HL Deb 05 June 1972 vol 331 cc81-99

6.32 p.m.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resole itself into Committee.—(Lord Gainford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Prohibition of fishing with certain implements]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("setline") to end of line 15.

The noble and learned Viscount said: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gainford for moving that the House be now in Committee. I apologise for not being present, but things took a swifter course than I anticipated. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would perhaps have taken up a little more time. I beg to move Amendment No. I and, if it be for the convenience of the Committee, to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 2. These are really drafting Amendments. I indicated on Second Reading that it would be proposed to insert the definition of "set-line" and "crossline" in the definition clause of the Act of 1923, and that is what these Amendments do.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) In section 1(3) (definitions) at the end there shall be added the following paragraphs:—

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

Amendment No. 3 corrects a small omission in the Bill as it stands. The words, "or a tailer" should be inserted after the word "gaff "and that is what this Amendment proposes to do in line 10. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, after ("gaff") insert ("or a tailer").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Close season and close time for salmon and brown or migratory trout]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 31, after ("the") insert ("close").

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment, and at the same time I can speak to Amendment No. 6. When one looks at what is proposed to be inserted in the Bill it is quite clear that in line 31 the words: so that the season is not less than 242 days means the close season. But when that Amendment is made in the Act of 1923 there is room for doubt, and to remove that doubt I propose that the word "close" should be inserted before "season".

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BOLTONmoved Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 32, leave out subsection (5).

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak for my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford who, unfortunately, cannot be present. I would preface my remarks—I am sorry for the length of the Amendment—by saying that my noble friend is President of the Association of River Authorities. I should like to say, on his behalf and on my own, that the Association are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and to Mr. Wingfield Digby in another place, for bringing this Bill forward. We arc also grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their very valuable work.

There is one matter on which the Association have failed to carry their views; that is the provision about the sale of salmon and trout to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred during the Second Reading debate. Under the present law rodsmen are forbidden to sell their catch during the close season for netting which begins at the beginning of September, rodsmen being permitted to fish on to a later date. The prohibition on the sale of rod-caught fish is solely to discourage the sale of unlawfully caught fish, were a market to be available. The river authorities have spent a great deal of time, labour and public money on restocking our salmon and trout rivers. There have been many problems, caused not least by the inroads made by high seas fisheries. In addition the authorities suffer very heavily from the activities of illegal netsmen, peripatetic poisoners and the like. They are highly organised like the gang supported "by the Lancashire River Authority and the famous, or infamous Bridport gang which was so highly organised that it had a number of vans with false number plates, walkie-talkie apparatus and inflatable dinghies with outboard motors; and they served a very ready market in hotels and boarding-houses. In Ireland, both in the Republic and also in Ulster, the answer has been to prohibit sales of game fish except through registered dealers—

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

May I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he speaking to both the Amendments in Lord Nugent's name? They are both different. Or is he speaking only to the Amendment to leave out subsection (5), which is a narrower Amendment? I was hoping to hear what reasons would be advanced for leaving out that subsection.

LORD BOLTON

I beg your Lordships' pardon. I discussed the matter with my noble friend Lord Ferrers and we thought that the two Amendments could be taken together. Have I your Lordships' permission to do that?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I personally have no objection to two Amendments being taken together by the noble Lord, but he might have indicated that that was what he intended to do, and then I should not have interrupted him. I hope that we shall have an argument confined to the Amendment which has been called.

LORD BOLTON

In Ireland, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, the answer has been to prohibit sales of game fish except to the registered dealers, and the Association of River Authorities, in common with other bodies, as mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, again in his Second Reading speech, strongly support the recommendation of the Bledisloe Committee that a licensing scheme should be brought in this country. While recognising Parliamentary pressure, it is difficult to accept that the Bill should provide for two of the matters linked together in the Bledisloe Report; namely, more flexible arrangements for the control of close season and the abolition of the ban on the selling of rod-caught fish, which Omits the vital third factor that there would be no licensing. The result would be nothing less than a poacher's charter. As for administration and enforcement, the river authorities see no difficulties in operating a registration scheme themselves.

A number of the factors which I have mentioned have been taken into account in drafting my noble friend Lord Nugent's clause. It allows for flexibility in application, including any necessary tie-up with Scottish legislation and time for further consideration of detail. It avoids the necessity for further legislation covering England and Wales, while preserving the right of Parliamentary scrutiny. It would be disastrous to the conservation of our fish stocks, to go back to the noble Viscount's remarks, without the saving clause of licensing, if the abolition of the sale of rod-caught fish after the end of the next season were permitted to lapse. It is very easy to catch fish illegally, to make false hook marks in their mouths and to sell them as rod-caught fish. There is no doubt that this would be done on a very large scale if we did not have the protection of a licence for the retail of salmon. I beg to move.

6.43 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My noble friend Lord Bolton has spoken to both these Amendments together—which I am bound to say I thought he indicated at the beginning—and he has explained that their purpose is, in short, to put some kind of a brake on the poaching of fish. I should like to assure him at the outset that the Government fully share his concern about the activities of those gangs of people who poison rivers, net fish and subsequently dispose of their catches at great personal profit. They are breaking the law. It was for this reason that we welcomed the strengthening of the law against them, both in regard to the increased penalties and through the greater enforcement powers which are given under the Bill. But the suggestion that their activities could be further curbed if dealers in salmon and trout were licensed is not a new one—it was made way back in 1938—and successive Governments have given a lot of thought to how this could be achieved. Since the Bledisloe Committee reported 10 years ago the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have consulted with many interested parties, including those who would have to be licensed, and with their colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland on this matter.

The object of these two Amendments is really to deter poaching by licensing those who subsequently deal in the fish. I am bound to say that on first acquaintance this would have a great deal to be said for it. It can be argued that if we cannot stop poaching, the next best thing is to deter the poacher from disposing of his illegally caught fish. But we ought to consider carefully what is the extent of the problem, what licensing of dealers means and what is likely to be the effect of control of this sort upon the better conservation of the stocks of fish which we have. It is difficult to say how serious poaching is. We all know that a great deal has been done by the illegal gangs. But, of course, very few cases of poaching ever finally end up in the courts. A year or two ago, the Ministry tried with the aid of river authorities, to assess the extent of this by reference to what one might call circumstantial or hearsay evidence, and the results showed that some highly organised gangs, to which my noble friend referred, were at work. Unfortunately, it did not quantify exactly what the problem was.

What would be the effects of licensing if this were to be introduced? I think it is fair to say that our scientists, and most of those engaged in fishery management, believe that the present number of fish that escape to spawn is more than adequate to preserve stocks. Therefore, licensing is not justifiable in the interests of conservation. It follows that the main reasons for the introduction of a system of licensing would be to ensure that the law is observed and that more fish are available to those who are legitimately entitled to catch them.

If we were to undertake licensing we should have to consider exactly what it would mean. I understand that there are in the region of 7,600 wet fish shops in England and Wales alone. All those who wish to sell salmon and trout—and that. I suggest, means the great majority of those people—would have to be licensed. So would the wholesalers. Moreover, licensing alone would be useless. Records would have to be kept by the shopkeepers, and they would have to be open to inspection. Hotel keepers and restaurant proprietors who buy and sell fish would also have to keep records; and these, too, would have to be inspected. A licensing system for dealers alone would clearly be ineffective, and it would not strike at the traffic between hotels and poachers.

Northern Ireland introduced a measure in 1966 to try to control the disposal of salmon after they were caught, and their scheme has not stopped poaching: at best, it can be said to have kept it in check. But it is clear from their experience that anything less than their system would be a waste of time. I think we should not delude ourselves that we can solve the problem merely by licensing fishmongers. The Irish arrangements take up nine long sections of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966; and, even so, that had to be amended in 1968.

One of the objections that I would put forward—while recognising the problem that my noble friend Lord Nugent's Amendment is trying to cure, and particularly Amendment No. 8—is that all the regulation and organisation of this licensing system is to be done by the Minister. I suggest that this would be imposing not far too great a duty on the Minister, but certainly far too great a Parliamentary responsibility, in so far as, I have said, the Northern Ireland provisions have taken up nine sections.

There are many technical reasons why these Amendments would not find favour as at present drafted, but I would remind my noble friend Lord Bolton that during the Third Reading of this Bill in another place its sponsor said that it was a non controversial Bill. The introduction of these Amendments would make it highly controversial. The only time when this Bill could be considered again in another place would be on June 16, which is the last date for Private Members' Bills; and if a controversial Bill of this nature were before the other place I suggest that it would almost certainly fall by the wayside, with all the good provisions that it contained. If your Lordships wish provision to be made for licensing arrangements in respect of salmon and trout dealers, this could possibly and more suitably be the subject of a separate Bill which would provide a better opportunity for the comprehensive examination of a soundly-balanced measure.

I would also draw to the attention of my noble friend the fact that the game and poaching laws are currently under examination by the Law Commission, and the Commission have also been asked to include within their review the licensing of salmon and trout dealers. I suggest that it would be better to await the Report of the Law Commission and thereafter, if necessary, introduce a separate measure, rather than try to incorporate this particular system in the manner suggested in the Amendments, because, as I have indicated, they leave far too much to the regulations which the Minister would have to make.

6.53 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

We are now discussing two Amendments together. The first is of very minor importance but the second is of much more substance. If I may say so, I hope that the Committee will reject the first Amendment. Under the law as it stands at present, a person who catches a salmon lawfully with rod and line is prohibited from selling it during the close season. It seems rather anomalous that that should be so, and by Clause 3(5) that situation is put right, so that if the clause is left in its present form a person who lawfully catches a fish on rod and line can lawfully sell it. The Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Bolton, is intended to secure that that shall not take place because of his fear that by putting hooks in the mouth of a salmon which has been caught in other ways it may be possible to make it appear that the fish has been caught on rod and line. I agree that that may be a risk but I think it is not a very serious one, and it is one that is well worth running. I do not think many people will bother about that, so I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Now I come to the other Amendment which is long and of considerable substance. It is one with which, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech, I have considerable sympathy. I must say I cannot regard this as a highly controversial Amendment except in the sense that it will no doubt be opposed by the Government—we have had that made perfectly clear this afternoon—and also by those who are profiting by the illegal catching and poaching of salmon. It is a curious co-ordination of parties which is opposing this Amendment. I cannot believe that there is really any controversy about it in other quarters. I enjoy catching salmon on rod and line, and I suppose to that extent I am an interested party. But the purpose behind this Amendment is not to increase the opportunities for catching fish on rod and line but for conservation, and frankly I was absolutely astonished to hear the noble Earl who is speaking for the Government say that their scientists and advisers were satisfied that the fish that escaped to spawn were sufficient to prevent stocks from diminishing. I cannot accept that for one moment; nor do I believe that people who fish with rod and line, whether in Scotland or in England, and have done so for years, will accept it either.

I have fished both in England and in Scotland for many years when opportunity offered and I can testify that on some of the major rivers in Scotland and England the stocks of salmon have been diminishing seriously over the last ten years. It is easy for those who spend their time on the rivers—not only the rods but the ghillies and others—to form a very reliable opinion, and I am sure there will be few of those who will contradict me when I say that not only have stocks suffered in the last few years but they are still diminishing, and the situation is now so serious that it demands no complacency or smugness when approaching it. If something is not done, and done pretty quickly, to reverse the trend, then we need not worry about salmon preservation because there will not be any salmon to preserve.

I say in all seriousness that in my belief the situation is very different from that which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, described. One contribution that can be made to conservation is to do something to stop illegal fishing and poaching and to make it less profitable than it is. We have heard a lot in recent days about the price of £1 per lb. for beef. I cannot help thinking that the price of salmon, illegally caught, must be pretty near that figure at the present 'time, even though it may be less than what would be paid for salmon at a fishmonger's. Unless and until something is done to deter the poacher and inhibit the ready market he has now for poached fish and fish illegally taken, I do not myself think that we shall see a great improvement resulting from the additional powers, good though they are, contained in this Bill. I think one will have to come to the stage when the receipt, whether by a fishmonger or an hotel or restaurant proprietor, of fish which can be proved to have been illegally taken, in circumstances where one can infer that the person who has bought the fish knows that it has been illegally taken or poached, should be made a criminal offence. I believe that would go some way towards deterring this illegal trade. But that is not what this Amendment proposes. All this Amendment proposes is the licensing of certain people, together with the keeping of records.

At this hour I do not want to go into all the technical objections, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bolton, that I think this is a valiant attempt to put forward a scheme. However, I do not believe that it will really work. He has left far more than I should like to see left to regulatory-making powers. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers said, there can be only one day for a Private Member's Bill in another place, and if there is any controversy on this Bill—and in the face of the Government's attitude one must accept that it would arouse great controversy on the part of the Government, even if there would not be very much elsewhere—this Bill will be lost. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bolton would not like that to happen, but I am equally sure that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford would like, as I should like, to see something done to prevent and deter this illegal trade. Perhaps in another Session we may have another Private Member's Bill containing a proper code with proper sanctions which will do something to that end. I ask the noble Lord not to press either of these Amendments for inclusion in this Bill.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. My Committee reported a very long time ago and this Bill, although it goes only a small way towards implementing their recommendations, goes some way. There has always been a difficulty in getting any Government, of whatever persuasion, to bring in legislation to implement our Report which, although I say so, I think has universal approval. It has always been said that there was no Government time to implement a Report of this kind, which meant legislating. Now we are told by my noble friend Earl Ferrers that if this Amendment is pressed this Bill is almost certain to be lost in another place. I hope for those reasons that the Amendment will not be pressed.

LORD HURCOMB

On this particular Amendment I felt convinced by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that it would be wise to have this difficult matter of licensing looked into a good deal further and more carefully than it is possible to do at this stage of the Bill. On the other hand, I am bound to support the noble and learned Viscount when he said be was amazed at the apparent complacency which the Ministers responsible are adopting on the issue as to whether the stocks of salmon, not only in the rivers of this country but in Europe altogether, are being sadly diminished by a variety of causes which are fairly familiar. I should be amazed if the Secretary of State for the Environment, who at this very moment or tomorrow may be talking about this matter to the world conference in Stockholm, is taking the view that the salmon are not a gravely endangered species.

LORD BOLTON

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the remarks that he has made. With great diffidence I differ from him on the minor point because to allow the sale of rod-caught fish after the end of the netting season is going to lead to a great deal of poaching in rivers in two particular areas: North-West Cumberland and Devonshire. The knowledge that they could not sell their fish is a sacrifice that rod fishermen have put up with extremely cheerfully over the years. Practically every rod fisherman has realised the cogency of the argument for not selling at that time. I accept, and am grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Viscount on the second Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Close season for freshwater fish and rainbow trout]:

7.3 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 6:

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 40, after ("the") insert ("close").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY)

The Question is that Amendment No. 6, "Page 3, line 40, after ('the') insert ('close')", be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content; to the contrary, "Not-Content".

LORD BESWICK

Not-Content.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I have spoken to this Amendment already. When we were dealing with Amendment No. 4 I also spoke to this Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, wants me to repeat what I said I will endeavour to do so.

LORD BESWICK

No, I do not wish the noble Viscount to repeat what he said, but I expect someone if they are "Content", to express that sentiment.

EARL FERRERS

I did express it but evidently not loud enough.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I will put the Question again. The Question is that Amendment No. 6 be accepted. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, which corrects a printing omission.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 16, at beginning insert ("to").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

Your Lordships may like to know a little of the history behind this matter of the close season for coarse fish. Evidence was given before my Commission by a splendid gentleman, whose name I have forgotten but who appeared for the National Federation of Anglers. He said that his Federation demanded that there should be a close season for coarse fish. His reasons were that members of the Federation were just as sporting as the salmon men and trout fishermen, and if they had a close season so ought the coarse fishermen.

He was cross-examined by the scientific people who said that a close season was necessary only to preserve stock. To that, the splendid gentleman rather reluctantly agreed. The scientific experts then said, "Why do you want a close season for coarse fish? Your members always throw their fish back into the river. They are kept in keep nets and there is a competition." The spendid gentleman said, "Good heavens! If any of my members kept a fish he would be turned out of the Association at once and would never be allowed to fish again." The scientific experts then said that there was no reason for a close season for coarse fish, and the spendid gentleman turned to me and asked me whether he could ask a question. I said that it was not usual for witnesses to ask the chairman a question, but that I would do my best to answer it. He said, "Mr. Chairman, would you kick a pregnant woman in the stomach?" I replied that it was not a problem that I had had to deal with before, but that I thought the answer was, "No". He said, "I agree with you. That is why we want a close season for coarse fish."

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Amendment No. 8 has been moved—

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

With great respect, it has not been moved. It cannot be moved before the time for it to come on. It was spoken to with the other Amendment but it has not been moved.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

It has been discussed. Amendment No. 8 is not moved.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Miscellaneous amendments as to byelaws]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 9. On further consideration it was found that subsection (4) as it stood was entirely superfluous.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Licences to fish]:

7.8 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 10: Page 6, line 2, at end insert: — ("(10) Provided that no person under the age of 14 years shall require a licence to fish with rod and line anywhere in the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: In rising to move my Amendment I am conscious that I did not speak at the Second Reading of this Bill and that my Amendment does not strike at the heart of any of the principles enshrined in the Bill. However, I will do my best to move my Amendment as shortly as possible. When your Lordships were of tender years some of you, as I did, probably fished in local rivers, reservoirs or lakes. Perhaps like me you had absolutely no success and never caught a single thing. It occurs to me that young persons, as described in my Amendment, might well be exempted from the requirement to hold a fishing licence as provided for in this clause. There is no greater reason for my Amendment than that we should exempt young people from a Bill that has a considerable number of detailed administrative and what some people might think bureaucratic provisions. I therefore beg to move.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

While I have sympathy with the noble Lord's objective, I hope that he will not press this Amendment to a Division. I suppose that all of us are sympathetic to boys fishing—most of us have fished and probably the ladies have as well—with or without licences, legally or illegally. We will not go into that. Why should the age be fixed at fourteen? Why, in a Bill dealing with conservation, make an exempted class all over the country? To do that would make the task of the enforcement of legal fishing extremely difficult. Indeed, if the water bailiff finds a boy fishing how is he to know whether or not the boy is under fourteen if he says he is? Some of us look younger and some older than we are. Is the boy to carry his birth certificate with him? I do not know. These are some of the problems and this would open a rather wide loophole if it were made a general application.

I can offer this amount of consolation: under the Bill as it stands, river authorities, who will be acquainted with the needs in their particular areas, can exempt from liability to pay licence duty or provide for reduced licence duties for certain categories of persons. I understand that some river authorities, maybe in due course all of them, are seriously considering applying exemptions or reduced duties to certain categories of persons which may include the young, and may include those who are a little older than 14, and may include the old. I think it would be much better to leave it to the river authorities who know the needs and the situation in their areas to do what they think is right rather than for us in this conservation Bill to make a general rule for every part of the country that persons under 14 can fish without a licence. I hope that noble Lords, realising that river authorities have power to meet this objection will not press this Amendment which will take this power out of their hands.

LORD TREFGARNE

One of the risks in putting down an Amendment to a Bill handled by a former Lord Chancellor is that one's Amendments tend to get shot down in flames. I quite see the objections to my Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Restriction on the introduction of fish into inland waters]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 11: Page 8, line 1, at end insert ("or spawn of fish").

The noble and learned Viscount said: I can speak to Amendment No. 11 and Amendment No. 12 at the same time. This Amendment improves the Bill. Under the Bill as it stands it is illegal to introduce fish into an inland water. Some people would argue that spawn is not fish, and it is therefore thought desirable to make it clear that you cannot introduce either fish or spawn into a river without the consent of the river authorities. I beg to move Amendment No. 11.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 2, after ("fish") insert ("or spawn of fish").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Powers of entry, search, seizure and arrest]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 13: Page 8, line 9, leave out ("search and')

The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move this Amendment which is to leave out two words that are entirely superfluous. Under the Bill as it stands, you can "search and examine" and the words "search and" add nothing to "examine". I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 14: Page 8, line 15, leave out ("such") and insert ("any such instrument, bait or")

The noble and learned Viscount said: As the Bill stands at present, an authorised person can "examine any instrument or bait", or any container used for fish, but it is not clear that he can open the cover of a fishing rod or similar container to examine the instrument contained therein which might be of an illegal character. The Amendment will remove that doubt. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Provision for trial of offenders and penalties for offences]:

7.17 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 15: Page 10, line 2, after first ("in") insert ("or in connection with ")

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a more important Amendment. At the present time, it is possible to confiscate or order forfeiture of a vessel or vehicle used in the actual commission of an offence. I should think it very seldom that in the actual commission of an offence a motor car or other vehicle is used. It does not sound a very apt instrument for poaching or illegally taking fish. It is used to take people to where they are going to poach, so it is thought that it will avoid doubt and possible further litigation, and make it quite clear that if a gang of poachers use a vehicle to get them to the scene of their illegal operations they run the risk of the vehicle being forfeited if it is used, as it would be in those circumstances, "in connection with" the offence. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Supplemental]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 16: Page 11, line 34, at end insert: ("( ) Expressions used in the 1923 Act and this Act have the same meanings in this Act as they have in that Act.")

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is intended merely to avoid the repetition in this Bill of all the definitions contained in the 1923 Act. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Provisions with respect to licences]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 17: Page 13, line 46, leave out ("is") and insert ("and address are").

The noble and learned Viscount said: I can speak to this Amendment and Nos. 19, 22, 23 and 24 together. They are all to provide for the situation that on the licence, in addition to the name, there shall be inserted the address of the holder of the licence. There are, I believe, in some parts of the country people living in communities with the same surname and often with the same Christian name, and it is therefore desirable that in order to be able to identify the licence holder the address should be inserted. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18: Page 14, line 4, leave out from ("name") to end of line 5 and insert ("and address are so entered on the licence and he is not the holder of another licence to use in that area an instrument of the same description as that to which the former licence relates").

The noble and learned Viscount said: I am not moving this Amendment for the reason that I propose to put it down in different language and, I hope, improved drafting on Report.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 6, after ("name") insert ("and address").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 20: Page 14, line 11, leave out ("by a licensee or his agent").

The noble and learned Viscount said: This provides that an entry on a licence, whether made by a river authority or by a licensee, should be dated; and the effect of this first Amendment, page 14, line 11, is to extend to all entries the present requirement for the insertion of the date by the deletion of the words "by a licensee or his agent" which currently limits its application. I can also speak to the Amendment to page 14, line 13, at the same time. The effect of that is to reinstate these words in the latter part of the paragraph which deals with the procedure when a licensee or his agent makes the entry. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 21.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 13, leave out ("the entry") and insert ("an entry by a licensee or his agent").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 22.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 14, after ("name") insert ("and address").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 16, after ("name") insert and address ")—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

I beg to move Amendment No. 24.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("where") to end and insert ("a name and address are inserted in substitution for a name and address ").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

This is to correct a printing error: The reference should be to subsection (7) and not (6). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 31, leave out ("6") and insert ("7").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Repeals]:

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 28: Page 18, leave out line 10.

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a provision which we on second thoughts felt it desirable to retain. It is a provision of the 1923 Act and it is now considered desirable to retain it for that provision enables articles seized as liable for forfeiture, such as fish, to be disposed of. If it were not for the power contained in the 1923 Act I do not quite know what one would do with the fish, but it would be bound to go bad and that would be very unpleasant. So this will enable the authorities, if they get something which is perishable, to dispose of it as they have been able to do since 1923. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 29: Page 18, column 3, leave out line 28 and insert ("in section 1 the words 'and elver fisheries' and the words 'or elver fisheries'. Section 2.")

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is the last Amendment to this Bill at this stage. The effect of it is to retain those provisions of the 1935 Act which allow for modification by Orders under Part IV of the requirements of the 1923 Act in relation to freshwater and eel fisheries. The references to elver fisheries are no longer necessary because Clause 14(2) of the Bill makes it clear that references to eels include references to elvers, and on that note I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.