in the best information I can give.
In terms of Section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, it is an offence for any person to fish for salmon by any method within one mile of low water mark, without the written consent of the person having the fishing rights. It is also an offence for any person, whether having fishing rights or not, to fish by drift-net within the estuarial limits of a river. The district fishery boards, which were set up under the Acts of 1862 and 1868, have powers to enforce the law within their districts and three miles out to sea. They may appoint water bailiffs, who have considerable powers, and

799
police constables may assist the water bailiffs in exercising those powers. The Tweed, as your Lordships know, has special powers of its own.
The powers of the district fishery boards apply in their own districts, and so far as offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, are concerned, they extend for three miles seaward beyond low water mark. This means that the board have power to deal with criminal offences up to three miles. However, the act of merely fishing for salmon without permission between one and three miles from the shore is not a criminal offence, although it may be a case for civil action by the proprietors concerned, who can take interdict action.
A point was raised about weekly close time. The legal position, as I am advised is this. Section 13 of the 1951 Act makes it a criminal offence for any person to fish for or take salmon by net between 12 noon on Saturday and 6 a.m. on Monday. The Act does not specifically state the area to which this prohibition extends, and so far as we know the question has not been tested in the courts. It seems probable, however, that fishing for salmon by net within the three-mile limit in the weekly close time is a statutory criminal offence, and that the district boards accordingly have power to deal with this.
Now I come to the second part of what I was going to say, and to deal with some factual points. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that salmon taken by rod and line in Scotland were worth £1⅓ million in 1959. In fact, the value of the total salmon catch was £1·3 million. The rod and line catch was less than a fifth of that total.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I think that is what I said.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful, and I apologise.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I point out that an angler frequently pays £1,000 for a stretch of river and he might catch only ten salmon, so therefore his salmon would cost him £100. You can quite see—
LORD CRAIGTON: I know what the noble Viscount means, and I confirm the accuracy of his calculation. The noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Mar and Kellie, made disparaging reference to the fact that drift-net fishing was not in the Scottish Fisheries Report for 1960. I must tell both noble Earls that in 1960, so far as we know, drift-net fishing was confined to the Tweed, and was carried out by English fishermen. The landings were all made in England. That is why there was no reference in the Report.
The maiden speech of the noble Earl also referred to the importance of salmon to Scotland; and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also referred to that point. As the positions in England and Scotland are so different, and although my noble friend explained much of it, I think it would be helpful if I gave a little more background information. First, as to the value of the catch. The salmon industry is relatively of considerably greater importance to the Scottish economy than it is to that of England and Wales. The value of the Scottish salmon catch, including grilse and sea trout, in 1960 was £1,200,000. The value of the catch in England and Wales, given in the Report of the Bledisloe Committee, is £200,000. I think the Report indicates that this may be rather a low estimate.
My noble friend Lord Forbes, who told me he had to leave, referred to the employment situation. The number of men directly employed in commercial salmon fishing in Scotland in 1960 was 1,644, and this figure does not take into account the considerable number of men employed as gillies or water bailiffs. So we estimate that the total number of men employed in the salmon industry in Scotland is around 2,500. In England and Wales approximately 1,900 men are employed in the commercial net fisheries, of whom about 400 have licences from river boards to fish by drift-net within territorial waters. Having regard to the population of the two countries it will be clear from these figures that the salmon industry is relatively of much greater importance to Scotland than to England and Wales. The same can be said—and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to this—of the interdependence between salmon and tourism.

801
The hope of catching salmon in a Scottish river has for generations brought sportsmen to Scotland not only from South of the Border but from all over the world, This is a heritage and an asset that the Government realise must be closely guarded.
Now may I deal with some of the constructive suggestions made. I hope your Lordships will take it that I am not dealing with either of the pros or the cons, but picking up the suggestions, so that we can all evaluate the problem which faces us. First of all, my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who asked me to do the best I could (as I am doing), asked about extension of the fishery limits. This question was referred to by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave in his speech, and as he has already explained, such an extension would not by itself solve the problem of drift-net fishing for salmon by British fishermen. Indeed, the noble Lord appreciated that.
There is very little more that I can add. Noble Lords will recall that the second Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1960 narrowly failed to reach any agreement on territorial or fishery limits. The three-mile limit has therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, remained the only generally accepted rule. Where other countries have extended their limits, Her Majesty's Government have entered into bilateral agreements to preserve as far as possible traditional British fishing rights. We have such agreements with Norway, Russia, Iceland and, for the Faroes, with Denmark. But this whole question raises much wider issues than those we are discussing to-day, and it is a question into which the Government are looking very carefully in the light of all the relevant factors.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn, made suggestions that there might be a complete ban on drift-net fishing both inside and outside territorial waters. I can say no more than to give your Lordships the position now of the ban on trawling outside territorial waters. The general position is that Section 6 of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, provides that beam and otter trawling is not to take place in the waters within three miles of low water mark on any part of the Scottish coast,
802
or in the bays scheduled to that Act. These bays include the Firth of Clyde, In addition the whole of the Moray Firth inside a line drawn from Duncansby Head, in Caithness, to Rattray Head, in Aberdeenshire, has been closed to trawling by a by-law under the Act, There is thus a considerable area outside territorial waters in the Clyde and the Moray Firth in which trawling is prohibited. It is not, however, possible to apply this prohibition to foreign vessels, though they are prevented from landing their catch in this country.
I was asked about foreigners, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, spoke of reports of foreigners fishing off Findhorn. The only report this year of salmon fishing by foreign boats off the Scottish coast came from the South side of the Moray Firth. The report was of a few Danish vessels seen fishing with great lines. This was investigated by the local fishery officer and by the Department's fishery cruiser operating in that area, and nothing was found to substantiate the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, referred to the use of Asdic. I agree that fishermen might try to use Asdic in this type of fishing, but I should be rather surprised—and I have taken the best advice I can get—if it helped them very much, because I should expect salmon to be fairly near the surface; and that would probably make the instruments, which I believe so far have been developed for ground or dense shoal fishing, rather ineffective.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I did say that they are not really using it. They are using "chuck and chance" at the moment.
LORD CRAIGTON: I agree with the noble Lord. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and others made some detailed suggestions upon which I think comment might be helpful. It was suggested there should be a ban on the landing of salmon caught by drift-net. This would appear to be a simple remedy, but it is doubtful whether it would be fully effective, mainly because drift-netting is already an established method of fishing within territorial limits in England and Wales; and if there were a ban on landings it would affect this established

803
fishery. If landings in these areas were exempt from the ban a loophole would be left which would seem likely to defeat the purpose of the ban. It would appear, therefore, that a simple ban on landings would not in itself be a practical remedy. Though one prohibition may not be effective, a series of prohibitions taken together might be more effective; whether they would be a complete solution is the point we have to face.
Another point made was that drift-netting should be prohibited during the annual close time.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: And the weekly.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes; and the weekly. It is true that a certain amount of drift-netting took place off the Tweed in the annual close time at the beginning of this year, but the proportion of the total catch taken during the close time was not so great as to suggest that prohibition in the annual close time only would be a fully effective remedy. The weekly close time is now from 12 noon on Saturday until 6 a.m. on Monday. Salmon caught in this or any other weekly close time might be landed some time later out with the close time. Furthermore, prohibition of fishing at sea in the close time would be very difficult to enforce. With regard to regulations about the type of nets, as noble Lords said, there is evidence that drift-netting is being done mainly by a certain type of synthetic net. To define a certain type of net, or a certain sin of mesh or length, as prohibited would help, but could not be wholly effective.
As I have said, this has been an interesting and constructive debate and I, like every other speaker, must say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter. I do not minimise the difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, a solution is not easy to find. Here we are faced with a new set of circumstances. Whatever we do, or do not do, I am conscious that long-established or recently established interests must be affected. Your Lordships will be aware, as I and my colleagues are aware, that there is no simple solution. I am sorry that, as my noble friend said, the
804
Government are not yet in a position to make any firm proposals. We are pressing on most urgently with our examination of the whole question, but I hope that from what my noble friend and I have said to-day your Lordships, and indeed all concerned, will appreciate that the Government are fully aware of every aspect of this intricate problem, and that the one thing we are not doing, is what has caused all the trouble—that is, "letting it drift".
7.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who have taken part in this debate. I am indeed conscious of many points so well made by noble Lords, those which I tried to make and others which have been well developed. Particularly should I like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his maiden speech, in which quite rightly he stressed the extent of drift-net fishing beyond the Tweed estuary, whereas I quite admit that I took in the main the Tweed estuary for my case. I agree, of course, that it is extended to other areas, and if I omitted that particular point and other points it was only in order that I should not detain your Lordships too long in my initial remarks.
As regards the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, I should like to thank him for what he said and for the somewhat disappointing, dubious understatement of his experts that as a result of drift-net fishing the toll of salmon could in the long run be damaged. My Lords, it is already being damaged now. It is no good the experts saying that in the long run it could be damaged. You cannot take somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000 fish off one river without doing damage to the stock. I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, explained a point which I may have put clumsily, in that if you have 1,000 fish coming into a river and the rods and nets catch 100 it is the other 900 which are the breeding stock, and if the 1,000 goes down to 100 coming up the river and 10 are caught by the rods and nets, it is 90 that are the breeding stock. It is the case that breeding stock is going down all the time.
I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, the Minister of State for Scotland, for

805
his speech, in which quite rightly he deployed the difficulties with which the Government are faced; but in spite of those difficulties I am sure we shall support him in his final words, which seemed to me to convey that the Government were very much alive to this problem and are determined to bring forward a practical solution to it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
PORT OF LONDON BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.