Lords Sitting of 13 April 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the Clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HS 146 FEEDER LINE AIRCRAFT PROJECT
Lord KINGS NORTON: 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 it is their intention to revitalise the HS 146 feeder line aircraft project which was put into a state of suspended animation at the end of 1974.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, Hawker Siddeley Aviation have recently proposed an extension of the existing holding contract on the HS 146, and we are seeking further information from the company on a number of points. We shall also wish to take account of the views of the Chairman of the Organising Committee for British Aerospace in reaching a decision on the company's proposals.
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, whilethanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether, when looking into this matter, the Government will take into consideration the great potential this aircraft has for the early 1980s? Would the Government also bear in mind that, if we are to cash in on that potential, it will be necessary to build some aircraft for development, testing and demonstration purposes?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, one of the matters on which we have asked the company to give us further information concerns the current sales prospects for the aircraft. My understanding is that from a full-scale start-up, it will take about three years to have the aircraft ready to sell. So I would agree with
2026
the noble Lord's suggestion that, if we are to do anything in the 1980s, urgent consideration will have to be given to the matter.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, before the Government commit any further money to this project, will they bear in mind that the aircraft is to be powered by an American engine and that to date, at least, not even a letter of intent exists for its purchase?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding your Lordships that, since Government money is involved, we must take care before any money is spent. Certainly the engine is one of the problems of which the Government are aware, and my honourable friend the Minister of State recently had talks with the French Government. One of the points he stressed then—and I stress it now—is the keenness of the Government to involve their European partners in any European aerospace project.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said, can he confirm that one of the leading aircraft manufacturing firms in Germany has also been approached by Hawker Siddeley with a view to building the engine of this aircraft?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I regret that I do not have any information on what approaches the company may have made to anyone.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is a growing need for aircraft that are slower, more efficient and make better use of the high-priced fuel that has been on the market since the oil situation developed? Are the Government aware that by encouraging this new Hawker design, British Aviation could fulfil a very long-standing need for short-distance high-frequency services?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am aware that there is a view that this aircraft could fill a slot which is currently empty in the market for commercial aircraft. However, as has already been pointed out, considerable sums of public money would be at stake; so we have asked the company to give us more information, particularly about the sales prospects and other matters.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that there are American aircraft which use British engines and it is not necessarily undesirable to have a marriage between the technologies of different countries? Will Her Majesty's Government also bear in mind that in this firm the industrial relations are good and, therefore, there is an advantage, provided it can be shown to be economically desirable, to continue the development of this aircraft?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if it is economically desirable, then I would say that it is desirable. Certainly, as I have said, we attach considerable importance to co-operative and collaborative effort, particularly in Europe, in introducing new aircraft. That is something to which we are giving considerable attention.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how the Government determine the period during which they expect this to be brought into operation? There was talk about the 1980s. Is it not a fact that many of the supplementary questions that have been asked have been based on wishful thinking? May such matters determine themselves in the future in a manner not expected by many of those who are asking the supplementary questions?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I would not presume to judge the expectations of those asking questions of Government Ministers, but I hope I have myself avoided any wishful thinking. I have said that we are seeking further information before coming to any decision. Just to set the record straight, I did not mention the period of the 1980s; another noble Lord mentioned that. I merely said that, according to my information, from the present state of the project, it would be about three years before it would be ready to go into commercial operation.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, regarding the proposed American engine, can the noble Lord say whether any progress has been made on the proposal that the engine should be built under licence by Rolls-Royce?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, no, I cannot say whether any progress has been
2028
made, but no doubt that is one of the matters the company will be telling us about when they give us the further information for which we have asked.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that wishful thinking is better than no thinking at all, and that in the field of aircraft manufacture, as in other fields, one cannot accumulate if one does not speculate?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I believe it is the view of noble Lords opposite that wishful thinking, so far as public expenditure is concerned, is not the right approach. It is certainly not one which this Government adopt.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is a grand thing not to look into the future but to look upon the past? Would he agree that not one of us, irrespective of our position in life, is able to say what will happen in the future, but we can look back at the past and know what really happened?

ANGOLA: CUBAN TROOPS
2.38 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 to list the specified diplomatic initiatives they have taken about the continued presence of Cuban troops in Angola.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, during the fighting in Angola my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made representations to the Soviet, Cuban and South African Governments about their intervention in that country. We recognised the People's Republic of Angola on 18th February. Since then, while we cannot dispute the right of the Government of Angola to invite Cuban troops to remain on Angolan territory, we have continued consistently to make known our wish to see them withdrawn from Africa altogether.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, during Mr.

2029
Gromyko's visit to this country, representations were made to him as to how deeply this sponsored invasion was deplored by all people in this country? More particularly, as it came so quickly after the solemn declaration of détente at Helsinki, was this point forcibly put to him? Finally, may I ask whether the noble Lord has a summary of the conversation and answers, perhaps, which he would consider putting in the Library so that their effect may be studied?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. The Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, as they were in their respective statuses at that time, gave Mr. Gromyko a clear understanding of the extent of public concern in Britain and in the West generally about Soviet policies in Africa. Mr. Gromyko was left in no doubt as to our view that detente is indivisible. I will see what I can do about providing in the Library the documentation asked for by the noble Lord.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Cuban troops were in fact invited by the Government of Angola? Were they not invited by a Party which was not recognised as a Government by any other country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in the first instance the noble Earl is quite right. They were invited—if that is the right term—in the first instance by a Party. However, in common with many other countries including our partners in the Nine, since February the present Government of Angola have been recognised and in that capacity they have invited Cuban troops to remain.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the British Government have recognised the Angolan régime de facto, can the Minister tell the House what diplomatic, consular or other representation there is in Angola to protect British citizens who may face trial or arrest, among other things?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not enough, my Lords. We have contacts, but we seek to build up proper diplomatic representation for the purposes the noble Lord has mentioned. We are now in contact with the Angolan Government for this purpose.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those who want détente between Britain and the Soviet Union would want him and his Government to say to the Soviet Union, "The enemy of détente is Red imperialism as illustrated in Angola"?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I hesitate to disagree on any account with the noble Lord, to whom in another incarnation I have been accustomed to referring as "Mr. Speaker, Sir." But I am in substantial agreement with him. Perhaps he and I would agree to phrase it in this way: We are in total opposition to any form of imperialism.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, following the original Question, can the noble Lord give us information about any further Cuban troops Russia has put into Mozambique, Somalia and Dhofar?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I believe there are a few Cuban troops in two of the three countries named by the noble Lord. I am not aware that there are any in Mozambique.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, in the course of the diplomatic initiatives that have been taken, it has been firmly established who arms the Cubans, who pays them, and under whose command they are at present serving?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord probably has his own answer to that question.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the continued presence of Cuban troops must endanger peace in the whole of Southern Africa? So until he gets a more satisfactory answer from Mr. Gromyko to the representations which were made, would it not be realistic to stop presssing Russia to accept the £950 million of loan, which we can ill afford in our desperately serious balance of-payments position?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I do not in the least think so, my Lords. I think the agreement of last year which the ex-Prime Minister made after a personal visit to the Soviet Union holds very important hopes for détente on a commercial level between the two countries, and indeed between the East and the West.

MOLE VALLEY MATERNITY SERVICES
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: 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 it is a fact that pregnant women in the Mole Valley district of Surrey are not allowed to have their babies at home, owing to the absence of any domestic midwifery service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, with the possible exception of one part of this district where additional staff will shortly be employed. I understand there are adequate midwives in the integrated maternity service to enable mothers, whose medical and social circumstances allow, to have their babies at home, if they so wish.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his partially satisfactory Answer, and I should like to ask him two further questions. First, can he say whether his Answer that there is an integrated service and a domestic midwifery service available, applies to the area around the village of Westcott? Secondly, is he aware, so long as that service is not available, that when a woman who is apparently having a normal pregnancy, and not her first child, goes into labour she is obliged to wait for an ambulance to be called from a station which is 10 miles away, and that when the ambulance arrives she has to be driven another 12 miles to Redhill hospital? Does my noble friend not agree that this involves very serious risks, not to mention grave and unnecessary anxiety to the patient?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first supplementary question put to me by my noble friend, my understanding is that the integrated maternity services cover the whole of the Mole Valley, which I understand forms two health districts of East Surrey and Mid-Surrey. My information is that when a further midwife is recruited for this area there will be adequate midwifery services available. With regard to the ambulance service, I understand that there are
2032
ambulance facilities at Dorking, which I believe is only three miles from Westcott. There are also ambulance services at Leatherhead, which is six miles from Westcott; at Epsom, which is eight miles, and at Redhill, to which my noble friend referred, which is 10 miles, and when a person dials for an ambulance the nearest one that is available should be sent.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply but I wonder whether he would take it from me that what apparently happens is that ambulances are called from Burgh Heath, which is a considerable distance away, and I have never heard of an ambulance being brought from Dorking in these circumstances.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. This is a matter that will concern us when there are four ambulance depots, albeit that they may have only one or two ambulances available, and I should like to look into it.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
2.46 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 a Minister has yet attended the current session of the Conference on the Law of the Sea in New York as a member of the United Kingdom delegation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing us up to date on this subject. As more than half of the current session in New York is now over and it seems that very little, if any, progress has been made towards a written agreement, are the Government considering taking an initiative themselves during the next three weeks of the session?—because the outcome of the Conference as a whole is likely to be of more importance to Britain than to any other country in the world.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not agree that progress has been disappointing. In fact, my information is that quite encouraging progress has been made. I agree with the noble Lord about the importance, especially to the United Kingdom, of this Conference. As to any new initiative, I think we are constantly taking new initiatives in this Conference. The noble Lord will know, from his own very wide and deep knowledge of these matters, that we have set the pace in more than one particular in these important matters. As to the initiative of a Ministerial intervention, as he knows, the present phase is one of informal discussion rather than of plenary discussion. But I can assure him that we hold ourselves instantly ready to feed in, as it were, a Ministerial spokesman as and when that will prove useful. Our delegation is being led by a Minister of State, and a high ranking official expert. To my knowledge, not more than one, perhaps two, other participating countries in the Conference have so far fed in a Ministerial intervention at this stage.

TRANSPORT REVIEW POLICY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Birk will repeat a Statement on transport review policy.
NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADOPTION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments having effect in England and Wales in relation to adoption. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a Development Board for Rural Wales, to confer power on the Secretary of State to pay housing and rent rebate subsidies to the Board, to make provision in relation to certain other bodies concerned with the develpment of Wales, to confer power on the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to bodies concerned with the social development of Wales and for purposes connected with those purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments to the Commons Amendments agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.51 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Report was as follows:
1. LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library for the year 1975 was laid before the Committee and agreed.
The Committee accepted a recommendation from the Sub-Committee that the sale of stamps to Lords by the Library staff should be discontinued.
2. INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER FACILITIES
The Committee were informed that the Administration Sub-Committee had authorised

2035
the installation of computer facilities in the Parliament Office and the Library.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Parliament Office was received.
The Committee were informed of the appointment by the Chairman of Committees of Mr. D. Rippengal as an additional Counsel from 1st January 1977 and agreed to the temporary overbearing on the complement from 1st January 1977 to 31st July 1977. They further agreed the creation of a new post of Assistant Counsel to the Chairman of Committees from 1st August 1977.
4. APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION TO THE STAFF OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Committee accepted a recommendation from the Sub-Committee on the Parliament Office that the following Acts should apply by analogy to the staff of the House of Lords as if they were Crown employees:—
Employment Protection Act 1975
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
Equal Pay Act 1970
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
The Committee agreed, as required under the terms of the Employment Protection Act 1975, that the Offices Committee should be the designated employer of the Librarian and that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department should be the designated employer of the staff of that Department.
5. INTRODUCTION OF WHITLEY PROCEDURES
The Committee agreed to the setting up of a Whitley Committee within the House of Lords and to an appropriate constitution for the Committee.
6. MEMBERSHIP OF SUB-COMMITTEES
Lord Aberdare was added to the Administration Sub-Committee.
7. PEERAGE CLAIMS—SHORTHAND WRITER'S CHARGES
The Committee were informed that provision had been made in the House of Lords' Vote, to meet, on behalf of Claimants, the costs of transcription of evidence and shorthand writer's charges.
8. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee confirmed the application of Code Memorandum Number 98, dated 8 January 1976, giving a revised rate of London Weighting to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
9. YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee authorised an increase in the amounts payable for the purchase of items of Court Dress worn by the Yeoman Usher.
10. NEWS SERVICE
The Committee approved payment of the House of Lords' share of an increased annual rental for the teleprinter News Service.
11. HOUSE OF LORDS' FEES
The Committee considered the fees payable on Judicial proceedings and Peerage Claims and approved a revision, with effect from 27 April 1976, as follows:—

(a) Fees on Judicial Proceedings

£

Lodgment of Petition of Appeal

10

Entering Appearance

2

Issue of Order of Service

10

Return of Recognisance

10

Lodgment of Petition not referred to Appeal Committee

10

Lodgment of Joint Petition, from each Party thereto

5

Lodgment of Petition referred to Appeal Committee (including report thereon)

12

Application for Order on consent, in lieu of Petition

5

Lodgment of Case, including laying Case on the Table, entering Appeal in Cause List, Bar fee, and Counsel attending

50

Lodgment of Joint Case, including laying Case on the Table, entering Appeal in Cause List, Bar fee and Counsel attending

100

Application to set down for Hearing

10

Petition to withdraw Appeal after setting down

10

Issue of Final Judgment

12

Taxing Fee, assessed on the net amount of the Bill of Costs

5℅

(b) Fees on Peerage Claims

Petition of Claimant

10

For each of the first 3 days on which the Committee for Privileges meets

25

For each subsequent day

35

Order for Attendance of a Witness

10

Resolution and Judgment

35

(c) Fees on Irish Peerage Claims

On presentation of Petition

10

Lord Chancellor's Report

10

Order made thereon

10

12. XEROX COPYING
The Committee approved a revision in the charge for supplying photographic prints of documents to the public.
13. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards:

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mr. M. A. Reuter, MBE, DSM, BEM, Principal Doorkeeper, who retired on March 20, 1976;

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mr. S. H. Weston, Doorkeeper, who retired on February 19, 1976;

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. P. A. Atchison, Clerical Officer, who retired on March 12, 1976;

2037

(d) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. F. C. R. Deacon. MBE, who retired after re-employed service as Executive Officer on March 24, 1976;

(e) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. M. Wager, BEM, who retired after reemployed service as Doorkeeper on March 20, 1976;

(f) Revised pension and lump sum to Miss M. M. Pedder, OBE, Establishment Officer, who retired on November 1, 1975;

(g) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. R. Megenis, Cleaner, who retired on August 24, 1975;

(h) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. Chadwick, Cleaner, who retired on September 28, 1975;

(i) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. J. Ray, Cleaner, who retired on September 28, 1975;

(j) Short service gratuity to Miss J. P. Culverwell, MBE, who retired after reemployed service as Examiner of Acts on January 1, 1976;

(k) Supplementary Death Benefit to widower of Mrs. E. Perrin, former Cleaner, who died on December 7, 1975.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEYCHELLES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS moved the following Amendment:
Page 5, line 33, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the paragraph to be deleted relates to the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act 1939. I am informed that this Act, which expired in 1969 and was thereafter continued by Order in Council, finally lapsed at the end of 1974. In view of this, there is no need to make special provision in the Schedule to this Bill and the Amendment provides for the deletion of the paragraph relating to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, at this stage it would he helpful to those of us on this side of the House who have had a few misgivings about the Bill, if the noble Lord could put the situation into perspective by letting the House know how many people, as a result of the effects of this
2038
Bill when it becames law, will be holders of United Kingdom and Colonies passports. If the noble Lord is able to tell us what order of figure we may expect, it will do a good deal to resolve any remaining doubt.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. This figure is not known for sure, but it is most unlikely to cause us any serious difficulty. The overwhelming proportion of the population—which numbers only 58,000, anyway—will become Seychelles citizens. There may be a few score who will retain our citizenship because their connection with the Seychelles is too remote to give them Seychelles citizenship, and many of these will be in third countries. But even if we add those who will have dual citizenship, the total is still expected to be a few hundred at the most—I would say a couple of hundred at best.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.56 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kirkhill).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SEGAL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Increased access to, and protection for, freshwater fishing]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("access to") and insert ("the availability of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. The purpose behind—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether the noble Lord might agree that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if my Amendments

2039
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were discussed with Amendment. No. 1?
Lord KIRKHILL: I am perfectly agreeable to that course, if that is the wish of the Committee. However, I should like to open my remarks by first making specific reference to my own Amendment; then I will remark upon the noble Lord's three Amendments. The purpose behind Amendment No. 1 is very much the same as that which inspired the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to table their Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which we can also encompass in these remarks. During the course of the Second Reading debate noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, expressed concern that someone who already allows full, unrestricted access to his trout fishing may, because of his generosity, find himself at a disadvantage when it comes to obtaining protection. I am not convinced that any such danger would arise in practice, but after further consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I can appreciate how the wording of the subsection as it stands may appear to offend some noble Lords' sense of natural justice. Therefore, I commend Amendment No. 1 to noble Lords.
I think it meets the point fairly fully without violating in any way the principle enshrined in the subsection. This principle is that proposals will be judged on the basis of whether or not they result in an increase in the opportunities for brown trout fishing. The Government are firmly determined that the instrument of protection will be brought into force only where there is a significant improvement in the opportunities for those less fortunate anglers—the locals, weekend visitors and tourists—who rely for their sport on obtaining permission from some of those who are endowed (if that is the right word to use) with territorial properties. My Amendment encompasses a major point which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, seeks to make, in particular in Amendment No. 2. Perhaps I should resume my seat at this stage and see where we go from this point.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Amendment and moving it,
2040
because it appeared only this morning. As the Marshalled List indicates, Amendment No. 1 is new. That is written at the top, although it is not starred. We were glad to see the Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, his Amendment is on the same point as we have raised in Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is an important point because there is ambiguity in the Bill as it stands about the meaning of "access to" fishing for freshwater fish. It is a drafting matter. As the noble Lord has said, I do not think that there is a difference of principle between this Bench and the Government Bench on the aims of the Bill, but an increase in access could mean more members of the public—perhaps many more—lining up on the bank of a loch or river but catching less, or catching only tiddlers. There could be physical access to the waters but not access to fish, or reasonably good fishing. An increase in the access to fishing could mean, on the other hand, that the same numbers of members of the public, or perhaps only a few more, would have the opportunities to catch more sizeable fish and get much better fishing.
It is important to get this right at the beginning of the Bill. We should decide whether we are aiming simply for a greater number of the public to be able to flog the water and virtually catch nothing. I think that is not what we are aiming for. Clearly, what we want over Scotland as a whole is a combination of more trout water to be physically and easily accessible, and better trout fishing when people get to that water. The Amendments which I tabled in an effort to improve the Bill went into the Bill only on the last day in another place, very late at night, and when the Bill had gone through five days of Committee without this wording having been put in. So in your Lordships' Committee we are indeed doing a revising task today.
What is still in the Bill is that the Secretary of State shall not make a protection order unless he has received proposals in relation to the improvement of, or the giving of availability of, access to fishings. I can understand that improvement in itself might not be enough unless the public were to benefit to a reasonable extent from that improvement, and I can see the reasons for the

2041
redrafting that took place. Indeed, considerations about what improvement is going to be made are to be taken into account by the Secretary of State under subsection (4)(c). The important point is not only the giving of access, but also the words "or availability of access". Where there is satisfactory access already, it may be impossible to increase that access; the landowner is already fulfilling the aims of the Bill and that is why we welcome the Government Amendment.
But I want to be sure that it really covers the points that I am raising; otherwise, there may be an inconsistency between the part of the Bill in subsection (3)(a) which remains and lines 7 and 8 which we are now discussing. Subsection (3)(a) is subject to an increase in access. If full physical access to the bank of a loch for trout fishing is already open to the public—and I know of such cases in the North of Scotland—the landowner cannot increase it. At present there are very few trout in such places and only small trout that are ready to be caught, but none the less this is fun for teenagers and good practice for beginners. The point is that if such a loch were given protection it would then be turned into a proper trout loch to the benefit of all concerned, including members of the public and visitors from the South who carry trout rods in their cars. They would then really be able to catch something. But under the present terms of the Bill the owner is deprived of that opportunity because he cannot make that loch more open to the public than it is at present. To illustrate this in extreme terms, the only way he could do it would be to advertise in the local press that it was also now available to visitors from Mars and to unidentifiable flying objects.
As at present drafted, the Bill appears to penalise the person already doing what the Bill is seeking, even though technically he could prevent unauthorised people from reaching the bank to fish, by protecting his civil law right through the cumbersome procedure of interdict. But in the cases that I have in mind, the landowner has no intention of stopping people; he does not want to stop people from fishing the loch.
In different situations "access" means different things. In the example I have given it means more opportunity for people to come to the bank with rods; but
2042
if that is open to the whole population of the British Isles already, it is difficult to increase it. There is then the meaning of access to fishing. If that means anything it must mean access to the opportunity to catch some worthwhile trout, and therefore an increase to the public in the availability of good fish to be caught.
For that reason I am grateful to the Government for tabling this Amendment. I should like an assurance from the Minister that his Amendment covers the situations I have described. My Amendments put into words, without any ambiguity, the aim of the Bill to provide to the public in future more and better trout fishing than is available to them at present. I think the Government have the same intention and it is simply the wording which needs to be put right. My Amendment No. 4 is of course part of the new wording, but it may not be necessary. It is simply there to make it absolutely clear that this is for a whole prescribed area.
Viscount THURSO: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has produced a neat little trump for the aces of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. He is coming up against the problem which those who work with fishing in a practical sense are up against all the time, the compatibility of quantity and quality; and I think the wording of his Amendment on the Marshalled List is very good wording to solve this problem. More than an increase in quantity what we are really looking for is an increase in quality, because we know that in Scotland we have a large quantity of water which could carry trout and could be available to the general public resident in Scotland, to the general public visiting Scotland and to the Scottish tourist industry as well. From these Benches we would certainly welcome this Amendment, because it seems to encourage the improvement of quality and the substitution of quality for mere quantity in the desiderata of the Bill.
3.7 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: First, may I thank the Committee on behalf of the Government for the fairly wide and generous welcome which this Amendment has received today. Whether or not I am

2043
able to display an interesting hand at five-star poker later this afternoon only the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will be able to judge. But as for the present, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—and I am advised on this point by the draftsman—that the Amendment does indeed make the Government position clear. The Secretary of State will require to be satisfied that proposals will result in a significant increase in the availability of fishing opportunity. The encouragement of such increase is the primary purpose of the Bill.
There is agreement on both sides of the Committee that the brown trout stocks in many Scottish waters are already over-fished, some to the extent that they no longer offer any worth while sport. There is agreement that the demand for the sport is increasing every year. What is clearly needed is an increase in the availability of angling. The Government accept that this can only be brought about by improved management. We accept that there are places where improvement is not a practicable possibility. We accept that in many cases both kinds of waters should be brought within the ambit of one protection order, but at this stage the Government cannot justify giving protection unless the proposers can offer an increase in availability. I think that the Amendment in my name makes as explicit as is possible the Government's intention, and in our view it should be written into the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. From what he has said it seems that his Amendment carries out the purposes of my Amendments, which set out the position at greater length in order to make sure that no further ambiguity existed about what was intended. Therefore, I would advise noble Lords to accept the Government Amendment and I shall not move my three Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("for freshwater fish").
The noble Lord said: My Amendment No. 5, with which goes Amendment No. 7, aims at putting right what we felt on Second Reading was a weakness in the Bill. I think it was generally agreed from all sides of the House that river management must cover all fish in the river. Undoubtedly Clause 1 of the Bill as drafted on page 2 means that the Secretary of State must consult the advisory body in respect of freshwater fish only, which, of course, excludes the consideration of salmon. Therefore, I drafted these Amendments to endeavour to widen the consultations that the Secretary of State has said he would undertake.
Since I drafted these Amendments I have had my attention drawn to the fact that, after considerable pressure paragraph (b) was inserted in another place, and that they feel very deeply that not a word should be altered in respect of what they have put into the Bill. I am told it would be rather like desecrating the Tablets of Moses if we altered one word of what they put in. Therefore, I propose not to move my Amendment, but to revel in the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his Amendment No. 8, which achieves the same purpose as would my Amendments, without that terrible act of vandalism that I must avoid. Therefore, I do not move my Amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Segal): Amendment No. 6 is to be taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 8.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6.
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I understood that my Amendment No. 6 was originally thought to be necessary, but is now not necessary, so I do not intend to move it. It was a purely drafting Amendment. I shall await the calling of Amendment No. 8.
Lord KIRKHILL: I confirm that this Amendment was originally thought necessary, but we have had some discussion about this and, on reflection, it is considered that it is not now necessary.
3.34 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and
(d) he has taken into consideration the need for conservation of any species of fish and has carried out such consultations in this regard as he considers necessary.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to remind your Lordships' Committee that angling is the main participant sport in Scotland. I understand there are more anglers in Scotland than there are people who play football, tennis, or, indeed, darts and other games. Unfortunately, there has been less worthwhile trout fishing available than there ought to be in Scotland because, in contrast to the situation in England, there is no proper legal protection there for trout. The aim of this Bill should be to provide more and better trout fishing in Scotland for more anglers. In particular, it should ensure that whenever a scheme is approved and protection granted, a proportion of trout fishing is available to the public. Schemes would include reasonable charges for permits related to the work and expense involved in stocking the waters concerned, and in maintaining the fishery.
My Amendment requires the Secretary of State, before approving such a scheme, to take into consideration the need for conservation of any species of fish which contributes to Scotland's employment and economy. For example, there will be schemes for rivers where shellfish, such as freshwater mussels, which also exist in sea water, are important, and migratory fish will be important as well. By far the greatest contribution to the Scottish economy comes from salmon fishing. There are over 1,500 jobs in the netting operations at river mouths and estuaries alone. Moreover, much of what anglers pay to fish the salmon is passed on to the finances of local government. These fishings are assessed for rates in Scotland on the basis of numbers caught in the previous five years. To illustrate this direct contribution, each salmon being caught in the River Spey this year means that over £3 will be paid into local authority rates. Salmon have to come up the river to spawn, to reproduce, and they are clearly a species of fish which would have to be taken into account along with many others, and one of great value to the economy of Scotland.
I hope that this new paragraph (d) would make sure that, before approving the scheme, the Secretary of State took into account the importance of all species of fish whose conservation is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has quite correctly pointed out that there is no specific requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to take into account the conservation of any species of fish. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are fully aware of the need to conserve our stocks of all useful species of fish in our rivers. It certainly was never the intention of the Government to encourage improvements in trout fishing at significant risk to the other stocks of a river. I give the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that assurance. However, I see no harm in spelling out that my right honourable friend in the other place, in deciding whether to give protection on any river to trout, must have regard to the proper conservation of those other valuable stocks of fish in the river. Therefore, I am willing to accept this Amendment.
Viscount THURSO: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty's Government is willing to accept this Amendment, because it is an imoprtant one. One has to recognise that the protection of one species may very well mean the damage of another species, or that in order to encourage one species to a higher level within a river system, or within a part of a river system, it may be necessary to damage, or even eliminate, another species. One has to balance out the various desirable features of one sort of fishing and another upon any stretch of water in order to obtain the optimum fishing for those who wish to pursue it, and the optimum situation for the country where the river system exists. Therefore, it is good to see that this is spelt out. It needed to be spelt out. If Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment, we on these Benches would be happy to support it.
Lord HOY: Perhaps I may say one or two words on this Amentment. I think the noble Lord the Minister is right to accept it. It is not a question of

2047
whether he is going to accept the Amendment; he has already said he will accept it. Whether it be conservation at sea or in the rivers, conservation is very important to the whole of the fishing industry. I am grateful that even if this writes in a little more than I would have thought to be a natural way in which to deal with the problem, and if it specifies it more clearly, I have no objection at all and would welcome and support it.
One further word about sport in Scotland. I have just taken over a job held by the late Lord Milligan, that of chairman of the Scottish Basketball Association. I am told that in this sport there are twice as many participants as we have fishermen.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: Before we leave this Amendment, may I express my thanks to the noble Lord the Minister. Having raised the matter considerably and, I hope, firmly on Second Reading, let me only say that the acceptance of this Amendment will bring a degree of confidence and comfort to many bodies outside this House who are interested in the conservation of all types of fish.
Lord KIRKHILL: I intervene merely to reiterate that the Government stand firm by their basic ethos in this Bill. Its underlying principle remains inviolate, but the Government are willing to be explicit and if this gives a measure of reassurance, then the Government commend the Amendment to the House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment. I think it will not only reassure many outside Parliament, but will make it abundantly clear to all concerned with this Bill after it is enacted that the Secretary of State will have this very important duty before he approves schemes. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his support. I know how much he has done, both as a Minister and otherwise, concerning the fishing industry, both inland and particularly at sea. I of course accept his correction concerning basketball and congratulate him if there should be so many participants as opposed to spectators where basketball is concerned. Of course, in "angling", when I was saying
2048
that I thought that angling was the main participant sport in Scotland, I was including coarse fishing and not just game fishing, but I congratulate the noble Lord on the rapid increase in basketball as a recreation and sport.
I am grateful to the Government for having accepted this Amendment, which I think will relieve the minds of many who were worried about the Bill when it was passing through this House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
3.22 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to ask, a question on this, and that is how the proposals for schemes for protection will operate. In Clause 1 the process is activated by a single applicant; he is referred to in subsection (3)(a) as "an owner of land" in the singular, and later in subsection (4) he is referred to as "the person submitting" the proposals. Therefore, a scheme is to be started by one single applicant. But the Government have said that they do not want protection to be granted and extended in a piecemeal fashion, and I do understand that from the administrative point of view it is, of course, much simpler if the whole of a river or the whole of a catchment area, or a very large part of either, is the prescribed area for each individual scheme. That is what the Government said they want to achieve, and from what has been said by the Government so far on this Bill it seems that a protection order will not be issued until a large area like that is covered.
So we return to the question, what happens when a single applicant starts the procedure in motion? That applicant could be someone who owns the fishing for, shall we say, a mile on one bank of a river, and the river may be 60 miles long; there may be many other riparian proprietors. Who, then, takes the next action? Is it the Secretary of State? Does he get in touch with the other owners of land who ought to be in a scheme if it is to be approved, or is it incumbent upon the original applicant to try to get the others who are involved in the same catchment area or on the same river to come in as well and indicate to the Secretary of State that they would

2049
be glad to take part in a scheme? This is something which has not yet been made clear. I am afraid I have not been able to give the noble Lord notice of this point, though I hoped I might be able to see him earlier today on the subject. It is an important point. If he cannot give us the full answer now, we would be glad to have it at a later stage.
Lord BURTON: May I raise one other point on Clause 1? I think it has been very much improved by the Amendment agreed today, but this is prior to a protection order being issued, that there should be consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and other noble Lords will remember that we had a discussion as to what the position would be where perhaps someone was stocking a trout water and the fishery board disapproved and would then come along and let him fish them out. There is no overall control or anyone to say what should or should not be done after a protection order has been issued. I wonder if the noble Lord would look at this again. Before a protection order is issued we have improved the clause, but after that there is still no proper consultation.
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps I can assist your Lordships in your continuing deliberations. I would advise your Lordships that the Secretary of State may—and, in accordance with the usual form, this is a power, not a duty—make such an order only if he has received proposals from some, though not necessarily all, the holders of rights to freshwater fishing in the area. The proposals must indicate willingness to make their fishings available on lettings or permits and may additionally indicate intention to improve their fishings. He may make an order only if he is satisfied that the proposals would, if implemented, result in freshwater fishing being available on terms and conditions acceptable to him in the area covered by the order to a degree which he considers reasonable, having regard in particular to what, in his view, is the demand for fishing in that area by people who depend for their sport on the availability of fishing permits. The area prescribed in the order will normally extend beyond the areas covered by the proposals.
Before he can make an order the Secretary of State is obliged to consult a body which in his opinion is representative of
2050
all Scottish freshwater anglers. An order may be made for a limited period, but may be renewed without further procedure if the proposals for giving access et cetera have been satisfactorily implemented. Of course, I am uncertain as to whether the holders of fishing rights can organise themselves in groups. We have not had very much evidence of this so far. This touches on the point the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has just made. Certainly I cannot give him an assurance that beyond the point of the protection order then things will flow smoothly, but the Government hope that by the creation of the protection order at least the first step will have been made. Really, as I emphasised at Second Reading, this Bill is essentially a first step Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I presume from the Minister's explanation that the use of the singular in the course of Clause 1 does not rule out a number of people putting in applications at the same time, and it is clear that that is what the Government would encourage, that any person who is interested in gaining protection in return for producing good trout fishing would be well advised to get in touch with their neighbours and others interested in the area and all put in applications at about the same time. From what the noble Lord has said, the Secretary of State will not proceed with the scheme unless he is satisfied that a majority of the persons concerned in the area are applying for protection?
Lord KIRKHILL: I confirm that that is so.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
3.29 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Area Fishing Boards
".—(1) The Secretary of State shall within two years of the passing of this Act give public notice of his intention to frame a scheme for the establishment of Area Fishery Boards, and any such notice shall invite the public within a period of not less than eight weeks from the date of the notice to make suggestions as to the composition of the Area Fishery Boards.
(2) After considering suggestions made under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State

2051
shall prepare and give notice of a draft scheme which shall include:—

(a) a map showing the boundaries of the proposed areas;

(b) provisions relating to qualifications of electors, elections or other voting arrangements, composition, meetings, financing and accounts of Area Fishery Boards;

(c) provisions relating to the supervision and training of wardens appointed under section 2 of this Act;

(d) provisions relating to the circumstances in which fishing is made available under section 1(5) of this Act;

(e) proposals concerning the procedures to be adopted by which the Area Fishery Boards on the one hand and the District Salmon Fishery Boards on the other will keep each other informed on matters of mutual interest;

(f) proposals concerning procedures to be adopted by which Area Fishery Boards shall report regularly to the Secretary of State and shall be consulted by him on matters affecting the operation of the terms of this Act within their areas;

(g) provisions for raising money by the rating of trout fisheries for the purpose of financing the activties of the Area Fishery Boards;

(h) such other information as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would help the public to make a reasonable appraisal of the scheme.

(3) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit hold a local public inquiry in relation to the whole scheme or any part thereof.
(4) After considering suggestions made under subsection (1) above and the results of any local inquiry, the Secretary of State may either confirm the scheme or confirm it with modifications which are in his opinion desirable as a result of suggestions made under subsection (1) above or the holding of a local inquiry under subsection (3) above, and may organise in accordance with the scheme elections or other voting arrangements for the purpose of establishing Area Fishery Boards for the area or areas concerned."
The noble Viscount said: I beg leave to insert a new clause in the Bill under discussion. I think the answer by the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, to the questions put to him when we were considering the question of, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?, have given me the opening, and indeed have shown us the reason for the necessity of a new clause at this point. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was uncertain what would happen after the Secretary of State had made an order. He hoped that things would flow smoothly after the Secretary of State made an order. But it is our duty to make sure, so far as possible, that things will flow smoothly. My
2052
experience of handling these matters shows me that they will probably not flow smoothly, but that there will be cause for discussion, and there will be disagreement between different interests. We have already had to make sure that certain interests of conservation were to be looked after in the Bill; but there will remain ongoing shared interests in every piece of water which this Bill will affect, and these differences of interest will cause differences of opinion and friction and will have to be resolved.
This Bill is the first in 1,000 years that has affected the law of trout fishing in Scotland. If we are to pass a Bill that is as radical as this, we must include in it provisions for dealing with the unforeseen. Much will happen in the future; lots of areas of disagreement between individuals whose interests either as owners or anglers are affected, and disagreement between people who fish for different species of fish, between trout fishers and salmon fishers. Therefore, it seemes to me that we have to establish, in the first instance, a body responsible for seeing that this Bill is a success.
At the Second Reading in your Lordships' House I emphasised that we on these Benches wanted to see this Bill be a success when it was enacted. We do not want it to bring the law of trout fishing once more into disrepute. We do not want to see it become a failure. I do not think that it will be an unqualified success, or that it stands any chance of being an unqualified success, unless there is a body of people appointed in each case where a protection order is granted to guide what is to happen, because we are to set up a situation where there will be instant conflict between interests. To start with, there will be an instant conflict between salmon and trout fishing interests which, unless we set up the machinery to dissolve it, will be a source of friction throughout.
To go on with, we are to set up a new species of person, a warden, who is to look after the enforcement provisions of this Bill and who will have certain powers, in some cases, of seizure of tackle, and certainly the powers to stop, interrogate, and question people in the pursuit of their hobby. For the same stretch of water it is very probable that we may set up several such persons. It is possible, and indeed probable, on a

2053
river or a stream that the opposite banks will be owned by different people. If, in order to obtain the services of a trout warden, one applies to the Secretary of State and puts forward the name of some suitable person of character whom one wishes to establish as the warden for one's fishing, it seems likely that the Secretary of State will find it difficult to refuse.
If the Secretary of State agrees to appoint a warden for my bank of the river—on this side of the river—he can hardly refuse somebody on the other side of the river permission to establish a responsible person as a warden on his bank. So on this stretch of river we have already set up two separate wardens; one on my bank dealing with my fishery, and one on the other bank dealing with the other fishery. At the same time, on this stretch of water, there may well be salmon and there will, in effect, be a water bailiff appointed by the district salmon fishery board for that river who will have other powers on the same stretch of water. Therefore, there will in fact be three persons on one stretch of water, each with powers of stopping, interrogating and, in some cases, seizing the tackle of people who may be fishing on this stretch of water. I think that this situation requires to be dealt with.
The other thing that we have to remember is that the essence of this Bill is improvement, and in giving the support of these Benches to Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I was happy to be able to put our support behind an Amendment which assumed that the improvement of trout fishing, the improvement of fishing of all kinds in Scotland, was one of the principal objects of this Bill. I have always said—and repeated it often in your Lordships' House—that there is a great deal of water in Scotland that is already available to the general public, to anglers of all sorts, and what is needed is stability of management that would allow of its improvement. I look not so much to increased access to existing waters I think existing good waters are probably already heavily fished and may very well not be improved by further fishing, by further access—but
2054
to a great improvement of many acres and many miles of water in Scotland, capable of improvement by the application of the results of research and the results of known techniques in fishery management. I think that we shall greatly improve the quantity and the quality of fishing available in Scotland if we pass the right Bill into law at this stage.
With all these things in mind, I feel that there is a grave omission from this Bill; that is, any form of ongoing body which will look to the management of trout fishing after we bring them into protection under this Bill. Therefore, in an effort to fill this obvious gap, I have produced this Amendment. I am not alone in this. Indeed, if I were alone in this, you might well turn round and say that I was probably some sort of a nut case who would not be worth listening to. There were three Amendments asking for Area Boards when this Bill went through another place. One Amendment was put up by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. David Steel. One Amendment was put forward on behalf of the Scottish National Party; there was another Amendment put forward on behalf of a minority group within the Government's own Party, the Labour Party. Lord Kirkhill's honourable friend, Mr. Norman Buchan, said in another place that if these area boards were established—"as I hope they will be," he said; I see that the noble Lord is well aware of what his honourable friend said and has been told that he was in favour of these boards—among other things, the Hunter Report no longer sufficed.
Because of all these sincerely important considerations, I have drafted my proposed new clause and I will briefly take the Committee through its provisions because it is quite a large and meaty clause. The idea of the clause is that where a protection order is to be set up, it shall be obligatory on the Secretary of State to see whether he can set up an area fishery board within the area where the protection order is to be set up, and my new clause begins:
"The Secretary of State shall within two years of the passing of this Act give public notice of his intention to frame a scheme for the establishment of Area Fishery Boards…".

2055
That provision is included so that this matter shall not go by default where protection orders are being set up. I go on to suggest that he should consider the
"…suggestions made under subsection (1)…prepare and give notice of a draft scheme which shall include:
(a) a map showing the boundaries of the proposed areas"—
which is obvious
"(b) provisions relating to qualifications of electors, elections or other voting arrangements, composition, meetings, financing and accounts of Area Fishery Boards"—
which also is obvious, and
"(d) provisions relating to the circumstances in which fishing is made available under section 1(5) of this Act".
Obviously the two have to be tied together; we have to tie together the work of the area boards with the provisions of the protection order. Then we come to this important part of the new clause: he should include
(e) proposals concerning the procedures to be adopted by which the Area Fishery Boards on the one hand and the District Salmon Fishery Boards on the other will keep each other informed on matters of mutual interest".
There will be required a forum where salmon and trout fisheries can meet. Undoubtedly this will be required and, if it exists, it will be to the benefit of all anglers in Scotland and all anglers who visit Scotland. There is no doubt that accommodation can be made on the same river for trout and salmon anglers.
Equally, there is no doubt that difficulties arise between them and I will, if I may, take up a little of your Lordships' time by giving a case in point. When I formed the Thurso Angling Association on the first beat of the Thurso River I set up a local association with access to the general public through it to fish this stretch of water which flows through the town of Thurso. I thought in my innocence at that stage—this was many years ago and in those days I was to a certain extent innocent on these matters—that if I gave them the management of their own affairs within this beat they would be able to reconcile the interests of the salmon and trout fisheries within their ranks. When in fact I found that the salmon fishers in the association were much more restrictive than I was on trout fishers, to protect the interests
2056
of trout fishers I had to take the management of the association back into my own hands and leave the association in being simply to identify the resident anglers in the town of Thurso. I had to take it back to make sure that the people who wanted to fish for trout were allowed to fish for trout from the same water as the salmon fishers. There will, therefore, have to be positive steps made to reconcile these interests and I give this as an illustration of the need for an area of discussion between district salmon fishery boards and the new trout fishery boards, if we set them up.. Next I suggested that there should be
"(f) proposals concerning procedures to be adopted by which Area Fishery Boards shall report regularly to the Secretary of State…".
We are setting up a whole new Act of Parliament which will give protection to trout fisheries and we are going to set it up on one public inquiry and then expect it to last forever. I do not honestly believe that this will be so. Once we have set up protection areas there will need to be constant adjustment. Things will change—nature will change things for us whether or not we like it—and in fact we, by the improvements which I hope we shall adopt by the ways in which we shall improve our rivers, will, I hope, change the quality and quantity of fishing available in our rivers and lochs. Under these changing circumstances there must be a dialogue between the areas where there are protection orders and the Secretary of State so that he can responsibly carry out his rights and duties under the Bill to vary protection orders, indeed to do things which are not even adumbrated in the Bill, to encourage new ideas and to be kept fully aware and apprised of what is going on under these new protection order schemes.
It has been suggested to me that one of the difficulties about setting up these area boards is that it will require Government money. I really do not see how this will be necessary. We are told that by passing the Bill we shall turn the riparian ownership of trout fishings into heritable property. The moment these trout fishings become heritable property they will become rateable subjects, and the moment that happens local authorities, district and regional councils will want to rate them. They will, therefore, be assessed and there will be parameters

2057
by which one fishing can be compared with another. That already exists. Scottish district salmon fishery boards manage salmon fisheries, report to the Secretary of State for Scotland, are elected by triennial elections and represent the interests of owners of salmon fisheries.
These boards finance themselves and their operations out of money raised by rating against a valuation. When the sea fishings within salmon fishery district boards were derated, the assessors continued to rate the sea fishings so that district fishery boards could continue to raise rates on sea fishings and therefore raise a contribution from the commercial netsmen towards the running of the rivers, which are the geese that lay the commercial eggs for the commercial netsmen, and the assessments of the rod fishings within the river systems have continued to be rated and assessed for local authority purposes. But a totally separate rate—one could call it a subscription to the club—is raised by district fishery boards.
Such a board meets annually and considers its assessment and the monies which it will have to raise to meet its commitments and carry out its purposes, then rates the fisheries in its area, thus raising the necessary money. I do not believe that any of us has ever heard criticism of this method of running district fishery boards. I suggest that this would now be a good way of raising the necessary money to finance these boards. It would require no contribution whatever from public funds and it would only require a contribution from the owners of fisheries to run these boards.
Included in this new clause is a provision that the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, hold a local public inquiry in relation to the whole scheme or any part of it. Finally, after considering suggestions under subsection (1) and the results of any local inquiry, it is suggested that he may either confirm the scheme or confirm it with modifications which are, in his opinion, desirable. If we include this, I believe that we have a very good chance of providing something which will be a real step forward, not only in the sense of dealing with the improvement of Scotland's trout fishings but in terms of allowing us to move into the future. After all, it will one day be necessary to bring together the trout and
2058
salmon fishing interests in our fresh waters and to bring together such interests as water purification, water extraction and drainage in the same area. I feel that it would be advisable at this stage when we are giving statutory status to trout fishing for us to give also a status which at a later stage can form part of the mixture if we ever consolidate the legislation on all these various activities which take place upon our rivers and drainage areas.
It is for all these reasons that I recommend this new clause to your Lordships. I should like to re-emphasise that it is because I want to help the Bill and because I genuinely think that without machinery such as I propose the Bill will cause as many difficulties as it solves that I urge the Government to accept the new clause. I believe that the Bill requires machinery such as this in order to solve the problems which will inevitably arise from this radical piece of legislation in regard to trout fishing. I beg to move.
House resumed.

TRANSPORT REVIEW POLICY
3.54 p.m.
The PARLAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend. The Statement is as follows:
"We are publishing today a Consultation Document in two volumes, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office. It contains, I believe, a thorough, balanced—although still incomplete—examination of the major issues arising across the whole field of inland transport affairs. It covers the main modes of transport both public and private. The document represents the first stage of a comprehensive review: the first of its kind for 10 years. The review represents only the Government's preliminary consideration. Contrary to some assertions that have been made this is in fact a truly Consultative Document.
"It is, I believe, essential that we get our future policy right: for transport touches the interests of every

2059
citizen of the country and is of central importance to their daily lives. The next stage is therefore to consult a wide range of interests including transport industries and organisations, management and unions, local government and the public. Not until these consultations are concluded will it be possible for the Government to take a firmer view and to reach decisions on the future course of transport policy.
"The review was undertaken in order to take a fresh look at the major trends which have emerged during the past 10 years and the problems that have flowed from them. I refer particularly to the growing ownership and use of cars, the decline in the use of public transport, the impact of roads and vehicles on the environment, the energy situation and the growing calls of transport and other services on public expenditure.
"It is now generally accepted that the provision of transport cannot be left solely to market forces. What we have already and must continue to develop is a managed market, but one which takes stronger account of the economic, social and environmental objectives of our time.
"These objectives can be summarised as follows: first, we want an efficient transport system—one which gives value for money and makes the best use of skills and resources. Second, in the passenger field, we must provide reasonable mobility for the large minority of people who are and will remain without access to a car. In our view, the Government must accept responsibility for maintaining a strong public transport network—though we shall need to be flexible in the means by which it is provided. Third, we must give higher priority to enhancing both the urban and rural environment in which people live and protecting them against the ill-effects of transport noise, fumes and visual intrusion. Fourth, we must, within the context of these objectives, give the user of transport as much freedom of choice as possible coupled with improvement of standards.
"To achieve these objectives, we need a coherent, rigorous and on-going analysis of the various transport options
2060
that are available. This is essential if we are to establish the right priorities and make sensible decisions on the balance of transport expenditure as between, for example, road and rail, trains and buses, subsidies and investment. In this analysis, taxation—and other Government imposed costs—and subsidies will have to be considered together if we are to achieve sensible and equitable pricing policies for the different means of transport.
"There are many questions which the policy review provokes, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to just a few which seem to me to be of particular importance. First, there is the priority accorded in the document to the maintenance of adequate bus services; how is this to be done, and what is a reasonable balance between fares and subsidies? Second, rail. Let me assure the House that I have no bias in favour of either road or rail. Each mode of transport has its advantages and disadvantages and the public as well as most of us here in this House are users of both. The Government have no plans for railway line closures. Some may prove necessary in the future but I see no case for substantial—let alone massive—changes in our present rail network. I would certainly like to see more freight moved by rail where this is appropriate; but a massive switch from road to rail or the inland waterways does not, on the evidence available, seem attainable. The document does not propose to cut out passenger subsidies but recognises that open-ended subsidies for passenger services cannot continue. It also takes the view that permanent subsidies for freight whether by road or rail are not justified. The more that can be done to reduce costs, the less it will be necessary to increase fares and charges.
"There is also the sensitive question of further restraint on cars in congested urban areas. The document poses the possibilities of greater physical restriction and promises a separate Consultative Paper on control over private non-residential parking.
"The Consultative Document concludes by putting forward a proposal for a national transport council which will bring together the transport industries, management and trade

2061
unions, local government and consumers in a new high level organisation under Ministerial chairmanship. The proposed council would not be an executive agency but it would certainly not be a talking shop. It would be an authoritative body, fully capable of assisting the Government in keeping transport objectives under continuing and open review.
"Finally, a further word about the consultation procedure. I think it would be valuable to have a fairly extensive period of discussion and examination. We shall have to press ahead faster in some areas of policy than in others. In particular we shall need to reach a view about any changes in the pattern of transport expenditure in time for them to take effect in 1977–78. I have decided to extend the time for consultation beyond the mid-June deadline proposed in the document—until the end of July. I hope by then that those with a major interest in our transport system will have had an opportunity to send me or the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales their comments on the document. I hope to arrange for those interests to discuss the review with me or my fellow Ministers or with the Department. I hope too that it will be possible for this House to have an opportunity of debating transport policy before the Summer Recess, so that the Government can take account of the views of the House.
"Given the scope and importance of transport policy, discussions and conclusions will inevitably be an on-going affair. It will be my intention to make a further Statement to the House after the Summer Recess."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, all your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for repeating the Statement. I can truly say that it is a Statement which is possibly overdue, although I say this with no disrespect to the noble Baroness. We have had transport problems, involving petrol, roads, railways, and air travel, for a long time. We are very grateful that in this Government allotment, the Gov-
2062
enment have, at last, admitted that there is such a person as the private motorist. The private motor car owner has not been recognised for a long time in Government policy. We are pleased that in this Statement of Government policy it has at last been recognised that the motor car owner is a major person in charge of transport; far more so than airways and railways, in a way. The owner of a car is a chap who is paying very heavy taxes to the Government; indeed, he is paying his way in a very big way.
Having said that, let me not be niggardly in paying tribute to this Statement. I must confess that I would have preferred to have seen the Statement after having seen the document, but the document is to come after the Statement, so we have to accept what the noble Baroness says the document is about. It would have been more helpful to have had it the other way round. Nevertheless, we are grateful to have had the Statement.
The trends in the past 10 years, to which the noble Baroness referred, of the growing powers of private transport against Government public transport, have been so self-evident that I do not think that anybody can argue the matter. We on this side of our House, and our colleagues in the Commons, have been asking your Lordships, and honourable Members in the other House, to listen to us. We are not living in the past. The noble Baroness may like to think that these things are over and done with. But, quite honestly, transport today is just as important to the people in this country as it was in the days of donkeys and horses, and when one had to walk on one's bare feet.
As I have repeatedly said, noble Lords opposite have got the idea that transport is somehow a Government wished-on benefit, which is not necessarily available to all mankind. Most people own a car today, but public transport is there as a necessity for those who do not have motor cars. On this side of the House we totally accept that public transport must remain available, and to that extent we are very grateful for this document. The maintenance of adequate bus services is of the utmost importance. This subject has been considered by us many times, and we cannot but pay adequate thanks to the Government for their reiterated statements that this matter is to be looked after. If the noble Baroness

2063
can see that that is done, we shall be extremely glad.
We have not seen the document; we are talking about a Statement on a document. I think that I have now said quite enough. I have given my views, which I hope are adequately sensible, and I hope that when the document comes out I shall be able to say, "Thank you" for the Government's views.
4.8 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, we also wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. Is the noble Baroness aware that copies of the document are available in the Printed Paper Office, that we had no difficulty in obtaining them, and that we have already taken a considerable amount of time to examine them? Is the noble Baroness also aware that the time scale allowed for consultation on the document, notwithstanding the extension announced by the Secretary of State, is still wholly inadequate, bearing in mind that this document consists of no less than 80,000 words, which it has taken the Department eight months to prepare, while it is proposed to give the public only three and a half months in which to react? This is quite unfair on people who are expected to express the views which will be of assistance to the Government in arriving at their own conclusions.
Can the noble Baroness say how bodies which wish to make representations to the Secretary of State may do so? Will it be the policy of the Secretary of State, and other Ministers who are to meet these organisations, to group them together so that bodies with what the Secretary of State considers to be kindred interests will have to see him with their colleagues from other organisations; or will they be entitled to individual interviews? Is the noble Baroness aware that on a first reading it appears to us that this document is based on a passive acceptance of recent trends in traffic growth? At no point does it ask the question: what is the maximum level of various kinds of traffic that is tolerable in an overcrowded island like Britain?
Does the noble Baroness realise that far from agreeing with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, we think that
2064
too much account is taken of the needs of the motorist and that the needs of those who do not have cars are far too readily dismissed? This point can be seen by the fact that in the document there is no mention whatsoever of pedestrians, and there is a mere one paragraph devoted to the cyclist. Since I understand there is to be a debate on the matter shortly, may I ask the noble Baroness one further question? The proposed National Transport Council, she has told us, will include representatives of the trade unions, of consumers, of industry and so on. Will it also include people who are against the prevailing doctrine of economic growth and the growth in transport services which has to accompany it?
4.10 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, particularly, for answering the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for me on the point of the document being available. It is not unusual for a Statement to be made—and it was a fairly lengthy Statement—and for it then to be said that the document is available, because a Statement is not meant to take the place of a debate. But let me say immediately in answer to both noble Lords that there will be an opportunity in the middle of next month to debate the document itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, referred to our at last admitting that there was a private driver. I had assumed that this had been accepted by all Governments for a considerable time now; but it is perfectly true that in the last ten years there has been a great increase in car ownership. There was certainly no major transport review during the Conservative Administration of 1970 to 1974, so no doubt the noble Lord's Government did not think it was necessary at that time. We believe that this review is comprehensive. It certainly takes into account and deals with private as well as public transport. I think that I have covered most of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray.
Perhaps I may turn now to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I certainly do not agree for one moment that the time allowed is inadequate. It is not an enormously long document; and

2065
Volume 2 covers a great many explanatory points and figures. The whole point of the document, as was explained in the Statement which I read, is that it is a truly Consultative Document. It is not a Green Paper with a very strong and pointed Government viewpoint put forward. It raises a great many questions, flies a certain number of ideas and asks for comments. I do not accept that there is a passive acceptance of recent growth. What there is, my Lords, is an acceptance of the present facts of the situation and a discussion on how we are going to deal with the present situation taking into account economic considerations, social considerations and environmental considerations. The Paper most certainly deals very strongly with the case of those who will never have access to a car; and when the noble Lord has a chance to reread it more carefully (because I appreciate he has had very little time) I think he will see that the needs of such people are taken into account and that we make the point very strongly that there are many who will never have access to a car. This is the whole point of there being considerable discussion on what will be the best way to balance the different means of public transport and to distribute those between the various needs.
The question of pedestrians, I imagine, comes on the environmental side, because when one is talking about transport I suppose the noble Lord is here referring to the transport being one's own two legs; but maybe we ought to have a different Paper for that. As a recently converted cyclist, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord on his point about cycles. So far as the National Transport Council is concerned, I think these are early days to say what views people on it will represent, but my right honourable friend is certainly of the opinion that if the Council is to have some bite and is to have the influence which it is intended to have, then obviously it must be composed of people with differing views and knowledge.
I think the noble Lord's last point was accessibility and how consultation would take place. This is a matter which I personally have discussed with my right honourable friend. I pointed out to him—and he was in total agreement with me—that I hoped it would be made absolutely clear that not only should those
2066
concerned with the transport industry, whether on the side of management or on the side of the unions, be considered as being concerned, but also the consumers, the public and, indeed, the organisations which are concerned with pensioners and with disabled and blind people, who also have an interest both in the type of transport and in the question of fares. As to whether or not people should be grouped together, I am quite certain this will not be very difficult to sort out if organisations or individuals write in, either to the Department or to my right honourable friend, or to the Minister of Transport. Finally, I would merely repeat that this is an absolutely genuine attempt to get the maximum consultation. This is really whta we want. It is the only way in which a coherent and socially and environmentally acceptable transport policy can possibly evolve.
4.16 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we on this side of the House welcome, at long last, the Statement that she has presented today? It has certainly been a long time coming. Just glancing through it, one appreciates what my noble friend has said about this being a Consultative Document. Yet, if we look at the final chapter, Chapter 13, paragraphs 8 to 11, we find that the Government have taken a decision. That decision is to establish this National Transport Council, which appears to me to be an advisory body chaired by the Minister. But paragraph 8 says quite clearly:
"…the Government do not believe that setting up a new executive organisation, neither elected nor democratically accountable…".
In view of that very definite statement, it would appear that many of us who have views on a properly co-ordinated transport system are going to be subjected to an advisory council only; and I would ask my noble friend (though I suppose we shall eventually get to know) what exactly will be the powers of that advisory council. We do not want it to be like the Post Office Consultative Committee: we want something with some power in it.
My noble friend referred to the debate, which of course we shall all welcome. I would draw her attention to the fact that for a considerable period of time I have had on the Order Paper a Motion drawing attention to transport, particularly to

2067
railways, though one would like to extend that. Would it be proposed to take my Motion as the occasion for the debate, or are the Government prepared to give a day of their own time for the purpose of having this overall debate? The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said: "If we had only taken notice of the Tory Party policy on transport!" It is because we took notice of the Tory Party policy on transport that we have got into the mess that we are in today. The Marples-Beeching era is one of the factors responsible for the difficulties that we are experiencing at the present moment.
As I said earlier, this review is long overdue. This document is extremely interesting, and there has been opportunity to glance through it. It is extremely interesting to know that at long last we are given some figures so far as the subsidy is concerned, so that we can compare roads with railways. In the review, as we shall all see, the expenditure of £1,375 million a year on upkeep and maintenance and on new roads is most interesting, and some of us will have quite a lot to say about it. One questions some of the basis of what is there in the document regarding the pattern of transport and as to whether we are going to accept it as it is. One would hope in the future discussions that are going to take place that the whole question of the pattern of transport as a whole, and looking at transport as a whole, will be taken into consideration and not just its development as of now.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have now been 25 minutes on the Statement. May I remind your Lordships with all due deference that it is the convention of the House that questions only are asked following the Statement. There will be an opportunity for full debate as my noble friend has said. I suggest that we now move to other business as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to make a statement.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may a Backbencher on this side put a question? It was the noble Lord's noble friend who made rather a long statement. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she would put her attention to Volume 2 of the Consultative Document on the size
2068
of the EEC railways? It is on page 87. This is relevant to the question of greater efficiency and better maintenance and the question of the fare structure of our railways vis-à-vis the other railways of the EEC countries. Would she not agree, as is metnioned on page 81, that the French railways operate over the largest network in the Community which is 21,400 miles with a workforce of 283,000? And would she bear in mind that this country operates a route mileage of 11,500 with a work force of 230,000? Does she not feel too, regarding the fare structure, that, in effect, we have the highest route mile fare of all European Community countries?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has put a question which will take some time to discuss. I think that it is slightly simplistic to make direct comparisons in that way between France and this country. There are a great many other factors. I have the figures before me. I think this is something which ought to be raised in debate or in writing during the period of consultation. Although it was perhaps more of a speech than a question, I think I ought to take the opportunity of answering briefly the main points raised by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. The debate that will take place during the next month I understand, so long as it is agreed through the usual channels, will be the one in his name on the Order Paper. After what he said, I shall be the reluctant recipient of his comments.
I think I should say in regard to his point about the National Transport Council that they will have a powerful influence on all policy; they will monitor developments and commission research and will be doing something which he and many of his friends will, I feel, approve of. They will bring together, for the first time, unions and management as well as others in a body which will have a real influence over transport policy as a whole. So far as the proposed National Transport Planning Authority is concerned, it is true that in the consultation paper it states that the Government point out reasons why they find this not a particularly attractive proposal. But, nevertheless, as we already said, this is a consultation paper and even on this point the Government's mind is not completely closed.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the consultative document will cover the London bus service and whether the consumer of that increasingly indigestible morsel, the London bus, will have the opportunity of making his views known?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, most definitely so. The Consultative Document covers all inland transport in England, Scotland and Wales. It is certainly concerned with the bus service.
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether, as part of the process of consultation, they will make available as much information as they can regarding their estimate of which sections of the community gain the most from the existing subsidy for passenger rail services? Is the noble Baroness aware that I neither own nor drive a motor car, nor am I provided with one? I am dependent on public transport. Is she aware that a number of us in distant parts of the country feel concerned, at a time when the priorities in Government expenditure are all-important, at the, frankly, two-thirds empty trains on Inter-City services at certain times of the day and that giving information of the kind I have suggested is important as part of the consultative process?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether taxis are included in the document which I have not had the chance to look at? Taxis are important. Have they been brought into the whole scheme?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the taxi is relevant, as the noble Baroness will see when she reads the document. So far as the point about Inter-City trains and the empty periods are concerned, we are aware of that; and the noble Lord will see that this is mentioned in the Document. The trouble is that the trains are full with commuters in the morning and evening. Again, this is something on which it is important that there should be discussion and pooling of views.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I suggest that we now move on to the next business.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.26 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1976,

Statute Law Revision (Northern Ireland) Act 1976,

Damages (Scotland) Act 1976,

Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976,

Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
House again in Committee.
Lord KIRKHILL: I turn now from the abrasive world of transport to the gentle climes of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. I should like to confirm that I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's wish to see a system of area fishery boards set up in Scotland. This Government have indeed maintained that this must be one ultimate objective for the administration of inland fisheries as a national resource: though any system of area boards set up by us would be comprehensive in its cover. It would not be confined in its interest to freshwater fisheries, leaving salmon and sea trout to the present district boards to look after.
One of the main advantages of a comprehensive system of area boards is that it would administer both salmon and brown trout resources in the broad interests of the whole community in contrast to the present arrangements for district boards which were designed to manage the salmon and which represent the proprietors of salmon rights exclusively.
To go back to the general concept of area boards—but remembering what I have said about their comprehensive cover—much as the Government would like to see these brought into being, I do not have to remind this House that no Administration since 1965, when the Hunter Committee finally reported, has

2071
been able to find the Parliamentary time to introduce the lengthy and complicated piece of legislation which this would entail. This is not for want of trying on the part of this and previous Administrations. Unfortunately, however, more pressing matters have pre-empted the inevitably precious Parliamentary time.
It was with this very much in mind that the Government introduced this present and indeed small Bill. Its intention is specifically to increase the availability of trout fishing for the ordinary angler who has to rely on obtaining the permission of those who are riparian owners. The noble Viscount may doubt that riparian proprietors—and he touched upon this point—will be sufficiently interested to organise themselves properly and submit their own proposals. I have every respect for his knowledge of fisheries management—it is well known in Scotland—but I am advised that the carrot is probably juicy enough to persuade many proprietors to stir themselves, not only trout proprietors but—and perhaps this is more to the point—those who own waters with stocks of both salmon and trout.
Viscount THURSO: May I put one point right with the noble Lord? I do not think I ever said that I did not think that riparian owners would bestir themselves and seek the protection of this Bill once it becomes law; I am sure they will. I said that there is no provision in the Bill once it becomes law for any continuing on-going association of riparian owners, anglers or anybody else to see to the proper on-going implementation of any agreements reached.
Lord KIRKHILL: I have already indicated this afternoon that the Bill is really a first stage type Bill. I should have thought myself that the noble Viscount was somewhat pessimistic. My own view and that of the Government tends more towards optimism at that point. I suppose it is only fair to say that time will tell. I was going on to make the point that I consider, as do the Government, that many owners may still wish to seize this opportunity which is being offered to them, one which will close the door more securely against those who use trout fishing as a cloak for salmon poaching—not that my right
2072
honourable friend will be willing to meet their wishes unless he is fully satisfied that there is real benefit for trout anglers in their proposals. For the other side of the administration—the policing of the protected fishings and their management—we have decided that this can properly be left to the proprietors themselves. We are not proposing to nationalise them and would get little thanks if we tried to interfere with the income they will derive.
I should stress that the present Bill does not automatically extend protection to all parts of Scotland. The main action will wait until it is triggered off by proposals. For some areas these may come in straight away, long before the two years lapse permitted by this Amendment. For other areas proposals may not be made for many years to come. It is therefore out of balance to suggest that a uniform system of administration be imposed in two or three years' time. To have extended the Bill as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, would wish is, I am afraid, not within the realm of practical possibilities at this point in time. I regret, therefore, that while we in Government accept that sooner or later—and I think there is general agreement on this—and preferably sooner rather than later, the administration of Scottish inland fisheries needs to be completely reorganised, I cannot accept that this is the time to attempt so large a step towards that objective. Apart from the Parliamentary difficulties, I very much doubt whether the rates envisaged in the noble Viscount's Amendment would either be acceptable to many or suffice to meet the considerable costs involved which in my view would, like Topsy, inevitably grow and grow.
In any case, in the Government's view this Amendment is unusually imprecise when it comes to authorising the raising of the rates. Salmon fisheries are worth far more than trout, yet the Government still get complaints from district boards about their poverty and inability to finance their operations. The Government doubt very much whether trout boards, on the basis as envisaged by the noble Viscount, which would exist on very much smaller rates with a levy on trout proprietors, could be sustained. In the light of my remarks, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
4.35 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: We are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for having fully described his idea which he has put forward in this Amendment. Three or four questions arose in my mind while he was speaking. I should like to put them to him now, although he has given a wide description of his idea. He is proposing to add a fairly large "chunk" to the Bill. First, from what he said it sounded as though it was only in those areas where protection orders had been confirmed, and where protection was to be provided, that the Secretary of State would consider these area boards. If that is so, should this not be written in somewhere? So far as we can see, it is not in the new clause as drafted. Arising from that, can the noble Viscount give any indication of how much of Scotland is likely to be covered by protection orders within the next two years, the time in which the Secretary of State is due to put forward a scheme for area boards? I have no estimate, on the Government's proposals, how quickly proprietors are likely to put forward schemes. In a year and a half's time when the Secretary of State for Scotland would be considering this scheme, it could well be no areas will have come into existence where protection has been granted; a few might be under consideration. The two-year deadline needs to be related to the noble Viscount's expectations.
Another question is whether it is to be left to the Secretary of State to decide where it is appropriate that an area board should be set up. I see the noble Viscount is nodding his head; it appears that the answer to my first question is that it would be in protected areas. Is it left to the Secretary of State to decide, where it is appropriate, within protected areas where there are rivers or catchment areas, or large parts of them, which are protected or about to be protected? Some discretion is necessary and, if so, perhaps it ought to be written into the new clause. There could well be protected areas where it was not necessary or appropriate to have area boards of this kind, the persons concerned considering that it was not necessary to set up a scheme and finance it.
I should like to ask a question about composition. In the draft at present before
2074
us, the Secretary of State has to invite the public within eight weeks from the date of his notice to make suggestions as to the composition of the area fishery boards. Does that mean that they should make suggestions as to the representation of various interests, or does it mean that they are going to put forward the suggestion of individuals? I presume the former, but I think it ought to be clear what suggestions should come forward from the public. My understanding is that this new clause is similar to the proposals for the setting up of community councils. I see in the process of setting up community councils there could well be suggestions sought from the public as to the kind of representation that there should be, particularly if, as in that case, it is not to be an elected body.
From the Minister's reply, it sounded as though he was viewing the area boards as dealing with fish other than trout, whereas the noble Viscount, in putting forward his proposal, is putting this forward as trout area boards.
Lord KIRKHILL: If I might intervene, I was attempting to suggest that the Government in the long term envisage the creation of comprehensive area boards dealing with all species, but not at this time and certainly not an area board for brown trout at this time, as envisaged in the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: That clarifies it. I wanted it to be made absolutely clear that the noble Viscount is putting forward a proposal that at this stage there should be area boards for trout fishing only. As he has pointed out, in the future they could work with the existing fishery boards which deal with salmon and sea trout. Eventually, as the Minister has said, there could well be an amalgamation, but at this stage we are considering only boards for trout. As I see it, the advantages of this proposal are, first, that there would be co-ordination of trout management and of the fisheries in a large area. The noble Viscount gave the example of how the wardens to be appointed under the Bill would operate together. I am sure that noble Lords can think of other matters in the management of trout fisheries where coordination could take place.
The concept of area boards was one of the recommendations put forward by

2075
the Hunter Committee in page 94 onwards of their report. They, however, suggested that the area boards should cover salmon and sea trout as well as trout, and most of their duties were to be concerned with salmon. It may not be clear in the draft clause, but from what the noble Viscount said it seems to me that it would be left to the Secretary of State to do as much or as little as he thought appropriate in connection with this clause. Although he would be obliged within two years to put forward a scheme, it is left to him very much as to which parts of Scotland he thought appropriate. If that is so, this would make the suggestion rather more acceptable to the Government than the Minister's first reaction suggests but in that case it probably ought to be written into the new clause so as to be made quite clear.
At a later stage, there is provision for a public inquiry, if necessary, into the scheme which the Secretary of State has put forward. So to that extent, again, it will be a matter for the Secretary of State's discretion and something which he could take into account in putting forward his proposals. If these did not meet with enough local agreement in the area, he could withdraw the scheme. Therefore, given that this is a scheme where the Secretary of State has discretion to put forward proposals or not, as he sees fit, those proposals can be scrapped at a later stage if they do not meet with general approval in the area. Such an arrangement should not cause the Government as much trouble as the noble Lord has suggested. I think the clause ought certainly to have something like that written into it if that is to be the position. Another advantage, as has been pointed out, would be that no public expenditure is involved, and that is very important. These boards would be self-financing.
As regards the objections from the Government which have just been voiced by the noble Lord, he has said, as I understand it, that to set up area boards of this kind really comes within later legislation, which would have a much wider scope and would cover salmon and sea trout. Thus they would carry out most, if not all, the objectives of the Hunter Report. I know there has been difficulty in finding time to bring for-
2076
ward that kind of Bill. I can tell your Lordships that before I left the Office of Secretary of State for Scotland in March 1974, a long Bill was being drafted which would have covered all the subjects referred to in the Hunter Report. I was taking a personal interest in that Bill, and before that I issued a White Paper indicating my views on the main points.
I recognise, of course, that it is difficult to find time for a long Bill of that kind when there are other pressing subjects, but I wonder whether it is really necessary to wait. That is the real question: is it necessary to wait until we can deal with the whole subject before being able to add a clause of this kind, simply dealing with trout boards? That is something which the Minister so far has not made clear. So I would put to him: while I accept that this clause is not necessary for the Bill at present, would it be helpful and beneficial for area boards to be set up and indeed to be started at this stage, even though they will deal only with trout? Would this mean that other matters would have to be brought in?—because from what the noble Lord has said it would appear that he thinks this would raise other questions with which this Bill would have to deal. Therefore it would mean that the Bill would have to be a much longer Bill covering a wider area.
Can this matter, therefore, be dealt with in isolation? We should like to know more from the Government about this because, as the noble Lord said, the Government are well disposed towards the idea. What they are saying is that this is not the time to do it because this goes wider than the purposes of the present Bill and might raise subjects which ought to be dealt with in later legislation. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could elucidate that and tell us more about the complications. I do not think there is any difficulty about Parliamentary time as regards this new clause, but I accept that there is difficulty in the next two years or so in finding Parliamentary time for a 70-clause Bill dealing with all the other matters concerning the subjects raised in the Hunter Report.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I do not really favour this Amendment, although I agree with some of the suggestions contained in it. Area

2077
boards might be all very well in a few years, but the time of two years seems to me quite unrealistic. We might perhaps draw a parallel from the Act concerning the Countryside Commission. Under that Act, so far as I remember, landowners in Scotland could apply to their county council—though my memory may be at fault—to declare their land a closed area at certain seasons of the year, such as during the lambing season, and at other times for a specific purpose on condition that those areas were declared "open" for the remaining period. So far as I am aware, very few landowners have taken advantage of this, and therefore I feel it could be quite a long time, and certainly more than two years, before the majority of owners of trout fishing rights apply to the Secretary of State for a protection order. I do not like speaking against the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I feel that this period of two years does rather damn it.
Lord BURTON: There seems to be a great deal of agreement so far today, and there was also agreement over what was said in another place. The biggest flaw in the proposals of the noble Viscount is that there would still be two bodies administering the same piece of water. I was very pleased to hear the Government's view that an overall board was required. There are many areas where there is no existing fishery board and I feel the Government are making very heavy weather over what appears to be a largely non-controversial matter. If the Bill goes through as it stands at present, I am sure there will be chaos. Various people will be doing one thing and others will want to do something else. Fishing is a very important asset, and I hope that subsequent legislation will not come too late. It would appear that all Parties agree on the need for area boards and thus we should be dealing with non-controversial legislation.
Could the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, see whether something might be done to introduce a small Bill here in the next Session to deal with this matter? Your Lordships' Chamber is the ideal place for introducing matters leading to the general good without too much political background. I would hope that if we started something in this Chamber it might get
2078
through fairly comfortably in the next Session.
4.50 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: We must be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for this addendum to our Committee, which would otherwise have petered out half an hour or more ago. If he has elicited from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, an assurance that there will eventually be legislation for a comprehensive board, it is the sense of the Chamber that that should come in the end. However, I very much doubt whether legislation to this effect will ever be brought forward in this House. Long as we have debated this Amendment to this small Bill, it is as nothing to the time and prolixity with which it will be debated in the Scottish Assembly.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: I have not hitherto intruded into the discussions on this Bill and it may be that I am speaking out of turn at this stage, but I am induced to do so because of words used by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. He spoke of the need to reconcile the interests of various bodies of people. Your Lordships will recall that it was the late right honourable gentleman Tom Johnson who set up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and in doing so he had to increase very largely the amount of water which was available for people to fish on and for other purposes. He was absolutely horrified, because he wanted the fishing to be available for the local population and the tourist industry, and what did he find? He found that at the weekends, and at most other periods, buses crammed full of people from the industrial area of Scotland arrived, they lined up their backs two or three paces apart, and the result would have been, and probably has been, that there was no fishing for anyone else and all the fish departed elsewhere. When we are thinking of the interests of different people, I hope that we are keeping in mind the local population and are not allowing them to be completely deprived of a sport which—subject to the approval of the people concerned—has been theirs for many generations past. I hope that that is being paid attention to, and that the local population will not be deprived of the fishing which they enjoy at the present time.
Lord HOY: There are just one or two points which I wish to raise, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the noble Viscount introduced this Amendment very thoroughly. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said that the noble Viscount has had an assurance from the Minister that this is the first step, and eventually there will be legislation which goes much further. But the noble Viscount is trying to introduce into this Bill another Bill of a much larger kind. Indeed, the provision with regard to the supervision and training of wardens would extend the present Bill, because under Clause 2 the owners of the property will have the right to nominate wardens. They will carry out the supervision of these wardens. If certain duties of the Secretary of State for Scotland are to be superimposed, then, as a consequence, money will be involved for both training and paying wardens and I should like to know who will provide it. The Amendment provides for raising money, but there is no indication of how it will be found or of the amount.
I can understand what the noble Viscount is driving at in regard to the elections of the boards, but they will have to pay for all these services. Paragraph (h) of the Amendment states:
"such other information as, in the opinon of the Secretary of State, would help the public to make a reasonable appraisal of the scheme".
It is very difficult to think of a Minister who could give information which would help to make a reasonable appraisal in regard to fishing. Perhaps it could be done in the case of other subjects, but I do not know whether it could be done here. Then the noble Viscount used the words, "The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit". Of course, if the Secretary of State does not think fit he does not need to do anything. So while I appreciate what the noble Viscount has been attempting to do, this Amendment will not stand investigation in its present form. So with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, agreeing that we have had an assurance from the Minister of State in regard to further legislation in connection with this problem, perhaps we should be grateful that we have at least got that assurance out of the debate on the Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps I may intervene in this debate for the last time, to say that the Government are gratified at, the very generous support which this Bill has been given by your Lordships and somewhat surprised to find what they consider to be a measure of carping criticism upon a Bill which, for the first time, has begun to open the door to some kind of comprehensive assessment of the brown trout angling problem in Scotland. Indeed, the only intention behind the Bill is to increase the availability of brown trout fishing in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me whether I thought the Government could take on board the essence of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because he did not think that would greatly enlarge the scope of the Bill, nor did he think it would lead to a considerable increase in Parliamentary time. The reason why the Government will not be able to accede to that request is that they consider—and they dispute with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on this point—that if these boards were created they would hardly be self-supporting. Thus the kind of provision contained in his additional clause would not cover the point as it was debated in Parliament. The Government consider that, eventually, public money would be involved. For that reason they consider that, as and when that was possible, further legislation would be necessary.
I have to emphasise that, while I indicated earlier that the Government would in the long term hope to deal with this matter comprehensively, at this time they do not see the need to create an additional area board. There is a divergence of view between the Government on the one side and the noble Viscount on the other, and from the Government's point of view it is a divergence which cannot be resolved by any Government move from their previously announced position.
Viscount THURSO: The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is quite right; there is indeed a divergence of view. If I may deal with some of the points that have been raised, I can show how my view still diverges from that of the Government. First, the noble Lord, Lord

2081
Kirkhill, said that Scottish district salmon fishery boards are constantly making to him, or to the Secretary of State, claims of poverty. But I can assure him that he has never had a claim of poverty from the Thurso district salmon fishery board, nor—
Lord KIRKHILL: If we are to debate this matter with continuing seriousness, I must intervene to say that I never at any time mentioned the Thurso board.
Viscount THURSO: No, but the noble Lord said that there were frequent claims of poverty and I can assure him that there is one board of which I have knowledge which has never made a claim of poverty. Nor, to my knowledge, has any Scottish district salmon fishery board, no matter of what size, suffered from inability to carry out its duties due to poverty.
Lord BURTON: May I interrupt the noble Viscount. We held our fishery board meeting only last week, and as we were in considerable financial difficulties we had to fix a rate of £1·80 which is very high indeed. I do not think that we can accept what the noble Viscount has said about this matter.
Viscount THURSO: The noble Lord may be in difficulty in that his rate is £1·80, but my experience is that it is rare for any district board to be in such difficulty. However, I do not make this as a carping criticism; I am trying sincerely to make a constructive addition to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked how many areas are likely within the next two years to seek protection under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I think that a very large part of Scotland will quickly seek protection under this Bill when it becomes an Act because, as the noble Lord pointed out, it does not take many people to ask for it. It wants only one or two people within an area to see an advantage to themselves to make the initial request.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether the noble Viscount would give way. I am very grateful to him for his estimate, but I was referring to the completion of the procedures. I do not think it would be enough just to take into account that some applications had come in by ones or twos. I asked
2082
how much of Scotland the noble Lord thought would be covered by protection orders in two years' time, or in a year and a half when the Secretary of State would have to consider the scheme.
Viscount THURSO: Obviously this is a fair question and one about which, without a crystal ball, I cannot have any knowledge. However, I estimate that the response to the Bill will be fairly immediate and that a very large number of fishery areas will fairly quickly seek protection under the Bill. I am only too ready to admit that any Amendment of this size is bound to be imperfect in certain respects and that even if your Lordships' Committee were to agree to this Amendment as it now stands being added to the Bill, at a later stage of the discussion it might be necessary to modify it. No doubt this would improve certain parts of it, but the main structure of the Amendment, as I suggested, still commends itself to my mind and I still think that it would be an improvement as well as an addition to the Bill. The fact that it has been admitted that area boards will be necessary shows that at this stage we ought to start to include them in the structure of the control of trout as well as salmon fishing. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that we want an overall board, but it is also quite clear that if at this stage one went for an overall board it would be a massive operation. Because we have a board for water purification and because we have a board for salmon, when bringing in legislation for the protection of trout we ought also to have a board to cover the problems connected with trout.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, raised the question of supervision and the training of wardens and suggested that public money would be necessary for this purpose. In fact, public money is not used for the purpose of supervising and training water bailiffs on salmon rivers. It would be the board acting as a focus which would help to provide the necessary supervision and training instead of each warden being separately appointed by a separate riparian owner and separately supervised and trained by him. For that reason, I think it is perfectly possible for the boards to supervise and train wardens.
Lord HOY: The noble Viscount is wrong about this. Wardens are not appointed by the boards. Clause 2 makes it perfectly clear that
"…the Secretary of State may appoint as wardens such persons as he thinks fit from persons nominated to him by or on behalf of an owner of land."
Therefore, it is not the owner who makes the appointment. The owner merely submits a list and the Secretary of State makes the appointment.
Viscount THURSO: That is quite true, and exactly what I understood and read out of the Bill; but thereafter the owner supervises and trains the warden. The Secretary of State does not exercise that function; there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that he supervises the activities of wardens. The Secretary of State can appoint the wardens, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to say that he pays them, or that he looks after their day-to-day activities, or that he tells them how to do their job. We do not need to go into this question much further, but can stand upon what is written in the Bill. It is perfectly clear that wardens obtain their certificate from the Secretary of State and their orders from their boss.
Despite all that has been said. I still think that it is a matter of great importance to include in the Bill an Amendment such as this. If we were to pass this Amendment, I am perfectly prepared for the fact that at a later stage it might require to be further amended; but it is a grave omission from the Bill and I think that we would not be serving as we should the anglers or, indeed, the trout fisheries of Scotland if we were not to press it.
I am not alone in saying this. I have here a letter from the President of the Scottish Anglers' Association supporting me on the stand which I took on this matter during the Second Reading of the Bill. We have already heard in the House many expressions of opinion that area boards will eventually be needed. I am still of the same opinion as I was when I put down this Amendment and I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment as it stands in the Marshalled List of Amendments.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: When the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, spoke about there having been carping criticism
2084
of the Bill during the course of the debate on this new clause, I hope he was not including me, because in its amended form the Bill is a very limited measure. I hope that I made it clear that certainly I am not carping. And neither the noble Lord nor I are unwittingly making a fishing pun.
Lord KIRKHILL: I fully accept the noble Lord's assurance. It is known to us all that indeed he himself did not carp.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: So far as I am concerned, the Amendments which have been made to the Bill today make very necessary improvements, but quite clearly there is a difference of view between the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the Government on the question of money. One of the advantages of this new clause that has been held out to us is that the new trout boards will be financially self-supporting. That the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, disputes; he thinks that they would soon be in difficulties. From the debate that has taken place and also from what the noble Viscount has said it is clear that in its present form the new clause is by no means perfect. I had hoped that the noble Viscount would answer my two questions. I think he answered by nodding to the point that the scheme put forward by the Secretary of State would cover only the areas where protection orders were provided.
Viscount THURSO: I do think that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The other point was whether it would be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether it was appropriate to have boards within those areas; that it was still within his discretion to decide that an area did not need a trout board.
Viscount THURSO: It is of course conceivable that a very small area would not require a board.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Again, this is a matter where it ought to be clear in the new clause. It is by no means perfect in its drafting. My other question was what was meant by the word "composition"; whether the Secretary of State would be seeking advice from the public on the representation of various interests. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would care to answer that point.
Viscount THURSO: I can answer that straight away. Obviously in composition we have these mythical people who are interested in fishing but who cannot be identified, and it may be well to give them an opportunity to voice their opinion.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. There are clearly differences of opinion which have come out in this debate from different parts of the Committee, including some of my noble friends behind me who have criticised parts of the new clause. For example, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard spoke on the question of the two year limitation. If I may summarise the position as I see it, I think all of us in this Committee are in favour of the idea and where Scotland is concerned we should like to press ahead towards area boards of the kind recommended by the Hunter Committee. The Government are telling us that it would be inappropriate to try to put this into the Bill because it would be taking on something much too big. Personally, I should have thought it better not to press this Amendment at this time in view of the difficulties which have been raised during the course of this debate. I was much attracted to the idea of setting up trout area hoards, as I think other noble Lords have been, but it is clear that the new clause itself is defective in various ways and ought to be improved.
If I understand the noble Viscount correctly, he is suggesting that the Committee should none the less press this Amendment into the Bill and then make improvements later. I cannot personally recommend that as a good procedure. I think it would be better to get it right first. I find it difficult to advise my noble friends exactly what to do on this Amendment if it is pressed, because I am in favour of the idea in general. However, there are defective parts in the new clause and if it were to remain as it is I do not think it would be satisfactory. It could only go into the Bill on the basis that it was going to be amended, in which case the Government's co-operation would be needed. I do not know what
the noble Viscount thinks about that, on the basis that he himself accepts that at present it is not in a satisfactory state.
Viscount THURSO: Perhaps I may come back to this and ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether there is any possibility that we could reach agreement along these lines so that we could perhaps agree something which could be included in the Bill. I still think that, in spite of the flaws that may exist in the Amendment I have tabled, there is a wide consensus of opinion that something of this sort is necessary and I think the debate today has shown that these area boards could be provided without the provision of public money and they could provide a useful service. If the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, can give me any hope that he will discuss the possibility of this being considered for inclusion in this Bill at a later stage, or of there being any real commitment for a governing body to look after these problems, which are not looked after in the Bill, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise I feel it is important, on behalf of the trout fishing fraternity, to press this Amendment as far as I can.
Lord KIRKHILL: I think I have already made the Government's position clear. The Government do not think that this Bill is the correct vehicle upon which to extend the concept of area boards, and in particular an area board which would have as its principal interest the protection of the increase in availability of the fishing for brown trout in Scotland. In addition, the Government are sensitive, and are aware of decisions taken in the other place.
Viscount THURSO: In that case I really have no alternative. I have had a complete turn-down from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill; he is not prepared to discuss any modification of this at all and therefore I must press the Amendment.
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Avebury, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Amulree, L.

Banks, L.

Burton, L.

Arran, E.

Barrington, V.

Daventry, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Kimberley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Simon, V.

Gridley, L.

Meston, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peddie, L.

Bradwell, L.

Hayter, L.

Phillips, B.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Strathspey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Willis, L.

Feather, L.

Mais, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Melchett, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.24 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: On Clause 2, I should like to draw attention to the new kind of warden being appointed by the Secretary of State upon nomination. The question has been discussed in another place, and it has been pointed out that under existing legislation, already there are water bailiffs who are dealing with salmon and sea trout. In some cases, it is likely that the same people, although water bailiffs, will also be appointed trout wardens. It seems a pity that more co-ordination is not set out in the Bill, because there could be considerable conflict between the powers which the wardens have, which are very limited, and the powers which the water bailiffs already possess. I do not know whether the Government would like this opportunity of saying any more on this question on which there was so much discussion in another place.
Lord KIRKHILL: As regards the powers of the wardens, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just referred, I can explain the position. These powers are considerably less extensive than those of water bailiffs. The offences against the provisions of this Bill are not of the same gravity as those
2088
against the provisions of the 1951 Act. In particular, no powers of search or arrest are provided. The powers of wardens are, first, to inquire as to the legal right or written permission of any person to fish for freshwater fish in any relevant waters and to require that person to give written evidence of such right or permission within 14 days; and, secondly, to seize any instrument or article used, or calculated to be of use, in committing an offence in terms of a protection order, provided the warden has reasonable cause to suspect that such an offence has been committeed. No powers are given to search persons, their belongings or vehicles. The offences under the Bill are not considered serious enough to merit this being authorised, nor for the seizure of vehicles—which could, moreover, affect persons in no way connected with an offence. Regarding seizure in general, Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 empowers the courts to order forfeiture of articles used in the commission of an offence, so your Lordships will sec from these remarks that the powers of the wardens are substantially less than those of the bailiffs.
Viscount THURSO: How is a warden supposed to seize something he suspects someone to be holding if he is not empowered to search that person for the thing that he suspects?
Lord KIRKHILL: I am sorry, I will have to ask the noble Viscount, Lord

2089
Thurso, to repeat that question. I regard it as a tortuous legalism.
Viscount THURSO: How is a warden supposed to seize an illegal article of tackle that he suspects to be in the possession of somebody whom he conceives to be committing an offence, if he has no power to search that person?
Lord KIRKHILL: He can seize the tackle, provided he considers he has reasonable cause to suspect an offence.
Viscount THURSO: But he is not allowed to search to find it?
Lord KIRKHILL: Presumably he can grasp it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble Viscount's question was a very good one. It was not tortuous. It is in fact the bull point on this clause. I do not wish to go over all the ground again because it was much discussed in another place, but the fact is that if the tackle is concealed upon the person of an angler, or is in the boot of a car, or something of the sort, it is clear that the warden will not be able to do anything about it. It is only if it is out in the open, and the person is caught in the act of illegal fishing, that the warden can take action. This is one of the great differences between the position of these new wardens and the water bailiffs who already operate on the rivers. This could cause considerable confusion.
When it is the same man, he will be able to search if he suspects the angler of fishing for salmon or sea trout; but if he is acting in his capacity of a trout warden, he will not have the right of search, and if the illegal fishing tackle is concealed somewhere, the illegal angler will be able to depart without any action being taken against him.
Lord KIRKHILL: May I say that mine had been a simplistic reaction to the earlier question of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I thought that when Citizen Kane, if we can so call him, is wearing his warden's hat, he will seize the rod, or any other piece of equipment, provided he sees it.
Viscount THURSO: I should explain that through binoculars you can easily see things from a mile away on a very open bank of a river; but by the time
2090
you have got there, the thing you have seen is then concealed. But if you have no right of search, you cannot prove your point. You would simply have to pick the man's pocket.
Lord KIRKHILL: I fully accept that the warden is not entitled then to rifle the man's pockets.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions as to making, variation and revocation of protection orders]:
Viscount THURSO had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 29, after ("may") insert (", after consultation with the Area Fishery Board within which the protection order would apply,").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 would have been consequential if my previous Amendment, No. 9, to put in a new clause, had in fact succeeded. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships' permission not to move these three Amendments.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
5.32 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the Social Security and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 be approved. It was laid before the House on 23rd March and has been made by urgent procedure without a draft having been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. If it is to continue to have effect the order must now be approved.
The Education (School-Leaving Dates) Act 1976 provides that the summer school-leaving in England and Wales will be brought forward to the Friday before the

2091
last Monday in May. In Northern Ireland it is intended to make a similar change. The Northern Ireland Department of Education is able to provide for the change by subordinate legislation. The change in the school-leaving date necessitates certain changes in social security and family allowance provisions. These changes have already been made in Great Britain by the Education (School-Leaving Dates) Act 1976, and this order enacts similar provision for Northern Ireland and thus maintains the principle of parity in the cash social services. Since April 1975 the Board of Inland Revenue has been responsible for the collection of social security contributions along with PAYE. Because of the social security implications for the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, and more importantly because of the direct involvement of the Board of Inland Revenue in the contribution collection procedures which must operate from the beginning of a tax year, in this instance 6th April last, the order has been made under the urgent procedure.
The Employment Protection Act 1975 amends the social security legislation in Great Britain by restricting the scope of the trade dispute disqualification for unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit to persons who are participating or are directly interested in the trade dispute concerned. The order also makes a corresponding Amendment for Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, concerned with providing for Northern Ireland social secuity legislation similar to that enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom in the Education (School-Leaving Dates) Act 1976 and the Employment Protection Act 1975.
It is a short order consisting of 6 Articles. It might be helpful if I explained the general effect of each Article. Articles 1 and 2 relate to title, commencement and interpretation of the order. Article 3(1) deals with entry to the social security scheme. It amends the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 so that the earliest date from which a person can be liable to pay social security contributions will be his 16th birthday. This does not change the existing arrangements whereby a young person who takes up employment before he is 16 does not have
2092
to pay contributions until he attains that age.
Article 3(2) relates to injury benefit and provides that for the purposes of entitlement to that benefit the existing definition of school-leaving age shall apply. When family allowances are replaced by child benefit under the Child Benefit Order age 16 will be substituted for school-leaving age. Article 4 amends the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 and the Supplementary Benefits Etc. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. It follows Section 111 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, and limits the class of persons who are disqualified for unemployment benefit or whose personal requirements are to be disregarded for the purposes of suppplementary benefit in consequence of a trade dispute to those who are participating in or directly interested in the dispute.
Article 5 enables provision to be made for the continued payment of family allowances in respect of children notwithstanding that they may have attained school-leaving age. Awards of family allowances and related child dependency benefit will remain in payment to a date to be fixed by regulation. This Article corresponds to Section 2(1) of the Education (School-Leaving Dates) Act. Article 6 contains provisions of a supplemental nature. I hope that this brief explanation will give noble Lords an adequate outline of the substance of the order. As I mentioned earlier it maintains the principle of parity between cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. I commend the order to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Social Security and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 23rd March, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

ANIMALS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
5.38 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st April 1976 be approved. In 1971 the Animals Act

2093
became law, and extended to England and Wales. That Act was designed to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission's Report on Civil Liability for Animals, issued in October 1967. The Law Commission recommended the imposition of strict liability in respect of damage done by animals belonging to a dangerous species or known to their keepers to have dangerous propensities, as well as liability for damage done by animals straying from unenclosed land on to the public road.
This Order in Council corresponds to that Act. It does not codify the law on civil liability for animals; much of the law rests on general bases of liability, like the law of negligence, the liability of an occupier for the safe condition of his premises or the law of nuisance. These remain unaffected except that there will no longer be any exception from the normal liability in negligence where an animal is allowed to wander onto the public road.
I would now turn your Lordships' attention to an Article by Article description of the order and what it does. Article 1 gives the order its short title and states that it will come into operation on 1st January 1977. This will leave adequate time to enable farmers, owners of animals and members of the legal profession to acquaint themselves with the new laws and to safeguard their interests. Farmers, for instance, will probably wish to consider the question of insurance and the erection or strengthening of fencing and gates. Article 2 defines expressions used, particularly in Articles 4 to 6 and Article 8, as well as dealing with the general interpretation of words used throughout the order. I consider that a key definition is "dangerous species", but you will notice that the word "animal" is not defined. This is because it is hoped that the order will have the widest possible application in relation to every creature that can in ordinary language be referred to as an animal. This would include fish, birds, reptiles and insects, as well as mammals, but would not include bacteria, viruses and other organisms of a similar kind, as different considerations apply to the keeping of bacteria than to the keeping of animals, and the word "keeper" would not be appropriate.
2094
Article 3 introduces the rules in strict liability for damage done by animals which are set out in Articles 4 to 6, and specifies the rules and provisions of the existing law which are to be replaced by them. The effect of this Article in conjunction with the ensuing Articles is therefore to abrogate or repeal (a) the common law on liability for dangerous wild animals and other animals known to have vicious or mischievous propensities, (b) the common law rules on liability for damage done by cattle straying onto neighbouring land, and (c) the statutory provisions regarding civil liability for injury done by dogs to cattle and poultry.
Article 4 imposes liability irrespective of negligence for damage done by animals which belong to a dangerous species, or by animals which do not belong to a dangerous species but have dangerous characteristics known to their keeper. Unsatisfactory features of the present law, such as the test whether an animal is wild or domesticated, which may be determined by reference to circumstances prevailing outside the United Kingdom, are remedied by this Article. Article 5 imposes strict liability for damage to land or other property done by straying livestock. This liability replaces the existing liability for cattle trespass. Strict liability facilitates the settlement of day-to-day disputes over straying livestock without recourse to litigation.
Article 6 sets out the exemptions from the strict liability imposed by Articles 4 and 5. The list is exhaustive, and leaves no scope for the operation of any common law rules on exemption from liability. The uncertainties and anomalies of the present law about the availability of various defences are thus removed, and clear and simple principles established. There is nothing in the order to prevent a person from contracting out of strict liability.
Article 7 abolishes the exception which exempts persons from liability for negligence in respect of damage caused by animals straying onto the public road and lays down certain guidelines for the courts in determining whether there has been negligence in allowing an animal to stray. Apart from the strict liability for animals which has been dealt with in the preceding Articles, the keeper of an

2095
animal is under a general duty to take care that his animal does not act in such a way as is likely to injure other people or their property; that is, the general liability in negligence which attaches to every person's conduct and his use or control of things he owns or possesses. However, there is an exception to this general rule in its application to the control of animals. There is no duty to take care to prevent one's animals causing damage by straying on to the public road. Paragraph (1) of this Article now abolishes this rule. Article 8 lays down the new rule of strict liability for injury caused by dogs to livestock which replaces that under the Dogs Act 1906 and the Dogs Act (Northern Ireland) 1960. It provides for civil liability and a summary procedure for recovering the damage caused when a dog worries livestock on any land.
Article 9 gives the occupier of land on to which livestock has strayed the right to detain them, even if he knows who the owner is. The occupier must give notice to the police within 24 hours, and to the person to whom the livestock belongs, if he is known. If no steps have been taken to reclaim the livestock within 14 days it may be sold at a market or public auction. The detainer may then reimburse himself out of the proceeds and the rest will be returnable to the person who owned the livestock. The object of this Article is to provide a speedy remedy by self-help, while making it subject to certain safeguards.
Article 10 amends and consolidates Section 58(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justices Act (Northern Ireland) 1935. That section amended Section 19 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851, which empowered the police to put any animal found wandering on public roads into a pound. This, however, caused considerable difficulty as there were practically no pounds in Northern Ireland. Section 58(1) of the 1935 Act provided an alternative remedy. Section 19 of the 1851 Act, and Section 58(1) of the 1935 Act are repealed by Article 14 and the Schedule to this order. This Article will preserve the remedy under Section 58(1) in a more modern form of words.
Article 11 amends and re-enacts in modern form the penal provisions of
2096
Section 19 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851 and Section 58(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935. As pounds are now obsolete this Article makes it an offence to take any livestock or an animal out of the custody or control of any person entitled to detain it by virtue of Articles 9 or 10 of this order, or to prevent such a person taking it into his custody or control.
Article 12 ensures that the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Acts (Northern Ireland) 1846 to 1959, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 and the Limitation Acts (Northern Ireland) 1958 and 1964 apply to liability arising under Articles 4, 5 and 8. Article 13 applies the order to the Crown, and Article 14 introduces the Schedule of these enactments, including some which have become obsolete or unnecessary, which are to be repealed. My Lords, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the draft Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 1st April, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)

ENERGY BILL [H.L.]
5.46 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Administration, enforcement and offences]:
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 32B:
Page 14, line 9, after ("Act") insert ("save that in the event of any conflict between such Community obligation and any order or direction made or given under the remaining provisions of this Act no offence shall be deemed to have been committed by any person acting

2097
in compliance with any such order or direction").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical and legal Amendment, and essentially one to find out the Government's reaction. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the possibility of anyone directed or ordered by the Secretary of State to do certain things being then prosecuted by the Secretary of State for a breach of a Community obligation. Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out certain EEC regulations on energy which are directly applicable in the United Kingdom, and the Bill makes breaches of these regulations punishable as an offence under the Bill; that is to say, it makes it an offence in respect of which proceedings can be taken by the Secretary of State. However, the regulations I have referred to all relate to information which must be given to the Commission, and the Secretary of State has power to add new ones.
I am advised that it is a matter of Community law that no particular act of United Kingdom legislation is required to make future regulations automatically form part of the United Kingdom law, and a breach of these new regulations would almost certainly be made an offence under the present Act. Therefore, there seems to be a need for some provision which would eliminate the possibility of contradictory obligations. In other words, what we are saying is that a company, or person, must not be put in the rather absurd and anomalous position whereby if they obey the Secretary of State they must be prosecuted by that same Secretary of State for disobedience to the Community regulations. That would be a manifestly absurd situation. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My task in dealing with the Amendment is not so much to argue against it or to say why it is not acceptable as to demonstrate that it is misconceived and that, in any case, the concern which the noble Lord has expressed is unfounded. It seems to be assumed that there could be conflict between the obligations a person may need to fulfil under the EEC Council Regulations in Schedule 3 and those under orders or directions made under other parts of the Bill. I must make the legal position clear. If there were such
2098
a conflict, Community law would prevail, and any order or direction in question would be of doubtful validity to the extent that conflict existed. The Amendment is therefore based on a misunderstanding and would be contrary to our obligation to implement Community law.
However, I might add that we do not see such conflict happening in practice. In particular, those EEC Regulations specified in Schedule 3, which for the foreseeable future will be the only relevant ones, relate simply to the provision of information, largely statistical, required for Community purposes in the energy field. It is difficult to imagine any orders or directions given under the Bill to any person which could contradict or conflict with the requirements of these EEC Regulations. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that Schedule 3 was open-ended and that other EEC Regulations could be added in the future which might conceivably conflict with the use of other powers in the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will keep a very careful watch on possible difficulties of this sort. Directly applicable legislation of this kind proposed by the Commission is always considered particularly fully by EEC Member States, and all its implications weighed very carefully indeed before being accepted. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am perfectly disposed to withdraw the Amendment, especially as the Minister has given all kinds of assurances. I must, however, ask him a question which he may not be able to answer now. The advice I have is that the Secretary of State has power to add to these regulations. The danger to which we are addressing ourselves is if the Secretary of State inadvertently got himself into the position where his regulations could be at variance with EEC regulations and some other individual could be the sufferer. It may be that the best thing we could do is to leave this matter until later if the noble Lord is now unable to answer that question.
Lord KIRKHILL: I said in my earlier remarks that in any position the Government can foresee at this stage, Community law must prevail, and Community law is paramount.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am not a lawyer and I do not think the noble Lord is, either, so we are obviously wasting the Committee's time if we pursue the matter now. Let us have a look at it, and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 32C:
Page 14, line 33, after ("committed") insert ("when an Order in Council under section 3(1) is in force").
The noble Lord said: Here again we are probing into legalities and I hope that we will not get into difficulties. The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid the possibility of individuals being prosecuted for offences under the Bill or, rather, to narrow the circumstances under which that could happen. This is based on the proposition that the whole Bill is directed to a comparatively narrow sector of industry which appears to have been singled out for rather special treatment. Most of the companies concerned are, by their very nature, rather large and corporately run organisations. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that most of the decisions will be taken in a corporate fashion; that is, they will be cabinet-type decisions. It seems a little hard that it would be possible to pursue individuals for taking decisions which may have been taken as a result of a corporate decision by their company, and the Amendment seeks to limit the circumstances under which this situation could arise.
Lord KIRKHILL: There might be a slight divergence between our positions as to how we see the effect of the Amendment as it pertains to the Bill. I am advised that the common form provisions of Clause 16 (4) are intended to apply across the whole range of offences under the Bill. Similar references to a body corporate and its officers may be found in numerous Statutes (for example in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975, Section 38(3)). Offences both during an emergency—that is, when an Order in Council is in force under Clause 3(1)—as well as in normal times would be included. Without proper sanctions, the Bill would be unenforceable. An example of the application of the Clause 16(4) provision in both crisis and non-
2100
crisis situations would be, for example, offences against the stocking provisions in Clauses 6 and 7, which are permanent powers, taken with Clause 2(2)(a) on the disposal of stocks (which effectively controls also the holding of stocks) which is triggered by a Clause 3 Order in Council in an emergency. As I have said, there is nothing novel about this provision. It appears, I am advised, in numerous other pieces of legislation. We need it in this Bill both for offences committed during emergencies and for those committed in normal times, and I have attempted to give an example of the latter.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I accept what the noble Lord says. I am never impressed with the precedent argument, which I always think is a rather dangerous one. May I, in a spirit of genuine inquiry, ask the noble Lord whether he thinks the same sort of regulations should apply to a Government Department? If it is right to pursue an individual for the actions performed by his company, why is it not right to pursue an individual within a Department or indeed—dare I say it—a Minister for acts undertaken by his Department? The logic escapes me, but I will not press the point.
Lord KIRKHILL: I thought that we were about to touch on that point on the noble Lord's next Amendment.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.59 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 32D:
Page 14, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I do not think that this Amendment is addressing the same point as the last; at least, that is not what we had in mind. We are here dealing with a simple and brief point. Is it not rather unusual to find the word "member" in a Bill? Can the noble Lord confirm that the use of the word "member" refers to a statutory corporation because the word is usually used, in common parlance, to refer to shareholders?
Lord KIRKHILL: To respond first to the last question of the noble Lord,

2101
Lord Campbell, this applies in particular to the members of boards of State bodies—for example the nationalised industries. As your Lordships will recognise, this is a common form provision used in many Acts of Parliament to cover in particular members of the boards of nationalised industries. In my view, nothing novel is proposed.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I have listened with interest. I shall not keep the Committee long, but I should like to ask a question. Suppose that I am employed by a board and know nothing of litigation. I do a humble, honest job for the board in a far away place storing coal in a remote part of Wales or Scotland. If I commit an offence under this provision, although I may know nothing about legalities, I am an employee of a nationalised industry and would I not be liable under this clause?
Lord KIRKHILL: I hate to remind my noble friend that ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is very sad.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I welcome the support from the other side which is wholly in sympathy with what I am trying to prove. One always has the feeling on these occasions that one cannot win against the power of the advice to the Government Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
6.4 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 32E:
Page 15, line 38, at end insert—
(""industrial purposes" means all purposes except gas in the gaseous state supplied in pipes to premises in Great Britain used only as a dwelling;").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends Lord Strathcona and Lord Long I should like to suggest, in moving the Amendment, that the phrase "industrial purposes" needs to be defined in the Bill, particularly in the
2102
context of Clauses 8 to 10. There, its meaning will be important both as regards the two words "industrial purposes" themselves and also as regards the expression "non-industrial fuel purposes". When we were going through the clauses in question yesterday, those terms kept cropping up. The word "industrial" is not defined in the Bill and it is by no means clear how wide its meaning is to be. I would ask, for example, whether it is to extend to commercial use or is it to be limited literally to manufacturing industry as defined by the standard industrial classification? In the Industry Act, it is defined as,
"any description of commercial activity, and any section of an industry",
so in that Act "industry" is defined fairly widely. All this brings me back to the point that there should be a definition in the Bill which makes clear what the phrase "industrial purposes" means for this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I agree with the noble Lord and his noble friends that there could possibly be some doubt about whether certain uses—for example, gas for agricultural purposes—would be classed as "industrial", and that it may be necessary to include a definition clarifying this. I think, however, that noble Lords will, on reflection, agree that the definition proposed is rather too sweeping. The use of the expression, "used only as a dwelling" could, for example, if carried to absurdity, mean that gas supplied to, say, a doctor's surgery for a gas fire to heat the waiting room would be classed as gas used for industrial purposes. Clearly, that cannot be right. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will agree to reject this Amendment, and leave me to consider how best to clarify what is meant by "industrial purposes".
Lord AVEBURY: I had been going to suggest that the Amendment needed some revision and that what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, might care to think about is whether the definition should encompass all gas used otherwise than as a fuel which is burnt. The "industrial purposes" are purposes of manufacture, particularly as a chemical feedstock, but the supply of gas to premises for use in heating installations, whether they be central heating or individual appliances, should not be included in the

2103
definition, regardless of whether the premises are of a domestic or a commercial nature. If the definition were modified on those lines, I feel that it would be helpful to have something in the Bill, but the definition is not grammatical as the noble Lord has framed it, because "gas" is not a "purpose". The wording needs careful consideration. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for saying that he will have a look at it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I, too, am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has seen the point of my remarks. I agree that the Amendment may well not be perfect in its drafting. However, it has drawn attention to the need for a definition here and, on the understanding that the Government will look at this and will probably bring forward a definition of the kind that they think necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 32F:
Page 16, line 7, after ("wax") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it would be convenient if the following Amendment, Amendment No. 32G, were discussed together with the present Amendment. Here, I must be somewhat technical, because the definition adopted in the Bill does not, we believe, explain what is supposed to be covered. Amendment No. 32G would leave out the following lines:
"…and any wide-range substance (meaning a substance whose final boiling point at normal atmospheric pressure is more than 50°C higher than its initial boiling point)".
I am advised that those words could cover certain chemical feedstocks which industry does not sell as products. It sells them as raw materials for use in a subsequent manufacturing process.
My purpose in moving the Amendment is to find out what the Government mean by the definition. If it is their aim to extend by the words which I have read out the definition to cover feedstocks, this would, I understand, be a major innovation. So I hope the Government can tell us whether that is their aim.
2104
I readily accept that, if the noble Lord has not realised what my point is and is not able to reply immediately, because the point is very technical, he may need to convey a message to me later on. However, we should like to know, first, whether it is intended to cover feedstocks, and, if so, we feel that the Government should recognise that this is an innovation and that they should not be doing it unintentionally. I beg to move.
Lord AVEBURY: May I point out that these three lines cover all crudes?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Your Lordships may find it rather surprising that, in this Bill, which, despite the impression which our debate may have given, is largely free of technical references, the Government have had to include this phrase defining petroleum products by the rather clumsy-looking references to different boiling points. This was done intentionally so as to exclude from the Bill a number of substances which, while they are currently covered by the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, we have decided we do not need to control. These substances include a number of key petrochemicals, such as ethylene, styrene and cyclohexane. Therefore the one important substance which would be omitted from the Bill if this Amendment were passed would be naphtha.
As is well known, naphtha is used both to produce motor spirit and as the principal petrochemical feedstock. As regards the former use, the Government need to be able to control naphtha like any other petroleum product, particularly in emergency conditions. It would be a vital gap in the implementation of IEA and EEC obligations and measures to meet a "domestic" emergency if this Amendment were passed. As I have said, the simple fact is that the Amendment excludes these key petrochemical "building blocks". I hope that what I have said satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I recommend that the Amendment be rejected.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: The reference in the Bill to this particular cut, as it is called, of the petroleum distillation is the only way to cover a certain important range made in the distillation process. The range, which is of considerable importance, is—as the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, just said—the naphtha

2105
range, which is just this kind of cut. I made inquiries to find what a typical cut of this kind amounts to. If one takes the Kuwait export crude, one finds that the naptha cut amounts to 13·4 per cent. by volume of the crude. This particular cut is more or less the middle cut. One has taken off the volatile and the easily distillable material, and one has the naphtha cut.
It is true that his naphtha cut includes material used for petro-chemical purposes, but it also includes many other things, because it is a broad cut. For instance, the naphtha is used for the production of gasolene petrol. It is used for kerosene, the lighter grades; for varnish and paint manufacture; and for lubricant. It is also used as a dry cleaning solvent and as petrochemical feedstock; in other words, there is a very considerable range here. If the Bill did not cover this material, there would be an enormous and serious gap in the whole control which is the purpose of the Bill. It would, largely, make nonsense of the Bill if the naphtha cut was excluded, because that cut is basically the important one for so many different purposes.
One hopes—and I am sure that the Government would give an assurance on this—that under all normal conditions it would not be the intention to deprive the petrochemical industry of essential feedstock. It has been made clear already several times during the Committee Stage that the Government are very much concerned with the feedstock position. But it is important to realise that where there is a broad cut one cannot possibly start differentiating within that cut, because the essence of the distillation process is that it comes out as naphtha. Therefore there must be control over the whole of the cut.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I gladly give my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones the assurance that under normal circumstances it would not be our intention at all to deprive the petrochemical industry of such an important feedstock. I am very grateful to my noble friend once more for helping me to clarify this rather technical matter, and I am sure that he has explained more clearly than I why there is nothing sinister here. I have already stated that this is not an innovation.
2106
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a point about crude oil being included in Clause 19(1). I understand that the definition of petroleum products makes it clear that they are products derived from crude. Thus these products do not include crude, despite lines 8 to 11 of Clause 19(1). I hope that the explanation of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, for which I am grateful, has clarified why we are asking your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: We are again very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for his expert explanation. From what the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said on behalf of the Government, it is clear that the Government wish to define this cut in the distillation process. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, made clear what the Government were intending to cover in this definition. But the question I was putting is whether, in covering those substances they might not also be covering some others for which the use would be as a raw material rather than as a product? From what the noble Lord said I will not pursue this Amendment, but I ask him whether some qualification might be needed to lines 8 to 11 to cover the use of the feedstock when it is to be a raw material rather than a product? What the noble Lord is aiming to do is understandable, but I am drawing attention to the fact that some of these substances could be used as feedstock rather than as a product. Perhaps the noble Lord would think about that point before the next stage, but now I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord AVEBURY: I wish to point out, as I did not have a chance to do so on the previous Amendment (the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, having withdrawn it so rapidly), that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, confirmed my statement that, in the absence of a qualifying provision at the beginning of the definition, the last four lines would apply to crude, but he says that they do not, in fact, do so because of the reference to products directly or indirectly produced from crude at the beginning of the definition. If one reads this carefully it could mean that the list

2107
of products specifically mentioned there—fuels, lubricants, bitumen and so on—are those produced directly or indirectly from crude. Part of Clause 19(1) goes on to say
"…and any wide-ranging substance (meaning a substance whose final boiling point…"
et cetera. As I read this I thought that that phrase was to distinguish this final provision from the rest of the list, which consists of the products directly or indirectly derived from crude.
While on my feet I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, an additional question arising from yesterday's proceedings, when I suggested that the confusion which had arisen in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, concerning the inclusion of liquefied petroleum gases in the definition of natural gas could quite easily be cleared up by inserting the words "normal temperature and pressure" after the word "gas" in the definition of "natural gas". It is perhaps a little unfair of me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, whether he has had an opportunity to consider this in the intervening 24 hours, but it would be helpful if we could know whether that piont might be cleared up by the Government at Report stage.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this point. I have to confess that I have not had the opportunity to consider the recommendation he made, although I can assure him that it will certainly be taken into account within the Department. Without giving any positive undertaking, since it is a fairly technical point, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall certainly look at it.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Relaxations of road traffic and transport law permissible raider Section 4 (2)]:
6.21 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 34D:
Page 18, line 8, leave out ("public service vehicle") and insert ("stage carriage, an express carriage or a contract carriage").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment, designed to make clear that the power given to the Secretary of State by paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 1, to grant an authority relaxing certain provisions relating to public service vehicles, is restricted to the requirements for: (a) a public service vehicle licence under Section 127 of the Road Traffic Act 1960; (b) a road service licence under Sections 134 and 135 of the Road Traffic Act 1960; (c) a permit under Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968; and (d) an agreement or consent of the London Transport Executive for "London Bus Service" required under Section 23 of the Transport (London) Act 1969, since it echoes the terms used in those provisions.
The Amendment is in response to suggestions made on Second Reading by, as I recall, my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek—and the Government are obliged to my noble friend for drawing this fact to our attention—that the sub-paragraph as then worded would remove all restrictions on the type of vehicle used as a public service vehicle in time of emergency. However, the regulations referred to in paragraph 1(1)(b) and described in paragraph 1(2) are those regulations which relate only to public service vehicles. The paragraph would not, therefore, enable any of the construction and use regulations relating to vehicles generally to be relaxed. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: If it is in order, I wanted to get a sentence or two in there.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Douglas of Barloch): No.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I wonder whether I may interrupt the proceedings a little—and I am grateful for the concession. There is a point which has always worried me concerning emergencies. Suppose I am knocked down by one of these vehicles which any Tom, Dick or Harry can put on the road in an emergency. How do I stand for my insurance, and ray poor widow should I pass on, if I am knocked down by one

2109
of these vehicles? Do the Government take responsibility?
Lord KIRKHILL: That is a most penetrating and pertinent question to which I shall give serious consideration.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I meant to say this on the Amendment, but may I make just two comments? First, is it not strange that this very well-known wording was not adequate for this Bill? We get it in all sorts of other Bills. Secondly, I am bound to say that when I read this Amendment I began to wonder what century we were in. This looks rather like 1876, not 1976. I suppose we should not complain. We have done nothing but complain about the drafting, and I suppose that anything is an improvement, even if it is 100 years out of date.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Administration and other matters]:
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 18 line 37 leave out head (a).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment, may I also, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 34B, which is more or less on the same point? Sadly, the sting of this Bill is to some extent in the tail, in this perfectly revolting Schedule 2. In saying that, I think we can be forgiven for being unhappy about this Schedule or any Schedule which, as I said on Second Reading, has as its opening sentence:
"The powers of this paragraph are exercisable whenever the Secretary of State thinks it expedient".
I find that very alarming as a sort of introductory gambit; and a number of the Amendments which we shall be moving are aimed at modifying these rather frightening and wide-ranging powers. Of these two Amendments, the second one is to some extent a drafting Amendment in that it eliminates a few words in this verbose and badly-drafted piece of legislation, and I hope the Government will appreciate it. But it also has a genuine purpose, as well as making this sub-paragraph, we think, a little tidier. The object of these two Amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of
2110
State uses his power to obtain information only in order to implement his international treaty obligations. Furthermore, not only do we try to define the type of information; we also try to define the purpose for which the Secretary of State is asking for it, and what he is going to do with it afterwards.
Some of the information for which the Secretary of State will be asking is of great commercial importance and value, and if head (a) remains in the Bill as it is then the Secretary of State will be able to exercise his powers at his own discretion, since in practice it will be almost impossible to argue against a vague assertion such as "the effective performance of his functions". Then, if we look forward to later paragraphs we find that there is a new imposition, a new demand, placed on companies: to provide forecasts under paragraph 1(2)(b).
The whole of paragraph 1(2)(c), I think, is a new concept. This has been put in, I think the noble Lord will be telling us, because of our IEP agreement obligations; but I think it indicates the way in which, apparently, the honouring of our international obligations can be, has been and is being used by the Government as a device to extract more information and to extend their powers. Not once, but many times, the late Minister who sat on those Benches said that what the Government sought in a great deal of the legislation which was coming was information. He wanted to get right inside the workings of the companies operating in this field.
Of course, we appreciate that the collection of information by the State cannot help but be a very sensitive area. We seek merely to try to delimit, so far as possible, the area in which the Secretary of State can indulge in information gathering and it is our belief that his powers should not be so widely drawn as they are under parts of this Schedule. What these two Amendments seek to do is to limit the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers simply to those powers that he requires to implement the country's international obligations. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I have to recommend the Committee to reject both of these Amendments. To take the first Amendment, it would deprive the Government of the power to obtain information

2111
in several situations where, without information it would be impossible to make any soundly based decision on when and how to exercise substantive powers in the Bill which noble Lords have already approved.
First, I must mention the permanent power in Clause 4(3) to modify by Order in Council enactments affecting the use of energy. Noble Lords have approved this power, and I am sure they would not wish now to accept an Amendment which would put the Government in the position of being unable to obtain adequate information on the results of the exercise of this power. Secondly, I would point out that if it were ever necessary to exercise the stockholding powers of the Bill, in Clauses 6 and 7, for reasons of domestic policy, then again the Government would only be able to make the best use of their powers in the national interest if they had access to the necessary information.
Finally, I must stress the most remarkable feature of this Amendment. It deprives the Government of any power to obtain information during a domestic energy emergency. I consider that bizarre to say the least. Noble Lords will be aware that many of the measures a Government would need to take during a domestic energy emergency would be the same as those necessary during an emergency arising within the terms of our EEC or IEA obligations. Therefore, as the noble Lords opposite appear to accept the need for information-gathering powers in the latter case, they must logically accept it also in the former.
It is interesting to note that when the last Conservative Administration was faced with a domestic energy emergency, they took information powers as in Section 3 of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973. If noble Lords opposite are now able to face with equanimity the prospect of a Government having to deal with a national emergency without any information powers, I can only assume that this is because they have given up all hope of ever forming another Government themselves. I urge the Committee to reject this Amendment, which I consider to be irresponsible.
On the second Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, took with the first one, I am not
2112
entirely sure whether he is simply disagreeing with it on a point of style or whether there is some deeper significance; but no doubt in his reply he will enlighten me as to that. If it is simply a stylistic matter, I think that as it stands it is perfectly adequate. I would ask the Committee to reject that Amendment also; but the noble Lord may have further comments to add on this aspect.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: It is rather disappointing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, behaving exactly like a Minister of my Party standing exactly where he stood rejecting an Amendment to the Bill to adhere to the European Community when we were trying to make things read properly. It was a question of putting in the word, "that" and a comma; they would not accept it because they were terrified that it would go back to the Commons. The noble Lord is now behaving as badly because he is terrified of sonic changing of words of which he does not know the meaning. The words in the Amendment are a great deal better than: "with a view to the implementation of". It is purely a matter of English.
More important is the substance of the first of these two Amendments. The noble Lord has suggested that in an emergency the Government, are in effect, entitled to whatever information they can get—and that is really his point. Irrespective of international obligations, if you need the information for State security, then go ahead and get it. That is what he is saying. It is an argument which is used by other régimes, by totalitarian régimes, by those who have an itching inclination that way; and it raises a very serious issue of principle.
This has nothing to do with the question of whether a gas is a liquid or whether it is inside oil or what its freezing point is; this is a very serious political issue and one which, I submit, is of interest to all quarters of the Committee and one, I should have thought, of great interest to the democratic Party of noble Lords opposite. The State collection of information has always been a very sensitive matter. When, a few weeks ago, I was "booked" for speeding, the policeman said, "You do not have to say anything." They are required by law to make it clear that one need not make a

2113
statement. When, a fortnight later, a policeman turned up at my front door and rang the doorbell with such vigour that I thought he must be the milkman wanting to be paid, I went down and he said, "I have come to find out your age." I replied, "I will tell you." He said: "No; the Strathclyde police want me to see your birth certificate, but you do not have to show it to me." I said, "I should be happy to show it to you; and my marriage certificate, and my children's birth certificates. Give me time to dig them out." He said, "You do not have to show them."
I only mention that to illustrate that the business of the State exacting information from individuals is a very sensitive area and it is one that we should all unite in watching. I am sure that in talking to this Committee and in addressing myself to noble Lords opposite I am talking to those who do not need to be converted. We accept the integrity of their intentions and do not doubt their democratic purposes. So we believe that this is a matter which they will be willing to look at seriously. What is said of individuals must relate also to legal persons and therefore to companies. Even the Inland Revenue has strictly limited powers to examine the books of companies. I do not think that they are sufficiently limited: but be that as it may. The Customs and Excise have wider powers, but still defined.
In this Schedule we have an extraordinary suggestion. It is that the Secretary of State "at his discretion"—which can mean anything. You may talk about how long is a piece of string. "At his discretion" can mean absolutely anything; and in the hands of a bad Government—and I would not suggest that the present one is bad; that would not enter my thoughts for a moment—in the hands of a dishonourable Government, this could be a very dangerous power.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I know that the noble Earl loves the beauty of language. It does not say: "at his discretion"; it says "if he thinks it is expedient". The etymology of "expedient" is completely different from that of "discretion".
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I am much obliged. I think it is an even worse piece of language. It still means
2114
that he decides. If the Secretary of State thinks it expedient, for what purpose? "…for a purpose connected with…". It does not say, "not essential to". It does not even say "relevant to", which would be different It does not say, "not necessary to" but, "connected with". The string is getting longer and longer with each passage of bad drafting that we come to in this Bill. I am not trying to make fun of noble Lords opposite. They know I would never wish to do that—at any rate for very long. Surely noble Lords could agree to look at this to see whether it cannot be drafted in such a way as to require the information at least to be necessary and that its necessity should not be a matter simply of the Secretary of State's expediency.
Has such a range of information been required in our legislation before? No doubt—and it was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said in reply to the Amendment as moved—it will be said that on a previous occasion the Tory Government sought information. I can only say that if they did I did not support them in it. Persons I have met at times—and our faith in the honour of noble Lords opposite is absolute, of course—perhaps evid-minded people, have suggested in the Press and elsewhere that these powers could even be used in some way to extract information which a Government might even find handy in negotiating planning agreements. I am not suggesting that, but it is the kind of suggestion that one has read. These words are surely capable of infinite extension. We are coming near, in these words, to the principle of 1984:
"All that is not compulsory is forbidden,"
or, may I put it differently:
"You clearly have no notion how convenient and what fun,
To exercise the powers given in Schedule 2, clause 1,
But some reply, 'too far, too fast' and gave a look askance,
Said, intending no unkindness, they would not take the chance".
I appeal to the Government not to brush this off as something silly. A serious issue is involved here. If the Government say they cannot look at it, then it will make a poor impression outside the House; it will make an appalling impression here; it will not accord at all with

2115
their repeated assurances that the Government's purposes are pure and above dispute.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, come to the rescue of those of us who wanted to use the full forces of democracy, especially when he once again recalled the famous occasion on which the Bill to make us a member of the Common Market rolled through this House without even crossing a "t", putting in a comma, a colon, a hyphen or a paraph—not a paragraph: a paraph is a flourish under a signature. I thought the noble Earl was wonderful. He made me shiver with the possibilities of the destruction of democracy. All that is wrong with this is a little tautology; it is tautological. We could not have a more kindly Minister than the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. He said, "Well, of course, if I think there is no ulterior motive on the part of noble Lords who have been moving this Amendment…" And look who we have: the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Who could believe that there were ulterior motives with those three? None at all. Having been satisfied that there are no ulterior motives and agreed about the tautology of the three paragraphs, I think my noble friend and the noble Earl ought to accept the beautiful little phrase "in order to implement" instead of the one that we have: "with a view to the implementation of…". You want to look at that through a telescope. I think my noble friend ought to accept that and that would demonstrate to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and to my noble friend, that we, too, are on the side of the democrats.
6.45 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: It would not demonstrate that the Government side are on the side of the democrats because, as I understood that particular Amendment, it was purely drafting. I think that, subject to anything that may be said by the Government, the words suggested by the Opposition are preferable. It is always better to use fewer words when you can. As I read them, the words "in order to implement" mean precisely the same as 'with a view to the implementa-
2116
tion of". If the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, is suggesting there was nothing more to it than drafting, it might be gracious if he were to say he would accept that Amendment. Regarding the discussion which has taken place on the introductory preamble, the question of the Secretary of State exercising these powers whenever he thinks it expedient, that also is redundant. If the Secretary of State is going to exercise the powers, obviously he must consider it expedient to do so. Although these words occur in many other Statutes, I suggest a simplification would be to start the paragraph by saying:
"The Secretary of State may exercise the powers of this paragraph…"
and then continue:
"for a purpose connected with the operation of this Act…"
That makes it plain that the Secretary of State has an absolute right to exercise the powers in this paragraph and he does not have to consider it expedient or use discretion, although obviously he would say when exercising the powers that he did so for the kind of reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis.
That brings me on to a point of substance that I wanted to make. No one is going to argue that the circumstances we listened to from the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, would justify the provision of the information under this paragraph. For example, regarding the petroleum stocks, one could not possibly implement the provisions of the Bill unless there were the power to collect the information. What I think the Opposition ought to be objecting to is the open-endedness of the provision. If one could in some way restrict it so that the information was only requested where necessary for the purposes of the Bill, then noble Lords who had not voted against any of the clauses would be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis.
I am not in a position to suggest any Amendment which the Government might be disposed to accept, but if the noble Lord the Minister would consent to take this matter away and think about it before the Report stage, and see whether there was any restriction which could be placed on these powers, while leaving the Secretary of State completely free to exercise them whenever it was necessary

2117
for the provisions of the Act to which we have already agreed, that would satisfy some people who fear what could happen if these matters were in the hands of an irresponsible Minister or a Minister motivated simply by the desire to impose further burdens on industry by the collection of unnecessary information. If he could feel able to deal with that fear, noble Lords, who have no suspicion of the present Minister or any of his colleagues, might feel some relief.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I think I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that the Amendment we are discussing is not to delete "expedient" but to take out head (a). I must reject the noble Earl's view of our taking these totalitarian powers. We are not talking about totalitarian régimes; we are talking about an energy emergency and the proper use of our energy resources. The noble Earl's words may be all right for a ding-dong political battle, but they are a bit extreme in this context.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment? What we are trying to get at is that the exercise of these powers should be clearly linked to, and limited by, the obligations arising from the international obligations on us all. I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord again; he has been very courteous and I thank him for giving way to me.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I appreciate that. The fact is that the powers at the discretion of the Secretary of State are limited by the context of the Bill. We are not seeking limitless powers but only those related to the functions of the Secretary of State under the Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, emphasised—in the case of "domestic emergency and under our IEA and EEC obligations. Referring to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, the Bill which seems to have been steam-rollered through here, leading us into the EEC, has led to the need to bring in many of the powers set out in this Bill before us.
The Bill is necessary and is necessarily seeking wide powers. It is intended to deal with emergencies, and one accepts that. However, while I would strongly argue the general principle that the Government must have available
2118
adequate information if they are to be able to use their powers wisely, I share the concern which has been expressed, particularly in respect of sub-paragraph (2)(c). I should like to seek to reassure noble Lords to some extent by undertaking to consider whether the principle of this Amendment could be accepted in relation to certain powers contained in this subsection. I am thinking particularly of paragraph 1(2)(c). That power is sought for the purpose of enabling the Government to fulfil their obligations under the IEA. It may be possible to incorporate in the Bill some appropriate restriction on the exercise of the power.
Secondly, I do not think I was behaving very badly in taking a stylistic view of the wording of the second Amendment: after all, I studied English at one of our older universities. I also accept the concern expressed by your Lordships that the power may be interpreted here as being wider than our intention. Therefore, I am willing to accept the Amendment in principle and to look again at the wording of the provision to see whether I can meet the point in substance.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord is being most helpful to us. I am not wholly clear where we have arrived, but I believe it to be the point that we hoped to get to so far as the first Amendment is concerned. We agree that the Government need powers to obtain information, but we wanted to invite them to do a little more work and to think a little more carefully about exactly why, when and for what they needed these powers. We are hardworking folk, but decline to do that job for them. The noble Lord has now been good enough to say that he will see whether he cannot tackle the task himself before we come back again. Therefore, in a moment I shall seek to withdraw the first Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient, while I am on my feet, if I were to deal with the second Amendment. It is essentially an improvement in the drafting, but there is also a very slight tightening of the sense, if one thinks about it. Indeed, it takes us back to a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, when he objected to the word "connected" in paragraph 1(1)(a). "With a view to" is not quite the same thing as, "in order to". Our Amendment would restrict very

2119
slightly further and we think it would also improve the English. It would be wrong of me to pretend that it is a purely drafting Amendment, but I am quite sure it is one that will still be acceptable to the Government, after what I have said. Perhaps I have now said enough, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 34A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.55 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 34C:
Page 19, line 31, leave out ("in the past") and insert ("at any time in the preceding two years").
The noble Viscount said: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, here is the third Peer "with devious ideas"—perhaps not devious, but inquiring about what we can get out of the Government. As my noble friend has already stressed, we are extremely nervous about this Schedule and feel that the powers required by the Secretary of State are extremely frightening, to say the least.
In breaking down the beginning, we now come to the more tricky technical points. The object of this Amendment is to place restrictions on the number of people who can be ordered to divulge information to the Secretary of State. The provisions of the Bill enable the Secretary of State to ask for documents from companies and individuals. The information that has to be supplied extends beyond past practice: I do rot think we have experienced powers of this extent before. For example, adding the words "or its operations" after "relating to the undertakings", as in paragraph 2(2)(b), would seem to extend the sorts of documents whose production could be compulsorily demanded even to include supply contracts. Also, paragraph 2(2)(c) refers to information required about the whereabouts of certain documents. An explanation of them may not be needed, according to the Bill.
Equally, I wonder what individuals will be required to give such information. Who are the individuals who will be ordered to do this? Will they be people long ago retired, who would not remember or will they be executives or managers? If so, if they were elderly, they probably would not be able to help the Secretary of State. But by that same
2120
paragraph, past executives of companies could be called on to provide particulars of relevant documents. They could; but would the noble Lord agree that they might not want to do it? How will this be enforced? In the past, officers of the company could be called on as well. The Amendment, therefore, seeks to prevent past executives being asked by the Secretary of State to furnish information about an undertaking which they left many years ago. Only if they have exercised such functions within the past two years should they be required or obliged to provide such information.
I believe this Amendment is reasonable and that it is not fair to ask those who are elderly to be brought back into business in an emergency to help the Secretary of State. In these days, with so many young executives and people of that kind, the Secretary of State should have enough people to be able to cope with what is going on. This is a fairly reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord AVEBURY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him to deal at the same time with a question which has puzzled me. The paragraph states that the Secretary of State, or a person authorised on his behalf, may demand that a person who has in the past exercised the functions of an executive should provide particulars as to the whereabouts, contents or subject matte' of documents. But a person may be physically or mentally incapable of complying with that demand. He may not know where a document is, or may have forgotten its contents, so he will not be able to comply with the directions. But nowhere in the Schedule can I see any provision regarding the penalties. There are provisions in paragraph 6 covering penalties for failing to comply with other parts of the Schedule, but can the Minister tell the Committee what penalties can be invoked against somebody who is incapable of complying with a request for information, because he retired a long time ago and does not know the answers, or who wilfully refuses to do so?
Lord KIRKHILL: Purely upon the basis that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, rather gratuitously mentioned my noble

2121
friend Lord Davies of Leek, may I just make mention of an earlier comment on a previous Amendment and assure my noble friend Lord Davies that the Road Traffic Acts will apply if he is knocked down by an emergency vehicle.
In the Government's view, the limit of two years imposed in the Amendment is a purely arbitrary figure. Furthermore, as a matter of drafting, the Amendment is not at all clear as to the date from which the two-year period would reckon. The extent to which persons acting on behalf of the Secretary of State would consider it worth while making inquiries of past officers of an undertaking would vary according to the nature and seriousness of the matter under investigation, and also to the nature of the document or documents concerned. Although it seems doubtful that there would be many cases where one would need to inquire of officers whose connection with the undertaking had ceased more than two years previously, nevertheless such an occasion might arise and I believe it would be wrong to tie the hands of the investigators in this arbitrary fashion.
Some serious concern has been expressed about the provisions of this paragraph in the Schedule, and, in particular, two questions have been posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to which I cannot at this moment respond with clarity. I am, therefore, prepared at least to reconsider the wording of this provision to see whether I can go some way to meet some of the points which have been raised.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Before we part with this Amendment, and without mentioning any names—and we have examples all over the world of the new trans-continental companies, and there is another example in the papers tonight of oil companies—information sometimes has to be gathered over a number of years and our difficulty is to get a balance without being vindictive. But I think that if anyone was mentally disturbed common sense would prevail, even with a Labour Government, as with a Conservative Government.
Viscount LONG: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for agreeing to reconsider this Amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Davies of Leek,
2122
because we need to have more information which is not at present available. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, did not answer my question about the penalties.
Lord KIRKHILL: I have to apologise to your Lordships. I have, of course, been engaged for some hours today and I am not thinking with the utmost clarity. But apologise to the noble Lord, because I fully intended to reply and perhaps he will let me do that now. He asked me exactly that question, and I am advised that similar powers to produce documents are contained in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, by reference to Schedule 1 to the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to reply to the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because that would not affect any reconsideration which the Government might give to the clause which we discussed. The offence is in Clause 16(2)(a) which states:
"without reasonable excuse he…fails to comply with any provision made by this Act",
and the penalty is in Clause 17(1), which states that the maximum fine on summary conviction is £400. So there are penalties involved.
Viscount LONG: I am most grateful for that reply. I felt that it was an important point. I can only hope that if those elderly people on their pensions cannot obey the Secretary of State, they will be able to pay the £400 fine. However, I am grateful for the fact that the noble Lord will look again at this paragraph. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.7 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, line 5, leave out ("References in this Schedule to premises include") and insert ("The reference in this paragraph to premises includes").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 3 provides a definition of the word "premises", the purpose of which is to circumscribe the scope of the powers of access contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5(3), and gives effect to the Government's intention that powers of access under this Bill should not extend to premises used only as a dwelling. However, this special definition of "premises"

2123
is appropriate only to those parts of Schedule 2 which deal with powers of access, and it is in order to ensure that this is clear on the face of the Bill that I commend this Amendment to your Lordships. The Amendment will avoid the possibility of doubt arising as to the meaning of the word "premises", where it is used in Schedule 2 in a context other than powers of access. I hope to move consequential Amendments to paragraphs 4 and 5(3). I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 20, line 42, at end insert—
("(7) References in this paragraph to premises include vehicles and vessels, but not any premises used only as a dwelling.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 21, line 15, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(7)").
The noble Lord said: This is the second consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
7.9 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 38F:
Page 21, line 20, leave out ("5 or 6") and insert ("6 or 7").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will no doubt have already appreciated that sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 is intended to apply to the stockholding provisions of the Bill—Clauses 6 and 7—and that the reference to "section 5 or 6" is therefore incorrect. This Amendment simply alters that reference so as to give effect to the original intention. I beg to move.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 38A:
Page 21, line 21, leave out ("the Secretary of State or").
The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee I will take Amendments Nos. 38A and 38B together.
2124
The object of these Amendments is to remove the right of an interested party in a prosecution to institute proceedings or to give his consent to the institution of such proceedings. We have a good argument here. Under the Bill, for example, the Secretary of State gives directions as to the level of stocks to be carried, but he should also be allowed to judge whether such a direction has been complied with and, if he decides otherwise, whether to institute criminal proceedings.
In the heat of the moment it would be possible for any Secretary of State to interpret his powers in a broader fashion than was legally justified. By confining the institution of proceedings to the Director of Public Prosecutions it is intended that the Secretary of State shall be spared the necessity of coming to a legal decision in the circumstances envisaged in this Amendment. Here we are witnessing for the first time the Secretary of State wishing to take over the job of the public prosecutor. It appears to us that this is the way in which it is written into the Bill, and it would not, in our view, be right that the Secretary of State should have the power to demand how he wishes to carry out the emergency laws and how he is going to deal with an order of the public prosecutor. I do not think it would be right for the Secretary of State to go over the head of the public prosecutor, who, after all, knows what he is doing. I shall be very interested to hear the opinion of the noble Lord opposite on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The Committee will appreciate that the stockholding and price control powers in the Bill will be exercised in accordance with the interests of national energy policy. That being so, I hope the Committee will agree that the Secretary of State, as custodian of these interests, must be free to prosecute offences against those provisions whenever he thinks it is necessary to do so. In the case of the stockholding powers, there is also the point that these powers will be exercised so as to fulfil our EEC and IEA obligations. The Government can be certain of their ability to fulfil these obligations only if they are certain of their ability to prosecute any offences against directions given for the purpose of implementing the

2125
obligations. Finally, this restriction is quite common. For example, it applies in the case of prosecutions under the Gas Act 1972, which, I need scarcely remind your Lordships, was brought in by the Party opposite. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
Lord AVEBURY: Although it may be clear from another part of the Schedule, could the noble Lord tell me why this paragraph does not apply to Scotland? I know that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not operate in Scotland. Some people may think that the Scots are much better off for not having a Director of Public Prosecutions, and some may go even further and think that if prosecutions were in the hands of the Secretary of State people might be better off than if they were in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But if prosecutions in Scotland are to be in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal or the Secretary of State for Scotland, one would expect to see a corresponding provision somewhere in the Schedule. I am sure that it cannot be that the Secretary of State would be the sole authority for sanctioning prosecutions in Scotland, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me where the corresponding provision is to be found.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: As I understand the situation, it is unnecessary to extend the paragraph to Scotland because there is no possibility of private prosecutions under Scots law, all prosecutions being undertaken by the Procurator Fiscal, who is a public official.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I do not want to taunt the noble Lord and he knows that I do not wish to do so, but he has mentioned that this is a question of the Secretary of State exercising his powers in the interests of the State. The reason why we have Parliament is to make sure, if we can, that when they act in the interests of the State, Governments are seen to be doing so and have been exposed to proper Parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we have Parliament. That is why the noble Lord was ennobled and sits in this House, to help to exercise that practice of scrutiny. Whatever may have been done in 1972—and I do not think that there is anything special about 1972—certainly we have every reason now to be more vigilant about freedom in
2126
Western Europe than three years ago. Many things have happened in the past three years which are to the detriment of civilisation. There is no need to say that because something was allowed to go through, possibly on the nod, in 1972, therefore we should repeat that in 1976.
The suggestion here is that the Secretary of State may be the judge in his own cause. He is to judge whether a direction has been complied with, but the direction itself will not have been scrutinised by Parliament. So an offence is created, and somebody may be forced to stand trial on something which has never been through the Parliamentary process and is merely the product of the Executive, whose power is always growing and is very rarely diminished, and the offence has simply been created by the Executive without Parliamentary control. The only safeguard—and in view of certain recent events I am by no means sure that it is at all a watertight safeguard—is that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be the judge. One might say that this is a matter of human rights.
I cannot believe that noble Lords, whose hearts are in the right place wherever their heads may be, will not pay serious attention to this point. Whatever was done in 1972 is no justification for what is done in 1976, by whichever Government. One is thinking now of persons being required to stand trial for an offence which has not even been created by Parliament but which has been created by subordinate action of a Secretary of State under the powers given to him by this Bill. Therefore I appeal to the noble Lords opposite. Of course, it is easy for them to answer:
"What matters is how fast we go, the Minister replied.
There is plenty to be said, you know, upon the other side.
The fuller powers in England, the less are left to France.
Then abate your fears, beloved Peers, and take another chance."
I hope we do not take another chance and that noble Lords will respond to a serious appeal.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: If I may reply to the Poet Laureate of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, first of all I should have

2127
thought that giving the Secretary of State these powers increased the power of Parliament, for the Secretary of State is himself answerable to Parliament. The second point I want to make is that the Secretary of State is not judging the case, he is simply bringing the prosecution. Any person who thinks that the Secretary of State is not prosecuting when he should do so can go to the Director of Public Prosecutions who can prosecute himself.
I really cannot accept this Amendment. As I said, it would deprive the Secretary of State of an ability to consent to prosecutions in respect of offences against the stockholding or price control provisions of this Bill. It is important that we should keep those words in the Bill and I hope the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: I wonder whether by any chance the noble Lord made a slip: he said that if any private individual thought that the Secretary of State ought to have prosecuted and had not, he could go to the Director of Public Prosecutions and prosecute himself. I thought the object of this clause was to prevent private prosecutions.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I am sorry if I confused the noble Viscount. I did not say it in quite those words. I said that any person who thinks that the Secretary of State is not prosecuting when he should—that private individual can go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn can prosecute himself, that is, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Viscount LONG: We do not seem to have got very far on this Amendment. In practice, I think this Amendment would have served as a restraint upon the crusading bureaucrats. I thought we could have got this Amendment agreed to. At least if the Director of Public Prosecutions was solely responsible in such cases, as the Amendment seeks to ensure, one could be certain of an impartial legal examination of the facts of a case before proceedings were instituted. I thought there was a good chance that the Government would agree to this Amendment, but our best situation now would be for me to withdraw the Amendment and look at it before
2128
the next stage of the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.23 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 38C:
Page 21, line 42, leave out ("or as the case may be") and insert ("and, where applicable").
The noble Lord said: This does not look like a major change and I think it might be useful if I were to read the paragraph as it would be if this Amendment were approved. What we should then have, at the bottom of page 21, paragraph 7, is
"No information obtained by virtue of this Act shall be disclosed except—

(a) with the consent of the person by whom or on whose behalf the information was given or supplied and, where applicable, the owner of any goods, or the occupier of any premises, to which the information relates".

The object of this Amendment is to ensure that information cannot be disclosed without the knowledge and the consent of the person or persons who supplied it. For example, it would remove the risk of a customer disclosing information without the consent of his supplier. To give a concrete but entirely hypothetical example, supposing that Esso were supplying fuel to BOAC, BOAC might not mind anybody knowing what price had been paid but Esso might mind very much indeed, particularly if they thought that the BNOC was going to get to know as a result of the disclosure of the information. I am not trying to play the game we have been playing so often and criticise BNOC particularly, but I believe it to be a real point and I thought it would be more concrete to give an example of the kind of situation about which we are concerned.
I think it is also worth making the point that disclosure in this context in effect probably means publication, and therefore information could become widely available which one party to a deal would have preferred to keep confidential. Very simply the purpose of this Amendment is to say that it seems right that a person who is asked for information and is responsible for providing it should be entitled to decide, under this clause, whether or not the information should be made public.
The paragraph gives considerable automatic disclosure over a considerable area, and paragraph (a) as it stands appears to us to be a crucial one and not entirely satisfactory. Because, for instance, a customer has access to information—one side of a bargain—he does not automatically have the right to pass that information on to an outside party. Both parties are involved in the deal and we believe that both parties ought to have the right of veto before disclosure takes place. It is quite a simple point; I think it is one the Government may be prepared to accept. We believe it is very important. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has set out the effect of his Amendment and I am sure he and his noble friends will be glad to know that the Government accept the principle underlying it as being fair and reasonable, and I shall consider how the drafting of the Bill may be amended to incorporate it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 38D:
Page 21, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State in writing and for the purposes of the exercise of their functions to members of the government department which has obtained possession of the information hereunder;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to replace the wording in paragraph (b) at the bottom of page 21 with wording which would restrict the disclosure of information further than as proposed by the Government. In the days when I used to be a civil servant in the Foreign Office (as it then was) there was a principle of what was called "need to know". So far as I know, it probably still operates in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and no doubt also in the Ministry of Defence. That meant that classified information, which if it were disclosed could be against the national interest, was passed only to officials who needed to know about it.
That was a straightforward principle of security. Of course, it had no reflection upon the integrity of any of the other officials who were not being given the information. It was simply that they did not need to know it. They had other clas-
2130
sified information which was connected with their work. When we come to commercially sensitive information that is somewhat different in character, but there could be information which, if disclosed, could cause injury to an individual company because competitors would learn their commercial secrets. In this Amendment we are dealing with the circulation of that kind of information within Government Departments, and I would point out that such information, if it is disclosed, can also be against the national interest where the commercial secret is one connected with a project or with exports where the British company is competing with foreign companies.
The wording in the Bill runs as follows:
"for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions, to a government department"—
and so on. What we want to be sure of is that the interpretation of the words "for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions" does not mean that information which is sensitive commercially and which has been given to the Government and made available to the Secretary of State under this Bill would simply then be circulated to officials who were vaguely connected through their work with the operations. One wants to be sure that the restriction is to officials who really do need to know. It is difficult for someone who is not near to the action to identify what seems to be an ordinary item of information as being highly confidential. Indeed, the further away that an official is from the action, the less likely he is to know that what looks like an ordinary bit of information which has come his way is in fact highly sensitive, and if spoken about to someone, or mentioned to the Press, could be very damaging to some company.
Therefore, we seek an assurance that information which is disclosed under this Bill by a company, and which is confidential and which the company indicates is confidential, is restricted in its circulation to those officials who need to know about it because of their work. I am not wedded to the wording of this Amendment. I am seeking to point out that the wording of the Bill as the Government have drafted it does not give the kind of assurance I am seeking.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, which this Amendment seeks to strike

2131
out, would enable information obtained by virtue of this Bill to be disclosed to other Government Departments for the purpose of the exercise of any of its functions, as I think has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. This Amendment not only prohibits disclosure outside the Department that obtained possession of the information; it also severely restricts the movement of information within the Department.
On the first point, I hardly need emphasise that, with the increasing interplay nowadays between Government Departments, it is vital that information gathered under the powers contained in the Bill should be available to other Departments for the proper exercise of their functions. This is by no means a novel power. Precedents can be found in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, the Prices Act 1974 and the Industry Act 1975. Collecting information on such a complex subject as oil is a highly specialised process, and it seems to me that one ought to have the power to disclose that information to other Government Departments. The role of Government is indivisible. Issues of general policy often concern several Departments, and it is important that they consider these issues on a basis of agreed fact. This is in the best interests of the oil companies as well as Government, I should have thought. I recognise that the information submitted by the companies has to be interpreted in the light of the context in which it is sought. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that we recognise also that there must be safeguards (which we have inserted in the Bill) ensuring that the information is passed to them for the exercise of any of their functions.
On the second point, I must point out that it would be quite unprecedented for a Secretary of State to be impeded in the way he runs his Department. This would be the effect of this Amendment. Disclosure of information, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out, is treated in any case on a "need to know" basis, and it would not be circulated more widely than was necessary for the proper exercise of the functions of the Department. For the reasons I have explained I am unable to reject the Amendment, and I would ask the
2132
noble Lord, therefore, if he would withdraw it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think it was a slip of the tongue when the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said he was unable to reject the Amendment. For a moment, I thought I was going to have another success today, having been successful in two of the main matters which I raised in the previous Bill which we were discussing before the Energy Bill. But I recognise from what the noble Lord said that the wording of my Amendment is not one which would commend itself to the Government. I made it clear I was making a point rather than pressing the particular wording on the noble Lord.
I was glad the noble Lord acknowledged the "need to know" principle, because that is essential in all this. That is his interpretation of the wording which I read which is already in the Bill, and I can only re-emphasise that if there are commercial secrets of large British companies, it is exceedingly important that they should he protected. There is a very good system—and I paid tribute to this both on the Industry Bill and on the Employment Protection Bill last year—whereby when information is given to the Government in strict confidence, it is kept and not revealed; it is handled carefully. We want to make sure that highly confidential information, or other information which could be damaging if it were disclosed and made public, is protected. Upon what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 38E:
Page 22, line 4, at end insert ("Provided that before arranging for the transmission of any such information the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the said institution or the said agency has taken all necessary steps to ensure that the said information will be kept confidential by those persons to whom the said information may be made available;").
The noble Lord said: Here again, we are trying to safeguard the provision of information, and in this case I think it might be said that the purpose of this Amendment is to formalise the understanding which most people would consider already existed. The basic object is to make it necessary for the Secretary

2133
of State to satisfy himself that any information which he supplied under international treaty will be treated as confidential, as stated by the treaty.
We are here addressing ourselves to the use to which information may be put, and to the extent to which its confidentiality is recognised and respected. Here again, it would be very damaging to commercial organisations if pricing information were disclosed. At the beginning of our discussions on this Bill, I think we generally agreed that there was a difficulty in establishing true costs when you have a complex product like crude oil, which can be broken down into a great many products. The commercial organisations are very unanxious that their competitors should get to know the way in which they allocate the costs. This is one example of the kind of information involved, and when one bears in mind the scale with which we are dealing it is evident that this could be very damaging. I think that has been recognised in the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agreement, Article 30, has a safeguard written into it which says:
"The standing group on the oil market shall work out procedures to ensure the confidentiality of the information transmitted to the IEA".
Again, under Article 35 there is an identical obligation on the standing group on energy questions.
This Amendment would make the Secretary of State satisfy himself that the standing groups have indeed worked out "satisfactory procedures" to safeguard this confidential information. If the Secretary of State was not satisfied about these procedures, then he would not be justified, if the Amendment were carried, in disclosing the information under paragraph 7(c) of the Schedule.
As we have just been arguing in the last Amendment, in this country there are recognised procedures among civil servants to respect confidentiality. We may regret that perhaps these procedures have been put under unnecessary strain, but this is the old argument we had about the Civil Service directors on the British National Oil Corporation. I think we on this side of the Committee would continue to think that this is a case where we must keep up eternal vigilance. This is what we have been doing this evening,
2134
to some extent, and our efforts have been appreciated by the Government, which I may say is appreciated by us on this side of the Committee.
What we are saying here is that the onus is placed upon the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the person to whom the information is disclosed is a proper person to receive it and that that person will not act irresponsibly or incompetently in disclosing it to anybody else. The Amendment would necessitate the Secretary of State satisfying himself that the International Energy Agreement similarly protected, as indeed it is required to do, the confidentiality of information which was supplied to it. I beg to move our last Amendment, Amendment No. 38E.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The United Kingdom as a Member of the EEC and as a participant in the IEP Agreement naturally has a voice in how those organisations should be run and—to answer the points brought up first by the noble Lord—we regard it as a duty to draw attention to any point of administration that it considers unsatisfactory. This includes any arrangements affecting the safeguarding of confidential information transmitted to any of these bodies by Member States. Both organisations, the EEC and the IEA, already have security arrangements which we have had the opportunity to comment on. In particular IEA has recently instituted a full examination of all its security procedures, including the handling of sensitive information, as the noble Lord said. We are satisfied in both cases that these organisations are fully capable of maintaining a high standard of control over classified or commercially confidential material. The Department will, of course, continue to ensure that any such information which is commercially confidential or otherwise classified is clearly marked to that effect so that the institution concerned is in no doubt as to the way in which it ought to handle the information. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment is unnecessary.
Perhaps I may add that in practice it would be quite impracticable for the Secretary of State or his officials to satisfy themselves as to the particular arrangements for securing a piece of information

2135
before passing on that information. Moreover, it is impossible for any organisation to ensure that the information is kept confidential. All they can do is to take steps to minimise the risk of disclosure. Thus it would not in any circumstances be possible for the Secretary of State or his officials to satisfy themselves completely that the necessary steps to ensure the security of the information had been taken.
Finally, since the noble Lord raised the matter of BNOC, I should like once again to confirm that ample assurances were given by the Government, both in this House and in another place, during the passage of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act. So far as the two civil servant members of BNOC are concerned, they are in any case, as your Lordships know, bound by the Official Secrets Act, and they can be relied upon to act in accordance with the high standards of the public service. Having said that, I think there is little more I can add except that I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am a little disappointed that the noble Lord is not even prepared to admit that there is a case to answer. Indeed to some extent it seemed to me he was conceding what we are saying. He started off by talking about being fully satisfied and then went on to say that it was impracticable to be completely satisfied, which is a rather strange contradictory situation to be in. It seems to me that, if the Secretary of State is fully satisfied, he ought to be prepared to take the responsibility that we are asking him to accept under this Amendment.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I should like to clarify one point. I do not want to give the noble Lord the idea that I made a contradictory case here. It is not so much that the Standing Groups of the IEA should establish proper safeguarding procedures, but for the International Energy Agency secretariat itself. The Standing Group members are all Government representatives, so that one is dealing here with 18 different national authorities. The Secretary of State cannot ever be completely satisfied with arrangements under the control of all these nations, although, as I have said, we have ensured
2136
to the extent possible that the IEA adequately safeguards confidential material. What I am saying is that we have done as much as one could possibly do to ensure confidentiality. One can only go that far. One cannot make arrangements which are absolutely foolproof. That is all I was saying. I do not think there is a contradiction in that.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Before the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, goes on, perhaps I may intervene. This paragraph says:
"No information obtained by virtue of this Act shall be disclosed except"—
and then I go on to sub-paragraph (d)
"…in the form of statistic or otherwise, so that it cannot readily be recognised as relating to any particular person or undertaking".
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, would agree that that is going part of the way towards meeting a very difficult problem. I met this personally when, at the height of the Cold War, we had an organisation in Paris that dealt with East/West trade. British business people were giving highly sensitive commercial and other information to the institution, and it was alleged—I must be careful; I must not name countries—that countries X and Y would see this information and then make contracts to the Eastern world which were below contracts that people in the Western world were making, trying to gain trade with non-strategic material. Sometimes that commercial information can be devastating. I see the point completely, but I do not know how anything more can be done apart from what the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has said. He said:
…"in the form of statistics or otherwise, so that it cannot readily be recognised as relating to any particular person or undertaking".
I am sympathetic, and at least I have stood up to show my sympathy.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, paragraphs like that are reassuring. We would be the first to accept that it is a very difficult job to tighten this sufficiently without making it impossible. May I end by saying this: Does not this underline the unease which has run through the whole of our approach to this Schedule? The noble Lord is really saying, "We do our best,

2137
but we cannot absolutely guarantee that our procedures are watertight". Does not this underline the whole danger of extracting an iota more of information, and letting it circulate in slightly more dangerous circumstances than is really absolutely necessary? I am, therefore, going back in a general way and justifying the pressure we have been putting on the Government to limit the degree to which they extract information and then put it in this dangerous pool where there is an admitted possibility of a leak. I am grateful to the noble Lord for going along with us as far as he has. We will read carefully what he has said, and we hope it will not be necessary to return to this point. But there might still be some way of tightening up the drafting of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Community obligations of which breach is punishable under this Act]:
7.50 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("order of the Secretary of State") and insert ("Order in Council or regulations").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment which corrects the reference to Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It is proposed that the EEC Council regulations under which directly applicable Community obligations arise listed in Schedule 3 should be added to from time to time by exercise of the powers to legislate conferred by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 2(2) of the Act of 1972 provides for legislation by Order in Council or by regulations made by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department designated by Order in Council. The reference to orders of the Secretary of State under Section 2(2) of the Act of 1972 is incorrect and the Amendment merely rectifies this. I beg to move.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals and Savings]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 23, line 41, leave out from ("and") to end of line 4 on page 24 and insert ("of those orders—

(a) the ones made under section 2 of that Act are to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if they had been made under section 1(1) or (as the case may be) section 1(2) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it, and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits;

(b) the Order in Council under section 4(3) of that Act is to be treated for those purposes as if it had been made under section 4(3) of this Act; and

(c) without prejudice to the foregoing, the orders made under section 2 of the 1973 Act and the Order in Council under section 4(3) of that Act may be varied or revoked under section 15(2) of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: In view of the Opposition Amendment to Clause 3(2) carried on the first day of the Committee stage I am advised that it is inexpedient to move this Amendment for the time being, but the Government will consider what further Amendments need to be put down.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
7.53 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: May I say that I am grateful to noble Lords whose contributions have made this Committee such an interesting, though perhaps rather exhausting, task for several of us. I am especially grateful for the helpful interventions in the Government's interest from my noble friends Lord Wynne-Jones and Lord Davies of Leek, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I should like particularly to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, who has unavoidably had to leave your Lordships' House. He has taken much of the burden during our sessions.
It is clear that despite some huffings and puffings on the other side this Bill commands major support in the House, I have undertaken to look at the possibility of a few minor improvements in several clauses, and we have lost two Divisions on important parts of the Bill. My right honourable friends in another place and the Government will consider how to react to the situation. We may

2139
need to put to noble Lords some new proposals at the Report stage; others may need to be dealt with in another place.
I shall be writing to several noble Lords to add to information given during the Committee stage, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, on Amendment No. 20C to Clause 8, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on electrically propelled vehicles. We have given a number of assurances about the Bill which noble Lords opposite have said they will accept. We have tried so far as possible to be helpful to the Committee. Our aim has been reasonableness, and it will continue to be so. Since we came into Office we have used with discretion the sweeping powers we have had in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973. Once again I would wish to thank those noble Lords who have made useful contributions to the Committee stage of the Bill, and we shall return to these matters after the Easter Recess.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I must reciprocate by thanking the noble Lord for that charming little winding-up speech. Indeed, I believe at one point today I forgot to move an Amendment which he was prepared to accept, and we shall see which of us moves it later on. He seems to have found an admirable formula, which we shall hope to pursue a little later, whereby Amendments which we think are of great importance he regards as minor Amendments, and I hope that we can carry on in that happy spirit and achieve a number of other improvements at the Report stage.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.