Lords Sitting of 16 December 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

HISTORIC PROPERTIES: DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: 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 they will take steps to reduce the long delays that, despite their Circular Roads 39/75, owners of historic properties experience in obtaining permission from highway authorities for the approved directional signs, thus avoiding the present inconvenience to visitors, particularly from overseas.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware that there have been some difficulties over signing historic houses. He proposes to ask all local highway authorities to consider applications for these traffic signs as quickly as practicable, and to recover from the owner any costs arising from the provision of signs.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer I ought perhaps to declare my interest as President of the Historic Houses Association. May I ask whether the noble Baroness is aware that a recent survey disclosed that over 30 per cent. of the Association's members had experienced difficulties and delays? Some had applied at the beginning of this season and not got their permission until the season was over. I should be most grateful to know whether something can be done to look into this.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I believe that noble Lords are aware that a circular is being sent out by the Department. We hope that it will be out early next year. This follows discussions between the Historic Houses Association and the Department, and everything possible is being done to hasten this because we are very well aware—and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, knows that I am particularly concerned—that we must do nothing to discourage the tourist trade, both of visitors from abroad and from this country.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as well as historic houses, there are public bodies that are in the same position? In particular, the area covered by the Milton Keynes New Town is very extensive and, after six years, the Open University has not been able to obtain permission to have any sign erected after the turning off the MI. The university is some miles away. Can the noble Baroness assist it in any way on this point?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall certainly bring that matter to the notice of my right honourable friend.

SEA HARRIER: "SKI JUMP"
3.8 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 what steps they are taking to evaluate the "ski jump" proposals relating to the launching of Sea Harrier aircraft.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, a research programme is currently under way.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. Can he say what is the scale of the investigation into this proposal and whether it is not the case that the proposal, if adopted, would greatly enhance the performance of the Sea Harrier aircraft from conventional vessels?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, which I find an interesting one. The position is that the research programme is taking place at the RAE, Bedford. The first phase is almost complete and flight trials to be conducted by Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited are planned for late in 1977. The estimated cost is £250,000.
Lord TREGFARNE: My Lords, may I put one further supplementary question? I am greatly obliged and encouraged by what the noble Lord has said, and I wonder whether he can say which aircraft will be used in the flight test programme and whether they will exactly correlate to the Sea Harrier aircraft on order.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; I do not know which aircraft is to be used. If the noble Lord will put down another Question, I shall give him an Answer.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is the estimated cost to which the noble Lord referred the cost to October 1977 only or is it the cost of the whole programme?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is the estimated cost of the programme which is of a comparatively simple nature, although it is one of these elegant ideas that may produce benefits for little money.

FISHING INDUSTRY PROSPECTS
3.13 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble colleague Lord Kennet, who is having a tooth out, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. In doing so, may I call the attention of the House to a misprint in the sixth line, which should read, "to the discounted capital value".
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the consideration of "future prospects for the fishing industry" referred to in a Written Answer on 28th June 1976 (Official Report, volume 372, col.658), to the Question, "Why the 1975 White Paper, Food from our own Resources, did not mention fish"
1014
is now in progress; why, if it is, figures relating to numbers of jobs (both directly and indirectly related to the fishing industry) and to the discount capital value as a national asset of fish in the British 200 nautical mile zone are not being collected; and why, if figures of this kind arc required by Government for planning the future of other industries, Her Majesty's Government consider they are not required for the fishing industry.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the consultations referred to by my noble friend Lord Kennet are now in progress. Statistics about the number of fishermen were given in my reply of 2nd November. It is usually reckoned that each seagoing job supports between three and five shorebased jobs. Estimates related to the remainder of the Question would be speculative and would not justify the cost involved.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but is it not rather strange that we attempt to evaluate the discounted capital value of assets like North Sea oil and agricultural produce but neglect to assess the value of an asset like the fish in the waters surrounding this country?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, such estimates are of course always speculative, depending as they do on assumptions about future levels of interest rates and values of the asset or commodity involved. In this case, the degree of speculation is extended even further given that the quantity of fish to be exploited will depend on the nature and effectiveness of the conservation regime to be adopted and the volatile nature of fish prices.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the fishing industry in the deep waters is very much to the forefront at the moment, may I point out that one cannot separate what is happening in the deep waters from what is happening at home in fish farming? How are the Government getting on with their Working Party and the possibility of a Bill to help this industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that the Government's view as to

1015
fish farming and its importance has been made clear on a number of occasions in this House. As I have told the noble Baroness previously, a report is expected next year and I believe that we shall have to await that.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it will be at the beginning or the end of next year?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot speculate on that.

NATO AND DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
3.13 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 they have been made aware of the proceedings at the meeting of Defence Ministers at Brussels. and in particular of the need for increased expenditure by NATO countries to match the military strength of the Warsaw Pact; and. if so, what is their reaction.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government recognise that in the face of the continuing build-up of Warsaw Pact military strength, the North Atlantic Alliance is the best guarantee of our continued security. We intend to continue to make an effective military contribution to the collective security of the alliance commensurate with our economic situation.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that these frequent cuts, many of them substantial, in defence expenditure may encourage some of our allies to reduce their defence expenditure and thereby weaken NATO to an even greater extent compared with the Warsaw Pact? Is he aware that only last night, at a meeting of the Defence Study Group, the German representative stated that the German military expenditure annually was equivalent to £8,000 million? If the Germans can afford to spend probably
1016
£2,000 million more than the United Kingdom, surely this disparity ought to be recognised?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the only way that the disparity can be remedied is that we put our economy in as sound a financial position as the German economy. We have in the meanwhile to cut our cloth according to our means.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that before unilateral cuts of the kind that were made yesterday are put into action, there is an obligation, according to NATO procedures, to consult NATO? Will he also confirm that no such consultation has taken place, despite the fact that both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary were at the NATO meetings last week?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, our NATO allies were informed. Consultation will take place as to how these comparatively minor cuts are implemented.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain what is the point of consultation after decisions have been taken?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are talking about £100 million in relation to £5,500 million. It is really a question of a series of minor adjustments. and these we will undertake in consultation with our allies.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the Government not agree that it is really shameful in effect to weaken the conventional defence of Western Europe, thereby widening the fatal nuclear threshold, by their refusal to add a few pennies to the price of a bottle of whisky or a packet of cigarettes?
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that this is a minor cut of £100 million, but am I not right in saying that the figure is £300 million over the next two years? Is he aware that a great many people in all Parties regard these cuts as unjustified and irresponsible, and will he confirm that it was a slip of the tongue yesterday when the Leader of

1017
the House said that he assumed that our NATO allies had already been consulted about these vicious cuts?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: First, my Lords, the cuts are not vicious. The second point is that the treatment of the second tranche for 1978/79 will be different from the one proposed for the coming year. We have plenty of time to deal with 1978/79, and by then the economic situation may be different and the solutions may be different.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider—I speak for 10 million pacifists who have not yet been heard—preparing a discussion paper explaining why over 30 years we have been constantly assured that each increase of expenditure was absolutely essential to our defence, while we are now being constantly assured that each reduction in expenditure will not weaken our defence? Is there some optimum figure which could be considered rather carefully, if we are to continue to play the part of a great Power with the bailiffs in?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the first point I want to make is that we have had 30 years of peace, so the policies cannot have been so bad. The second point is that we are not alone. We are facing a common enemy in a strong alliance, and all I can say is that according to the shifting balance of wealth within that alliance various responsibilities shift. We in the beginning played a major part, nowadays we are for the time being not able to do so; but the future may see a different picture.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, do the noble Lord and the Government not recognise that the more you diminish the conventional forces, the only option that you can leave open for allied response is the tactical nuclear weapon, and therefore we are now coming closer to the policy of trip wire from which we have tried to escape for the past ten years? Is this not extremely dangerous, and will the Government give a pledge that they will not diminish the conventional forces any further?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct in
1018
I his analysis. The cuts proposed will be concentrated in the support and administrative areas, and they will not involve any reduction in our front line contribution to the alliance.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not the truth of this matter that the inferiority of NATO to the Warsaw Pact in conventional weapons is, and has been for many years, so great that minor additions or subtractions are quite irrelevant, and that that inferiority in conventional weapons has now become an inferiority in nuclear weapons as well?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the Russian analysis of the necessity for size in the extent of the superiority of conventional forces to enable them to attack? He will find that their own analysis is such that they are not likely to do what my noble friend suggests.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although, as he says, the cuts now proposed arc only £100 million this year and £200 million next year, that brings the total figure up to something like £1,000 million? Is he further aware that a recently-retired Chief of the Defence Staff said before the present cuts that the morale and efficiency of the Armed Forces were now at bedrock? Will he tell the House where they will be after these cuts?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier, and that is that nothing that we have done in the past year will involve any reduction in our frontline contribution to the alliance.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, in view of the fact that in the debate yesterday on the mini-Budget the Lord Privy Seal did not answer the question which was put by my noble friend Lord Carrington as to whether NATO had in fact been consulted, will the noble Lord kindly give an undertaking that Parliament will always be told the full truth about what is going on? We always ought to know exactly what is the truth.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I in fact answered that question earlier.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although one is bound to take account of our financial and economic situation, which we deplore, nevertheless we entered into an obligation with NATO several years ago, and that we are now scuttling away from that obligation? In those circumstances, if defence is not adequate, we might as well admit that we have no defence at all.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Answer! Answer!
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not accept that we are scuttling away.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much is at the present time being wasted by duplication of methods and resources and the failure to get agreement upon uniformity within NATO?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, much better progress has been made than my noble friend admits.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, while I do not feel I have the weight to ask the kind of question that has been asked hitherto, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that phrases like "defence must make its contribution" are very dangerous, first, because we are talking about the defence of an alliance and not a national defence only; and, secondly, because when we talk about defence in terms such as we are using now we are talking about security and, therefore, to some extent, about national existence?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a subject which we shall have an opportunity to discuss in great detail comparatively early in the coming year, and I would suggest that by that time the implications of the various reductions in defence expenditure that we have been discussing at this Question Time will be able to be put more clearly to your Lordships' House for mature consideration.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move
1020
the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order No.48, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:—

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Guest, L.

Janner, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Nathan, L.

Russell of Killowen, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wigoder, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (CASTLE BAY PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FISHERY LIMITS BILL
3.24 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Fishery Limits Bill, which is before us today, is an important and urgent measure designed to enable British fishery limits to be extended to 200 miles. The target date for extension is 1st January next year, and I should like to explain why the Government feel it is necessary to extend our limits at that time. First of all, the Government have consistently maintained, as at the time of our "cod war" dispute with Iceland earlier this year, that extensions of fishery limits should take place in a framework of international agreement and co-operation.

1021
Often, when asked questions in another place, I reiterated time and time agnai that this was our approach: that they should take place in a framework of international agreement and co-operation.
We had hoped that by now a new Law of the Sea Convention would have emerged from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Progress at the recent sessions of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference has, however, been slow. But this has been for reasons largely unconnected with fisheries, on which subject a broad consensus has emerged. This consensus is reflected in the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference Revised Single Negotiating Text, which envisages 200-mile limits backed up by coastal State jurisdiction over the living resources of the sea within those limits.
As I have said, there is broad agreement at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference on the most important issues, and many States are already extending their limits to 200 miles. Iceland and many South American States have already done so; Norway and Canada are planning to extend on 1st January, and the United States of America on 1st March 1977. Unless we do likewise, there is a very real danger that the already heavily exploited stocks of fish around our shores will be subject to even greater pressure as the fishermen of various countries are excluded from other grounds. That is why the Government took the lead within the European Economic Community in pressing for a concerted extension of limits early next year. The Council of Ministers showed a welcome sense of realism in agreeing to this step at their meeting on 30th October.
By itself, of course, an extension of fishery limits solves nothing. The important thing is the regime to be applied within the wider limits. There are two complementary aspects to this: the access allowed to foreign fishing vessels and the measures applied to conserve fish stocks. Up to now, the most important and abundant fish stocks have occurred in waters outside national fisheries jurisdiction. The conservation measures applied have been those agreed within international bodies, such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which had no power to enforce binding measures.
1022
Of course, these bodies have some significant achievements to their credit; but I think it is fair to say that, by and large, the measures agreed have given undue weight to economic pressures and in-sufficient weight to scientific advice. As a result, many stocks—to give an example, the Atlanto-Scandian herring—have disappeared, and most of the others are being over-fished to a greater or lesser degree.
With 200-mile limits most fish will be found within the limits of one or more coastal States, which will be responsible for conserving and managing the stocks in an effective manner and will have priority in exploiting them. For our part, we shall be working within a Community framework, and noble Lords will be aware that the Council of Ministers has already met to discuss the question of interim conservation arrangements and will be meeting again before the end of the year. It is the Government's firm intention to ensure that a Community conservation regime is introduced which fully meets the needs of the situation and gives proper weight to the scientists' recommendations. Indeed, we shall not consent to any regime which does not contain adequate safeguards in this respect. There must be effective measures to back up and enforce any quotas which are agreed, and industrial fishing must be controlled so that it does not damage valuable human consumption species. It may well take time to work out an acceptable regime and, in the meantime, the Government are prepared to take any necessary interim measures.
Dealing with access for foreign vessels, I have gone into the background to the Bill at some length because the Bill itself is largely an enabling measure, and it is important that noble Lords should be able to weigh its provisions in the light of more general developments. It builds to a considerable extent upon existing enactments, widening and extending them to take account of the new situation.
Clause 2, which is similar to Section 6 of the 1968 Act, enables Ministers to control access to British fishery limits. Foreign fishing boats are, in fact, prohibited from fishing within our limits unless they are registered in a country designated by order. Now this does not mean that foreign boats will disappear

1023
from our waters on 1st January. For one thing, under the Common Fisheries Policy as it now stands, fishing boats from Community Member States have equal access to each other's waters, at least up to the 12-mile belt. More restrictive, but temporary, arrangements apply inside 12 miles.
The Government's position in regard to the Common Fisheries Policy is well known and I need not rehearse the arguments in favour of coastal belts on this occasion. Suffice it to say that Clause 2 of the Bill is drawn in such a way that effect can be given to an exclusive coastal belt once agreement is reached. Until that time it would, however, be a breach of Community Law to seek to exclude Community fishermen from between 12 and 200 miles. As regards access to our limits for non-Community or third-country fishermen, here again the position is subject to negotiation.
There are a number of countries in whose waters our fishermen wish to catch large quantities of valuable species, such as cod, and who wish to catch in our waters species not so strongly favoured by our consumers. The Community is in the process of negotiating reciprocal access agreements with them. There are, however, other third countries whose fishermen fish in our waters but who cannot offer us much of value in return. Here the Commission's negotiating proposals envisage a rapid phase-out or scaling down of activity to levels justified by reciprocity. The Government fully support this approach.
My Lords, I want to turn now to the licensing provisions of the Bill, which are contained in Clause 3. The powers provided there for Ministers are widely drawn. Within all or part of British fishery limits, both British and foreign boats may be prohibited from fishing without a licence and a wide variety of restrictions may be imposed on areas, methods, periods of fishing, the species which may be caught, the ports at which they may be landed and so on. These powers are widely and flexibly drawn for several reasons. We are entering an era in which sea fishing will be much more closely controlled than hitherto, both for conservation reasons and in accordance with agreements between other countries and the Community.
1024
It is, moreover, impossible to predict with any certainty precisely what measures will be needed, because we do not know how the fish stock situation will develop over the years, and because the shape of a revised Common Fisheries Policy is still far from certain. It is not Government's intention at the present time to introduce a blanket system of licensing. We must, however, keep our options open.
I think I should add, since a good deal of confusion arose over this in another place, that licensing orders under Clause 3 will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. This is because Clause 3 substitutes a new Section 4 in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and the procedures contained in that Act will apply. Parliament will therefore be able to scrutinise any action taken by the Government.
I turn briefly now to questions of eforcement. I very much hope that noble Lords will welcome the increased level of maximum fines provided for in the Bill. There has been growing criticism in this House of the existing level of fines and the revised level is more in keeping with the substantial rewards to be obtained from illegal fishing. As noble Lords who have read the Bill will know, the maximum fine on summary conviction for the most serious offences is raised to £50,000, with provision for an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. In addition, the existing provision for confiscation of catch and gear—which could be worth, say, £100,000 in some cases—is retained. I believe that the revised level of penalties will provide a real deterrent to illegal fishing or breaches of conservation rules.
My Lords, I now turn to the resources we shall he making available for fishery protection. The force which is to patrol our extended limits has been described on several occasions. It will consist of five Royal Navy "Island" vessels, four RAF Nimrod aircraft and three fishery protection vessels run by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. In addition, the existing Royal Navy and DAFS inshore forces will continue to operate and other Royal Navy vessels can be called upon as necessary. I believe that this force will be effective, although, inevitably, its operation will be reviewed from time to time. The

1025
Bill contains provision in Clause 7 for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to contribute towards the cost of the force. The Secretary of State for Scotland already has power to do so under an enactment of 1895.
As I have said, my Lords, this Bill will not solve all our fishery problems. But it is an essential first step. While I hope that noble Lords will have regard to the urgency of the Bill and the need to expedite its progress—and it was welcomed on all sides in another place—I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate this afternoon and I shall do my best, in winding up, to answer the points which are raised. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Peart).
3.38 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it will be no surprise to those Members of your Lordships' House who have heard me speak on this subject in recent months, that I welcome most wholeheartedly the principle of this Bill enabling the Government to extend our fishery limits to 200 miles. Indeed, the opening part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearl, was almost word for word what I have been saying in this House during this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others will know. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, was in another place on those occasions but we are delighted that he is in this House with all the experience he has had and the time and energy he has spent on fisheries as well as agriculture in recent years, and we know that the House is benefiting from his experience.
My Lords, it was in a debate on 19th May, I see, that I said that it was essential for the British fishing industry that a new system of conservation of fish stocks should be introduced by the maritime nations together at an early date. Agreement on principle on coastal economic zones of 200 miles had already been reached but no starting date had yet been fixed. That was what I was saying in May and have said on other occasions in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, reminded us, the Law of the Sea Conference has been considering the
1026
question of fishing limits as well as economic zones, together with an enormous quantity of other subjects connected with the sea, navigation, pollution and other matters. I was advocating that Her Majesty's Government should not hold up the question of fishery conservation and limits, while those other matters, which were less urgent and some of them very complicated, were completed. It was the aim of that world conference to try to have one convention signed to cover all the subjects. But it soon became apparent that Britain and other maritime nations—particularly fishing countries—could he held to ransom by lack of agreement, or the time it needed to reach agreement, on subjects such as the rules for international straits, or the regime for deep sea mining.
Fishing, and Britain's fishing industry, were the most urgent matters for this country at the conference. I believe that Britain has had more at stake regarding the extension of fishery limits to 200 miles than any other nation in the world. The Government have clearly done what we were recommending from this Bench, which was to follow the example of the United States, Canada and Norway and bring in enabling legislation with a view to extending limits to 200 miles early in 1977. I hope that the Government will continue to act in concert with Governments who think the same way as we do, so that the new regime of fishery limits can be brought in by a number of nations, the principal fishing nations, at about the same time.
Iceland's international offence was to try to impose a fishery limit long before it had been agreed by others, and long before reciprocal arrangements could be made. This would have been unfair to all others concerned and has caused a great deal of trouble and the cod wars. The major change from 12 to 200 miles means radical changes in fishing patterns. Many distant water vessels will have to fish nearer home, and this will be so not only for Britain but also for other fishing countries. It will affect the types of vessel being used and also the types of fishing gear. But it is necessary for two reasons. One mentioned by the noble Lord is the overfishing which has been taking place recently and will continue unless regimes of conservation are en-forced. The methods of catching fish

1027
have improved in efficiency very greatly, and other countries have been unscrupulous in scooping up fish of all kinds without much thought to the future. The second reason is that coastal States have by far the main interest in enforcing conservation measures. Therefore, it is logical to place the main responsibility upon the coastal States.
I should like to turn to some immediate matters arising from the Bill before us. First, I must say a word about Iceland. The EEC are engaged in negotiations with Iceland, and I heard a depressing statement issued by the Icelandic Minister before the meeting today started. I am sure that we wish Mr. Gundelach well in representing the interests of the EEC; and, of course, Britain's interest is the main one there. The three British ports of Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood are the ones principally affected where Iceland is concerned. Looking at the negotiations, Iceland catches most of her fish within her own 200 miles fishery zone, and she sells most of the fish elsewhere because she has only a small population.
I will not now examine in detail these matters, which are the subject of delicate negotiations at present, but I should like to raise a major point for the future. As well as the licensing system, should there not be in the Bill some powers to control the landings of fish by foreign boats? Surely, this should be one of the bargaining counters which Britain may use vis-à-vis Iceland and other countries which may be in a similar position in the future. We obviously have to take care of our own processing industries; we have to make sure too that the price of fish does not suddenly increase for the consumers. Any such powers would accordingly have to be used with care. I recognise that this is probably a Department of Trade matter and not a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office, who are presumably responsible for this Bill. But will the noble Lord tell us whether such powers already exist? If they do not, or if they are not adequate, will he consider adding them to the Bill? We have the opportunity next week, and certainly from this side of the House I can assure the Government that we will co-operate in every way to add something like this to the Bill, should it be necessary.
1028
The United States Congress made such an addition to the legislation which they have passed while it was going through its various stages. Once they had done it, they achieved considerable success as a result vis-à-vis Japan, because Japan accepted the 200-mile fishery zone where the United States was concerned when they realised that the United States was taking these powers to control the landings of fish by Japanese boats on United States territory. I remember that in the past we have used certain powers—I cannot remember exactly what they were—in relation to fish fillets from Norway. I think that it was direct agreement with Norway under which there were annual quotas imposed on the amount of fish fillets that could be landed in this country. If so, we do not have the general powers.
We should not ignore this bargaining counter, as I have described it, which should enable us to negotiate in future with countries which are not concerned with catching fish in our waters but, none the less, are concerned about various facilities which we can give them. This should strengthen the arm of the EEC in negotiating on our behalf, even if it is a statement today or next week.
I should also like to consider briefly other countries outside the EEC, and, in particular, the Soviet Union. The Minister who was replying to the debate in another place on 3rd December said that approaches had been made to the Soviet Union, but that no negotiations had yet begun. The noble Lord may be able to tell us more about that this evening if anything has started in the past two weeks. The Minister could not say whether Russian vessels would withdraw from the British 200-mile fishery limit, or would dwindle in numbers after 1st January.
In recent months the Soviet Union have been fishing very much more round our coasts than in the past. Clearly, they could see what was coming and they were trying to catch as much as they could before the new regime started. Then there is another point where the Soviet Union are concerned. Will the EEC be negotiating with the Soviet Union, or will it be the individual members of the EEC? I ask this because Soviet recognition of the EEC as an international entity is vague and uncertain. It could be that in order to get results and do business with the

1029
Soviet Union we may have to negotiate separately. Subsequently—and perhaps even more important—when we come to the control and policing of the EEC 200-mile fisheries limit, the Soviet Union may not recognise fishery protection vessels or aircraft if they are operating on an EEC basis rather than a national basis. That, also, I suggest needs to be borne in mind.
On 1st December, at the end of the debate on the Address in this House, my noble friend Lady Elles asked a question about co-operation with the EEC where patrolling and control of the new fishery limits were concerned. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, suggested at the end of our debate that this could be a matter for a special debate by means of an Unstarred Question. We have had a look at this and, on these Benches, we feel that between now and Christmas the best opportunities will arise on this Bill today and on the Proceedings next week to consider naval co-operation within the EEC and the general question of policing the new fishery limits. Of course, when we reassemble towards the end of January there may well be other opportunities, and indeed it may be appropriate to have a debate on the methods of policing the 200-mile fishery limits.
I come now to negotiations within the EEC. It was known that the world was going to move from 12 miles to 200 miles and that there would be a massive upheaval for the world's fishing fleets. When the new fishery policy was adopted before the United Kingdom negotiations began in 1970, a policy was then agreed which is no longer relevant. It applied to a world with 12-mile fishery limits and, as from next year, there is to be a world with 200-mile fishery limits. Our 1970 position in the United Kingdom was extended in time until 1983 with not much alteration. The whole concept of limits in the meantime has been in the melting pot, and a new system is now emerging. For the United Kingdom fishing industry, it is clear that more vessels must be working around our own coasts. These will include not only our large trawlers, which have in the past been fishing off the coast of other countries, but also what we call our inshore fishing fleets.
1030
There is a possible misunderstanding here, my Lords, because we describe our inshore fishing fleets approximately as boats whose length is below a certain measurement; but some of these fishermen are very sturdy and robust and may fish off the coast of Norway up to the 12-mile limit. They can go out for five days at a time or more. Included among the inshore fleets also are very small boats which go out for just a half day for about a mile and gather shellfish. Therefore, so far as Britain is concerned, the inshore fleet contains a wide variety extending between those two types. A possible misunderstanding could therefore arise because whenever the EEC make arrangements for what they describe as "inshore fishermen" they appear to be thinking more of the small boats, such as the shell-fish boats, than of what we would describe as inshore boats, which go considerably further afield, though they do not do the long journeys to Iceland or Northern Norway.
So we have to consider this question of an exclusive zone or band within the EEC fishery limits for Britain. The United Kingdom and Ireland together have a very large part of the coastal waters and, therefore, of the 200-mile EEC fishery waters. The fishermen themselves have been saying that a 50-mile exclusive limit is what they expect as a minimum. The Government have stated that they are negotiating for an exclusive band which would vary from 12 to 50 miles, taking into account the particular fishing grounds. I would urge the Government again, as I have done in the past, to negotiate for as much of the 50-mile element of that as possible, remembering also that fish are not static and are not like oil or gas, remaining always in one part of the Continental Shelf. From this Bench we would support the Government if they were to propose a regime, for the time being, within the 50 miles after 1st January, if no agreement has yet been reached with the EEC. We think that would be a sensible thing for the Government to do in the meantime.
If I may consider for a moment the EEC's own policies, they place a great deal of emphasis on competition. At the same time there is a system for regional development in the EEC. At the World Conference there is a group

1031
of about 50 countries which are land-locked and geographically disadvantaged. I would remind your Lordships that this group includes West Germany, Belgium and Holland. We must remember that when we are negotiating within the EEC. When we think of the great ports of Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam and the system of the Rhine, it is sometimes difficult to think of them as being disadvantaged from a maritime point of view. Also, in every other way, of course, those countries have great geographical advantages because they are central in Europe.
In contrast, there are the peripheral areas of the EEC, which have less industrial development. These very often contain the fishing communities: for example, the North of England, Scotland, Ireland and Brittany. Their resources, which happen to go with these peripheral areas, form a large part of the EEC waters. Therefore to recognise such natural resources as do exist, for areas which are not blessed with many other natural resources, would cause less distortion of competition policy than might otherwise he the case. Also, it would make less serious the problems of those areas which are to be tackled by the Regional Development Fund and the Social Fund of the EEC. I hope that the Government will point out during the negotiations that we are upholding the principles for which the EEC itself stands and the aims which it seeks to apply, the keynote being conservation of the resources available to "the less favoured areas"—that is an EEC term—and providentially on their doorstep: that is to say, fish in the seas off their shores.
Briefly, on the question of policing, the British element to which the noble Lord referred contains four Nimrods which can carry out surveillance over a very wide area—and there will be a very wide area of sea which has to be patrolled. Those aircraft, of course, cannot themselves make an arrest; and of the various surface craft that are available there seem to be none with enough speed to be certain of making an arrest after a Nimrod or some other aircraft has spotted a vessel which is suspected of being in an area where it should not be. The Government place emphasis upon the seaworthiness and endurance of the fishery protection vessels we are proposing to use, but I
1032
suggest that more is needed, and in the debate which I indicated could probably occur in the New Year these matters ought to be gone into in greater depth
I would also mention that where licensing is concerned—I think the Government have already agreed to this but I press it from this Bench—there is an advantage in licensing vessels and not trusting in quotas. Quotas have fallen into disrepute with fishermen because they believe they are not being properly observed by other countries. In any case, it is much easier to carry out policing at a distance if it is only a named vessel or a certain number of vessels which can he in an area at a given time and you do not have to hoard the vessel and inspect what it has been doing. So that should make patrolling easier.
Our aim in Britain must be the conservation of existing stocks of fish, but we must also look to new species which are at present little known to the public; such as blue whiting and ling. There is also a fish called the grenadier. These are to be found some distance off the West coast in deeper water, and will require new methods of fishing. But some of these types of fish are there in quantities, and they have not been so hard pressed as the staple fish which arc better known. Marketing will be required, because the housewife is not used to these fish, and I must mention that at least one, the grenadier, is singularly repulsive in appearance, though I am told that it is quite good to eat.
We will certainly do all we can to help this Bill through before Christmas, so that it will be enacted by 1st January, but, once it is, the British Government should have five crucial tasks, if I may suggest them. First, they should control conservation by the licensing of the 200-mile zone, and by effective policing. Secondly, there should be negotiation with countries outside the EEC, where any fishing is required by them within our 200-mile zone, with reciprocity for our distant water vessels. In that way, we should aim to retain as much distant water fishing as we can off the coasts of other countries. Thirdly, there should be a phasing out of the activities of those countries which have no particular reason to continue fishing within our fishery limits, and which have nothing to offer us in return: and I note that that process

1033
has already started by notice having been given to a certain number of countries. Fourthly, there should be negotiation within the EEC for an exlusive zone, on the lines which I have just been discussing. Fifthly, there should be co-operation with the industries—and I include the processing and other industries, as well as the fishing industry—to help new patterns to emerge, new methods of catching, and also to assist with the popularity and consumption of new species of fish on the market. All parts of the British fishing industry are bound to feel the effects of the new world system, and we should be making the best of what was inevitably coming. But there is no reason why a healthy and prosperous British fishing industry should not remain, with all the benefits for our economy and for our consumers.
4.3 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, all of this has been said before by him and by others, and the one fact which is inescapable is that the Bill itself is inescapable, and will be given a fair wind by all the people who understand the fishing industry. The Government's difficulties have been most evident. It was quite right that they should await the outcome of the interminable Law of the Sea Conferences, which dragged on and on; and, of course, while the dispute with Iceland was on we had to maintain that out of the Law of the Sea Conferences some agreement could come. But what happened was that the lack of any co-operation eventually drove the nations concerned—the United States, Canada, France and others—towards a unilateral extension of their fishing limits to 200 miles. So we understand why the Government, perfectly properly, waited for events before introducing this Bill and we will certainly give it as fair a wind as possible, because it has our full support.
I shall not go into much of the detail of the Bill, but the licensing provisions are most helpful. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, quotas are subject to all kinds of wriggles and difficulties. For example, in a factory fishing fleet which is fishing for industrial purposes all kinds of fish are poured into the hold and nobody can know what kind of fish they are, or whether the quota is being
1034
controlled. Licensing of vessels and owners can give the kind of control that is needed, and this must be done by the maritime country itself.
In this respect, it is very interesting to look at the proposals for extending the fishery protection fleet. Perhaps the Minister can say whether, in addition to the four Nimrods, which are very large, very expensive and very well-equipped aircraft, which can operate in bad weather, the Government intend to use a back-up of light aircraft, which might be more useful and much cheaper, as was suggested in another place by the Conservative spokesman on Scotland. Along with helicopters, such light aircraft could he an important back-up for the very sophisticated Nimrods.
I believe that the Bill will enable the EEC to negotiate quickly with Iceland and Norway for very important areas for ourselves, which could preserve a part—though probably only a part—of our deep water fleet. Cod from around Iceland is very important to England, while haddock is very important to Scotland, and the EEC's control of the markets is a most important negotiating point with Iceland. But I am not so much concerned with that. I believe that the EEC can deal effectively with what I might call our enemies, or the outside people, including the Soviet Union. I think that we have the power, and one thing that the Soviet Union has is a primitive territorial integrity. So in that case we shall be able to negotiate quite effectively.
But I am really concerned in this matter with our friends. For example, the Danes are the most excellent people; they are glorious, gross eaters and I adore to eat in their company. But they are also gross fishers; their industrial fishing is a grave danger to us and they are very influential. We have to remember that the EEC's fishing policy is all rather a swindle. It was cobbled-up hurriedly before the real maritime fishing nations, like Great Britain and Ireland—and at that time Norway was negotiating—came into the EEC, and I do not think it should be regarded as sacrosanct.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that Community Law is very important and will stop our doing certain things. But we should be practical about this, and

1035
realise that the success of the Community so far has relied greatly upon the breaking of Community law, and the adjusting, by long negotiations, of Community law and its spirit to national difficulties and interests. I do not think we should forget this when the Ministers are negotiating. For example, I would ask the noble Lord to remember how often French agricultural interests have broken the spirit of Community law, and Community aims in general. What is really important is what we negotiate in the shape of a limit. Everyone connected with the fishing industry has said it is absolutely vital that we have a limit for our own use.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that there have been some successes in the international field; for example, the North Atlantic Commission. I do not know what these successes are, because he went on to quote the rapid extinction or diminution of several species of fish. I should like the noble Lord to quote to us any successes because, quite frankly, I do not think that there are any. I think that certain compromises have been made, and that is all. May I quote from what was said in another place by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister during the Second Reading debate on the Fishery Limits Bill:
"It is no longer practical or, indeed, desirable, to resist the strong pressure for wider fishing limits. The problem of managing and conserving fish stocks remains. I have no doubt that only one sort of State has the means, the incentive and the economic interest to do so—the Coastal State—which actually has its stocks around its coasts".—[Official Report (Commons), 3/12/76; col.1349.]
This is entirely and wholly true, and I hope that the Government will stick by it.
So far we have had no form of international agreement that has been successful in conserving stocks. May I suggest that the Government have a very strong negotiating point. They can say that they are perfectly willing to surrender to quota arrangements at a later date—say in 10 years' time—for an exclusive coastal trip. But until the international arrangements (and I mean international within the EEC) are proven it would be extremely foolish—and regarded as so, probably, by our EEC partners—of us to surrender the 50-mile limit. When I say a 50-mile limit I mean a 50-mile limit. Obviously it cannot be that where the
1036
median line is less; but I can see no reason for saying "50 miles or less", because if there is no reason for it then our partners will not want it. If you are policing something, you need a firm limit. To ask people to police some kind of zig-zag up and down our coast will be even more difficult than the policing that we are asking them to do at this moment.
May I say one or two things about the methods of fishing. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that methods have improved so much that they are in danger of extinguishing the fish stocks. I would take the noble Lord to task on only one point—that is, his use of the word "improved". There is an enormously good case for backing the genuine inshore fisherman. I am not saying this because I think that it is marvellous to have inshore fishermen around the quays of our ports looking picturesque, in their lovely dark jerseys—we call them "ganseys" in our part of the world. I say it because there is a strong commercial reason. The inshore fishermen are very competent at their job. Certainly on the East coast of Scotland the oldest method of fishing—by the great line where you selected your fish, or the game came and selected their hook, happily for us, and were caught on it—was very efficient and very practical, because the hardy fish merchants and fishmongers of Scotland would pay more for line fish than they would pay for fish that were scooped up. I do not believe that we are going back-wards if we ask for an inshore fishing zone to be fished by local fishermen in what may appear to be old-fashioned ways, but which are more competent and efficient and which certainly are ways that can conserve fish stocks. My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran has pointed out that the inshore fishing industry of Wales has been ruined by French trawlers scooping up the fish around the coast of Wales. This could be true of a great many parts of Great Britain, but Wales is the nearest part of Great Britain to the Continent of Europe to suffer from this danger.
All of this points to the fact that we must give a great welcome to the Bill. However, during this Second Reading debate we are hammering home to the Government that they must consider British interests, for in the long-term the British interests will be the interests of the

1037
Community. We are also hammering home to the Government that they must hold absolutely firm on getting an exclusive zone of 50 miles around our coasts, or the median line, which we can police properly and show the way towards policing properly the rest of the zone by the EEC.
4.15 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, this debate, which has been interesting, may not seem so dramatic as that which was undertaken here and in another place yesterday. It may well be that those taking part in it have found that parts of it seem to be too specific to be generally interesting, yet it seems to me that this debate is as vital and is as much in context in the continuing debate about the economy as anything that we heard promulgated yesterday. It seems to me that we have to speak in terms of international co-operation and about the existing agencies which can ensure that co-operation. We must make sure that those factors which are still within national control are properly controlled by the Government of this country. So much is no longer under the control of any Government, of whatever colour, in this country that we must ensure that those things which we can control and influence are controlled and influenced properly and effectively. In this sense I welcome the Bill.
At the same time I have to say that so far as the Welsh fishing industry is concerned the Bill is, sadly, 20 years too late. If such a Bill had been presented in this House or in another place 20 years ago, it could have avoided what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has mentioned as having already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As it has not been raised in this debate, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I give some attention to it in the course of my remarks.
The British fishing industry generally realises that it is of vital importance within the economy, but it sometimes wonders whether its importance is understood by society at large. The Welsh fishing industry is certainly convinced that over a period of 25 years its own problems were not properly understood
1038
and that, because they were not understood, it has led to the loss to the British economy and to the British housewife of a very valuable food.
The Welsh industry, which was once based on Cardiff and Swansea, has deteriorated over the last 25 years. It has deteriorated in particular since the war, although it was showing signs of deteriorating before then, principally because we had failed to realise the dangers of not conserving fish stocks. It is absolutely essential that we should understand now that there are crop areas around the coasts of this country which are so much over-fished, and which have been over-fished for so long, that they will not in future be available to the trawlers which have worked from the British ports.
It may not be known that the Welsh fishing industry, which was once so important and valuable, is now worth only about 1 per cent. of the total overall British fishing industry. I want the House to understand that I am not in any way being parochial in using this as an illustration of what is happening and why it is essential that the Bill should be passed quickly through this House. One hundred years, and more, of fishing were undertaken from the West Coast ports of Wales, just as fishing has been undertaken from the other coastal ports of Great Britain.
Milford Haven is a classic example of the lack of a conservation policy. Hake fishing was once undertaken at that port, and it was so important to the economy of the country as to be worth, in 1946, for example, £1¾ million in total value. The catch at that time, which was landed by the Milford Haven trawlers, was some 60,000 tons (that is the old British ton) of fish, and over the period of which I have been speaking the value of the catch, despite inflation, has fallen to the extent that the number of people employed in the industry is now derisory compared with what it once was. Yet the industry is still vitally important and is an important element in the economy.
It may not be generally known that to mature the hake, which was certainly the basis of the fishing at Milford Haven port and of much of the Welsh industry, took 10 years, and that its physical arrangement was such that, if it were

1039
raised above the level at which it normally lived, air sacks within its body exploded and the fish was no longer able to support itself and therefore died off.
The culprits in the over-fishing were not the local fishermen, who were themselves early controlled by British net mesh regulations, but were precisely those countries from the nearer Continent who, under current regulations and indeed under proposed regulations, still have access to those fishing areas. The fishing industry in Wales has so far deteriorated as to consist effectively of only eight trawlers, whereas at one time there were more than 200, and the number of fishermen onshore, based on the Milford Haven ports, is somewhere between 60 and 80, and we can probably say that about 300 people ashore are now employed.
In 1975, British vessels landed at the Milford Haven port only 2,430 metric tonnes, and the value of that, with inflation, amounted to £813,363. I make no apology for giving the detail of this because it is important for us to understand that one large sector of the British industry has already died. An important element of it that is struggling to remain, is giving itself a number of props in order to remain in business. The Celtic Fishing Industries, Ltd., import what we used to know as Dublin Bay prawns; overland they import scampi now from other areas and bolster up the fishing industry at Milford Haven.
But the Welsh fleet is aging: the average age is about 18 years and this in itself is part of the problem which shows that the industry cannot afford to redevelop itself in order to live up to the potential that continues to exist there. Fixed port charges have to he borne by fewer and fewer vessels and the unit costs of operating rise. As fuel gets dearer, so it becomes more difficult for people to keep their boats at sea. A 12 day trip of the average size trawler now requires some £4,500 in order to break even—a very substantial sum of money. This of course is reflected in price rises and therefore we find that the whole thing is inflationary. At the same time as being inflationary, it contributes to unemployment in an area where the unemployment percentage is the highest in Britain outside of Ulster
1040
and at the last count stood at 20·7 per cent. of the working population. Disguised within that very high figure was the fact that there are not generally available jobs for women in this area. There are not around the coastal areas of the rest of Britain. There is, then, a disguised unemployment figure within that high and inflated percentage.
So that the decline in the industry has increased unemployment, it has added to inflation and it has limited the home based food source. Fish is still, despite price rises, a relatively cheap source of high protein food available, within our own control. So what we are talking about is the management of the sea estate of Great Britain. What we are engaged upon in this Bill is putting at the disposal of the Government and of the authorities involved an instrument which will give them the chance to do more effectively what they have recognised as needing to be done for a long time and what they have tried to have done through international agencies.
Here I should like to add to the tributes that have been paid to the noble Lord the Leader of the House who is sitting here with all the knowledge that he has gained as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and one who has the confidence of the industry. At the same time, I should like to say that the industry is not always confident that the peripheral edges of it are given as adequate representation as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, would claim, rightly, to have given to the interests of Britain in the arguments that he has had within the EEC and elsewhere.
This deprivation, this decline in the industry, has created social problems and of course it has attracted further Government money. So we have a vicious economic situation in which, simply because we did not conserve our stocks, we added to our problems both within the economy of the fishing industry and within the economy of the whole nation. The Welsh fishing industry would claim—and doubtless other sections of the industry would claim—that indiscriminate continental small mesh fishing around the West coast grounds has in fact been the basic long-term cause of the problems that they face. British fleets have always accepted in recent years—I will qualify that: remove the word "always" because

1041
responsibility has to be taught. Legislation must always come after education and British fleets have accepted that there is a twin basis to conservation. Net mesh sizes must be regulated—and the Bill is an instrument for doing that—and immature fish must not be caught. If they are caught they must not have access to markets. Here again, the local British fishing industry has been at the mercy of its continental brethren. Immature fish caught by France, Spain and Belgium are in fact taken ashore and find a ready market.
The Welsh fishing industry and other sections of the British fishing industry will accuse their colleagues from the fishing interests of the other countries of the EEC of breaching the spirit of the Conventions already agreed. They are also rather worried that some of the concessions given to those countries have made it possible for them to be even more effective in breaching the policy. They say that competitors have been given licences which enable them to come into British territorial waters and to fish in areas which in fact the British fleets would wish to conserve. The unemployed fishermen of the coastal villages of Britain have had the aggravation of looking out to the near horizon and seeing foreign vessels fishing almost off their shores, actually breaching the six-mile limit and even coming up to within three miles from the shore. British fleets are prevented from doing this, and they say that they would not do it in any case. I do not know that they are really as altruistic as all that, but they are prevented from doing it and they accept the spirit of the legislation which prevents them. There is a growing sense of responsibility within the industry itself as to the conduct of its affairs.
There is a further charge which I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House might wish to take up. It is said that the falling status of the trade in the peripheral areas of the country in fact leads to its being more lowly regarded in representations that are made in general on behalf of the trade itself. So they lose out in every way: not only do they lose out in the market, hut they are discounted when arguments go on within the EEC aimed at presenting the general case. The specific weakened economies lose again. As I have said, they see their difficulties as
1042
being disregarded and not properly presented within the British Trawler Federation, within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—a direct response will probably be made to that—and within the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. They fear that the potential of the West coast grounds could also be disregarded. They feel that there is a potential left, despite the difficulties, and what I want to urge this afternoon—and I am conscious of the passing of time disciplining me—is that reassurance be given, first by the acceptance of the provisions of this Bill and by its early passage through the House, and secondly by those who are responsible for representing the interests of the British fisheries. I ask them to contact through their local representatives the interests that makes this charge and prove specifically to them, if it is in fact groundless, that such is the case. They really fear that too much attention could be given to recent landings and not enough to the whole picture.
I have lived alongside the Haven all my adult and child life. I went to school with the people who man the fleet. I, too, pay tribute to what they do. It is essential that it is recognised that in a country under siege—because whether we like it or not, our economy is under siege—we must make the maximum use of the abilities of the people in the industry, as well as of the food they are likely to catch. It is an affront to me, as to all Members of this House, when individuals who wish to work are prevented from doing so, in an industry that has the opportunity to land valuable assets for the country, because the nature of these problems has too long been disregarded.
My Lords, there is much more I wished to say. I feel I am urging a brief here in the broadest possible sense. I have quoted only specific and local cases because I wanted to extrapolate the lesson from them; that is, the need for us to conserve our stocks and to see that when the new regulations are introduced they are effectively policed. It is essential that we should bring in this Bill immediately. I support it wholeheartedly. I hope that the Minister, perhaps not today but at a later time, will give a fuller answer to some of the fears I have expressed. I am delighted that this House is lead by one who will be able to represent these interests with such experience.
4.32 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I heartily agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has just said. He was quite right when he said that this is a very important Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and what will come out of it will be of great importance, so I am surprised that there have not been more speakers this afternoon. Although it is excellent news that we are now going to get the 200-mile limit, I think we are rather late in the day. It is a great pity we did not do this earlier. If we had done it earlier, it would have given us more authority in our dealings with Iceland. I understand that Iceland are unloading large cargoes of fish at the moment at Grimsby and Hull, so we must ensure that we do not allow foreign boats to fish within this 200-mile limit and to dump their fish here. Maybe it is different if they are taking the fish to their own country to raise the standard of living, but we must not allow them to dump the fish here.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, quite rightly drew attention to the extreme importance of this industry, and its decline. Even though it is declining, I understand that last year the total catch was worth £900 million, a figure which shows the great importance of this industry. But we are at a disadvantage. I was "pro" the EEC. Well, I am not now quite so "pro"; but we are at a disadvantage with regard to fishing when it comes to the EEC. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is the truth. I was of the opinion that we had the power of veto when it came to fishery policy, but apparently we do not have that power, which I think is a pity. Our fishing resources in the North-East Atlantic are by far the most valuable in the EEC. All the countries of the EEC put together do not have anything like our valuable fisheries. We have a longer coastline on the Atlantic than the rest of the EEC put together, excluding, perhaps the Mediterranean. Even if you include Italy, we might even have a longer coastline, but I have not worked that out.
The real heart of the Bill, as several noble Lords have said, will be apparent when we come to renegotiation. I do not know how to pronounce his name, but Mr. Gundelach—he must be a Scotsman with a name like that—
Lord PEART: A Dane.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: —is, I gather, a fair minded individual and will do his best to look after our interests, but he will have a lot of other pressures exerted on him. I do not want to be repetitive—it is difficult not to be when one is speaking late in the list—but Her Majesty's Government must really insist that we get an exclusive zone of 50 miles. That is essential. If we wish to insist on that we have the whip hand, because we have the best fishing grounds.
Clause 7, which deals with protection—I should say that I have rather jumped the clauses, but I do not want to go into them one by one—is a clause in which I am very interested. Presumably, we shall be responsible for protection up to the 200-mile limit. We are told that we shall have only four Nimrod aircraft, five naval vessels, and three Ministry of Agriculture vessels. Are these enough? I understand that the total area which we would have to police is about 500,000 square miles. If we take in the Republic of Ireland, which I suppose we shall also have to police, the area will be nearer 1 million square miles. Can we really police that sort of area with four Nimrods? You cannot have them all in the air at the same time; probably it is possible to have only one of them in the air at a time. I understand that the vessels will do only 16 knots, and they will not have helicopters. It seems to be a very small force. I am told that the naval vessels will also have to guard our oil installations. Surely they will be far too widely stretched. If we take the value of our oil at thousands of millions of pounds, and the value of our fishing at £1,000 million per annum, surely the Government could afford more protection than that. I do not agree that the EEC should help us to protect up to the 200-mile limit, but they might contribute towards the cost. Of course, the EEC do not have vessels, although NATO do, so perhaps we could come to an agreement whereby the EEC contribute towards the cost. That seems fair enough.
Might I now pass to the question of conservation. Perhaps I ought to have taken this first because in the Bill conservation comes before protection. I quite

1045
agree with what has been said by some noble Lords about quotas. One cannot really protect fishing by quotas, because people will cheat. Various countries are involved, like Norway, which have factory ships which actually come and take the catch from the small ships, and go straight home. How are we to check on what they have taken? Therefore, from the point of view of conservation, a system of quotas is not very satisfactory. I think the only really satisfactory method is to have prohibited areas, providing one can police them. One can have close seasons, of course, but it can happen that a close season for a certain fish is not the same as the close season for another type of fish in that area which perhaps does not need a close season. So, again, you will get people cheating. They will say, "We were not fishing for those fish for which the close season is on; we were fishing for the other species". You can get that in freshwater. People will be fishing for sea trout, but they will say, "We were not fishing for sea trout, but for brown trout". The same thing can happen on the seas.
Before concluding, I should like to say that I have been on the West Coast of Scotland for a long time and I have been appalled at the drop in the fish stocks since my youth. I can remember the days when if you got a westerly gale in the autumn you could get the herring piled up on the shore three feet deep. We used to take them out in carts and put them on the fields. I can remember as a boy sailing out in the Atlantic and seeing great schools of Greenland blue whales. They are not fish, so perhaps this is not relevant to the Bill. I have not seen a blue whale since the war, and it was the Russians who killed them.
Talking of the Russians, of course, if they do not give us some reciprocal agreement—and I do not see how they can because the White Sea, after all, is frozen for the majority of the year; I cannot see that they can give us equal fishing with what we can offer them—I presume this will mean that if we have the necessary protection vessels the Russians will keep out of our zone. I have seen Russian trawlers. They do not fish; they hoover the sea. I followed one once, and they appeared to be hoovering the sea with some form of electronic equipment. I do not know whether they
1046
are using electromagnets or something like that, but they appear to hoover the sea. It is the most appalling procedure.
My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be strong in this renegotiation because we have the best fishing grounds in the North-Eastern Atlantic. There is one point that the Minister might answer. I may be foolish about this; perhaps have not read enough about it. Am I to understand that when we have the 200-mile fishing limit that is also the economic zone? Does that include the minerals on the seabed as well, because if it does it is an even more important question. It is a more important question from the point of view of sovereignty. I do not suppose it includes it, but I should like to know whether it does. With those few words, I will sit down. I should like to reiterate: do remain strong over this renegotiation, because we have a lot to offer. That is my last word: do remain strong in the renegotiations.
4.43 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships that I have not put down my name to speak, but i am going to speak for only two minutes. I have had a life-long interest in the fishing industry of this country, and the first thing I would say is that I congratulate Her Majesty's Government for the tremendous fight the Foreign Secretary has been putting up in Brussels for our fisheries. I think it is a great triumph to have achieved the 200-mile limit.
The only other thing I want to say about the inshore fishing industry of this country is this. I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I do not believe that quotas are going to be any good. They cannot be enforced, even if we had an exchange of inspectors, which would do something. In the end they will not be enforced. So far as the inshore fishing industry is concerned, for certain parts of our coast, we must have, especially in Scotland and on the South-West coast, a 50-mile exclusive limit. I think that is terribly important, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will light for this as they have given every sign of doing; otherwise the inshore fishery of this country will die, and that would be a tragedy.
4.45 p.m.
Lord DIGBY: My Lords, welcome for this Bill has been unanimous on all sides. I merely hope that the practical results will live up to the expectations. It is an enabling measure, absolutely essential to the bargaining that will follow, both with our friends in the Community and with third countries. That is the forum on which the future prosperity of our fishermen will depend.
Of course I support this Bill. One can only wish, with hindsight, that it had been brought in some time ago as part of the settlement of the cod war. As chairman of the Fisheries Committee of the South-West Economic Planning Council, I am frequently reminded of the serious problems facing the fishermen of the South-West. These are largely inshore fishermen, who see the 200-mile limit only as a first step. The real crunch will come with the demand for an exclusive zone of more than 12 miles. Of course, we must try for the 50 miles. I hope that we will succeed. at least on 35 miles.
One of our main worries is mackerel, and its importance is emphasised by the fact that 60 per cent. of the mackerel caught in the United Kingdom is attributable to the fisheries of the South-West. At present, there is surplus and scope for expansion, but modern forms of trawling and the addition of factory ships can soon endanger supply, as has been found in so many other fisheries. This is why we must look on this Bill as an opportunity and a spur to action. We have here a natural, resource in the fish of this vast area, and while conservation is of major importance, we must consider the exploitation. We already buy too much of our food in foreign currency. Here we have a native resource. If we take mackerel alone, the present catch is about 50,000 tons. The potential and the supply would justify a total allowable catch of 200,000 tons.
A large proportion of our present mackerel catch is directly exported as fish to the canning factories in Brittany. Surely, if the catch is increased, we must encourage the port handling facilities in conjunction with canning and fishmeal factories. This is a chance of investment profitable for both country and individual. This is particularly true of the South-West, where we are very dependent on the
1048
tourist industry, and w here the fish handling and processing industry is very complementary by providing winter employment. Here I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene. If foreign ships fish in our waters, I would prefer them to dump their catches in our ports to provide employment in handling and processing.
I should like now to turn to the penalties in this Bill, the revised penalties for offences, and in particular those for contravention of bylaws. In Schedule paragraph 1(2), dealing with the contravention of bylaws, instead of a rising penalty, culminating in a third conviction of £300 plus the possibility of a prison sentence, the fine is increased to £1,000 and no option of a prison sentence. No one in the present circumstances would want to increase the prison population.
So I welcome this, but is the increased fine enough? We must bear in mind that we now have a 200-mile zone to police and limited resources with which to do it. This means that many ships may get away with illegal fishing, and consequently the penalties for those caught must be sufficient to deter the others. For 50 years, from 1888 to 1938, the penalty included forfeiture of catch and gear. I suggest that this should be reinstated. I know that the noble Lord the Leader of the House made this point but I think to a different part of the Bill, and if I am wrong and the confiscation applies to this part I am sure he will correct me.
The declaration of a 200-mile zone by Russia must surely clear the way for negotiations either by the EEC or direct country to country, as the case may be, but we fear that our rights to fish in the Barents Sea may be traded for Eastern bloc rights in the South West approaches. This may well be in the Community's interest, but it is of no value to our inshore fishermen and should enhance their case for a larger exclusive zone. We may get advantages in such places as the Barents Sea from bilateral negotiations, but we want our exclusive zone.
Then we come to the problems of the Community. Of course, the French have overfished their waters and are in a dilemma and are looking to our waters as a replacement. Then there are our Northern fleets: at least I hope we can still call them our own despite the wind of change and devolution. These fleets are being denied

1049
their traditional fishing grounds and are inevitably looking to the lush waters in the hospitable South-West. We are worried. We want them to retain their employment, but we hope that we will be able to provide some of the facilities for fishing in these waters. Not only do all these menace our fish stocks but the catches are landed elsewhere—and this is what worries me—giving us no benefit from our local resources. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not only press for local exclusive zones but also help to provide more facilities for landing and processing catches in those waters. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.53 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having put my name down to speak, but I did not know whether I could be here today. I have already conveyed this apology to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I will undertake to detain your Lordships for but a few minutes. The first point I want to deal with is really in the form of a question to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Is it right to say that as from 1st January, when the Bill we are now discussing becomes law, there is an open position—indeed, I would call it a dangerously open position—and any EEC member can come within 12 miles of our shores, until we have successfully negotiated what I call a domestic area? If that is so, I think your Lordships will agree that it is extremely urgent that this open time should he of a very limited duration. I would ask the Leader of the House whether he can give us some sort of indication of what his hopes are, and what are the prospects for closing the gap of this very dangerous open position.
The only other point I wish to deal with is one that has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and other speakers, which is the question of enforcement within the 200-mile limit. I hope that we are going to have a further debate on this question in the New Year, and I do not expect the Leader of the House to be able to give answers to questions of which he has not had notice. Of course, if he has the answer to the point I want to make at his fingertips there would be nobody more grateful
1050
than I am, but failing that let us wait until the New Year. Is the enforcement of the 200-mile limit to be on a national basis or a Community basis? We have certain resources—Nimrod aircraft, certain shipping vessels, which I need not enumer-ate—and no doubt other countries within the EEC who have the 200-mile limit will likewise have resources. There will be bound to be an overlap in places between our 200-mile limit and the 200-mile limit of other countries. Will the enforcement be a domestic matter for this country within our 200 miles or will it be a Community matter?
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, postulated the possibility of the Russians refusing to accept policing by the EEC, and therefore thought that we might have to revert to national enforcement. That may well be so, but I think we want to know where we stand in this matter because logically it ought to be a Community matter with a co-ordinated operation by the Community covering all the sea of the various 200-mile limit countries. That would mean of course what I call almost an operational centre. On the other hand, if there are to be international complications such as were envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, then we must be prepared to go forward entirely on a national basis in respect of our 200 miles. If we have to do that, I very much doubt whether the resources which have been earmarked so far will be adequate. I shall not embark on that question, to which we can return when we have a further debate in the New Year, but I must put the question to the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it is to be a Community operation or a national operation for which we shall accept the responsibility.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I also apologise to the House, in that I did not put down my name to speak, but unfortunately I had a four o'clock appointment in another part of the House and I was not sure whether I would be back in time to participate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of speaking. I, too, should like to welcome the Bill, and congratulate the Leader of the House on the stand he has taken in relation to British fishing interests. I am particularly

1051
pleased, having previously put down some fairly aggressive Questions, at the increase in fines, because some of those that have been imposed in the last year were quite farcical in relation to catches of £50,000 in value.
I should also like to take up the point of the 12-mile limit because it is commonly, and I believe wrongly, thought that the domestic limit goes all round our coast, whereas I understand that it only applies with statutory force in certain areas of the coast; notably in the North of Scotland and around Scottish shores and in the South-West, where there are powers for statutory enforcement. But, for example, there are not those same powers within 12 miles of the Welsh coast.
My main interest is the South-West. Off the night sleeper yesterday morning I spent some time in Sutton Harbour seeing the catches being sold, and also at Milbay Docks seeing the tremendous trade, which now goes across to Roscoff on the Roscoff Ferry, of fish caught in our waters here, which is the most valuable trade to the South West.
Lined up on the docks there were eight great containers of one processing company in France, with another six massive containers waiting for fish caught in those waters. It is of crucial importance to us, even if there is to be an interim period of negotiation, even if there must be negotiations regarding the narrow waters of the Channel as to what proportion will make the line of demarcation, that we keep this 12 mile limit and, if possible, extend it to some parts of our shore which at the moment do not have powers to enforce the 12 mile limit. But we do not think 12 miles is enough and we hope that it will be 50. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. But if at any time, because of the present agreement on 200 miles, we should lose the right to that domestic level, it would be absolutely disastrous for the fishing industry, certainly in the South-West and I am sure that that applies equally in the North of Scotland.
5.1 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, we have had a good, constructive and interesting debate of a very high standard. I am delighted to see in the Chamber some friends who I
1052
knew in another place, especially the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who I remember when I first came to Parliament in 1945, hearing his eloquence in the defence of the interests of Aberdeen; indeed, he became known as Mr. Herring in those days. He always spoke eloquently, as he does today, and it is fair to say that when we discuss this subject it sounds like a very romantic one, which it is. I would remind fishing and non-fishing audiences that the fishing fleet in the end often determines the strength of the Royal Navy in terms of personnel in times of crises. That is something I have always felt when I have visited fishing ports.
When one talks, drinks and lives with the men of this industry one finds that they are a fine body of people with a great history, and reference to this has been made today. Therefore, let us not be too stuffy about it; we are sentimental about them because they are fine people and we want to protect their livelihoods—not just those of the great centres of Hull and Grimsby, important of course though they are, but also of Fleetwood and Milford Haven and the other ports in Scotland; also of Cumbria, my area, the area from which I come, although my native Durham also has a great fishing industry in some of the sea ports which still exist. We are, therefore, paying tribute to a major industry and that is why this debate and the Bill are so important.
I have taken careful note of practically every major point made by each speaker and I would be addressing your Lordships for perhaps another two hours if I attempted to answer every one. I made a check following the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, raising the very important issue of enforcement, whether it would be undertaken on a national scale or by the Community. My answer to him (I am advised that this is correct) is that the responsibility must lie with the Member State because the Community has no protection force. Of course, the Community States will try to work together throughout all their waters, but, after all, we are in a special position in that we are virtually the only Community State which has had experience of this in a big way and which has a capability, whatever arguments may be adduced. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about this strongly and I will deal with his remarks later. It

1053
was an important speech and I welcomed it. As Lord Campbell said, we will discuss this matter on another occasion, when we can go into greater depth in dealing with the capability of the Navy.
I was also asked by Lord Balfour about EEC countries coming within 12 miles. The Bill prevents this. The European Economic Community Member States can have access to only United Kingdom waters for which they are designated. They are not designated within six miles and will be designated between six and 12 miles only to the extent they are at present. I hope that answers his question.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, came out strongly in defence of the Bill, as indeed did Lord Campbell. I will deal with Lord Campbell's remarks first. He made a most important statement. He declared the aims of the Opposition and I believe them to be our aims; I do riot think there are any differences in principle between us on this issue. Indeed, it is fair to say that this subject has not been discussed in a Party sense today, and from the Liberal point of view as well there has been general agreement that the Bill is a step forward. One can argue about timing; for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, wished that the Bill had been introduced earlier. I probably do, too, but the Bill has arrived and it is a step forward.
It affects our relations not only with the Community, in which we are partners—we are a member of the Community—but also with third countries and our respect for international treaties. What we have always stressed has been that we should like to discuss these things mutually and achieve international agreement. Whenever I spoke about the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference I was never for precipitate action. The noble Lord mentioned this and he is right; it is far better for us not to act unilaterally if we can achieve common agreement. That is our view and we accept it, but unfortunately we have seen tragedies here and there in the history of the fishing industry.
Thus, I welcomed the constructive tone of the remarks of Lord Campbell,
1054
who knows the industry so well and who always speaks in its interests, as he did as Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of Scottish fishing. Of course, Scotland has a special interest—I accept that—regarding the inshore fishing industry. One need only look at the map to see famous ports and sturdy fishing communities. I was glad to hear Lord Campbell extend good wishes to Mr. Gundelach, who is negotiating and dealing with Iceland for the Community. I have heard people criticise Mr. Gundelach, but I can only speak as I found him when I was attending the Council as an agriculture and fisheries Minister. I always had the greatest respect for him and I believe that he is a man of integrity, high quality and great ability. If he is doing the negotiating, I believe he will be firm, strong and an asset to the Community and will—I know this from personal experience of him—recognise what we the British wish. It was therefore nice to hear a leading spokesman for the Opposition express his best wishes to him in his difficult task, and I endorse what has been said.
The noble Lord then dealt with third countries and I could say a considerable amount on this subject. Agreement was reached at the Council of Foreign Ministers on Monday, 13th December, and I think there was a Question in another place on this subject. In any event, on Monday they met to decide the levels of fishing which might be permitted to third countries in 1977, after EEC Member States have extended their fishing limits to 200 miles on 1st January. There are problems here.
I have been asked about the Soviet Union. I do not really expect confrontation here. I hope I am right. The Soviet Union have recently extended their fisheries jurisdiction and would not, I hope, prejudice that by courting a confrontation with the EEC. After all, it would not affect only us. It would affect the EEC as well and I, who for certain reasons used to be sceptical of the EEC, in the end recognised the reality that we had to be a member. I believe that with the EEC we have strength in negotiations. One noble Lord asked me about imports from third countries coming into this country and reference has been made to Iceland sending her fish to our ports, which Iceland is doing and has done.

1055
The Community gives us strength here because of a particular protocol—I think it is Protocol No.6—which is often quoted and which enables the Community to act and give concessions to that country. I will come later to the question of the control of imports. I believe that we have strength and I would not be pessimistic about the outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke about conservation of the main stocks around our coasts and said that we needed to get agreement internationally. I endorse that. He has always been outward-looking in his views on political matters as a liberal with a small "1". In this case, I believe that it makes sense for us to work in a Community context. I believe that myself and I think the noble Lord does. I know that he mentioned taking national action but I hope it will not come to that. I should like to see agreement reached in the Community through the present negotiations. The fish move about and do not stay within the limits of one country. Conservation measures applying in only one national zone will therefore be only partially successful.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that I was glad to hear his voice raised in defence of the Welsh fishing industry? I remember how, long before he came to this House, he used to write to me. He was so persistent that I inevitably passed his messages on to the Secretary of State for Wales. He knows the industry and he was quite right. May I say to him that he must not be too pessimistic? The aim of this Bill, along with other measures, is to see our industry adapting to new conditions, to the Community, to new international obligations. It shows above all that we recognise that the structure of the industry may also alter and will have to be modified and modernised. I ask the noble Lord not to be too pessimistic. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, mentioned Milford Haven and ports in the South-West and the amount of fish being caught and landed there. So, even though Milford Haven has been going through a difficult time, I hope that there can be some attempt to readjust the industry, which has declined—I accept that—and which has caused so much concern in Welsh circles.
1056
There have been, too, the effects of over-fishing, as stressed by my noble friend. I am very conscious of this and, as the noble Lord acknowledged, one of the objectives of the Bill is to give power not merely to extend our fishery limits but also to impose conservation controls on all boats throughout those limits. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, also spoke about the 200-mile exclusive zone and pressed me about quotas. Quotas for non-EEC vessels will need to be backed up by other methods, notably effort control. In its simplest form, this involves limiting the number of ships fishing so that only the quota tonnage can be caught under normal catch conditions. For EEC countries, a similar system might eventually be worked out. I hope so. In the meantime, we shall have to ensure that statistical reporting and recording is greatly improved.
I was asked whether we had enough ships and aircraft for policing. We may not have, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that we were due to debate this later. Of course, we cannot provide a tremendous force. The Nimrods are, after all, used for spotting. The great question is how to catch a "poacher". On the other hand, there are the rather high penalties and fines that we have mentioned. They will act as a deterrent as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Digby, suggested that, where contraventions of sea fisheries committee bylaws take place, magistrates should have power not only to impose a fine but also to order seizure of any catch or gear used in committing the offence. This would bring the penalties provided in the relevant part of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 more into line with penalties for similar offences under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act. I believe that the same point was raised in another place. Now that they have had more time to consider the matter, I am able to say that the Government will consider the possibility of an amendment to this effect during the Committee stage.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who asked me specifically about negotiation with the Soviet Union—and I forgot to mention this—that the Commission formally negotiates on behalf of the Community and that we

1057
hope that this will also apply to negotiations with the Soviet Union. I would rather not speculate as to what would happen if this procedure ran into difficulties. I want to be cautious here. There have been occasions when the country holding the Presidency of the Community, as will the United Kingdom for the next six months, has been asked to act on behalf of the Community: I think that the negotiations are carried on in consultation with Member states.
On imports, a very important question was asked by an official spokesman for the Opposition. He wondered whether we had power to control landings of fish by foreign vessels. This is primarily a question of trade, which is the responsibility of the Community as such. There are powers under EEC regulations which are geared to avoiding disruption to the markets of EEC Member States by foreign fish imports. I remember when I was Minister in another place being questioned about Norwegian imports and also Dutch plaice coming into Lowestoft. The Community has powers in this area. If foreign imports are landed below a reference price—and we have a reference price system now, for which I was glad to press in the Community when I was a Minister—or if the market is being disrupted, it is open to the Commission to enforce a range of measures including, if necessary, a complete ban on imports from particular third countries. This can be done. So far, however, where we have taken action we have done so through reference prices which controlled imports coming into the United Kingdom. That is all I can say at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned reports this morning of pessimistic comments attributed to the Icelandic Foreign Minister. He is reported to have held out little prospect of any continuing agreement because the EEC had little of value to offer Iceland in the way of reciprocal fishing rights. I do not know what will happen here. I have mentioned Mr. Gundelach, who is representing the Commission and who is fighting for the Community. We shall have to wait until we get some more specific news. I hope that we can get agreement. I think that it would be a tragedy if relations between the Community and Iceland or Iceland and us remained bitter. Iceland has been very
1058
vigorous in defence of her fisheries and I am sorry that she took the unilateral action she did. After all, I believe that the British have played an honourable part in fishing matters throughout the years.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has answered two or three of my points, and I believe that he will see the relationship between the question that he answered about the powers that the EEC has to control imports and the statement by the Icelandic Minister that there is nothing much that we have to offer. The answer is that we have markets.
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords, we have markets; and not just markets for fish but for many other products that come in from Iceland to the Community. So I agree with the noble Lord. I believe that I have covered most of the points that have been raised and if I have missed out anything I will certainly write to the noble Lord concerned. Also, we shall have a Committee stage at a later date. I am most grateful for the attitude of the Opposition and of all Parties and all noble Lords. I am grateful for the progress that we have made.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TORTS (INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) BILL [H.L.]
5.19 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It concerns civil liability for wrongful interference with goods in the possession or ownership of another. It represents the first general venture by the Legislature into this ancient branch of the civil law, and I hope that the House will, accordingly, be kind to it. I should like to say at the outset that the Government are extremely grateful to the Law Reform Committee for their most helpful report which was published, I regret to say, as long ago as 1971. That report has guided the Government's footsteps in preparing this Bill through some pretty tangled thickets of law and of practice. I cannot claim that this is a Bill of the first importance, nor has it a great deal

1059
of what it is fashionable these days to call sex appeal; but I believe it to be a useful measure of law reform, for it will provide some real improvement, and some greatly needed simplification, in the general area of wrongful interference with another's goods, which is of course a part of the law in everyday use.
This law in practice has given little trouble over the years, and indeed the Committee found it to be built on the right foundations and to be generally secure. But the need for some limited reform has shown itself, and I think that this is in part due to the development in our own time of the law of hire-purchase. This involves, far more than ever before, the creation of separate partial interests in goods. As your Lordships know, in hire-purchase the rights in goods are divided as between the owner and the hirer, the one having the "reversionary" ownership and the other having possession, a limited title, and the right to purchase the reversion.
The Law Reform Committee found that the present law relating to wrongful interference with goods was unsatisfactory in a number of ways. First, it contained a number of unnecessarily overlapping and divergent remedies; in particular the awkward distinctions between conversion and detinue are very largely unnecessary and can be swept away safely in favour of a more rational approach. Secondly, the law, as it is now, can produce a measure of injustice because the procedural rules relating to such matters as proof of ownership are antiquated and unduly rigid. The Committee considered that these defects were of such a character that they could not be put right without legislation on the lines of the Bill now before the House. Lastly, the Committee thought that a number of minor amendments were required, in the interests of clarification and simplification.
First, as to the overlapping remedies. As the Committee themselves put it in their report:
"The extent to which the existing law perpetuates the old causes of action may be illustrated by the following examples, and it is arguable that in so doing it draws distinctions for which there is no sufficient warrant in modern law.
Thus: —

(a) if A takes B's bicycle for a joyride it is trespass, but if he takes it in circumstances amounting to a denial, express or implied, of B's title, it is also conversion;

1060

(b)if C causes the loss or destruction of D's car by pushing it into the sea it is both conversion and trespass, but only trespass if the car is merely damaged; and if the car runs into the sea because C, having lawful custody of it, has carelessly left the hand brake off, it is neither conversion nor trespass but negligence, whether the car is destroyed or only damaged;

(c)if E, a bailee of F's goods, sells them it is conversion. If he damages them negligently, it is negligence. If they are stolen or lost by his negligence, he is liable in detinue. If he delivers them to the wrong person, it is conversion. If he delivers them to his bailor without title, it is no tort at all.

I am sure that the House will feel greatly enlightened by those interesting illustrations, the plague and agony of every law student.
In order to reduce the number of remedies apparently available for very similar wrongs, the Committee suggested the creation of a new unified tort, to be described as interference with goods or by some similar collective name. This, they suggested, could be achieved by taking conversion as the main tort and abolishing detinue altogether. Then, as a second limb, they suggested that the other torts to which I have referred (except for the tort of negligence which was outside their terms of reference) should be restated as part of the new unified tort. The Bill fully implements the first limb of this recommendation, and the House will see the new name "wrongful interference" or "wrongful interference with goods" in Clause 1 and that the tort of detinue is abolished in Clause 2. It is not every day that the Lord Chancellor can have the pleasure of abolishing a tort, and it gives me a little satisfaction today to be in the process of doing so in the interests of simplification, although it is true that it is a tort which nearly perished until it was revived in the last century, and the United States has been able to enjoy a high standard of civilisation without it for a very long time.
The second limb involved the abolition of other separate torts, namely, trespass to goods, and the somewhat arcane civil wrongs which are still described as actions on the case, particularly that for grave injury to a reversionary interest in goods. This might occur, for instance, when a car is leased for a specified term and then stolen. The lessor of the car has a reversionary interest, and can sue "on the case" if that interest is destroyed.

1061
These relatively unimportant torts are not abolished as the Committee proposed, but the substance of the recommendation is largely met by the Bill. Clauses 3 to 10 provide for a substantial degree of common treatment for all the torts mentioned in Clause 2, including trespass and the actions on the case. In this isolated area, therefore, the Bill is less bold than the report. It prefers a "common treatment" approach to out and out unification.
The general thought that inspired this part of the Bill is that wherever it is possible to meld the various torts together, this has been done, but it would be difficult, indeed largely self-defeating, to attempt to unify in the areas where the torts are, and must remain, distinct. So despite a valiant attempt on the part of Parliamentary Counsel, to whom I am greatly indebted, to follow the report more closely, it has proved impossible to put forward complete unification. This would have involved the conjuring tricks and contortions necessary to turn the tort of trespass to goods from a tort protecting a person's possession into a tort which protects his property, and the Committee themselves did foresee some of the difficulties which that would create.
There were also problems about nominal damages and the law of limitation, and I was forced to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by attempting a more ambitious approach to these difficult matters. Indeed, the Bill gains on the exchange in one way, because it is able to include the tort of negligence as it affects goods, which was outside the Committee's terms of reference, and in doing so it borrows the thought implicit in the example I have already cited of the car that runs, or is pushed, into the sea—happily, not a daily event. I am glad to be able to say that, except for a minor point on negligence, which I am considering, this approach was not challenged in the course of the consultation I was able to carry out on the Bill this summer, and I hope the House will agree with it.
As I have said, the Committee's other main aims—and I shall deal shortly with the detailed provisions of the Bill—were the elimination of injustice caused by the procedural ossification that has occurred in the tort of conversion, and the clarity
1062
and simplification that some relatively minor amendments can achieve. There really has been something unjust and, indeed, absurd about a system of law which refuses to listen to a defendant's incontrovertible proof that the plaintiff in a case has no title at all to the goods whose value he nevertheless claims from the defendant. This, however, is exactly what was meant by the old rule of law known as jus tertii, which the Bill will abolish in Clause 8. The old law has in effect sacrificed a litigant on the altar of the proposition that a person with possession has better title than a person without. That rule is perfectly sensible for the conduct of ordinary business and everyday life, but it does seem wrong that the defendant should not be allowed to invite —indeed, be prevented from inviting—the true owner to show in a court of law that the plaintiff has no title. The Bill will now enable the defendant to do so. The consequence will be that all the various interests in the goods will usually be before the court at once; and the Bill provides, at Clauses 7 and 8, the necessary machinery to enable the court to arrive at a result which is fair to all concerned.
For the rest, since the tort of conversion and other torts affecting goods are basically sound, the minor amendments do not touch the core of the torts but make changes at the fringe. In this category I would place Clause 6, for instance, which enables a subsequent purchaser to reduce the damages he must pay to the true owner by the amount of any improvement in the goods effected by an intermediate purchaser, and Clause 11, which clears up an isolated anomaly concerning a purported sale by a co-owner. The House will also wish to note Clause 12(1), which prevents the rules about contributory negligence operating in the strict or intentional torts of conversion or trespass to goods; and Clauses 13 and 14, which, with Schedule 1, provide a new scheme to enable persons left with goods on their hands to sell them in appropriate circumstances.
My Lords, there is little more that I think I need say at this stage by way of explanation. Your Lordships will note that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill provides a fairly full explanation of the various clauses, which is perhaps useful in this field of high technicality. In some places the draftsman has provided examples to

1063
illustrate the meaning of the text, and I hope that this will be found to be helpful. Indeed, the Law Society, who have been most helpful in providing detailed comment on the draft Bill, which I have recently received, have suggested, among other things, that there should be more examples so that greater clarity should appear. I have also received some welcome and useful comment from the Multiple Shops Federation. To all these suggestions I shall give very full consideration, and it may well be that it will be necessary to put some Amendments down at the Committee stage in order to meet the points that have been taken. In the meantime, I hope the House will be disposed to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.34 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his fascinating summary of this jolly little piece of civil law reform; and, being full of the Christmas spirit, I think I can undertake neither to divide the House against it nor to indulge in prolonged criticism of it. Nor, in fact, since it is rather indigestible, do I wish to discuss its detail, at any rate on Second Reading. As far as I can remember, it landed on my desk somewhere in 1971, and at that stage, being a keen young Lord Chancellor, I immediately told my office to put it into law at once. I was told that they could not do that because they had not a Parliamentary draftsman, so I helpfully suggested that I should draft the necessary Bill myself, whereupon they blanched and took the thing away from me. Some years later, so far as I remember, I succeeded in getting the various powers-that-be to let the thing out on contract for some enterprising member of the Bar to draft, but the reference made by the noble and learned Lord to the Parliamentary Counsel leads me to suppose that what I had thought to be a triumph of persistence on my part somehow aborted. Perhaps he will tell me what actually has happened, and how the Bill has ultimately come to be drafted.
My Lords, I welcome any form of simplification of the law because our law
1064
is rapidly becoming a shambles. In spite of the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and subsequently myself and the present Lord Chancellor, in causing the repeal of spent and obsolete Statutes, the pages of the Statute Book continue to multiply, to the point at which even a specialist lawyer cannot in the least keep abreast of even his own speciality far less the general law. So this modest step towards simplification can be greeted only with loud, if somewhat otherwise muted, enthusiasm. It is a good thing to have done, and I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on having found the Parliamentary time to do it and the Parliamentary draftsmen to put it into shape. I noticed from one of the briefs about it that I read, that apparently the Bill was ready at the beginning of last Session but the noble and learned Lord failed to get a place in the programme, and he spent the last Session consulting various interested bodies. Perhaps he would tell us very shortly, when he comes to reply, what changes were made as a result of that consultation.
I should like to say, seeing to my pleasure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that I think he has always been a little unfair to the Law Reform Committee, whose modest child this Bill is. The view I always took was that the Law Commission, of which the noble and learned Lord always took legitimate pride of parentage, and the Law Reform Committee, and indeed the Criminal Law Reform Committee, which is another separate body, have complementary functions to perform. Obviously, the labouring oar in law reform will continue to be taken by the Law Commission, which has facilities at its disposal which are not available to the more modest bodies; but I think this is an example of the way in which they can work together to the general advantage. Speaking for myself, I am glad the Lord Chancellor has managed to get this little ship launched, and without any technicalities I give it my general benediction, if I am allowed to do so, with due humility. I also congratulate him on having succeeded in getting it drafted, where I apparently failed.
5.39 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I, too, would welcome the Second Reading of this

1065
Bill. I should like to join in the thanks which have already been expressed to the Law Reform Committee, and respectfully to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on having, in a Session in which Parliamentary time is obviously at a premium, succeeded in obtaining a place for this Bill, no doubt partly helped by the magic last 16 words in the Explanatory MernoratLanz:
"The Bill is not expected to have any effect on public expenditure or public service manpower".
My Lords, I know we have a private function at a later stage in this building which we are all anxious should be attended, and it is not my purpose to take up your Lordships' time by discussing this rather esoteric blanch of the law. I have had rather longer experience of it perhaps than either of my two noble and learned predecessors present because it was just on ten years ago that I asked the Law Reform Committee to consider this branch of the law. I knew that the law of detinue and conversion was badly in need of reform. They spent four years on it and their report was published five and a half years ago; so that it has taken just on ten years, bar a few months, to arrive at the point that we have arrived at tonight.
There are two matters which I should like to raise. The first is that of Parliamentary draftsmen. It is, I think, a great advantage for the Law Commission that, after tribulations the nature of which I will not now disclose, I managed to obtain for my colleagues three or four Parliamentary draftsmen to work whole-time with the Law Commission. The advantages are, first, that when the draftsman comes to draft the Bill resulting from the report, he knows what the Committee are thinking; he knows not only the words in their report but the thinking behind it; he knows the discussions which have gone on. The second advantage is that, of course, he, himself, taking part in the discussion from the start, can say, "If you are going to put it in that way, it is going to be difficult to turn it into legislative language. If only you put it this way, it will make it simpler." Thirdly, the draftsman is trained to say, "That is all very well, but what is to happen if …" and he then produces a possible state of affairs which has never occurred to any member of the Committee
1066
at all. If he does not arrive until after the report has been published, there is no one to ask what the Committee intended in those circumstances.
I believe that I am right in saying that it has always been the hope of successive Lord Chancellors that the Law Reform Committee might have a draftsman sitting in with them. If that is so, I would venture to express the hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will pursue this matter. If, as I think, the Law Reform Committee operate as they did in my day—and successive Lord Chancellors appointed me a member of the Law Reform Committee for about 12 years—we met about one day a month after court for two or three hours. If that is so, may not two things be represented to the powers that be? First, the difficulties which arise if there is no draftsman sitting with them; because—I believe that I am right but I shall be corrected if I am wrong—one of the reasons why it has taken five and a half years is that when a draftsman did apply his mind to it he had to make a number of changes because the precise nature of the reforms recommended were not suitable for converting into legislative language. May it not be pointed out to the powers-that-be, and may it not be stressed, that this means the services of a Parliamentary draftsman for only two hours a month? If this did make a big difference, as I think it would, I would hope that the powers-that-be would realise that this is a very small price to pay for it.
Secondly, may I ask my noble and learned friend what is to be the future of the Law Reform Committee? It is the fact that I considered, when we had the Law Commission Bill, whether perhaps we ought not to wind up the Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Law Revision Committee; but I thought that until we had seen the operation of the Law Commission we had better keep them. They have rendered a useful service. I do not know what their future is. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, asked them to consider the law of limitation. They did so to good effect so far as personal injury cases were concerned, but I think that they are still engaged in considering the rest of this field. May I ask whether that is so? If so, when may we expect a report on that subject?

1067
Lastly, my Lords, has the noble and learned Lord any thoughts in mind for the future work of the Committee? Are they engaged in any other work; or has he it in mind to ask them to consider any, and if so what, specific subject? With those short observations, I warmly commend the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble and learned Lords for the welcome they have given this Bill. I am also grateful to them for having resisted the temptation of entering into the arcane technicalities and putting to me what would undoubtedly have been unanswerable questions. They have entered into the spirit of the time, bearing in mind the season of the year, and I am grateful for their forbearance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, described the problems of finding a draftsman; and my information is that he has, as I would expect, accurately recollected what in fact occurred: that he sought outside assistance on a contractual basis for the drafting of this highly technical Bill, but that it was found that no one would undertake it on a contractual basis. My understanding of the matter is that at the end of the day it came to that excellent body of men, the Parliamentary draftsmen, to deal with the task which, I venture to think, has been done admirably. But so tangled were the thickets and so deep the marshes lying around it, that it fell to a senior Parliamentary Counsel to complete the task. That is the end of the saga of the draftsmen.
The problem of draftsmen is, of course, a difficult one bearing in mind the amount of legislation that they are required to deal with. We have kept up pretty well with numbers of late, and I take the point mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner of the extent to which the Law Reform Committee suffered from the non-availability of Parliamentary draftsmen. The position, of course, in the whole field of law reform has been transformed by the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner in setting up, as he did, the Law Commission and by the subsequent enthusiastic support
1068
it received from my immediate predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; and it has fallen to the Law Commission to take the major responsibility in preparing law reforms for Parliament. I agree with the views that I think both noble and learned Lords expressed: that the Law Reform Committee itself, first of all, has been of great value in the past and has produced reports of outstanding quality. I personally think that there is still room for it to continue to help us in this field.
On the specific question that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner asked me, I may say that the Committee is at present engaged on the task referred to it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; namely, a general review of the law of limitation of actions. They would have completed that study some time ago, as I understand it, were it not for the desirability of awaiting the outcome of an appeal to your Lordships' House which raises certain crucial issues on the law of limitation. It is thought that it would be wise to await the outcome of that appeal before that work is completed.
As to the future, I have no further subjects at present in mind for reference to the Committee but, as I have said, my present view is that it does continue to serve a useful purpose notwithstanding the existence of the Law Commission. I have little doubt that at some appropriate time some suitable subject will come up for consideration and will benefit from the expertise of the Committee. It is very valuable for the judges as well as the practitioners from both branches of the legal profession to be directly associated with the work of law reform, and there are a number of problems raising highly technical issues, particularly in the field of practice, on which it is very helpful for any Lord Chancellor to be able to rely on the advice of a widely representative body like the Law Reform Committee.
I was asked about the outcome of the consultations which have taken place. The best results came in very recently. The Law Society wrote on 25th November and the Multiple Shops Federation on 7th December. As I said in opening the debate, their suggestions are being considered. The Bar Council was also consulted. I am most grateful for the reception that this Bill has had. I do not

1069
want in any way to incur the wrath of those who are shortly, I understand, hoping to enjoy hospitality among themselves. I am grateful to the House for its support of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.