Lords Sitting of 21 December 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

THE SELBY COALFIELD: INVESTMENT FUNDING
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 is the annual investment needed to develop the Selby coalfield during the next 10 years and whether they will state how it is proposed to fund this.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, over the next 10 years annual investment in the Selby coalfield is estimated to vary between £10 million and £60 million per annum at March 1976 prices. The expenditure will reach a peak in the early 1980s, before declining as the project nears completion. The estimated total capital cost is around £400 million. The investment will be financed from both internal and external sources. The external sources include loans from the National Loans Fund, the Commission of the European Communities and the European Investment Bank.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him this question? Are we to understand, therefore, that at any rate part of the funding of this very necessary operation will fall upon the public sector borrowing requirement?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, one of the keys to improving productivity in the coal industry is the greater use of advanced techniques of mining; and the new mines, such as Selby, will, I think, provide an excellent investment.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer my supplementary question, which was whether or not some part of this funding will apparently fall on the public sector borrowing requirement?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must ask the noble Earl to be patient, if he will, until the new Plan for Coal is published early next year—the Government hope to publish it in January—when full details will be given.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could my noble friend give any indication so far as investment in housing in Selby is concerned? Will that be undertaken by the Coal Board, or will it depend upon the local authorities? I ask that very personally since I live in this area and the actual drift-mouth of the coal mine is coming out in my particular parish. The authorities are very concerned about the housing situation. They want to see preparations made for the people who will come to reside among us, whom we shall welcome very much indeed.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend details, but I will ask him to be patient until the report comes out next year. I can tell him, however, that not only is Selby a seam with tremendous possibilities but it is also one where the country's energy needs can be met at very low real costs with adequate regard for environmental and social considerations.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is not the answer to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, "Yes"?
Lord STRABOLGI: Not necessarily, my Lords.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, in view of the difficulties involved in financing Selby, can we be assured that even larger financial liabilities will not be taken on in the Vale of Belvoir until we have dealt with Selby? Indeed, is it not somewhat feckless, when we have North Sea oil coming in and Selby coming in, to proceed to rifle all the reserves of a future generation?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, some money may be borrowed for Selby in

1179
particular, but in general the Board borrows to meet that part of its overall capital requirements that it cannot finance itself. The Board is aiming at a sub-stantial contribution to its capital investment programme from its own resources. The expenditure on Selby is expected to be recovered within a few years of the completion of the mining construction. With regard to Belvoir, I think it would be premature for the Government to state their attitude towards a project for mining the coal there, although they welcome the discovery of reserves under the Vale of Belvoir.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how very much the attitude of the National Coal Board is appreciated by the responsible people in that area? Its opening up of this new field of energy, and the way it has dealt with local authorities and every interest concerned, is an object lesson that could well be followed by large-scale industry in any new venture.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are waiting anxiously for the day when the first sod is cut in this new area, where this new productivity is to take place by way of the extraction of coal? In view of what has happened in my own coalfield of Durham, where coalmining is a dying industry, and in Northumberland and in South Wales, this is a great asset which must be utilised and explored on behalf of the nation as a whole. Furthermore, would my noble friend not agree that we all ought to be grateful for the privilege and opportunity of bringing this new asset, this new coal-field, into production on behalf of the nation?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. The reserves at Selby recoverable through the present scheme have been estimated, I am sure the noble Earl will be glad to hear, at 240 million tons. Work officially began on the construction of this great complex last October. Production should begin in the early 1980s and full production of 10 million
1180
tons per annum be reached in the second half of the decade. In this way, Selby has the potential to fulfil half of the required "new mines" production plans for coal. This is something of which we should be proud.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in view of the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and the answer given, would the noble Lord consult the right reverend Prelates as to to whom we ought to be grateful, rather than the Government?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that we are all much encouraged by the splendid prospectus that he gives for this investment? But would he not accept that the funding of this investment would be very much more profitable to the Coal Board and to the nation if it were not funded almost entirely by loan charges—including, evidently, a heavy imprest on the public sector borrowing requirement—but if equity in this excellent proposition were to be sold off to private enterprise such as Shell and other companies which have the cash flow to sustain it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will note carefully what the noble Earl has advised.

SOVIET FREIGHT CHARGES
2.42 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any information is now available on the Soviet Union's freightage charges after the meeting arranged between interested European countries and the delegation representing the Soviet Union.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness will recall that during the visit of a delegation of Western shipowners to Leningrad in July, the Soviet side

1181
recorded its desire to work within shipping conferences. Commercial negotiations to this end, which would require the Soviet lines to agree to charge the same freight rates as Western shipowners in the shipping conferences, are proceeding in several areas. The most progress has been made on the North Atlantic, where provisional agreements have been reached that the Russian Baltatlantic Line will join the conferences.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that relatively satisfactory Answer, how long does he think it will be before all the areas are properly covered? May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord very much for letting me know the proper date—which is today—to put down my Question?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Baroness's thanks to me. As to the final solution of this problem to which she looks, I am afraid that I must warn her that to cover the various areas is a question of very long negotiations. I think that what has been achieved in regard to the North Atlantic can give us hope that eventually there will be success; but it is a long process of negotiation.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord reassure the House that all the Russian ships operating in the North Atlantic belong to the Russian Baltatlantic Line?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, I am not in a position to give that assurance, but I will inquire as to what is the precise situation and will write to the noble Lord.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me why the Russians enjoy special, favourable rates at the present moment, and why they should continue to do so until such time as they are able to join the conferences in the normal manner?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, until they agree to join a conference they are free to charge their own rates. It is only when they join a conference that the provisions of agreement within a conference will apply to them.

STUDENT TUITION FEES
2.47 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is still their intention that, when economic circumstances permit, no student over 18 with a mandatory award will be required to pay tuition fees irrespective of the level of parental income.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): Yes, my Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, during the debate on the Queen's Speech in another place on 25th November, confirmed that no student with a mandatory award would be required to pay tuition fees from 1977–78.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very satisfactory Answer.

CROWN AGENTS: FAY REPORT
2.49 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will specify a date on which the Fay Report on the Crown Agents will be published and whether they will give an assurance that the recommendations will be implemented.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government appreciate the noble Baroness's concern, but I am afraid I cannot add to the reply which I gave on 18th October about the date of publication. The Fay Committee has yet to complete its investigations and the Government would not wish to rush it unduly on so important and complicated a matter.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, having regard to that most unsatisfactory reply, why almost for months and months Her Majesty's Government have been saying that the report was going to be presented within a week or two The noble Baroness will agree that that happened several times. Is she quite sure that the Government wish to publish the report or are they deliberately holding out against publicising it? Could she not add something to the reply, having regard to our economic difficulties? Could she not say what is going to happen about the problem of the Crown Agents who seem to have spent a large amount of money without getting any satisfactory results for it? This is matter which ought to be dealt with and I should like it dealt with.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is labouring under a misapprehension, indeed a total misunderstanding of the entire position. No Minister at this Box has ever said that the report will be published immediately, or—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Not immediately.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: —has ever said it will be published before the end of this year or in the early part of next year. I have looked this up and no Minister has ever said so. I am sure the House accepts that, and that your Lordships as a whole entirely accept that no question of deliberately withholding the report has ever entered the mind of Her Majesty's Government. So perhaps we may get that straight. Secondly, regarding our difficulties, balance of payments difficulties and economic difficulties, the Crown Agents provide the most magnificent services to developing countries and others. They bring a great deal of foreign currency into this country. There is no question of them being a waste in the Government's economic situation.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that unsatisfactory reply—
Several noble Lords: Baroness!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: —would she accept that it is she who is under a misapprehension? There was an occasion when it was said that the report would probably be published within a fortnight. Would the noble Baroness accept that we all know the many advantages that this country has received from very many of the Crown Agents? Would she bear in mind that I never criticise people who do well, but I do criticise people who do badly? It is much better to criticise people who do badly than praise people who do well.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I may be an unsatisfactory Lord; but I hope very much that I am not an unsatisfactory Lady! I have done my homework, and no Minister has ever said the report will be published, even in a fortnight.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while none of us would consider that she had any ulterior motive or decided to hide any fact, others of us also follow the work of the Crown Agency and appreciate what they have done in various parts of the world, and have seen it? Nevertheless, it is time that a report came before Parliament. It should be made aware that some of us want to discuss in depth some of the actions of the Crown Agency, while we appreciate what they have done over the years in various parts of the world.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I must explain once again that this inquiry is conducted on the analogy of a Companies Act investigation. That usually takes between three and four years. So far it has not taken much longer than eighteen months.

FISHERIES
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat a Statement on Fisheries which is to be made in another place.

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate Section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Part III of the Rent Act 1965, and related enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bishop of London be added to the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices. —(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
2.56 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE rose to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follow:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees: —
(a) Administration Committee

L. Aberdare

L. Amulree

V. Eccles

V. Hood

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Lee of Newton

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Mais

L. Nugent of Guildford E.

St. Aldwyn

B. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library Sub-Committee

L. Darling of Hillsborough

V. Eccles

L. Fraser of Tullybelton

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Lovell-Davis

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Amulree

L. Greenwood of Rossendale

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Mais

L. Nugent of Guildford

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Westbury

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(d) Parliament Office Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare

L. Champion

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(e) Finance Committee

L. Aberdare

L. Amulree

V. Eccles

E. Ilchester

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

E. St. Aldwyn

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(f) Works of Art Sub-Committee

L. Amulree

M. Cholmondeley

V. Eccles

L. Henley

V. Hood

L. Strabolgi

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
2. PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING
The Committee approved a Report from the Administration Sub-Committee recommending that H. M. Stationery Office be authorised to print the Official Report (Hansard), the Minutes of Proceedings and the Order Paper of the House on A4 size paper.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. Francis Michael Alexander Hawkings as Clerk and of the promotion of Mr. M. G. Pownall to Senior Clerk. The Committee authorised provision for additional temporary clerical assistance during prolonged absences of permanent staff.
4. LIBRARY
The Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee informed the Committee of the impending retirement of the Librarian.
The Committee agreed to the creation of a new post of Library Clerk and authorised the rate of pay for the post.
5. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorisd the payment of increased fees to Palantype Organisation Limited for the supply of transcribers.
6. LATE NIGHT TRANSPORT
The Committee reconsidered the arrangements made for the transport of members of the staff when the House sits late after public transport has ceased and agreed to an extension of the

1187
facilities to all essential staff. They agreed that a limit should be imposed on the distance travelled, subject to the Clerk of the Parliaments' discretion in certain cases.
7. SOCIETY OF CLERKS-AT-THE-TABLE IN COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTS
The Committee approved an increase in the annual contribution towards the expenses of the Society.
8. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application of Civil Service Code Memorandum CM/183 dated 13th August 1976 introducing revised rates of meal allowances payable to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
9. UNIFORM ALLOWANCES
The Committee authorised: —

(a)an increase in the allowance to Clerks appointed to the Table and to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod; and

(b) an increase in the allowances payable to Doorkeepers for the purchase and maintenance of dress clothes.

10. HOUSE OF LORDS FEES
The Committee accepted a recommendation by the Clerk of the Parliaments that in future general authority to charge fees and to fix the amount of Security required of Appellants should be embodied in appropriate Standing Orders while the actual amounts and alterations thereto be authorised by agreement of the House to recommendations contained in Reports from the House of Lords' Offices Committee.
11. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards: —

(i) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. E. Barnes, Housemaid, who retired on 7th November 1976.

(ii) Short service gratuity to Mr. T. D. Rooks, Attendant, who retired on 1st October 1976.

(iii) Short service gratuity to Mrs. V. Crooks, Housemaid, who retired on 19th September 1976.

(iv) Short service gratuity to Mrs. P. Rhodes, Reporter, who resigns on 31st December 1976.

(v) Transfer value payment to Metropolitan Police Office in respect of Mrs. V. E. Hunt, Housemaid, who retired on 29th May 1976.

(vi)Pension and lump sum to Mr. C. D. Maxted, M. M., Doorkeeper, who formally retired on 5th October 1976.

(vii) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. H. le Baron Whyte, M. B. E., Reporter, who formally retired on 5th December 1976.

(viii) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. R. White, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

(ix) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. C. Sampson, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

(x) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. E. Rudd, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

1188

(xi) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. A. Price, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

(xii) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. C. D. Nicholson, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

(xiii) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. McEvoy, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

Pension and lump sum to Mrs. L. Hall, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

(xv) Short service payment to Mrs. R. Russell, Housemaid, who formally retired on 1st December 1976.

Lord ABERDARE: In moving this Motion, may I draw your Lordships' attention to Item 2, a small paragraph entitled "Parliamentary Printing". It entails a change in the format of Hansard. This will not take place immediately, but in 1978–79. However, a decision has to be made now and your Lordships should know about it.
Neither of the Committees which have considered the matter, the Administration Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee, were entirely happy at the change because the new format is a very much larger document than the one to which your Lordships have become accustomed. But we were convinced in the end by the need—which is undoubtedly pressing—to replace the present printing plant, and the strong technical and financial reasons for changing the size and adopting in the future a standard size known as "A4".
The change will mean a speed-up in the production of Hansard; it will mean greater flexibility in the use of the printing machines and a considerable financial saving, both in capital cost and annual running costs. This format has been agreed by the Services Committee in another place, and I am sure that, in the circumstances, we should go along with them. I beg to move.
Moved, that the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. —(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, for the information of the House, will the noble Lord tell us whether the print size in Hansard will remain the same? A number of your Lordships would find it difficult if it were further reduced.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, this point was discussed in both Committees

1189
and we are not yet content with the print size. It will not be reduced and we have not yet had to agree to what the print size will be. All we have had to agree to, so that the orders for printing presses and so forth can go ahead, is the actual size of the paper. But the question of the size of the print, and its clarity, is very much in our minds. I am not asking your Lordships to make any decision on that at present.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, but could the noble Lord tell us how this new Hansard format will fit into the shelves for the bound volumes?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, it has been considered by all the relevant Committees. There will be changes in the size of the volume, but I understand that this will not present a problem.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE SURCHARGE BILL
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the National Insurance Surcharge Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 38. —(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

GENERAL RATE (PUBLIC UTILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in
1190
Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged. —(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FISHERY LIMITS BILL
2.59 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [British fishery limits]:
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like at the beginning of this Committee stage to raise the point about the relationship between the debate which we were expecting to take place on Clause I stand part and the Statement which we have been told is to be repeated in the House some time after half-past three. I had given notice to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I was hoping, under Clause 1 stand part, to ask the Government to give us the latest report on the negotiations, both concerning Iceland and the EEC, and also within the EEC.
I would remind the Committee that Clause 1 enables the Government to make the sensational change with other fishing countries of extending our fishery limits from 12 to 200 miles at some time after 1st January. Agreement in principle has been reached at the World Conference on the Law of the Sea for an extension of 200 miles. That is bound to happen during 1977 by the main fishing nations doing it at about the same time. In the meantime, there are these very urgent negotiations which have to take place and which are in progress at the moment.

1191
The noble Lord who is to repeat the Statement is not the noble Lord the Leader of the House: he is the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I would therefore ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether that Statement is simply going to be restricted to the negotiations concerning Iceland. if so, I would hope that he would be able to tell us now that a stage has been reached in the equally important negotiations within the EEC on an exclusive band for British fishermen. If the Statement is going to cover both subjects, no doubt the noble Lord the Leader of the House will ask us to wait until 3.30, and we shall try to seek another opportunity at a later stage of the Bill to enable the Government to give us information about the situation. Today will provide the last opportunity for several weeks of Parliamentary discussion on these matters at a crucial time for the British fishing industry.
3.2 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has expressed his concern, quite rightly, for our fishermen. I very much regret that it seems unlikely that British fishermen will be able to resume fishing off Iceland from the 1st January. At this stage I would not wish to say any more than that. A Statement will be made and no doubt the Statement will be referred to during the later stages of the Bill. I believe that many of the points in which the noble Lord is interested will be covered. However, I should like to express my sympathy with the men of Humberside. I feel that there is a good chance that an agreement with Iceland will be reached eventually, but I know that this latest setback will come as a great disappointment. Nevertheless, I hope we can wait for the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wondered whether the noble Lord could say anything about the negotiations within the EEC for an exclusive band for British fishermen. A meeting was scheduled for this morning, and we were hoping that we might hear a report on that during the course of the afternoon. On the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? was the appropriate place for this but, with the usual flexibility that is shown
1192
by your Lordships' House, no doubt we could arrange to discuss this matter at a later stage of the Bill if that appeared to be more convenient. On the other hand, if the noble Lord the Leader of the House considers that matter will also be covered by the Statement we are to have, then I am content to wait.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position to make a Statement or an announcement regarding the arrangements which we are anxious to have.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having dealt with that point. The timing of this is very tricky, with the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part? coming about half an hour before the Statement is due. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having told us how he suggests that this should be dealt with in your Lordships' House.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3.5 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No.1:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause: —
"Vesting offish in Her Majesty.
"Within these limits all the fish present at any moment in the sea are hereby vested in Her Majesty".
The noble Lord said: I suppose the only thing we can do is to continue trying to legislate as best we can in the knowledge that the world outside goes on. This rather bold-looking Amendment is really a matter of making perfectly sure that everything is all right, because I fear that unless something of this sort is added we might run into certain dangers which I should like to outline to the Committee.
It is at present open to question—indeed, it has been questioned—whether, when the Bill becomes law, the Government will have any right to order anybody to do anything or to refrain from doing anything about the fish in the extended fishery zone, because the fish are, and will remain, common property unless Parliament takes steps to cause them to cease to be common property. It is that very simple notion which lies behind my proposal that they should be vested in the Crown—a time-honoured procedure. If they proved to be, in international law, common

1193
property, or indeed nobody's property, then theoretically it would be open to any trawlerman—possibly not of Community nationality or even of a flag at all —to take the skippers of enforcement vessels of this country to the International Court at the Hague and to ask them: "What right have you to order me off or to tell me where to fish?" I speak here subject to correction, and I hope that some of the noble and learned Lords among us may be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a good chance that the International Court would say: "You are right. The British enforcement vessels have no locus in this matter at all. These fish belong to anybody and nobody can give anybody else orders about them."
If that were not the case, why was it necessary for us, in the Continental Shelf Act 1964, to vest the oil under the seabed in the Crown? Your Lordships will remember that Clause 1 of that Act says:
"Any rights exercisable by the United Kingdom outside territorial waters with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources, … are hereby vested in Her Majesty".
If we had simply been interested in obtaining a right to issue licences for oil exploitation, and if we had thought that was sufficient, no doubt Parliament at that time would have said so, and so the relevant Ministers would have the right to license exploitation of the oil and nobody who did not have a licence could exploit the oil. But no, at that time it was found necessary to go further and to vest the oil in Her Majesty and then allow the relevant Ministers to get on with licensing the exploitation.
Moreover, Parliament at that time went further and vested the natural resources of the sea bottom in the Crown. That means lobsters, crabs and other types of bottom-walking fish—spiney lobsters are quite an economic resource. This matter was settled in international law over the Franco/Brazilian lobster war about seven or eight years ago, when the settlement went in favour of Brazil. In international law, anything which walks on the sea bottom is part of the Continental Shelf, and thereby lobsters and crabs on our Continental Shelf are vested in the Crown. There is no doubt that the Ministers in question have the right to license their taking by those whom they consider fit
1194
and convenient to take them. By contrast, it appears there is no doubt that they have no right to license their taking, or that they would have had no right unless they had been given such a right by an Act of Parliament, through the Crown. If that is true as regards lobsters and crabs on the bottom, my question to the Government is: Why does the same thing not apply to fish swimming about in the water? If it was found necessary for the oil and for the lobsters and crabs, why is it not equally necessary for the fish?
Since 1964 another whole dimension has been added to the problem: that is the question of VAT. Consider the situation in which, say, a Dutch trawlerman takes fish by licence and with our approval in the British extended zone and takes them back to Holland, with our approval, and sells them in a Dutch port. Where has the value been added? It seems to me that in common sense it has been added on two occasions: first, when the fish were pulled on board the trawler and, secondly, when the work of unloading and selling the fish was done. However, if those fish were not British property, then the trawlerman will pay VAT only in Holland. If, on the other hand, those fish were British property and had been vested in the Crown there would be no legal difficulty in determining that a transaction had taken place and in levying VAT both here and in Holland, which appears to be the course of natural justice.
I ask your Lordships to take another case. France has already legislated—it is permissive legislation—to take complete sovereignty over her waters out to 200 miles, which equals, I submit, vesting of all natural resources in the waters. A British fisherman taking fish in the French zone, with a licence from the French Government, and bringing it back with the approval of the French Government for sale in Britain, would very properly find himself paying French VAT for the taking of the fish and British VAT for the sale of the fish in Britain. A French fisherman coming the other way would, I submit, if we did not vest these fish in the Crown, possibly be paying French VAT only. We do not know the size of the natural resource in question. The Government have no figures of the value of the fish in our zone. It could be—I think it probably is, over the years—that we are talking of

1195
several thousands of millions of pounds, and I submit that it is not really acceptable for the property rights in that resource to remain in doubt. I do not know whether others of your Lordships share my feeling, but I should feel much happier if they could be vested in the Crown, once and for all, just like the lobsters and just like the oil.
I may be objective, but when Parliament proposes to vest something in the Crown it always gives the Crown due warning of that fact and awaits the Crown's comments to see whether Her Majesty wants to have whatever it is vested in the Crown. But this Bill is extremely urgent, and we have the remaining stages tomorrow, and therefore it is improper for that to be done. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the position of those of us who for three or four years past have been urging this Government and the last one to pass a Bill something like this, and how successive Governments have been resisting our urgings and have finally done it at the last moment. I also hope that the Government will bear in mind the probability—I would even say the certainty—that the Palace is extremely well equipped with modern methods of communication, and is not ignorant of the issues at stake in this matter. I beg to move.
3.12 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I should like to speak for two or three minutes in support of this Amendment. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that when certain countries have extended their limits to 200 miles, they have also referred to an exclusive economic zone. I asked a question on Second Reading of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but I did not get an answer. So I should like to ask again whether our extension to a 200-mile limit also includes an exclusive economic zone. It is quite true that fish are no respecters of boundaries and they swim around, but their breeding grounds are always the same. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said on Second Reading, there is a great danger that, before we have completed our negotiations with the EEC for a 50-mile limit, other boats—whether from the EEC or from outside it—will be able to come and exploit our fisheries. It depends on how
1196
long the negotiations with the EEC last, but from my experience of such negotiations they usually take a very long time. So that as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, I hope that the fish within that zone can be vested in the Crown. I heartily support the Amendment.
Lord PEART: I have listened carefully to what my noble fried Lord Kennet said, and I have also noted the support which he has had from the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene. I fully appreciate his concern that the stocks of fish around our coasts, which represent a valuable economic resource, should not be in some way appropriated; say, by the Community. I can assure my noble friend, however, that that will not happen and that his Amendment is unnecessary. To some extent, also, it runs counter to the way in which sea fish are normally treated under both national and international law.
Let me say, first, that the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference Revised Single Negotiating Text, on which extension of fisheries jurisdiction is being based, does not confer ownership of the fish within 200 miles of the coastal State. What it does do is to confer exclusive rights of managing fish stocks and priority for catching fish within the 200 miles, coupled with the duty to conserve fish and to see that as much as possible is caught, consistent with conservation. There is no concept of fish as property, nor is fishing within the 200-mile zone intended to be exclusively the preserve of the coastal State. In fact, Article 44 of the Text goes so far as to say the following:
"In exercising its rights and performing its duties under the present Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other states."
It is moreover consistent with English law that no right of ownership should be asserted over wild creatures—a term which includes fish. Under our law—for example, the Theft Act 1968—wild creatures are not treated as property until they are killed or captured, even though the right to kill or capture may be vested exclusively in the owner of the land on which they happen to be found.
As regards the suggestion that the Community will in some way declare the fish stocks common property if we do not ourselves assert property rights, this is

1197
quite unrealistic. The Community cannot exercise jurisdiction over fish stocks, except to the extent that Member States already do so. There is thus no chance that some kind of impost could be imposed without our consent on fish caught within our limits. We might at some time wish to agree to a Community system of licensing, with fees paid into a central fund, but this is a matter for separate discussion and for agreement. It cannot be imposed.
I am aware of the reference which my noble friend has made to Section 1 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964. This, however, talks not of ownership but of "rights exercisable by the United Kingdom". The rights which the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference Text envisages for the coastal State in respect of fisheries are those of conservation and access control. The powers sought for Ministers through this Bill are precisely those needed to enable the Government to assert those rights. It is unnecessary and also inadvisable, as I have shown, to go further. Admittedly, we cannot through this Bill override the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy in respect of EEC access to our waters. But my noble friend's Amendment would likewise fail to achieve this. The reappraisal of the Common Fisheries Policy—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned this and hoped that it would be in the Statement—must he pursued in a Community context.
Before I sit down I might mention that if this Amendment were accepted Her Majesty's consent would need to be sought before the Bill could proceed to Third Reading. Given the proximity of the Recess, there would be a delay until the second half of January. British fishery limits could not therefore be extended on 1st January, which would be most regrettable, and I think I would have the support of all sides of the House on this matter. I hope that with that explanation, and the assurances which I have given, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I do not disagree with his general argument, but is it not time that we amended the concept of the right to kill wild creatures? I understand that a pheasant does not belong to anybody until it is killed and that it is arguable that salmon
1198
in the river do not belong to anybody until they are caught. But the point of the Bill that we are now considering, and the point of general conservation throughout the world, is that man is now so competent at catching and destroying species that we need a new concept. I do not think that we can hold outdated concepts any longer with regard to the law of the sea. With regard to lobster fishing, for example, 20 years ago I was laughed to scorn by the fishermen of the North coast of Scotland when I suggested that they might have to lease a stretch of coast. They said to me, "What nonsense! The sea is free to all." Our thinking must be directed towards ownership, not towards the right to kill wild creatures. We have to conserve and preserve our wild creatures, otherwise they will become, as some have already become, extinct.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: If I may interject a few words, what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said confirms my own understanding of the legislation regarding the Continental Shelf, that we have rights to mine for minerals within that part of the Continental Shelf which has been designated as belonging to the United Kingdom, but that we do not claim sovereignty over the bed of the sea. That is a somewhat difficult kind of idea for us to recognise. None the less, so far as the North Sea is concerned, agreement was reached over 10 years ago, in the negotiations of 1962/63.
One of the difficulties, as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has pointed out, is that whereas the hydrocarbons of the seabed are not mobile and are there until they are removed, fish move around in shoals—particularly the pelagic surface fish. What happens within the fishery limits of one country can greatly affect the fish within the fishery limits of another at different stages in their life cycle. Also, when fish move around in shoals, serious depredations can take place while fish are in one country's area and before they reach another. It is a very difficult concept that an individual fish belongs to a particular country.
Secondly, on the question of animals that are in a wild state being regarded in general by our law as not belonging to anybody until they are caught, may I point out that there may be a time in

1199
future when sea fish will not be regarded as wild and to be hunted and when we shall have to cordon off areas of the sea and regard fish as farm animals which are being herded and husbanded and, in fact, farmed. When that happens within the fishery limits of our country we may well feel that the fish belong to us in a way in which, when they are wild, they do not.
With that proviso, which itself may present problems for us in the future, because sea fish farms have not yet extended far enough out to sea to cause that to arise, I say from this Bench that we think that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has stated the present position.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: Before the noble Lord the Leader of the House makes his final answer, may I ask him one question in respect of the doctrine enunciated by him that there is no exclusive right for British fishermen within the 200-mile limit. I am not arguing about that; I must accept what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. However, may I ask him whether that doctrine is accepted equally by all the other European countries which are now enunciating their own 200-mile limits? If so, we are all equal. If it is not so, then this country is at a disadvantage, as compared with other countries enunciating 200-mile limits.
Lord PEART: I understand that that is the concept, and we must accept it. In any case, we are in the Community and a Community solution may well emerge out of the negotiations. I understand the noble Lord's point about the definition of wild creatures and that the law should be altered. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that I do not believe that this Bill should be the instrument for the revision of our law affecting not only fish but also wild animals. The 1968 Act which I quoted was passed not so very long ago. Time passes, and no doubt the Liberal Party wants to be in the vanguard of progress. I do not dissent from that, but I do not think that I could alter the law of our country in this Bill; it would be very wrong of me to do so. The noble Lord, if he wishes, or the Liberals, if they should so wish, could raise this point on a suitable
1200
occasion—but not, as I used to say in another place, next week or today.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I did not raise the revision of the law; the noble Lord the Leader of the House raised it. While accepting his argument, I was pointing out that we might have to look at this point in the future. I did not ask the noble Lord to alter the law tomorrow.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I must confess that at first sight I liked the appearance of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Kennet. Equally, I must say that, after hearing the explanation of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I have come round to the other point of view. But that is not the main reason why I am influenced against my noble friend's Amendment. I am very old and my mind goes back to the Dogger Bank incident of over 70 years ago, when British and Czarist fishermen came to blows over their rival claims to the fishing rights of that part of the North Sea. The two countries were brought almost to the verge of war. We know that in the present day the Soviet fishing fleets have a habit of fishing here, there and everywhere, and that, no matter what we do this afternoon, they will probably trespass into what we call our part of the North Sea.
What, then, is the position? If the Soviet fishing fleets are trespassing in such a way that they breach our fishery licensing regulations, I suggest that this is a matter which ought to be settled through the civil courts, with the imposition of fines. If, on the other hand, we have vested all the fish in the North Sea within 200 miles of our coasts in the person of Her Majesty—that is to say, we have nationalised all these fish—and if the Soviet authorities then send their trawlers to trespass upon our grounds and take Her Majesty's fish, then this incident, otherwise a matter for settlement by civil law, immediately becomes a matter of intense diplomatic disagreement between the two countries. That might have dangers. On balance, therefore, I have come round to the view of my noble friend the Leader of' the House, that perhaps it would not be safe to accept this Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Am I not right in saying that the incident referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, regarding the Russians on the Dogger Bank had nothing to do with fishing? Is it not a fact that the Russian Fleet going to Vladivostock to fight the Japanese Fleet, in rather bad visibility saw some trawlers on the Dogger Bank and that they fired at them? Why they fired at them I do not know; I suppose they panicked. I thought that that was the incident. I never thought that Imperial Russia was vying with us for the Dogger Bank, but perhaps she was.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I am always open to correction, but on this occasion I think that I may be more right than the noble Viscount. I was alive and reading actively in those days. The noble Viscount had not been born.
Lord KENNET: I think the reason expressed by my noble friend Lord Leatherland for not wanting the Amendment —namely, that if the Russians come and poach our fish without a licence we shall not mind if they are private sector fish, but if they come and poach our fish without a licence we shall mind very much if they are nationalised or public sector fish—is not a good one. But to turn to the remarks made by my noble friend the Leader of the House, he said—and how remarkable it is when we see every day in our own lives (those of us who are concerned in this business) how this document, which does not have the force of law, is already beginning to be accepted as customary in international law—that the revised single Negotiating Text of UNCLOS does not confer ownership of any resources in the coastal State. That is true indeed; but what it does confer is sovereignty, and I remain just a little alarmed that the new text of customary international law confers sovereignty, that our neighbour France has taken sovereignty by national legislation but that we will not take either ownership or sovereignty. It is of course quite possible that the Convention which we all hope will come out of UNCLOS in due time will not resemble the Revised Single Negotiating Text. It may be weaker; it may be stronger—it may even confer ownership.
1202
My noble friend said that there is no property right in wild creatures but there is of course in crabs and lobsters, as I was trying to find out. We have nationalised them; we have vested the right to exploit them in the Queen, so that they are different from pheasants. My noble friend also said that there was no danger that the European Community could declare our fish to be Community common property. That is not my worry. I do not have the feeling that some people do. that the Community is a dangerous enemy which may do something against our interests any day. The Community is a body to which we belong and I am sure they will not do that. No, my worry is about non-Community countries—perhaps Russia, perhaps Korea, with vast fishing fleets; perhaps Roumania ordering fishing boats from Poland in the Baltic—perhaps one of these countries might declare that we have no right to present our own case because we have not vested them; we have taken no sovereignty, we have taken no property, and might conceivably win. I do not know.
It may he that we are moving a little slowly in this matter. We arc going slower than most nations; we are behind the pack in taking control of our marine resources. I should feel happier if we could go faster. I am disappointed to learn that, in spite of my belief that the Palace might react within 24 hours, that is not the case and in fact it could not react within several weeks. However, taking all things together, I will withdraw the Amendment and leave it with the single sentiment that I believe it may be necessary, and hope that it will be possible for the Government to introduce a very small Bill within the next few months. This would be a Department of Trade and a Treasury Bill, regulating in some way more effective than my amateurish wording the right to property in the fish in the North Sea. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Access to British fisheries:]
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("to") and insert ("in").
The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to

1203
take Amendment No.3 at the same time as I move Amendment No.2. They are not exactly earth-shattering Amendments, but if they were accepted then from the end of line 10 subsection (2) would read:
"and the Government of the country in which the boat is registered".
Unless there is a decisive difference between "belonging to" and "registered in", surely it is better to use my wording throughout the Bill, because I have always believed that the more simply Bills are drafted, the better. We might then be able to do without some lawyers.
Some laymen may think that "belonging to" might be interpreted as belonging to the Government of the country and not necessarily a boat belonging to an individual in that country. It is usual in shipping circles to refer to where a ship or boat is registered. I have had some slight experience of shipping in the past and the object of this Amendment is to try to make the wording of this part of the Bill completely foolproof and understandable to a layman. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: I understand that the noble Viscount desires to improve the Bill and I believe he is seeking to tidy up the wording of the clause by referring throughout to fishing boats which are registered in a particular country, and not in one case the country to which the boat belongs. May I say that the wording in line 11 is deliberately chosen. Subsection (1) provides that only vessels registered in a designated country may fish within the British fishery limits. The intention of subsection (2) is to provide that other foreign fishing boats may enter our limits for certain purposes, although not for fishing. In most cases these other fishing boats will be registered somewhere but in some cases they may quite lawfully be unregistered. It is not our intention to exclude non-registered boats from the aegis of an international convention, which would be the effect of these Amendments.
I should perhaps say a word about the purposes for which foreign fishing boats not registered in a designated country would be allowed to enter British fishery limits. Purposes recognised by international law include such things as taking
1204
shelter for the safety of the vessel; direct passage to or from a port in the United Kingdom; seeking medical attention. As regards conventions in force between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of other countries, the most notable example at present is that allowing Polish mother ships access to our territorial sea limit for purposes such as transshipment of catches but not, as I have said, for fishing. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: In view of what the noble Lord has said I will withdraw the Amendment, but I was under the impression that in fact all boats and ships were registered. My boat is registered and it is an extremely small boat, so I am surprised to hear that there are boats which fish commercially but which are not registered. However, having heard what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.39 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 39, after ("in") insert ("or off")
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No.4, which I have tabled because unless there is some statutory definition which includes the sense of the word "off" in the word "in"—in other words, to put it into plain English can "in" really mean "off", because so far as I am aware fishing boats like any other boat are not amphibious—to me it does not make sense to say "in Scotland". Surely it ought to be "off Scotland". If a boat is arrested for illegal fishing, surely it ought to be "off Scotland", not "in Scotland". It reminds me of a friend of mine a long time ago in the Admiralty when we had a Far East Fleet, who gave a longitude and latitude reading for the fleet to rendezvous 500 miles inside China. It surely makes far more sense for this clause to read "where the contravention takes place in or off Scotland … I beg to move.
Lord PEART: This Amendment proceeds on a mistaken belief that the provision made in Clause 2(5)(c) on

1205
page 2 of the Bill does not extend to a contravention occurring in or on the waters off or adjacent to Scotland. Section 14 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 permits offences committed at sea under Section 6 of that Act (which Clause 2(2) of the Fishery Limits Bill reenacts), to be deemed for the purpose of prosecution to have been committed on land. The Amendment is therefore not necessary, and with that explanation I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: I am not quite clear about this. if a contravention has taken place, I am not sure where it is supposed to have taken place. It is going to be deemed to have taken place in the land of Scotland, so where actually did it take place?
Lord PEART: All I know is this—and I am answering for the purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to provide that fish or fishing gear forfeited by order of a Scottish court may be destroyed or disposed of as the court directs, not only where the contravention takes place in Scotland, but where it takes place in waters off Scotland. I understand that is what the noble Viscount is trying to achieve. I explained that the Amendment proceeds on a mistaken belief that the provision made in the clause in the Bill specifically dealing with this does not extend to a contravention occurring in or on waters off or adjacent to Scotland. I do not think I can go further.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: In view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.45 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: On Clause 2, "Access to British fisheries", Ministers can designate the countries which will be allowed to fish within the United Kingdom fishery limits, and to prescribe the conditions for their fishing. This will enable the British Government to bargain with a view to obtaining reciprocity and enabling British fishermen
1206
to continue to fish within the fishery limits of other countries when those are being extended at the same time to 200 miles or the median line. In that way, we hope to win as much as possible of the worthwhile and valuable fishing off the coasts of other countries, fishing which for many years, in some cases centuries, our fishermen have traditionally plied as their livelihoods.
I will not trespass on the Statement to be made shortly, but on Second Reading of the Bill I raised the point that there was little or no fishing carried out by, for example, Iceland within the proposed 200-mile fishery limit of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, Iceland lands and sells in this country a large quantity of the fish they catch around their own shores. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity today to tell us more about the powers available to the British Government, including those available through the EEC, to control such landings, and make sure that our markets are not used gratuitiously or without restriction while our fishermen are being denied reasonable fishing rights by those very countries, because this is something which will apply to other countries and not only Iceland.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House, in the course of a speech winding up the Second Reading debate, in which he addressed himself to a large number of questions which had been put to him from all sides of the House, replied briefly on this point. We now have the opportunity for the noble Lord to expand upon this clause. I was not myself very happy that our action should be restricted to that associated with the EEC reference price system. The noble Lord particularly referred to that. I am not sure that that is necessarily appropriate or, indeed, adequate for the situation I have described, but if the noble Lord would take this opportunity of expanding on what he said was available within the EEC we shall be glad to hear about this. Certainly the developments in the last few days indicate that this is now a subject which deserves a great deal more attention by the British Government.
Lord PEART: We are here discussing the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill? I do not want to go into details, but if the Committee wishes

1207
I can explain the purpose of the clause. However, I think noble Lords have been following the debate, know the Bill, know the clause and how it affects access to British fisheries.
The specific question which arose was really the position of Iceland. This came partly out of public feeling because of the landing of large quantities of Icelandic fish at British ports on Humberside. Here is a country preventing British trawlermen from fishing in waters near to Iceland. I can well understand the feelings of many people on this matter. This point was raised when we had the Second Reading debate. Noble Lords put forward the possibility that landings of fish by Icelandic vessels might be barred. This is the argument. It is true that the Community has power through EEC regulations to control the landing of fish, although, as I explained on Second Reading, the powers are intended for use when there is a danger of market disruption. It was then I referred to the reference price system which we had, and which the Community accepted. This in effect exercises a measure of control of landings of fish into our ports from countries like Norway.
I do not know what is going to happen with reference to the Icelandic negotiations. I cannot forecast, for example, whether the Icelanders will be prepared to agree to arrangements which will permit our fishing to resume, and then one would have a quite new situation. There is a common interest in seeking a reasonable solution on the basis the Commission have discussed with Iceland. One will be hearing very soon the Statement by my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House. I could go into deep waters by arguing other matters, but I think I will just leave it at that. I know there is strong feeling about it, but I believe the present negotiations are important. This is where we can get some real agreement, I hope, in the end, which will resolve the problem. I cannot go beyond that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Clearly, agreement will be the goal which British negotiators and our EEC partners will be seeking. The problem is how can we achieve it in the particular case of Iceland; the domestic scene in Iceland itself has created a situation where political parties and individuals are outbidding each other
1208
in their apparent toughness towards Britain. But there are other similar situations; we have had a similar situation visà vis Norway in the past. So I am raising this as a general question. There will be straightforward bargaining where we have fisheries within our 200 miles limit in which other countries are interested, and if we license some of their boats to fish in our waters then we will expect reciprocity, something in return. My point here is that we must also link this with markets, that markets are as valuable, or even more valuable in some cases, to other countries with whom we are negotiating than the fish in our waters. This is something which I hope the Government will continue to bear in mind. I shall have more to say on this when the Statement comes in a moment.
When I was speaking about controls I was not necessarily meaning a ban. I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that I was contemplating a ban. That I think would probably only be used in some kind of emergency. But it is a situation where we should make it clear that we control our market and that is used in our bargaining with Iceland and other countries; we do not simply allow their fish to come in more or less without restriction when our fishermen are being denied rights which have become traditional, and which are very reasonable ones bearing in mind conservation in the waters of those other countries.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Licensing of fishing boats]:
Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-RARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-RARD moved Amendment No.5:
Page 3, line 27, after ("that") insert (", for the purpose of implementing any international agreement or the arbitral award of an international body, ")
The noble Viscount said: My reason for putting down this Amendment was that I cannot understand why our fishermen should be controlled outside the 200 miles fishing limits, apart from some international agreement binding on other nations' fishermen. As I read the Bill. British fishing boats cannot fish outside the 200 miles limit unless they are authorised by the Government. I do not think that is good enough. I think they ought to be allowed to fish outside the 200 miles

1209
limit unless there is some international agreement which prohibits the boats of other nations from fishing outside the 200 mile limit. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. That is all I intend to say. It ought to be a quid pro quo. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: If I may deal with the Amendment which has been moved, this Amendment would restrict Ministers' powers to impose licensing on British boats fishing outside our limits to an extent similar to that contained in the existing Section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The new restriction, like the existing one, is designed to ensure that British fishermen fishing outside our limits are not unilaterally subjected to stringent controls, while their foreign counterparts fish freely. I fully agree with this principle.
We should, however, look at the changed circumstances in which the new Section 4 is intended to apply. In 1967 most countries had 12 mile fishery limits, and most fishing was, therefore, carried on in areas outside national jurisdiction. Conservation rules were agreed in the international commissions, such as the NEAFC, on a voluntary basis. It was, therefore, necessary to ensure that our fishermen were not penalised by controls which other countries refused to apply to their fishermen.
In the new situation of 200 mile limits which we and most other North Atlantic States will adopt from next year, most fishing will be carried out in waters under the jurisdiction of coastal States, subject to conservation rules and effort limitation applied by them on a compulsory basis. Our fishing in the waters of countries such as Norway and Canada will be regulated by agreement between the EEC and the third country concerned. We may wish or be required to enforce our side of the agreement by licensing our vessels to fish in that country's waters. Equally we may need powers to license our vessels in the waters of other EEC Member States as part of a Community conservation régime
These purposes would be covered by the Amendment, which would permit licensing "for the purpose of implementing any international agreement". But it may be that we should wish voluntarily to license fishing by British boats in
1210
other countries' waters while agreements on fishing rights are being negotiated. This would be with the aim of avoiding an increase in fishing effort which might prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. For the most part, therefore, the need is an interim one arising from the fact that the negotiations cannot all be included by 1st January next.
Additionally, I should point out that under the existing 1967 Act there is no restriction on Ministers' powers to license British boats fishing outside our limits for anadromous species such as salmon and migratory trout. The Bill maintains that situation, although, of course, a much higher proportion of the catch of these stocks will be taken within our new limits, where licensing can henceforth be applied to both British and foreign vessels. I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment; otherwise, I would ask noble Lords to reject the Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Of course, I have taken the words of my Amendment out of Clause 1(2). I thought the words there were rather superfluous. I would like to have seen it vice versa. I should like to have seen those words in my Amendment. But I have heard what the noble Lord has said. I am sure he has the interests of British fishermen at heart just as much as I have. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: I suggest this may be a good moment to take the Statement which is at present being made in another place. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

FISHERIES
3.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the

1211
Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the special Foreign Ministers Council which met yesterday to continue the discussion of fisheries begun in the previous Council on 13th December.
"On behalf of the Commission, Mr. Gundelach gave a progress report on the state of negotiations with third countries. He regretted that he had so far been unable to reach agreement with the Icelandic Government on arrangements which would permit the resumption of British fishing in Icelandic waters from 1st January. He hoped and would continue to work for a positive decision by the Icelandic Government as soon as possible in January: but he indicated that this might not be possible until the Icelandic Parliament had reconvened on 24th January. The Council agreed that Mr. Gundelach's report gave great cause for concern. Further negotiations will be held in January.
"Against this background the Council decided that it would not be possible to reach agreement on the interim measures for an internal fisheries regime suggested by the Commission until greater clarity emerged as to how much fish would be available both inside and outside the waters of Member States. The Council therefore agreed that there should be a stand-still arrangement for the month of January, without prejudice to the position of any Member State on the content of a future fisheries regime. The text of the Council's Declaration will be circulated in the Official Report. It provides that Member States will restrain their catches in January 1977 to within the quantity taken in January 1976; and that existing conservation measures will remain unchanged during the short stand-still period. This one month stand-still is consistent with the need to consult on the detail of non-discriminatory conservation measures which will be necessary either as part of our Community agreement or prior to reaching agreement."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
1212
Following is the text of the Council's Declaration:
"Fishing Activity for the month of January 1977.
"The Council agrees that catches taken in the month of January 1977, which will not exceed the quantity taken in January 1976, will count against quotas to be fixed for the interim period and all Member States will register these catches in accordance with the procedure foreseen under Article 5 of the Draft Interim Regulation. In this way there will be restraint by the fishing fleets of the Community and, having regard to the decisions taken in respect of third countries, there will be already a significant reduction of the total fishing effort within Community waters.
"It is further understood that during this short standstill period, while these restraints are in effect, existing conservation measures will remain unchanged and Member States will not take additional conservation measures.
"The Council intends to reach agreement on the interim measures for the conservation and management of fishing resources during this period."
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a very disappointing outcome to the negotiations, and this will be a most anxious Christmastime for the British distant waters fleet and their families, and for the three ports from which the Iceland fishing has traditionally been undertaken for many years. It is also a threat to the continued existence of much of the ancillary industry; for example, processing and distribution which are based on Humberside and Fleetwood, and the jobs which they entail.
Can the noble Lord give an indication of when the negotiations will be resumed? It was stated that final agreement would probably not be possible before 24th January when the Icelandic Parliament reassembles, but I hope that that does not mean that as soon as the holiday season is over the negotiations themselves will not be resumed. Has the time not come for the British Government and the EEC to bring into the negotiations with Iceland the whole question of the quantity of Iceland's fish imports into Britain and into the EEC? This is an important market for Iceland. and it should not be taken for granted. Since much of the trouble arises from Iceland's domestic political situation, should not the Icelanders be reminded of the realities which face them in neighbouring markets?

1213
The second part of the Statement reports on the matter which I raised just now, in the course of the Committee stage of the Fishery Limits Bill, with the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It indicates that the internal negotiations within the EEC for a new fisheries regime are being suspended because they are dependent upon the result of the Icelandic negotiations. Am I right in assuming that this means that everything is postponed for one month and that the new proposed regimes within the EEC 200-mile limit will have no start made to them until 1st February?
4.5 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in expressing gratitude to the Minister for repeating this appalling Statement. As I read it, the whole of the Hull fleet will now be out of action for a month and the whole of the rest of the industry will have no work to do, or very little work to do, because of the supply of fish. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, put it delicately, but I think that the time has come to say that small bullies need to realise the facts of life as well as big bullies. It is ludicrous that the Icelandic Government cannot comport themselves, and that they have got to go hack to Parliament, and have got such extraordinary, petty feuds going on that they will throw a whole industry out of gear. It is high time that we stopped pussyfooting about and told them the facts of life, and told them that they can go and sell their fish to the Russians, if they can find a market, unless they propose to be reasonable.
We are not fooling. Britain has been extraordinarily patient. They are traditional waters, and we have done everything in our power to be reasonable. We have put up with the interminable Law of the Sea Conferences and with broken agreements, and practically everything else, and it is high time that small countries as well as large ones learnt that you are going to have any form of international agreement you have to be competent, efficient, and reasonable. I would say also that this reinforces the enormous need for a 50-mile band at least for our own industry. As I understand it, from evidence given by the Ministry of Agriculture at an EEC Sub-Committee I attend, the
1214
50-mile band around our coasts could supply all the fish that we traditionally consume in this country if we had the conservation right over it and we regulated it.
The second part of the Statement says:
"It provides that Member States will restrain their catches in January 1977 to within the quantity taken in January 1976; and that existing conservation measures will remain unchanged during the short stand-still period."
What we are saying there is that the evils which have nearly wiped out the herring will continue for another month because we are being held up in our negotiations. I should like the Minister's view on whether this reinforces the case, until we get proper regulation, for a definite national conservation area which we control ourselves.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords who have responded from the two Front Benches. I agree that this is a most disappointing outcome of Mr. Gundelach's efforts, and it is a substantial setback to the Community and a very serious one for this country. It is especially serious, I entirely agree, to the very substantial communities in this country who depend on actual fishing and on processing. Their fate and fortune is very much in the mind of the British Government throughout all these negotiations.
This brings me to a central point which I think both noble Lords made. The time has perhaps come for the Community—and we act through the Community in these matters—to make clear to the Icelanders, and indeed to all third countries in this matter, that these negotiations and facilities are two-way matters. I agree that this country has shown exemplary patience throughout the prolonged negotiations with our ancient friends the Icelanders. But I cannot help joining with the two noble Lords, who I believe have voiced not only the feeling of this House but that of the country as a whole, in asserting that it is time to speak very clearly even to our very old friends on matters which affect us and which certainly affect some of our most substantial communities, especially on the East coast, as much as they affect them as a national community.
One bears in mind of course the position under Protocol 6, which regulates the

1215
general relationship, the economic relationship, between Iceland and the Community; I say no more than mention Protocol 6, which works both ways. We also bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about landings. There are of course aspects of landings which affect industry on our shores, but I think the point was well and reasonably made. I would be deficient in my duty and certainly at variance with my feelings unless I said that much in agreement with both noble Lords on that point.
Then Lord Campbell raised the question of negotiations, and I entirely take that point; it is essential that negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible. The Statement says the Council looks to negotiations being resumed in January. At the same time, the Statement mentions that the Icelandic Parliament does not reconvene until 24th January, which is well on in the standstill month, and I take that point. I believe that the Council wishes negotiations to start as soon as possible in January, but what the noble Lord said reinforces the point and I will see that it is taken to the right quarter.
The third point made by Lord Campbell was whether January was a standstill. It is. We proceed as of now, until 31st January, and that affects of course the agreement on the outer limits as well as what we had hoped to achieve on conservation. I know that an extension of a month of the present situation is not welcome to us. Nevertheless, it may well be a month during which the enormity of the situation will have been brought home to everybody concerned and that an accentuated attempt to achieve a settlement of reason may be provided.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would my noble friend be so kind as to take one very constructively intended suggestion from the Benches behind him? The Commission in Brussels is increasingly undertaking these very technical trade negotiations for its Member countries. I think there will be few noble Lords who are surprised by the content of the Statement which we have just heard or who would have been surprised if forewarned six months ago that that would be the content of the Statement at Christmas.
1216
Are the Government satisfied, and are other Member Governments satisfied, that everything possible is being done to equip the Commission with the requisite technical advice, the requisite ability to be prescient and the requisite ability to formulate fallback plans in the event of misadventure in this type of field?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I can respond at once to that question, my Lords. I have indeed consulted my noble friend Lord Peart who has very considerable experience of dealing with the Commission on these matters. He assures me, and I believe I know on my own account, that the Commission is well served by very able personnel who are in command of all the information which will enable them to be, as my noble friend Lord Kennet has said, prescient. It is a human failing that, with the best information and with the best personnel, wisdom ahead of events is not always possible. I think at this point my noble friend would like to join me, as I am sure the House would, in extending our best thanks to Mr. Gundelach, who has worked very hard indeed to achieve a settlement of reason with the Icelanders. I am sure that Mr. Gundelach, who many of us know and respect very much indeed, is more disappointed than anybody with what we hope will be the temporary outcome of his efforts.

FISHERY LIMITS BILL
4.15 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No.6:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
(" (c) that in any specified area no fishing vessel may exceed a given speed whether fishing or not.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the ability of the Ministers as defined in the Bill to carry out their intentions, whatever they may he; it does not address itself to the intentions or policy of the Ministers but simply to the machinery of enforcement. I take this opportunity of giving notice to my noble friend the Leader of the House, which I have not been able to do before, that I shall on Clause 4 stand part raise

1217
a question about the right of the Ministers' agents to board and inspect fishing vessels both at sea and in harbour.
To return to Amendment No.6, we know—because we have debated it often in your Lordships' House—that the main burden of fishery regulations enforcement in the first months, in the first years probably, of the new régime, will fall on the Island class vessels, which are slow; they are too slow to catch modern trawlers. We have the Nimrods flying around overhead, but while they are fast they may be too fast to be able to read the name of an uncooperative ship as they fly past skimming the wave-tops. The Ministry of Defence, it has recently been learned—this is good news—is working on a system of "Transponders" which might be required to be fitted to fishing vessels. This is simply a device which, when an aeroplane or ship asks, "Who are you?", automatically answers in code giving the name and registration of the ship, which can then be checked.
Nevertheless, it will be quite a while before such a system can be developed, adopted and agreed with the countries concerned and installed. During that time—during the time when there will be days when the Nimrods cannot see what a ship is, when the light, fast vessels we have cannot keep at sea, and when the Island class vessels will not be able to catch up—would it not be an advantage if the Ministers had power to impose a speed limit so that they could order any ship, without knowing what ship it was, to reduce speed to a given limit, which would then allow them to overtake, have a look, have a talk and, if need be, board? This is another belt and braces proposal which I think would be of particular use in the early days of the régime introduced by the Bill.
There is a precedent; between Yugo-slavia and Italy. An arrangement of this nature is already in force whereby Italy agrees to certain horsepower limitations in vessels it sends to the Yugoslav side of the Adriatic to fish outside—I repeat, outside —Yugoslav territorial waters, and this is simply for the agreed convenience of the Yugoslav Government. who have only slow enforcement vessels.
Lord PEART: I am sorry to be negative about this, despite the eloquence of my
1218
noble friend Lord Kennet. I was interested in what he said about Yugo-slavia and Italy—I was not aware of that —but, nevertheless, the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. First, it would widen the scope of the new Section 4 of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967, which Clause 3 contains. Section 4 is intended to deal with the licensing of fishing boats and the power to prohibit fishing except under the authority of a licence. The Amendment would introduce a further unrelated power; that is, the power to impose a maximum speed limit on fishing boats travelling within British fishery limits. Apart from being undesirable on those grounds, the imposition of a maximum speed limit would appear to interfere with vessels' freedom of navigation, particularly when applied to vessels which are simply passing through the area under our fisheries jurisdiction. It could, for example, lead to costly delays for, say, Norwegian vessels travelling some hundreds of miles through our waters.
If it were desired to impose a maximum speed limit only on vessels fishing, this could be done either by including an appropriate condition in a licence or by means of an order under Section 5 of the Fisheries Act 1968. This is a section that enables Ministers to make orders regulating the conduct of and safeguarding fishing operations. I must say, however, that the Government are not convinced that a maximum speed restriction would be a sensible and useful measure to introduce. It is true that some trawlers are faster than are fishery protection vessels, but a trawler which had committed one offence and which was determined upon evasion would hardly be likely to be deterred by the prospect of committing a further offence. In addition, I should point out that it is already an offence under Section 10 of the Fisheries Act 1968 to refuse to allow a sea fishery officer to exercise his powers. Those powers include the power to board a boat or to require it to stop. The penalty for an offence under this section is being raised by the Bill to a maximum fine of £1,000 on summary conviction.
To sum up, the Government's view is that this Amendment is unnecessary in view of the powers already existing. A maximum speed limit would not necessarily make the task of enforcement any

1219
easier and would cause serious invonvenience. I therefore recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised an important point and I believe that this is the moment when we can discuss the likely effectiveness of the British policing force. However, I do not think that the right way to set about this is to impose a speed limit on fishing boats as this Amendment would do. What the Amendment does is to pinpoint the defect in the present system which is that the country's small force for patrolling the fishery limits area lacks any speedy surface craft which can catch a fishing boat and make an arrest. Noble Lords have been informed on previous occasions that there is a combination of four RAF Nimrod aircraft which contain a huge quantity of instruments and which I am sure can cover a very large area of sea from the point of view of surveillance and generally monitoring the presence of fishing boats. But one cannot make an arrest from a Nimrod. What the Nimrod can do is to supply the information to the fishery protection vessels and, indeed, to very small aircraft which may be used as well, that an offence has been committed. It depends upon the interception of the offending fishing vessel by a British authorised vessel. That is why we have called attention before and are doing so again to the lack of any fast craft that can be used to carry out the last part of that operation.
I accept that the Government have pointed out that the craft that are being brought in to carry out fishery protection and also to protect the oil installations on the British Continental Shelf—the platforms and rigs—are craft that can stay at sea for some length of time and can withstand very bad weather. They will have a useful role, I am sure, but there is still a need for craft that will not necessarily be at sea all that long but which can be brought in and can speed quickly to the area where an offence has been committed, make an investigation on the spot and, if necessary, enable a challenge or an arrest to be made.
When we discussed this on Second Reading, the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, gave us about whether
1220
individual nations would be operating or whether it would be the EEC's responsibility was that the individual nations must continue to carry out the necessary protection within their own fishery limits. But it will of course be necessary to have co-ordination in the EEC to make sure that individual efforts are being deployed to the best advantage of the EEC.
There are two main points that I should like to make: first, there should be some system of command and control of the British effort. The patrolling force is being put together from different stables. The RAF, the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, for example. are involved and no doubt there are other organisations such as the Coastguard Service which can contribute. What will be required in future will be an organisation or agency to take charge of all this, particularly when the world Law of the Sea Conference reaches final conclusions because then there will be duties and responsibilities concerning, for example, navigation and pollution which will fall upon Britain. In preparing the kind of patrolling force that we are discussing, it would make sense that those tasks should also be borne in mind because we shall be having to take them on before very long.
My second point is about faster craft being needed. We need faster craft to add to what has already been presented by the Government. A great deal more could be said about the patrolling force but, on this Amendment, it is a question of speed and the effectiveness of the force in making an investigation on the spot and, if necessary, an arrest that matter.
Lastly, in a previous debate this year I put forward a suggestion that these duties ought to fall within the field of one Minister. There should he one Minister co-ordinating because, looking four or five years ahead, by the time the patrolling of the British 200-mile economic zone is being carried out, with all the duties that that involves, there could be a dozen or more Government Departments or agencies involved. There will need to be a Minister who is in charge of co-ordinating the whole effort, perhaps operating through a new agency.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: On Second Reading, I raised with the Leader of the House the question of enforcement

1221
—whether it was to be on a national or a Community basis. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, was good enough to say that it had to be on a national basis. I do not like the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I do not think that it is desirable to impose a speed limit for the reasons given by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that we needed faster vessels. We do, but we also need slower ones. The Nimrod is too fast and the fishing vessel is inclined to be too slow.
There is one point that I want to put to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and ask him to be so good as to ensure that it is considered. It is this: ought we not to consider for North Sea patrolling within a reasonable range of this country the semi-rigid airship which was known in World War I as the "Blimp"? It did superb work in anti-submarine patrolling in the North Sea. It had a speed of 50–60 miles per hour and an endurance of eight to 10 hours. These craft were highly successful, not that many of your Lordships have the memories of those years that I have.
The Admiralty has within its records all the details of what are called the "semi rigids", and I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would be so good as to refer to the Admiralty this possibility, with a view to an unbiased appreciation of its possibilities. I have some belief that there might be great interest, and possibly even a positive answer, to this very efficient form, which we used to know, of air patrol of the seas at low cost and with long endurance. I would merely ask whether he would see that that is done.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Surely it would be far better to have powerful helicopters which can carry a fast dinghy. Helicopters could easily intercept a fishing boat that was contravening the regulations and, provided the sea was not too rough, a small speed-boat could be launched and the offending fishing boat could be boarded. Heli-copters can be heavily armed—not that I am suggesting arms would be used against a fishing boat. But the crew could fire ahead of the offending boat and cause it to heave to. I quite agree with my noble friend regarding blimps. The trouble regarding blimps is that while they
1222
might be all right in the North Sea, I am afraid that in the Atlantic, in gales of 100 m. p. h. (a blimp can fly at only 60 or 70 m. p. h.), they would come to grief. I should like the Leader of the House to consider the use of powerful helicopters.
4.32 p.m.
Lord PEART: We have had a very short but interesting contribution on the point raised by my noble friend's Amendment, and I have great sympathy with what has been said. I can confirm that there is a co-ordinating Minister for matters relating to maritime affairs, and, as Lord Privy Seal, I am that Minister. It is one of my duties, so I will follow up this matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that despite the argument about helicopters, I think that all the suggestions which have been made should be looked at. I will certainly initiate discussion and try to find out what is the situation.
I think that the noble Lord was quite right to raise this matter; after all, this task force, if I might use that phrase, is important, and there should be co-ordination of protection services. I think that there is very close and effective co-ordination between the Royal Navy and the Department of Agriculture and Fisher-ies for Scotland, the two agencies princip-ally concerned. One can argue about the speed and the size of the vessels, but it is true that sometimes a slower vessel is needed. Fast vessels are not always necessary. But noble Lords have high-lighted this point, and I believe that it is my duty to report back to the people with whom I am involved, and I promise to do that. We have had a very interesting contribution and it has been well worth it.
Lord KENNET: One of the advantages of this stage of the Bill is that we actually have the Minister who is responsible for co-ordination of maritime affairs taking details of Amendments, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would join me in wishing more power to his elbow and in hoping that he succeeds in co-ordinating the enormously disparate fields and conflicting pressures which must be coming upon him from all sides. I think that there is great need for that work.

1223
My noble friend advanced two reasons for not liking the Amendment. First, he said that it was in the wrong place in the Bill, but I am sure that if he liked it he could find a better place for it within 24 hours. Secondly, he said that imposing a speed limit might cause inconvenience. So it might indeed, and this is precisely why I drafted the Amendment so that it would not impose a speed limit. I should indeed be very much opposed to a provision in a Bill which said that the speed limit for all fishing vessels throughout the zone shall be 20 knots, or whatever it might be. If the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and indeed my noble friend the Leader of the House, would care to look at my Amendment again, they will find that it gives the Minister powers to impose a speed limit in any specified area, and consequently of course to abolish it again if he thinks fit.
This time I am going to make one more appeal to my noble friend, to ask him whether he is quite sure that he would prefer that the Minister should not have those powers, to be unable to do it, rather than, on the other hand, to have the powers and to exercise them only if he found it necessary. I fear that he may find it necessary. If I am right, we shall be glad that he had the powers. If I am wrong, it will not matter whether or not he had the powers, since he will not impose the limit. Is that not a better way to look at the matter? Might I not hope that my noble friend will give this matter further thought, if not immediately then at least before the next stage of the Bill?
Lord PEART: I am afraid that I must stand firm on what I asked the Committee to do. As I said earlier, my noble friend is very persuasive, but in this case I am afraid that I cannot accept his argument.
Lord KENNET: As the Committee knows, there is nothing so unshakable in the world as a British Minister refusing to be given powers that he does not want, and so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.7:
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("authority") and insert ("authorisation").
The noble Viscount said: Clause 4(5) of the Bill states, starting at line 13 on page 4, that a licence,
"… may authorise fishing generally or may confer limited authority by reference to … "
et cetera. Surely the word "authorisation" should be used here? Would not the term limited authorisation "be better English? That is my only reason for putting down the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: I should like to support the noble Viscount's Amendment. Surely the phrase "to confer authority" means, or is generally understood as meaning, to confer the right to exercise power. One confers authority upon a schoolboy by making him a prefect; one confers authority upon a private soldier by promoting him to lance-corporal, and so I should think that the word "authorisation is not only more correct grammatically, but would make the clause more easily understood by anybody reading the Bill for the first time, and I am sure that this is something we all ought to be aiming at.
Lord PEART: I wonder whether we could discuss Amendments Nos.8 and 9 with Amendment No.7, as they are linked together?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Yes, certainly.
Lord PEART: I think that we can discuss them together. I welcome the detailed attention which the noble Viscount has obviously given to the Bill and I commend his insistence on what he sees as precision in its drafting, apart from his general interest in the subject. I applaud that. But the Amendments he is proposing are, I think, matters of style, and in a sense the noble Lord, Lord Monson, confirms this. I am sure that the noble Viscount would agree that they really add nothing of substance to the Bill. In my view there is little to choose between the proposed changes and the present text of the Bill, and therefore I ask noble Lords to reject them as unnecessary. I have taken careful advice on this matter and the advice of counsel is that the o Amendments are unnecessary. Of that I assure the noble Viscount.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: As we are considering all three Amendments together I should like to put a point to the noble Leader regarding my Amendment No.8. I cannot understand why sometimes the word "fishing" is prefaced by the word "sea", while at other times it is not, and the same situation applies with the word "fish". The whole Bill is about fishing in the sea, so why is it necessary to put the word "sea" before the words "fish", or "fishing"? One is not going to fish in fresh water, and I do not understand why this word is being used. It appears that the word "sea" appears to be used quite unnecessarily.
Lord PEART: I must be guided by my legal advisers. The noble Viscount is impressive, and he wants to introduce something. But the legal advice I have makes me feel—and it confirms what I said earlier—that the Amendments are unnecessary, although I agree that they would not change the substance of the Bill. However, I think it is wiser to keep down to an absolute minimum the number of Amendments which will have to be referred back to the Commons, because I want to get this Bill through. I assure the noble Viscount that I have looked at this, and the legal advice is what I have said it is.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him why he must always accept the legal implications? It seems to me to be nonsensical in Government. I am sure that the noble Lord, who has had so much experience in his political career over all these years, knows that you do not always have to agree with your legal people, because the legal people have their ideas which I sometimes think are very silly ideas. I do not mean silly in the legal sense; but sometimes it is a very good thing for the legal people to be told that the Government would rather have something in a Bill which reflects the views of people who have access to, and knowledge of, the fishing industry as such. Legal people are not always knowledgeable about that sort of thing. I learned that in another place over very many years; and I sometimes think that the Government would do very much better—and I say this about my own Party as well as the Party opposite—to
1226
accept what the Members of either another place or here would like in a Bill, and not always just to say, "We must accept what the legal people say". Tuts to the legal people sometimes!
Lord DERWENT: Does not this phrase "sea fishing" in fact keep it in line with the 1967 Act, where I think "sea fishing" is referred to?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Has the noble Lord never heard of giving away a sprat to catch a mackerel?
Lord PEART: I know that noble Lords are trying to tempt me to give way.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Oh!
Lord PEART: I might say to the noble Baroness, whose Parliamentary experience I respect very much, that I am often tempted to act as a philosophical anarchist; it attracts me. It is true; and I know that the noble Baroness, as a good Parliamentarian, loves chiding official people. Quite right, too; it keeps them on their toes. All I would do is to confirm that the Amendments here are unnecessary; and that, I think, is good advice. I have looked at it. If I thought otherwise, I would accept the arguments of the noble Viscount, but I cannot.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Could the noble Lord say why he thinks they are unnecessary? Is it just because his legal people say so, or does he really believe it himself? Why?
Lord PEART: These Amendments will not alter the substance of the Bill, and they are unnecessary for that reason. That is a good reason.
Lord MONSON: With all respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I do not see that Amendment No.7 is simply a matter of style; it is a matter of the accurate use of English. Surely good drafting is preferable to slightly sloppy drafting.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have come to my support, but these are only drafting

1227
Amendments and arc not of great importance. I certainly agree with what the noble Lord has said, that it is a pity if we have sloppy drafting. It may not particularly alter the meaning of the Bill. I also heartily agree with what my noble friend Lady Ward said. I of course have the greatest admiration for the legal profession, but they are not always practical. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.10:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("so far as such use is under the control of the master, the owner or the charterer;")
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to ask: How can the master, owner or charterer he penalised for the use made of the catch after it has passed out of his hands? He cannot tell what is going to happen to it. His catch may be sold to a merchant, but he cannot tell where it goes after that. It might go for any purpose; it might go for fish manure, or anything like that. Fish sold for human consumption might not in fact go for human consumption. I think this is putting a great burden on the master, the owner or the charterer of a fishing boat, and I think he ought to be relieved of that burden. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: I should perhaps start my reply on this Amendment by explaining why the Government have provided specifically for the use to which fish are put to be controlled by a condition of a licence. The main purpose which is envisaged is the control of industrial fishing, which in recent years has had serious consequences for stocks of valuable human consumption species, such as North Sea herring and cod. For example, the Government could make it a condition of a licence issued for certain fisheries that the fish caught may not be used for fish meal. I accept, though, that it would be invidious for a master, owner or charterer to be prosecuted if, in those circumstances, he caught fish intending them to be used for human consumption only to find that the purchaser, without his knowledge, subsequently used them for fish meal. Equally,
1228
it might happen that fish were caught in good faith for the human consumption market but had to be used for fish meal because the human consumption market had collapsed. The Government believe, however, that in those or similar circumstances the courts can be relied upon to exercise good judgment and not to pursue those whose actions have clearly been overtaken by circumstances outside their control.
The additional words proposed by the noble Viscount in his Amendment No.10 would provide too wide a loophole, since it might be argued that, in any sense, any consignment of fish, once sold, is outside the control of the master, owner or charterer. In practice, in most cases the seller will be well aware of whether he is selling for human consumption, fish meal or whatever. The price he obtains should provide, I think, a fairly clear indication of this. The Amendment, if accepted, might therefore simply provide a con-venient fall-back for those seeking to evade or disclaim a responsibility which it is not unreasonable to expect them to exercise. But as I have said, the Govern-ment are not unsympathetic to the spirit of this Amendment, and I give the assurance that they will make every attempt to take account of the points made by the noble Viscount when framing any relevant licence condition controlling the use to which fish may be put. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Viscount MASSE REENE and FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said, and in view of it I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.11:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("a licence") and insert ("any such licence containing this").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is really not very important but, again, I thought it was better English. It is surely more explicit; but I will not press it. However, I should like the noble Lord's opinion on it. In his opinion, does it in fact make it more explicit—it would appear so to me—to insert the

1229
words "any such licence containing this" condition? But I am in the hands of the noble Leader. I beg to move.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Before the noble Lord replies, something else has just occurred to me now that suddenly I have come to life on this. Has the noble Lord ever heard of the Statute Law Reform Group? I remember that a long time ago, when I was in the other place, we set up a Statute Law Reform Group—and this is perhaps a little immodest on my part—and it may be in operation now. The man who started it was one of the legal advisers, if I remember rightly, and he asked me to go on to that Committee because he rather liked the way I sometimes deal with legal people. I rather enjoyed that. The Statute Law Reform Group was concerned to have the best possible English in the various laws and regulations we were passing. We used to meet at Lincoln's Inn and as the years went on I found it a little difficult to get to all the meetings. Does the noble Lord ever consult the Statute Law Reform Group? They were a very powerful legal body. He is making all these comments about it being a waste of time to bother about good English. Does he know about that Group and has he ever consulted them? What is the good of having an important committee like that if they are never consulted by the Government?
Lord MONSON: I am afraid to say that, so far as this Amendment is concerned, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on what constitutes good English. You can break a condition but not a licence. His Amendment would have the effect of making the clause read in the latter way.
Lord PEART: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for confirming my attitude towards this particular Amendment. May I say to the noble Baroness that I was interested in what she said. I must confess that I have not consulted the Statute Law Reform Group. I will take careful note of what she has said and will see whether any advice from that quarter would be acceptable on other matters. At the moment, I am dealing with fish policy and it is too late now to consult them on it. I pay tribute to the noble Viscount on his efforts. He wants
1230
to improve the drafting of the Bill and he is being constructive, but his Amendment would in this case have the opposite effect. The noble Viscount's Amendment would make it an offence to break a licence instead of, as is intended, a licence condition. Obviously the wording is defective and I hope the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I see the noble Lord's point, for which I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.12:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert ("and make good any loss wholly attributable to the variation, revocation or suspension").
The noble Viscount said: The reason for putting down Amendment No.12, was to try to protect the owners of fishing boats. There might be an owner who has laid out a lot of capital and incurred other liabilities in good faith in getting a licence permit for specific fishing for a specific purpose, but then he might find it was withdrawn or altered. Under this Bill he would appear to have no redress. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House can assure me that he would have redress. Perhaps he will say that he can go to the courts on this; but it is not so set out in the Bill. I should like to have some clarification on that point. If an owner suffers financial loss through no fault of his own but owing to the fact that permission to fish in a specific area is suddenly withdrawn, I should like to know whether he has any redress in law to make up for the loss of his capital in the special gear required for fishing in that area. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: As I understand it, the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be to require Ministers to reimburse those concerned for any loss they might sustain as a result of variation, revocation or suspension of a licence. The Bill as drafted gives Ministers discretionary powers to reimburse all or part of a licence fee where the licence has been varied, revoked or suspended. The Amendment goes much further by opening the way for individuals to lodge claims against Ministers for any loss they consider they

1231
have suffered as a result of the variation, or whatever, of a licence. It is possible to envisage circumstances in which the sums claimed were very considerable. I believe such a provision to be contrary to the long-term interests of the fishing industry.
The Government's intention in operating licensing arrangements is not to raise revenue but to conserve fish stocks for the good of all those involved in the industry. The most likely situation in which a licence would be suspended or revoked would be one in which a catch quota for a particular fishery was filled. Individual fishermen are aware that this situation may arise from time to time and, indeed, every attempt is made to notify the appropriate fisheries organisations some time in advance of the closure of a particular fishery so as to minimise financial loss or inconvenience. If Ministers were to be open to claims for losses consequent upon revocation of licences this would inevitably inhibit the proper use of their licensing powers. This cannot be in the overall interests of the industry and therefore I ask the noble Viscount, for the reasons I have given, to withdraw his Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his reply. I am more satisfied than I was, but it did appear to be rather unfair. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No.13:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Duty of Secretary of State to examine applications for registration.
The Secretary of State for Trade shall examine all applications for registration of fishing vessels under the United Kingdom flag to determine whether their owners are bona fide British citizens or companies and if they are not may refuse such registration.
The noble Lord said: I want to try out a new clause here. This concerns flag-of-convenience registrations. I think the Committee will know that in general maritime commerce the United Kingdom is already becoming a flag-of-convenience country. I do not know whether this is
1232
yet the case as regards fisheries vessels. I do not think it is, but it could become the case. It has become the case in the USA. I have already sent to the noble Lord the Leader of the House evidence of the great difficulty that the Americans are having with Russian trawler owners who set up American companies and register Russian owned ships under the American flag and operate in the American fisheries flying the Stars and Stripes.
I believe I am right in assuming—it is a little difficult for a Back Bencher to make head or tail of this kind of legislation which spatchcocks a new bit of a Bill into an old Bill—and at any rate it is common sense, that British fishermen who will commonly have British-flag vessels are going to be treated differently from foreign fishermen, whether Community or non-Community nationals. There are certain places in which they are going to be allowed to fish, and certain types of fishing that they are going to be allowed to do, which others are not.
It becomes therefore absolutely crucial to ensure that a British fisherman is a British fisherman and not a Russian fisherman wearing the Red Ensign. So far as I can see at present there is in-sufficient protection against this, and this is why I have put down the proposal that the Secretary of State for Trade should look at every application for fishing vessels to fly the United Kingdom flag in order to make sure that it is not simply a way round our fisheries regulations so that a foreign ship can get the same treatment that a British ship gets.
May I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact—and I do this because of misunderstandings with the last Amend-ment I sought to move—that this Amend-ment does not say that the Secretary of State for Trade shall refuse registration if he finds that the application is from a foreign owner; it says that he may refuse registration. He may find it not against the national interest, the Community interest or sound conservation policy to permit, for instance, a Russian owned vessel to have a British flag. This is an enabling clause and not one laying down the law. I beg to move.
5.1 p.m.
Lord PEART: The noble Lord has raised an issue which goes much wider

1233
than fishing vessels. If I may explain, the criteria used to determine whether British registration shall be granted to fishing vessels are those which are applied universally to all merchant shipping. As things stand at present, a vessel cannot be registered as a United Kingdom vessel unless it is owned by a natural born or naturalised British subject or by a com-pany—or, as the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 styles it, a "body corporate"—which is registered under the Companies Acts, is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom, and has a main place of business in the United Kingdom. The difficulties which the noble Lord's Amendment highlights arise out of the difficulties of differentiating between legal ownership where fishing vessels may well be legally vested in a British citizen or company which is to all outward examination British, and beneficial ownership, where in practice the fishing vessel is funded by foreign interests.
We are well aware of the potential difficulties to which the noble Lord has referred in moving his Amendment. We are as keen as he is to avoid any situation in which a possible loophole might be exploited by foreign interests to circumvent the effects of the Fishery Limits Bill. However, the Amendment he proposes would not he any more effective than the present legislation in avoiding this potential problem, and we are not in a position at this stage to put forward an alternative formulation which would have the desired effect.
This question is undoubtedly a complicated subject. I do not profess to be an expert here, but I am advised that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade is currently reviewing the whole question of vessel registration criteria and that this is one question which is receiving particular attention. In a sense my noble friend is knocking at the door; his arguments will be considered carefully. If it proves possible to remedy the situation, the necessary action will be taken at the earliest opportunity. I hope that with this assurance—I am not being negative—the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has obviously stirred up a complex subject. I wonder whether the
1234
Leader of the House could say what legislation other fishing countries have that corresponds with Lord Kennet's Amendment. For instance, can British fishing vessels be registered as Icelandic if they are owned by a company registered in Iceland but with British shareholders? The same would apply to Norwegians, Danes and everybody else. No doubt his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade will look at those precedents when searching for a formula which will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. It would be rather nice to hear now, if the noble Lord knows, what legislation the other countries have on this subject.
Lord PEART: I honestly do not know. I will find out the answer to this very good question before we have finished discussion on this Bill. It is a complex matter; it has been looked at by the Secretary of State for Trade. With this assurance that we will look at it positively and constructively, especially the point made by the noble Lord, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Lord KENNET: With the leave of the Committee, I propose to continue talking for a few moments because it would be convenient if we were to get the information we are all so interested to have at this point in the Bill, rather than later on. If British trawler owners could register in Iceland and thereby gain free access to the Icelandic fishing grounds, I have not the least doubt that they would have done so long ago instead of suffering defeat in three consecutive cod wars. It is precisely their inability to do so which I find so alarming. When we consider the apparent ability of, for instance, Russia and other nationalities to register their fishing vessels in this country as British, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is absolutely right in feeling that things should he "on all fours" as between one country and another. It would be a grave matter indeed if we were at the bottom of the pecking order and if anybody could come and register here and steal our fish, whereas we—poor us! —cannot register in other countries and steal their fish. I am sure that in whatever light one looks at the matter, one sees that is the situation.
Lord PEART: May I say to my noble friend, and the noble Lord who pressed me, that I am not trying to dodge this.

1235
This is a very delicate situation because negotiations are taking place on this matter affecting the European Economic Community. Under EEC law it is entirely open to our EEC partners to set up companies in the United Kingdom in accordance with rights of establishment, to register fishing boats as United Kingdom fishing boats and operate freely. That is an EEC point of view. So far, to our knowledge, none has done this. There are difficulties here, and this is why I say to the noble Lord that it is a delicate matter. I hope the Committee will not press me too hard on this question for the moment.
Lord HAWKE: I would not wish to press the noble Lord on a delicate matter of this nature; but, just throwing out a suggestion, I imagine that were it a question of limiting the amount of British trawlers able to fish by arrangement in some foreign waters, it might be possible to pick on those trawlers which happened to be genuinely British and exclude the Russian and Icelandic trawlers, et cetera, which were not.
Lord KENNET: Once again this indicates the extraordinary economic dangers which are latent for this country in this Bill. Half the Community fish are in British waters; another 20 per cent. are in Irish waters. Britain and Ireland together represents 70 per cent. of the Community "fish pond" which is now being created. Two countries, 70 per cent. What is at stake is all our way: if we get it wrong, we shall lose and we shall not thank the Government which got it wrong. If we get it right, they will not lose because it is a very much smaller matter for them.
This is the third point in today's debate where I have had a sinking feeling that, letting pass the possibility of amending this Bill on a belt and braces principle in a way which might never be used, it would be nice to have that provision there. However, in view of the assurances which the Committee have received from the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for Trade is looking into the whole question of registration policy, including the registration of fishing boats, that he will conclude his review very shortly, and if the review suggests legislation is necessary, time will be found for it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Extension of power to regulate conduct of fishing operations & c.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.10 p.m.
Lord KENNET: I beg the Lord Chairman's pardon for not having given him notice that I would raise this matter on Clause 4, but I did mention it en passant at an earlier point in the debate. May I ask a single factual question of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, which concerns enforcement? Have fisheries enforcement vessels, under the existing law and under this Bill, taken together, the right at all times to board, to inspect the cargo and to question the masters of all fishing vessels of whatever nationality, whether or not they are fishing within the 200-mile zone and within British harbours? I lay emphasis on the phrase "within British harbours". Can they board fishing vessels of all nationalities and inspect and question the master when they are alongside in a British harbour?
Lord PEART: I have a very long note on this. Clause 4 deals with sea fishery officers and their powers. The enforce-ment of the various Acts, as the noble Lord knows, is entrusted to certain British sea fishery officers. The enforce-ment of Conventions and other bilateral and multilateral agreements is placed in the hands of authorised inspectors appointed by the Governments who have signed the Conventions or agreements. I could give a list of the sea fisheries officers, but I think the noble Lord is really more interested in the powers that they have.
The powers of British sea fishery officers are exercisable over British fishing vessels both within and outside British fishery limits and over all foreign fishing vessels within British fishery limits. The British sea fishery officer is responsible in an area for enforcing the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 and certain sections of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. Under those Acts the principal offences in relation to British fishing vessels are: (a) fishing illegally in pro-hibited and restricted areas; (b) carrying nets of mesh not of regulation size; (c) carrying immature sea fish under the size allowed by regulations. In order to

1237
deal with those offences, the officers I have mentioned can stop and board the fishing vessel, require the attendance of the master and other persons on board the vessel, require the production of any documents relating to the vessel or the persons on board, and make copies thereof, examine the equipment, including the fishing gear, and also the catch. In addition, he may require a vessel to move or to alter course if her current position or course is interfering or is likely to interfere with fishing operations in the vicinity, irrespective of whether the vessel is committing an offence.
The officers are also responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 and certain sections of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 over all foreign fishing vessels within British fishery limits. Under those Acts the principal offences in relation to foreign fishing vessels are: (1) fishing within British fishery limits other than in accordance with rights granted under a designation order; (2) entering fishery limits for a purpose not recognised by international law and not provided for by treaty; (3) carrying nets of mesh no t of regulation size; (4) carrying immature sea fish under the size allowed by regulations, and (5) having fishing gear unstowed except that required for the taking of authorised species of fish in an area where the vessel has rights to fish under a Designated Order, and then only while the vessel is in such an area.
In order to deal with these offences, the British Sea Fishery Officer can stop and board a fishing vessel, require the attendance of a master and other persons on board the vessel, require the production of any documents relating to the vessel or the persons on board, and make copies thereof; examine the equipment, including the fishing gear; examine the catch; take the vessel into the nearest convenient port and detain her if there is prima facie evidence of an offence. Where an offence against the Sea Fisheries Acts by any foreign fishing vessel for which the vessel would normally be detained is observed to take place within British fishery limits, the rights under international law of hot pursuit may be exercised against that vessel, provided that hot pursuit is correctly established while the alleged offender is within the British fishery limits.
1238
I have tried to give your Lordships a lot of information very quickly. I hope it will be looked at very carefully.
Lord KENNET: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that very full account of what happens at sea within the fishery limits. The only thing I did not hear him mention was whether the officer, or anybody else, has the right to do all that in harbour—because of course that is the most convenient time for inspection.
Lord PEART: He has.
Lord KENNET: I am very grateful for that information.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Finance]:
5.17 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No.14:
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("money") and insert ("moneys")
The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment so that the word "monies" shall replace the word "money". It is again a question of English.
Lord PEART: The noble Viscount is quite right. It is a drafting point, but it is unnecessary. It is now quite common to refer in legislation to "money" rather than the more archaic form "monies". Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: It would be a great pity if the drafting of Bills were to deteriorate into slang. I hope it will not go as far as that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord KENNET: May I take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Committee to a difference between the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum

1239
and the Title of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum says that:
"Clause 7 enables the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to contribute to the expenses of fishery protection."
That is jolly good, and I think most of us would be surprised to know that he could not. If we look now at Clause 7, we see that it enables him not only to do that but also to employ' officers and vessels and generally take
"such measures as appear to him necessary to protect British fisheries."
That is another private navy. There are already a good many private navies. I will not attempt to enumerate them: there were 11 at the last count, including the Royal Navy. There are 11 constabulary forces at sea under the control of different Departments of State. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland has always had a navy, and very good work it does. The Minister of Agriculture for England has never had such a navy, and I think the Government would have been better advised to take the opposite course —not to create a 12th private navy, but to run together all the 11 existing ones so that we could at last get a single marine constabulary force which should be the most cost-effective possible for the achieve-ment of a multiple role, rather than having all these bits and pieces each pursuing a single role and then going home to have a holiday when they were not needed for that.
Lord INGLEWOOD: On that same point—and the noble Lord the Leader of the House will understand, because I have served in that Department and I know of the research fleets which the Minister of Agriculture has—does this Bill envisage additional vessels, or does it mean that guns are to be mounted on the fishery research vessels which we know?
Lord PEART: I do not think so. We discussed the arguments earlier. Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear, but I am not complaining in any way.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I am sorry.
Lord PEART: We are all anxious to have the best and most efficient use of the resources here. I said that I would look at this very carefully, because I have a special responsibility, about which I
1240
informed the House, and I will take note of what my noble friend Lord Kennet has said. But at this stage I hope that he will allow us to have the Bill, on the assurance that I will look at certain measures which I hope will help to improve co-ordination.
Lord KENNET: I moved nothing.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Revised penalties for offences]:
5.22 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No.15:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) After section 11(2) of that Act insert the following subsection—
"(2A) The Court by which a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (2) above may order the forfeiture of

(a)any net or other fishing gear used in committing the offence;

(b) any fish in respect of which the offence was committed.".")

The noble Lord said: Here we are dealing with the three-mile territorial sea. which is what we regard as the present internationally recognised territorial limit. Within that, we in Britain have for years imposed conservation measures upon our own fishermen, as well as upon foreigners, and there are long stretches around the coasts of Britain where there is no fishing allowed for most of the species within that three-mile limit, except for lobster boats and similar small craft. Off Scotland, there are exceptions for special areas where the giant prawns, nephrops, are to be caught. To put it in general terms, the three-mile limit is a conservation zone, subject to exemptions in special areas where certain fishing can be carried out.
This three-mile territorial sea can he regulated by by-laws, and in certain important areas it is so regulated. But the fishing within the three-mile limit can be so successful financially in a certain area that the fine to be imposed may be derisory. The penalty of forfeiture of gear, however, is a more effective sanction and deterrent. That is why the Amendment which I am moving seeks to add the penalty of forfeiture of gear.
There is a particular area at present—the South-West of England and Cornwall in particular—where this matter arises. There are by-laws under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. The mackerel fishing there has become a magnet for vessels of many nationalities, as well as for large British boats. The by-laws off Cornwall prohibit trawlers or purse-seiners from fishing within the three-mile hand. But unless there are proper penalties those by-laws will be disregarded, because the fruits of successful fishing there are so much greater than the penalty.
My honourable friend the Member of Parliament for St. Ives (Mr. John Nott) has been particularly concerned, and has strongly supported the Cornwall sea fisheries district in their endeavours to secure a realistic means of enforcement. Also, noble Lords will have heard my noble friend Lord Digby last week, on Second Reading, urging this Chamber that there should be realistic enforcement; and he reminded us that he is chairman of the Fisheries Committee of the South-West Economic Planning Council. I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who has done so much over many years for inshore fishermen, especially the fishermen off the North-East coast of Scotland, is ill and confined to bed; he would otherwise have been here. However, he has spoken to me by telephone, and has asked me to inform your Lord-ships that he fully supports this Amendment for the same reasons. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord DIGBY: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Campbell in this Amendment. I am very hopeful, because the noble Lord the Leader of the House both stressed this penalty on Second Reading, and also appeared to give a certain Government blessing to it in his answer. Previous penalties have been derisory and £1,000 is a great advantage, but confiscation is the real deterrent. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: I support my noble friend's Amendment, but I am not certain that what it says takes account of the fog into which we are placed by the wording of Clause 2. Clause 2(5)(b) states that where people are found fishing illicitly
1242
their gear may be confiscated. On the other hand, if that fishing takes place in Scotland the court may direct that it is destroyed or disposed of. Apparently, there are two different courses, depending on whether or not the offence takes place in Scotland; and we are told that "in Scotland means" deemed to be in Scotland". So that we do not know the reason for these two types of offence, nor do we know what "deemed to be in Scotland" really means.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I support my noble friend's Amendment. Those who are going to offend in this way will do so, in the main, because they want pecuniary gain. Although it is always difficult to compare a fine under one piece of legislation with a fine under another, the £1,000 mentioned here is no more than the maximum fine which some football hooligan may be asked to pay, and he is not going home with a shipful of valuable fish, having paid his fine.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I should also like to support this Amendment. I am, of course, devoted to Scotland, and I also like the South-West. But when I was in another place we also had a fishing port in North Shields, and, somehow or other, that part of the country seems to get overlooked, because so many delightful Scottish Members are always talking about fishing off Scotland, which of course they do very well. This is a good Amendment, which could be applied to North Shields. Furthermore, it would not be a bad idea to say something occasionally about the North-East coast of England.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: May I just support my noble friend, and ask whether the £1,000 fine also applies to skin divers? I hope that it does, because in certain areas they are scouring the bottom of the sea for shellfish.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Before the noble Lord, Lord Peart, replies, I wonder whether I may deal with one or two questions which I have just been asked. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. whether there was any trouble over the drafting of this Amendment in relation to Clause 2, and I think it will help every-body if I deal with that point straight away. First, I should indicate that I have

1243
received some expert advice on the drafting of this Amendment, and I would not wish to try to make changes in it at this stage.
Secondly, Clause 2 deals with foreign fishermen in the 200-mile fishery limits, whereas this part of the schedule deals with any fishermen, including British fishermen, within the three mile territorial sea—that is, where Britain has jurisdiction. As a layman, I would say that on first sight the difference between paragraphs (b) and (c) in subsection (5) of Clause 2 is the difference between existing Scots law and the law South of the Border. As we know only too well in this House, the laws are different, and the subsection is taking that matter into account.
May I also deal with the point which was raised by my noble friend. This Amendment applies mainly to England and Wales, not to Scotland. I should like to make it clear to my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside that although I am a Scot and mentioned Scotland, the Bill is particularly applicable to England and Wales and to the North-East.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Hooray!
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: It is the South-West which at present feels that the Bill is necessary because of the prolific mackerel fishing which is taking place there at present. I thought that I should give those two assurances, having moved the Amendment, so as to make quite sure that my proposal is fully understood.
Lord PEART: As one who knows that area well and who was born there, I am grateful that the noble Lord stressed the North-East. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, for raising this matter—as she often did, quite rightly, in another place. Mention was made of by-laws in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, knows, under the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act 1885 Scottish courts already have powers to order the forfeiture of net and gear used in committing an offence. May I add my own regret that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is not here. I referred to him at Second Reading. I always remember listening to him in 1945, when I first went to another place. He spoke so well and so eloquently on
1244
fishery matters—and quite rightly, representing as he did the fishing port of Aberdeen. The noble Lord also played his part in the Council of Europe on matters like this. I wish the noble Lord had been here. We all wish him well and I hope that he will soon be back with us.
May I say to noble Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has suggested that where contraventions of sea fisheries committee by-laws 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. The same point was raised in another place and I said during the Second Reading debate—quite rightly I have been reminded of it—that the Government were prepared to look sympathetically at an Amendment to this effect.
Although the waters out to three miles from the coasts of England and Wales are traditionally the fishing grounds of smaller vessels, it is true that the value of the catch they may take, even over a short period, may amount to several thousands of pounds. The rewards from illegal fishing within the jurisdiction of the sea fisheries committee can thus be considerable, just as they can be in the case of illegal fishing farther from the shore. The noble Lord's Amendment will 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 1967. I believe that this is right and I am happy to accept this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I can only express gratitude to the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment, and also gratitude to the Government for having given thought to it. A similar Amendment was raised in another place but the Government felt unable to accept it then. Therefore I think we can say that we are particularly pleased that the Government now feel that they can add this Amendment to the Bill. Of course, we do not wish to delay the Bill. The main point is that the Amendment can be made and the Bill passed by Christmas.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.
Then, Standing Order No.43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Report received, and Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.38 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOT-TISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of provisions of the 1972 Act relating to local plans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to make a comment or two on the clause and to ask the Government whether they could give an expression of their attitude. The last Scottish planning measure which went through Parliament was the 1969 Act. Reference is made in Clause 1 to the 1972 Act, which was a consolidation measure, but 1969 was the last opportunity when planning legislation changes could be introduced in Scotland. In 1973 there was also a reorganisation of local government and Clause 1 refers to the 1973 Act. There was the unenviable task, if I may call it that, of propelling through Parliament a massive Bill covering most of the changes resulting from the new councils which were set up as local authorities in Scotland—for example, questions of boundaries, methods of election, allocations of functions and duties. But no attempt—I was the Minister in charge, so I take the opportunity of informing the House—was made to change the planning laws while that Bill dealing
1246
with the reorganisation of local government was going through. What was done was to adapt the planning law as it existed to the new authorities.
Now we have the opportunity of considering changes in the Scottish planning legislation put forward by the Government in this Bill. I should like to make a general comment on Clause 2. The planners—as they are often called—appear to many of the general public to be invisible gnomes trying to order everything minutely according to their own preconceived ideas or prejudices. To that extent planners get a bad name. I believe this is unfortunate and unnecessary and leads to friction and misunderstandings.
I think the structure plans and local plans which have formed the basis of town and country planning in Scotland since the 1969 Act should leave options open where it is sensible. There are some important areas of Scotland where planning in great detail has to be carried out but there are other areas where, for example, little may be likely to happen other than sheep farming where it would be time wasting to spend a great deal of energy on trying to plan minutely. The plan should provide a strategy and indicate the best use of resources and this is a way in which local authorities can indicate to incoming industry, expanding industry, to house-builders or any other potential developers where their activities will be welcome and where they will not be welcome and what kind of activities these should be. This planning will steer projects large and small into suitable areas with well co-ordinated ultimate objectives for the benefit of the part of the country concerned. I should like to seek the Government's view on this: whether they agree in principle or whether they foresee difficulties.
I hope that the Government would positively discourage any local authority from preparing in great detail a kind of straitjacket for an area where everything is apparently preordained in meticulous detail without leaving options because that gives the planners a bad reputation and it also delays the production of any plan at all. One of the clauses in the Bill seeks to enable the district authorities to put forward local plans and to start working on them even though the structure plan for the wider area has not yet

1247
been completed. That is a change for the good, and I welcome it, but I think these changes should be considered in the light of the principles which I have tried briefly to enunciate and on which I seek the Government's view.
Lord KIRKHILL: I confirm from the Government side of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, gave a brief yet accurate potted history of some aspects of recent attitudes towards Scottish planning legislation and I can assure the noble Lord that this Bill comes before your Lordships really because the Government have responded to pressure and to representations made to them by many local authorities, by individuals and by many Members of Parliament, and that across the political spectrum.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has not unreasonably pointed out, a planner is frequently considered to be a gnome-like figure. Recently in the Scottish Office a new planning emphasis has been ordained. We are attempting to give to the regions their own individual entitlement and concept of planning role and we in the Scottish Office are tending to step back a little. We certainly believe that the role of planner in modern society is a very necessary part of that society. I can say for the Government that planning is a function mainly of local authorities which affects the man in the street. It may have an impact on him through direct contact if he is seeking, for instance, a planning permission or through affecting his way of life—as when major industrial developments in the neighbourhood are being considered. Therefore I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just said, that there is every reason why planning should be an open process so far as possible; that it should not be a mysterious or remote process.
Therefore I give an assurance to the House that from the point of view of the Scottish Office we intend that plans should be clearly expressed, that they should be flexible, that they should be realistic and should be capable of being implemented. I can confirm that the Secretary of State has advised planning authorities generally along these lines, and I further welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord
1248
about our new attitudes towards the district authorities because some of the Scottish structure plans will not take place for a long time, if ever, and it is only right that the districts should proceed where possible to the implementation and the creation of local planning.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for giving the Government thinking on this clause, which is what I was seeking. It is the background to the change that is being suggested.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appeals from determinations of regional planning authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.47 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I cannot refrain from saying a word or two about this clause because as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will remember that this point was being argued about in 1969 and therefore I am glad to see that in the light of experience the Government have decided to make a change so that the local authority would not appear to be judge and jury in its own case, and that an appeal would be possible, in the circumstances prescribed, to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Something rang a bell in my memory. I remembered that in 1969 we must have been discussing these things and I looked it up and found that on 29th April 1969 from the Front Bench of the Opposition in another place I said:
"The point is that, as distinct from a court, a local authority is an interested party. There must be considerable disquiet, even though every local authority acts properly in every case. There should be provision for reference to a second authority, namely, the Secretary of State, who is clearly the best man for this kind of case"
That I can only repeat in comment on the change now being made.
"I hope that the Committee will support us in this Amendment."(Official Report (Commons) 29/4/69, col.2580.)
I fear that the Committee, by a Division, did not support us.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Stop notices]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I tabled an Amendment to indicate that your Lordships might consider whether it was necessary to include Clause 4 in the Bill at all, but this was simply to draw the attention of the Government to some doubt about whether or not it is wise to bring in this new provision concerning stop notices. As I understand it from reading the clause, the objection is that the Government intend to extend the scope of stop notices from development as it is now, concerning building, engineering and mining, to any change of use; and as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated on Second Reading this could mean such changes of use as the setting up of a scrap yard, which could include the burning of rubber tyres or other things which could cause a disturbance or nuisance in the area. I believe that is in itself a valid point—and I have experience of scrap yards and similar activities starting up on green field sites and causing considerable nuisance to neighbouring property.
The point about a stop notice where it now applies is that where proceedings are being taken to bring, shall we say, some building operation to an end because the planning permission is being ignored, the building can actually be stopped while the proceedings are taking place, and before the final decision, which could be months later, is taken. If now the stop notice procedure is to be extended to these other activities, I say straight away that I think this is welcome where the kind of situation I have described is at issue. But it also raises some difficulties, because there could be other cases less clear than the scrap yard example I have given, which could arise from the wording of this new clause.
I ask the Govrenment whether they have considered these, and what their view is about the possibility of such cases arising. For example, to prove that engineering or building operations are unauthorised is comparatively easy. But it is nothing like so easy to prove that a use of land is authorised, or changed, or that it has been carried on for more than a year, which is one of the
1250
points which has to be proved under the clause. The difficulty of demonstrating that a use is established is to be seen by the procedure for certification of established use in the Scottish Town and Country Planning Act, the consolidation measure of 1972, and also its English equivalent.
It could well be that, even though the use became established otherwise than by express planning permission at a particular time, a recent owner could be unaware of that fact and fail to apply for a certificate of established use. Then, not only could he be challenged by an enforcement notice under this clause, but by the extension of the stop notice procedure he could suffer the hardship of having to cease the use until such time as a complicated procedure was disentangled and a decision given on his appeal, which could take many months. I am asking the Government to consider whether the clause may not give rise to arguments about the change of use in situations much less clear than the ones the noble Lord gave as examples, and which I recognise.
Then there is a wider point. Of course, this is pioneering, because if the clause is accepted in this Bill it will be doing something North of the Border which has no equivalent in England and Wales. So far as possible in recent years, we have tried—and I say this for both sides of the House—to bring the planning legislation in Scotland and the planning legislation in England and Wales closer together, because otherwise it is very confusing for industry and others (the building industry in particular) in making applications in different places, to find themselves with quite different planning procedures. It has been welcome that gradually, as changes have been made, they have been brought together.
Here we find a departure being proposed North of the Border, while the general principle seems not to have been considered for the United Kingdom as a whole. So I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether this is something that the Department of the Environment have also in mind to carry out, when the opportunity occurs to introduce or to propose to Parliament in regard to England and Wales. We must recognise that this is a new procedure starting North of the Border, without a similar procedure appearing South of the Border.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister before he replies. I served on a county council for a great many years, and it was impossible for anyone to change the use of a site, or the use of a building, without getting planning permission. When the clause says "stop notices", I wonder what is different in this from that which already happens, certainly on the county council on which I sat, although I do not know about all the others. No major change, no alteration of use, no setting up of a caravan site, or, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, doing something about dumps, or whatever it is, could possibly occur before the matter had gone to the planning committee and received permission. Over and over again the permission was refused. This caused annoyance because people thought it was interference in their own private affairs, but it was done in the interests of the community and it worked rather well on the whole. Before the noble Lord the Minister replies, and having listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, why must we have this situation? So far as I remember, and it was my own experience, you could not possibly do any of these things without first applying to the planning committee for permission.
5.55 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government have given careful consideration during the preparation of this Bill to the need to improve the effectiveness of enforcement powers to deal with breaches of planning control—and I must emphasise that point, that a stop notice deals with a breach of planning control. In the Government's view, there can be no doubt that in many instances the present provisions under the Town and Country Plannng (Scotland) Act 1972 have been found wanting and Government consider it vital to make the system of control more workable. The most serious gap in the enforcement powers of planning authorities is the limitation on the use of stop notices. In the opinion of the Government, the changes contained in Clause 4 of the Bill are both necessary and timely. I should explain that Clause 4 reenacts substantially the provisions of Section 87 of the 1972 Act. It was decided for convenience to include the new clause in its entirety in the Bill rather than making a long series of
1252
separate Amendments. The changes to the Section 87 provisions, however, are limited to those Amendments required to rationalise and improve the stop notice arrangements.
I should also explain—and again I would emphasise—that even under the new provisions stop notices are supplementary to enforcement notices. If I might direct the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, to Clause 4(3), it might be helpful to her if I explained the view of the Government of that particular subsection, where we are not really talking about change of use as such. We are in fact talking about a breach of planning control, of planning consent. Subsection (3) enables a planning authority who have served a stop notice to bring all those involved within the scope of the stop notice by posting site notices. These have to be displayed clearly on the site, stating that the stop notice has been served, and setting out its requirements. While stop notices will be served on those primarily responsible for the breach of planning control, they will not, of course, guarantee that the breach stops.
Part of the problem has been that other people might be taking part, or may come along and take up the activity, where the recipient of the stop notice left off. This has been happening. For example, a stop notice served on a rubbish tip operator would not prevent others from coming along independently and tipping rubbish on the site. It is hoped that a site notice will enable the planning authority to stop all tipping on the site. There is the breach of planning permission which has been occurring, and the stop notice is designed, one hopes, to prevent these occurrences in future.
I should say that a stop notice can be served only where the planning authority has already served an enforcement notice in consequence of an apparent breach of planning control; that is to say, where some activity which requires planning permission is being carried on without such planning permission. The stop notice merely stops the offending activity while any appeal against the enforcement notice is determined. There is no question of a stop notice being used to stop some long-established and perfectly legitimate activity which the planning authority suddenly

1253
finds inconvenient. There is a separate procedure for doing that under Section 49 of the 1972 Act.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the changes we are making do no more than is necessary to correct the most serious defects in the enforcement powers of the 1972 Act. They are based on experience of the actual working of the existing powers, which, for the reasons I have outlined, have not proved entirely satisfactory or indeed watertight. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that we in Scotland are not alone in discovering this. Our enforcement powers are similar to those in the English and Welsh Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I understand that in another place a private Member is bringing in a Bill, which will have Government support, to make provision for England and Wales similar to that made for Scotland by Clause 4 of this Bill. I hope noble Lords will find my explanation satisfactory, and it is my hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having replied to the point, realising that I was raising doubts that had been expressed about the need for this new clause in the Bill. I am sure that all your Lordships will be interested to hear that it is intended that a similar change shall be made in the planning laws of England and Wales by means of a Private Member's Bill supported by the Government. The fate of that, of course, is usually less certain than a Bill which is a Government Bill, but I see how the Government are proceeding and that the policy intention is the same both North and South of the Border.
The only thing that still remains so far as I am concerned is a worry that there could be some difficult cases arising from this. I certainly do not oppose the principle of trying to extend the stop notice system in order to enforce the law, but I think there can be problems arising from this. I can only warn the Government about this. If outside bodies have a chance of making representations to the Government, as I think some may, while the Bill goes through your Lordships' House and another place, I hope the
1254
Government will take note of the anxieties expressed, and consider whether any Amendment could be made.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.

NORTHERN IRELAND (VARIOUS EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (CONTINUANCE) (No.2) ORDER 1976
6.4 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No.2) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained in another place on Friday the Government's view that our security policy in Northern Ireland is proceeding on the right lines, and he explained in some detail the particular measures that we are taking.
I do not think your Lordships' House will expect me to describe in detail the various provisions contained in this order, which your Lordships' House has debated on a number of occasions in the past. In July, on the last occasion when a continuance of emergency provisions was sought, my noble friend Lord Donaldson set out the policy that has been decided on as a result of the deliberations of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order. The essence of this policy was to increase the strength and effectiveness of the RUC and its Reserve, to maintain the Armed Services in support of the police in what-ever strength the security situation demands, to make a modest increase in the full-time element of the UDR, and to make such changes in the law as appear necessary to secure the conviction of terrorists in the courts. The overall theme running through this policy is the maintenance of the rule of law and the securing of convictions in the courts of all those who break the law.
There have been significant developments in Northern Ireland since July.

1255
The Peace Movement has clearly demonstrated the deeply felt longing by the community for an end to violence. Significantly, the peace rallies have been the only mass demonstrations in Northern Ireland in recent months. There have been other significant developments this year. During 1976 the RUC have attracted some 600 recruits, to give them a current strength of 5,268. The chief constable has introduced three regional crime squads, and since 1st June, 1976 their operations have resulted in 30 persons being charged with murder. The headquarters crime department has been completely reorganised and the operations department restructured. Emphasis is being placed on the collection and collation of intelligence on the more important criminals. As a result, there have been not only a great many significant arrests but a number of red-handed arrests.
The Government have carefully studied the law to see whether new offences or powers or changes in court procedure are necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner have given advice to successive Governments, and with very few exceptions their advice has been incorporated into the emergency provisions that we are debating this evening. It is perhaps not surprising that after two such reviews the Government have decided that it is unnecessary to create more offences or confer more powers, and that it would be wrong to attempt to modify court procedure further. Inevitably minor changes in the law or in procedure become necessary as circumstances change or as the need becomes apparent, and the Government will not hesitate to act in such circumstances.
Since the last Continuance Order your Lordships' House has approved an order to double the maximum penalty on indictment for firearms possession offences and the Lord Chief Justice has agreed to the introduction of revised Judges' Rules. A proposal for a draft order to apply the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 to Northern Ireland has also been published. My right honourable friend has also agreed to increase the penalties for membership of a proscribed organisation when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
My Lords, I should like to say a word about the Armed Services. There will inevitably be changes in force levels and in the disposition of his forces by the GOC. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has explained, the GOC is now to slim his forces from 14,500 to 14,000. This cannot possibly be described as any sort of withdrawal. It is a consequence of progress made between the GOC and the chief constable in working out better operational deployments, and it takes into account the increase in the full-time element of the UDR, initially by a further 200, and a decision to deploy the SAS wherever their experience and special skills can be best used in Northern Ireland. There is no change in Government policy. The Armed Services will continue to support the RUC for so long as is necessary. Moreover, as a demonstration of this a unit additional to the spearhead battalion will be on standby for deployment to Northern Ireland.
The security picture would not be complete without mention of the actions of the Irish Republic which have an important influence on the security situation in the North. The Government are much encouraged by the positive action they have taken in introducing new legal measures to combat terrorism, and we look forward to yet closer co-operation between our respective security forces. In the course of this brief review of the current position in Northern Ireland I have referred to the successes of the security forces and to the Government's conclusion that significant changes in the law are not required. In saying this I am not for one moment underestimating the appalling nature of the violence in Northern Ireland. There is still a long uphill struggle ahead of us and the Government firmly believe that we need to continue in force the various emergency provisions covered by this order.
Finally, may I pay as sincere a tribute as I can to all those people who every day have to face the difficulties and stresses and dangers of life in Northern Ireland, and in particular of course those people in the Armed Services and the police, and I include in that the RUC reserve and the UDR, who show such courage, dedication, and determination in upholding the law. Then to return to something I said when we discussed the Supplementary Benefit Order recently, there are also the many

1257
public servants and voluntary workers who are living and working and providing vital public services in the areas that people in Great Britain see almost nightly on their TV screens in quite different circumstances.
To try to counter what seems to me to be the greatest misconception held by people in this country about Northern Ireland, I should like to pay a tribute to all the kind, generous, good-humoured and intelligent people of Northern Ireland who have lived through an appalling seven years with incredible courage and with a determination to ensure that a life as normal as possible continues there. The future of Northern Ireland lies in their hands. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No.2) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th November, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
6.13 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, from these Benches I should like first of all to express support for the general line of policy of the Government in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right in saying that this order was debated in another place on Friday, and for that reason I will follow his example by speaking briefly on it. We may have a debate on Northern Ireland when the House returns in January, but I think on this occasion it would be the wish of your Lordships that the debate on this order should be kept reasonably short.
The Friday debate in another place was, I believe, the first occasion for a speech on policy by the new Secretary of State, Mr. Mason. His determination, which has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in this House today, to see that what is a part of the United Kingdom is rid of the appalling violence and disruption which has overwhelmed Northern Ireland in these last years was supported by the Opposition last Friday in another place, and that support I repeat in this House today.
There are some questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord about this order of which I have not been able to give notice. If the noble Lord would prefer to write to me on some of them, it would be perfectly acceptable to
1258
me. First, may I ask a question which is familiar to those of us who have taken part in these debates but which I have not put before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. May I ask him about the policy of the Government towards those who organise terrorism in the Province; those who are, I think, so rightly called the godfathers of violence in Northern Ireland.
A year ago, and again six months ago, when this order was being debated, I admit that I raised this problem—and, of course, it is easier to talk about than it is to cure. But the fact remains that violence in its different forms continues to prevail in Northern Ireland, and it is organised by those who so often avoid justice, despite the encouraging news which the noble Lord gave in his speech about the increase in those who have been apprehended for the crime of violence. This may well be, as I understood the noble Lord's speech, as a result of the formation of the regional crime squads.
On this side of the House we have previously pressed for the introduction of a general offence of terrorism to be instituted. This is not an idea which comes from this side of the House. This, after all, was a recommendation which came from the report of the Commission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I really feel that 1 ought to put this question again: Arc the Government still of the opinion that an offence of this sort would not effectively spread the net rather wider, and help to bring to justice those who, for instance, incite or are generally known to be involved in terrorism even though possibly a particular terrorist act has not been committed?
Another question I should like to ask is about the protection of witnesses. Some months ago my noble friend Lord Brookeborough introduced his Protection of Witnesses Bill. On that occasion I accepted that, as drafted, my noble friend's Bill was not practicable unless we were prepared to resort to practices which really would lead us back to the procedures of detention. But I would be interested to know, if the noble Lord feels he can do so on this occasion, what the Government's view is about the size of this problem today.
On the 6th July, when this order was previously being debated, the noble Lord,

1259
Lord Donaldson, said at column 1172 of the Official Report: "Intimidation is half the main problem". Are there no practicable steps which can be taken to see that evidence can be given, in order to bring the leaders of terrorism to justice, by witnesses who at the time so often go in fear of their lives? Thirdly, may I ask about the success rate under the penalties for belonging to a proscribed organisation. The noble Lord quite rightly reminded us that it is the Government's intention to increase the penalties for this offence, and I, for one, will await, I hope, an early introduction of an order or a part of legislation to this effect. I should like to ask whether key men are in fact being apprehended under this provision. There is no criticism of the Government if the answer is, No, but it would be interesting to know the answer to that question.
May I welcome the noble Lord's statements with regard to the RUC, the UDR, and the SAS. That this has been the most successful year for recruiting for the RUC must surely be an encouragement for the future. The police in Northern Ireland have suffered many personal tragedies during this year, and this support for the work which they do, and on which the future of law and order in Northern Ireland is going to depend, must surely be a real sign of confidence and hope among an ever-widening circle of people in the Province. It is the same for the UDR. I welcome very much the move which, on this side of the House, I cannot forbear to say we have called for previously, for an increase in the full-time personnel of the UDR.
With regard to the SAS, clearly the Government cannot reveal the numbers of the SAS operating in Northern Ireland, but I welcome the news that there is going to be a spreading in the area of operations of these Army personnel. But I wonder whether the fact that the SAS are going to operate now outside South Armagh does not lead to the conclusion that special training in antiterrorism for more Army personnel should not be seriously considered. I am not in any way calling for extended tours for battal-ions in Northern Ireland. I am aware that the Army believe that the four-month period for a tour is about right, but I wonder whether the formation of
1260
combined anti-terrorist units, which has certainly been put to the Secretary of State by my honourable friend Mr. Airey Neave, ought to be considered at this stage of the war against terrorism.
At this time of the year I think all of us think of those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett: the Security Forces; those who are involved in such things as the fire and ambulance service; those who are involved in voluntary work, and also Ministers. I wish them all the very best, and I believe that the continuation of this order is most necessary.
6.20 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I wish first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very much for his support for the order, and indeed for his support for the general line of policy that the Government are pursuing. It would be difficult to underestimate the importance which the Government attach to carrying noble Lords opposite and their colleagues with us in the general approach we are taking to affairs in Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that if we are to see the people of Northern Ireland coming together to find a political solution which will be acceptable to the mass of people in Northern Ireland, the continuance of support which the noble Lord has given tonight and which his colleagues in another place gave to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last week for the current Government policy, is extremely important.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his suggestion that I might write to him on some of the points he raised. Particularly on the questions of the current problems, if any, with the intimidation of witnesses and the number of people who are being arrested and charged as being members of proscribed organisations, I should like to take advice to make sure I have my facts right, and then I will write to him about them.
There are, however, two points to which I should like to reply now. First, the noble Lord raised again the question, suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, of having an offence of terrorism. As the noble Lord knows, this has been very carefully considered, and indeed there have been extensive discussions with many interested parties. The

1261
difficulty, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, is that if one created an offence of that sort, the police would not only be in the position of having to prove that a person had actually committed a criminal offence—of carrying a gun, or an offence involving some form of violence or some other scheduled offence—but would also have to prove some form of political intent. So one would be adding to the burden of proof on the police and the prosecution in the case when, considering the penalties that are available for scheduled offences, the serious criminal offences in Northern Ireland at the moment, very little, if any, foreseeable benefit would result in terms of more serious penalties or longer sentences being received by those convicted of the offence of terrorism. I think we should have to think very carefully before adding to the burdens of the police and the prosecution, given the enormous job they are having to undertake as a result of the very successful prosecution by the Security Forces and the police of serious criminals in Northern Ireland at the present time.
Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of what are being called the godfathers of violence in Northern Ireland. Personally, I detest the term "godfather"; it gives a spurious respectability and importance to the sort of people we are talking about, and in my view is quite unwarranted. It also gives a spurious glamour associated in the public mind with Marlon Brando and the well-known film, which I think is also unfortunate and quite unwarranted. I hope, now that the noble Lord has raised the point, we can refrain from using the term, even if he wishes to refer to those people who call themselves the leaders of proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland. The fact of the matter is that the people we are talking about are not particularly important. Nor are they particularly exciting or glamorous figures. They are, on the whole, criminals engaged in violent and extremely unpleasant criminal activities; and the police are being very successful in apprehending and prosecuting them, and obtaining convictions against them. That is the important thing.
The noble Lord picked up a point I made in my speech about the RUC's regional crime squads and the extent of
1262
their success against the sort of persons we are talking about. To build up a file on a terrorist of this sort may take some time, but the fruits of the RUC's efforts in this direction are now being seen, and the number of very serious offences with which people are charged, and have been charged in the last year, in Northern Ireland bears witness to the RUC's efforts. Finally, I again thank the noble Lord for his support and indeed for his good wishes to those of us who will be in Northern Ireland over Christmas.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NOXIOUS WEEDS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
6.25 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Noxious Weeds (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 12th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order consolidates the legislation for the control of noxious weeds in Northern Ireland and introduces amendments to take account of changes that have occurred since the earlier enactments. Ever since 1909, thistle, dock and ragwort have been listed as noxious weeds, and despite improved husbandry and modern herbicides, there is a danger of considerable infestation where these weeds are allowed to spread. In 1971, wild oats were added to the list. The order provides powers to prohibit the growing of cereals for a number of years on land which has been infested. The order also provides powers to prevent the importation of noxious weeds and raises penalties to a more realistic level. It is possible, by subordinate legislation, to add further noxious weeds to the list in the order.
The order omits the existing powers authorised to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to enforce it; apart from the question of priorities in police duties at present, in practice the police have not been involved in enforcement for the past decade. The Department of Agriculture staff who have a specialised knowledge of weed control methods and herbicides are adequately equipped to deal with the problem. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Noxious Weeds (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 12th November, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
6.27 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 7th December, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to be able to move a measure which, in the Government view, will make a positive contribution to the important issue of police/public relations. The main purpose of the order is to introduce an independent element into the procedures for handling complaints against the police in Northern Ireland.
The need for improved machinery was recognised by the Committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. That Committee noted that the procedures for investigating complaints against members of the RUC were already more thorough than those in existence for police forces in Great Britain, and while the Committee were satisfied that complaints were fully investigated, they nevertheless believed that the introduction of an independent element would be an important step towards restoring universal confidence in the RUC.
The Northern Ireland Working Party on Complaints Procedure recommended that the revised arrangements for Northern Ireland should be similar to those then under consideration for England and Wales, and the draft order now before your Lordships' House corresponds closely with the provisions of the Police Act 1976. It provides for the establishment of a Police Complaints Board for Northern Ireland to which will be referred copies of all complaints and, following investigation by the police and subject to any necessary reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, copies of police investigation reports.
The requirement that copies of complaints should be forwarded to the Board by the chief constable at the outset is an
1264
additional feature of the Northern Ireland scheme. The intention is that the Board will thus be kept informed of the nature and volume of complaints in an up-to-date and comprehensive manner. When sub-mitting investigation reports to the Board, the chief constable must indicate whether or not he has preferred disciplinary charges against the officer concerned and, if he has, of any exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that the case he heard by a tribunal rather than by the chief constable sitting alone. A tribunal is to consist of the chief constable as chairman and two members of the Board not previously connected with the case. The question of guilt will be determined by the tribunal as a whole but the decision as to punishment will rest solely with the police chairman after consulting the other members of the tribunal.
Where the chief constable considers that no charges should be preferred, the Board may recommend and, in the last resort and after consultation with the chief constable, direct that charges should be preferred. There is no reference to the Board in cases where the officer admits disciplinary charges, but the Board is to be given particulars of the case when the charges have been heard. Nor is there any reference to the Board in the case of complaints against members of the part-time Reserve or senior officers, where there is already an independent element in the disciplinary procedures.
The final part of the draft order contains two minor Amendments to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The first, in Article 16, relaxes the prohibition on the Police Association being associated with any outside body and the second, in Article 17, enables the Secretary of State to determine the rates of certain police allowances without the need to issue amending regulations. Both these provisions bring the Northern Ireland practice into line with that in Great Britain and are welcomed by the police representative associations. The Government believe that this order will help to encourage all sections of the community to co-operate with the police and to have confidence in their integrity and impartiality. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 7th December, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have mixed feelings about this order. I certainly accept that an independent system of dealing with complaints against the police, which was agreed in the Sunning-dale package in December 1973, should be seen as an element in achieving as widespread support as possible for the RUC in Northern Ireland, and that is something to which all of us would undoubtedly gibe support. However, I should like just to express the hope that, before bringing forward the order, the Government have taken seriously into account that the report of the Gardiner Commission concluded that complaints against the RUC were more thoroughly investigated than complaints against any other police force in the United Kingdom. That is contained in paragraph 96 of the Gardiner Report. Of course, in Northern Ireland, unlike in Great Britain, any complaint against the police alleging a criminal act automatically goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This order, too, was rightly given close scrutiny by another place on Friday and I shall not go over the arguments again. What I am not absolutely clear about, however, is the position of the Police Authority with regard to complaints. I imagine that it has no locus at all in this matter, but I should be interested to hear whether any members of the Police Authority are to be invited to serve on the new Complaints Board or whether they are in any way excluded from doing so.
I feel that I could wish that this order had been delayed. Although the Working Party on complaints against the police included representatives of the Police Federation, I am not aware that the Police Federation supports this order and I feel that that is a pity. However, having said that, clearly, the chief constable in Northern Ireland has every right to be proud of the dangerous work that his force is doing and we all owe a debt to the RUC. I am persuaded, in supporting the passage of this order, that this independent complaints procedure will in time be seen to cast no reflection whatsoever on the RUC, upon whom the future of law and order in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly depend. On those grounds, I would support the passage of this order.
6.33 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for expressing support, albeit somewhat qualified, for the passage of the order. The noble Lord mentioned the attitude that the Gardiner Committee took in saying that the procedures in Northern Ireland were, at the time when the Committee was investigating the matter, already in advance of those in operation in England and Wales. Nevertheless, my understanding of the matter is that the Gardiner Committee took the view that Northern Ireland should not wait for the rest of the United Kingdom in introducing a new complaints procedure. The fact is that, having made the decision to set up a Working Party to look into the matter in Northern Ireland, we have Waited for the Police Act 1976 to come into law before acting in Northern Ireland, and we are taking action with the recommendations of the Working Party, which, as the noble Lord said, included representatives of the RUC, in mind.
The noble Lord referred to the role of the Police Authority and asked me whether its members would be involved in the complaints procedures. Because the Police Authority cannot be said to be independent of the force that it is required by law to maintain, it will not, in the Government's view, be able to provide the independent element needed in the com-plaints procedure if the public are to have complete confidence in such a procedure. The Government, of course, attach great importance to the role of the Police Authority, and the Authority will continue to exercise a statutory duty to keep itself informed as to the manner in which com-plaints are dealt with by the chief constable. Moreover, the Complaints Board is required under Article 11 of the order to send to the Police Authority a copy of any report made to the Secretary of State, together with any other infor-mation which the Board considers relevant to the Police Authority's functions. So we would see a continuing and important role for the Police Authority once the order is passed.
The noble Lord concluded by saying that he hoped that, in time, this order would be seen not to be a reflection on the integrity of the RUC. I must say that I would hope —and indeed, I am sure—that the order is already seen by the vast

1267
majority of members of the RUC, if not all, as being no reflection on their integrity at this moment; and certainly no reflection was intended by the Government, or the many people who would support the passing of this order. So I hope that we shall not need to see any time pass before that is fully accepted by the RUC and, indeed, everyone else in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COLCHESTER MILITARY HOSPITAL
6.37 p.m.
Lord ALPORT Lord ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the Report of the Army Welfare Enquiry Committee, they will reconsider the decision to close the Military Hospital in Colchester at the end of 1977. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The source of the problem which I seek to present to your Lordships starts, bizarrely enough, with a proposed extension to the Tate Gallery. When the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, was Minister for the Arts, there arose a project, which obtained her approval, to extend the Tate Gallery. It was, I understand, discovered that this could be done only by encroaching on the premises of the Millbank Military Hospital. It was eventually decided that the right solution would be to get rid of the Millbank Hospital and to build a huge general hospital which, for some unexplained reason, was to be located at Woolwich.
As your Lordships will recognise, there are very few soldiers at Woolwich, which is a very difficult location to reach from most of the major garrison areas in the United Kingdom, not least from the town of Colchester which, after Aldershot, is one of the largest military stations in Britain. It was decided to build a 400 bedded hospital and this is now on the point of completion. The problem then arose as to how the new hospital was to be filled. I understand that it was therefore decided to close the Royal Herbert and the Colchester Military Hospital as well as the Millbank Hospital, and maybe others as well. No thought seems to have been given to the consequences of all this for the welfare of the Army and
1268
particularly of the wives and families of those who serve in it.
I believe that it would be unfair of me to allege that the object of this reorganisation of the military and medical services was solely in order to provide better facilities for the public presentation of art forms consisting of the grouping of firebricks and the nets of Scottish fishermen, but there are others who may feel justified in reaching this conclusion. The fact is that the military hospital in Colchester, which has recently been equipped with the most up-to-date operating theatre and where the wards have been and are being modernised at a cost of several hundred thousand pounds, is to be closed at the end of 1977, when another £100,000 is to be spent on creating an MRS there.
I am not basing my case on the effect that this will have on the local civilian population. The fact is, however, that in the Colchester area we are desperately short of hospital accommodation. The building of the new Area General Hospital has disappeared into the 21st century. It is true that, because of the generous attitude of the authorities of the Military Hospital, many with only a tenuous association with the Army—retired soldiers and their dependents, civilian industrial employees at the MOD and others in emergency—have benefited from the excellent facilities that the hospital provides.
Her Worship the Mayor of Colchester expects to send a petition against the closure, with 50,000 local signatures, to Mr. Buck, the Member for Colchester, to present to Parliament. It is true that the relations between the garrison and the civilian population of our town have always been close and friendly. We like soldiers and we do our best to make them and their wives and families feel at home in our midst. Many soldiers in their youth seem to find attractive brides in our town, and many when they retire come and live and find employment in our part of Essex. We have indeed at the moment an infantry battalion in which the Minister of Defence himself served during the war, but I would not of course wish him to show any partiality on that account.
The case I present to you, my Lords, is not based on the civilian interests of Colchester, although they are very real.

1269
It is purely on what I believe to be the real interests and the welfare of this generation's soldiers and their wives and families. Your Lordships would be as well versed in Kipling as I am and you will remember the poem Tommy:
"We aren't no thin red 'eroes, an' we aren't no blackguards too.
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;".
But, of course, the modern soldier is not a single man in barracks, who, when he becomes a casualty, shot in the back by the IRA in Ulster, or a victim of a road crash or other accident, requires to go to hospital. Most often he has a wife and kids who, while he is away in Ulster or anywhere else, are the focus of his anxieties and the pledge to his future. If he is to serve the Queen as he and we would wish, he should have the knowledge that the wife back home and the kids, if they become ill—and this is what always haunts a young family—have ready access to immediate medical treatment.
There are, I believe, 4,500 children and over 4,000 adults in our married quarters. Most of these will, after the end of next year, become an additional responsibility on the civilian medical resources in our town. Of course, in the case of Colchester they will get the best we can provide, but as we cannot provide what is needed for our own civilian population, they will have to take their turn if the Military Hospital is closed. Here I should like to quote from the report of the Army Welfare Inquiry Committee, paragraph 413 and subsequent paragraphs. It says this:
"In written evidence, the Society of Community Medicine said that they saw Army families at a disadvantage in comparison with similar civilian families in the fields of health, education and welfare. They considered that families of junior ranks were most affected … "
It goes on:
"They also mentioned that no priority or preference was given to service families who must take their place in the queue for medical specialist facilities and services, unless they had access to a military hospital, and that when their turn came they often had either already moved on or were about to do so. Frequent posting meant that health records sometimes were lost in the pipe-line, to the detriment of the wife or child; and isolation from parents and parents-in-law might be particularly damaging to the increasingly younger wives and mothers now found in the Army. For wives, they considered that separation often meant long periods of boredom and loneliness, usually aggravated by the constraints imposed by young children; in extreme cases reactions were said to be almost as desperate as widowhood. They also
1270
emphasised the fact that separation was no easier to bear on second or subsequent occasions, and related this to what they considered to be an increase in psychiatric morbidity, such as anxiety states and depression.".
I may say that all our major units serve regularly at intervals in Ulster. The report goes on:
"All these comments were echoed in similar measure during our visits by local medical authorities, doctors, health visitors, and other witnesses."
It goes on:
"… many Army wives complain to us of difficulties in reaching doctors' surgeries and of transport problems in visiting their sick husbands in military hospitals, often at some distance from the unit location and particularly if it meant making arrangements for someone to look after children; in changing prescriptions; in getting dental treatment; in getting continuity of treatment in cases where medical records had not been transferred in time; and in getting adequate family planning facilities."
Finally, it says:
"Our postal surveys show that family illness features very high on the list of problems en-countered by wives."
My Lords, the knowledge for both the young soldiers and for their wives that family health receives special care in the Army from the military medical services and through a military hospital is a con-solation for the problems which they face in their family life. Let me say that I have a pretty shrewd idea what the noble Lord will say in reply when the time comes for him to answer this short debate. He will start by saying that there are important reasons of economy. The original decision was not made for reasons of economy. That was an argument in its support which has been imported at a much later stage; and I would remind your Lordships that the loss and waste of resources and the existing facilities of the military hospital at Colchester are in my view very serious. He will then argue the advantages of training for RAMC officers in a big general hospital as against those of a smaller one like Colchester. But we have had for many years past a first-class postgraduate medical centre in Colchester with which the medical officers of the RAMC at the hospital have been associated, and it helps provide the additional training they require if they want to increase their professional careers. Of course there could be, and there is at the present moment, very considerable co-operation between the civilian medical profession and the RAMC.
Then the noble Lord will argue that there is a shortage of RAMC officers and nursing officers which requires a concentration of resources at somewhere like the Woolwich Hospital—the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I am absolutely certain that just as in the case of Millbank, additional civilian specialist help could be given locally to the Military Hospital to help out if there was a shortage of specialist resources available for the Military Hospital in the future. We have been under a very great debt—doctors and civilians alike in Colchester—to the Military Hospital in the past, and it is a price which I am sure would be well and happily paid in order to help to maintain in our midst the facilities which the hospital provides.
Finally, the noble Lord will argue the advantages that a big modern hospital can give, with better facilities for the treatment of cases that are sent to it. But I think that idea is already out of date. I think I would be right in saying that it is now generally agreed that the large central hospital does not have the advantages from the point of view of treatment of patients which are available in a small, local hospital, in easy access to the nearest and the dearest of patients during their period of sickness and recovery.
I therefore offer these conclusions. From the medical point of view, opinion is changing from the concentration of treatment in large units to the need for accessibility to patients by their families and friends in local hospitals. Big is no longer beautiful in medical hospital terms. From the administrative point of view, the large sums spent on the modernisation of the Colchester Hospital will be wasted if it is now to be put in moth balls, as is the present intention. This is by far perhaps the most important point of all: from the military point of view, the loss of the amenity which it provides for families serving in our garrison would have a very serious effect on recruiting, on the number of trained men with families who will sign on for further service. And let me put it to the Minister quite bluntly: it could lead at some later stage to a situation in which a married man, or even a unit, feels that the duty to his family overrides his allegiance to the Crown. My Lords, the Directorate of Medical Services would
1272
have no right to inflict such pressures on Service men and their families, and if anything were to go wrong the responsibility would be very great indeed.
My Lords, let me sum up. The military medical advice locally in Colchester is against it, and in some cases passionately against it; the views of senior commanders and unit commanders are, as far as I know, strongly against it; the decision is deplored by the ranks of the 26 Army units stationed in Colchester; it is a cause of anxiety, amounting to fear and deep resentment, among the wives of soldiers in the garrison; it is opposed by the civilian medical opinion, as represented by the Colchester Medical Society; many thousands of military and civilians have signed the petition against it which the chief citizen of Colchester has organised; it has been the subject of a debate in the House of Commons introduced by Mr. Buck, the Member of Parliament; and the Minister, Mr. Brown, has had a deputation representative of local interests wait upon him, of which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and I were members. To this, I must record, he read an answer which seemed to us to have been drafted before the delegation assembled at the Ministry, and which did not seem to me or to those who reported it to me to really understand the root problem with which we are trying to deal. Now, my Lords, we have the report of the Army Welfare Inquiry Committee to give official backing to the views which all of us have pressed on the Ministry of Defence: that a vital element in the welfare of the modern soldier in peace-time, particularly those who are serving frequently away from their families and their home bases, is the availability of medical attention for his family when they fall ill.
Many times in these last years I have heard your Lordships refer with pride and gratitude to the services rendered by the present-day Army, especially in Ulster; and we have heard it said by the Minister within the last few minutes. So far as our garrison is concerned, as I have said, all our major units serve in Ulster; and I remember not very long ago attending an occasion in the garrison in the evening following an afternoon when three young fusiliers were reported as having been shot and killed in Ulster. I know the effect that it had upon the wives and the men with whom I happened to be at that

1273
particular time. What is more, our units go on separate service frequently, for we are the station of the Air Transportable Brigade, which is the "fire brigade" which is available at any time at short notice for duty anywhere.
Surely the morale and contentment of these troops is of importance to the Ministry of Defence. As it is, by what seems to me and to those who are associated with me in this to be a stubborn adherence to an administrative decision which is wrong from a military and a medical point of view; which involves economy only in the sense that it gives some substance of justification to the existence of a medical "white elephant" at Woolwich, while involving a lamentable waste of resources where they are needed, in Colchester; which is in conflict with the whole weight of evidence as we can see it—still the Colchester Military Hospital is to be closed in 12 months' time.
My Lords, I and all of us here know something of the problems that involve Government Departments when decisions like this have been made, sometimes, as in this case, some years previously. But let me put to the Minister, if I may, this compromise, and I ask him seriously to consider it together with his right honourable friends. In three years' time the Ulster troubles, we hope and pray, may be over, and therefore separate, unaccompanied service will be less characteristic of the Army. In three years' time the Health Service in North-East Essex may have greater resources; we hope so. In three years' time the economy of the United Kingdom (this, after all, is the Government's promise in the light of their policies and the hopes from North Sea oil) may be far stronger and able to provide the resources which are needed to maintain facilities for the local population and, perhaps, additional facilities for the Army as well. I ask the Government, therefore, to postpone the closure of this hospital, the Colchester Military Hospital, for a further two years, until the 31st December 1979.
It is not asking much, in the light of the importance of this matter in the lives of thousands of wives and children of soldiers serving in the garrison at Colchester. It might avoid, I suggest, for the Army Medical Directorate, responsibility for a grave error of judgment which will be
1274
bitterly regretted; and it would show that the Ministry of Defence is not completely insensitive to the welfare in this respect of the Servicemen and women and their families. It would show, particularly, to local civilian opinion, that the Army today can think beyond the narrow limits of administrative convenience and accept the weight and sincerity of the advice tendered to it by those who, whether or not they have been soldiers, have very much at heart the welfare of the young men and their wives and families who are, for the time being, our fellow citizens in our ancient military town, and in whom we take an especial interest and pride.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I join briefly in this debate as someone interested in the National Health Service and its administration, because the health services provided by the Ministry of Defence and those provided by the National Health Service are very closely linked. I would plead for a much closer liaison between the National Health Service and the Ministry of Defence or the RAMC. I am quite happy to admit that the National Health Service, as a whole, have been the gainers in the past. I believe the average figures are something approaching 22,000 National Health Service patients looked after in military hospitals in a year, and only about 5,000 defence personnel looked after in the National Health Service hospitals. So your Lord-ships can see that the proportion is very much in favour of the National Health Service; and, in the past, this has taken place without any money changing hands, so to that extent the National Health Service have been even greater gainers. But I think the Ministry of Defence would admit that the admission of National Health Service patients into their hospitals has helped enormously in providing training facilities for their medical personnel over a wider range than would have been the case without them.
I should like to say something about military hospitals in particular. They are not all the same. Although I quoted the figures that I did to your Lordships, the amazing thing about the Colchester Military Hospital is that there they have been caring largely for military personnel. The average daily civilian attendance as inpatients in 1974, out of 114 beds, was 28.

1275
So they have been more concerned in many ways with looking after military personnel than many other military hospitals. Incidentally, I am told that they intend to retain out-patient services for acute care, psychiatry with X-ray and physiotherapy services in an extended medical centre. Your Lordships may assume that the National Health Service would be delighted to take over the Colchester Military Hospital in order to extend the bed complement, which is highly-needed in that part of the country. Unfortunately, because of the situation of the hospital, which is in the middle of the military barracks, it is not particularly accessible to the general population of Colchester; and I believe that, in the present economic climate of the National Health Service, the capital expenditure necessary to upgrade the hospital is such that this cannot be undertaken by the Health Service.
I want to relate this question to some-thing which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned, and that is the building of the Military Hospital at Woolwich. It seems quite fantastic that the liaison between the NHS and the military hospitals has been such that the Ministry of Defence has built a large, brand-new hospital in an area which is already over-bedded and has not had enough communication with the National Health Service to see that it might have been better to spend that money somewhere else. This is exactly the position that existed in the past between the board of governors of the teaching hospitals and the Regional Hospital Boards. There was no liaison between the two planning bodies.
I believe that we are approaching a better attitude in this sense, but it is in many cases too late and I am afraid will not help to save Colchester. I have, in my own region, an example, the Cambridge Military Hospital, where negotiations have been going on for something like ten years between the local NHS and the military hospital for the rebuilding of that hospital. They provide about 70 acute beds for the community in which they function. The local health authority would be quite happy to accept 60 acute beds in the rebuilt hospital, should it be rebuilt, and, perhaps, some additional maternity beds. The area would be quite happy to pay to the Ministry of
1276
Defence the equivalent cost of running DHSS beds. On the other hand, I think the question would be quite different—because we have already built the Frimley hospital, a brand new district general hospital—if we were asked to contribute a capital sum, something which I believe the National Health Service could not afford at the moment. What is important is that it has obviously been wrong in the past that the NHS has benefited to too great an extent from beds in the military hospitals without making any contribution. It may be that this, to a certain extent, has caused the problems facing the hospitals.
I am told that there is a Working Party or committee in the Department of Health preparing a Paper on the planning criteria for the National Health Service and the Ministry of Defence hospitals, so that in future we shall avoid problems such as Colchester and Woolwich. I think that in some areas—although I would not say this applies to Colchester where there is a shortage of beds—there is no reason at all why the military services should not use National Health Service hospitals, except that there is this fear that the training of the RAMC could not be taken care of in the same way. I believe that it could. There is no reason at all why Ministry of Defence doctors or consultants should not be employed on an honorary basis in the NHS and their salaries paid by the Ministry of Defence.
My Lords, the other argument that is put against this is that they will not get experience in the type of unfortunate and tragic accidents that tend to happen in the Army; but, if to a large extent, they worked in the accident and emergency departments in NHS hospitals I cannot see that there is much difference between the results of a ghastly motorcar accident and the results of even more unfortunate incidents happening, perhaps, somewhere in Northern Ireland. I believe that with good will we could work together to a much greater extent than in the past and could help to avoid the mistake of Woolwich and the tragedy of Colchester, and that, between us, we could help save the nation money as well.
7.3 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we on these Benches would, I am sure, wish to associate ourselves with the comments and the

1277
excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and we are all very grateful to him for raising this subject which he has explained in great detail and in regard to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was of such assistance. We are glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is to reply for the Government because all of us know how highly the noble Lord considers all aspects of the defence forces and their dependants. Many of us will remember the sympathy and knowledge displayed by the noble Lord when the House was considering the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill during last summer, and especially when we considered a more reasonable system of courts to deal with civil misdemeanours committed by the dependants of Servicemen who happened to be stationed in the British Army of the Rhine. Of course, in that Bill there were other provisions which dealt with juvenile problems, and all of us were struck by the detailed knowledge and clarity and the effort that the noble Lord made in helping us with questions that we had on that Bill and in seeing that the Bill brought up to date the whole framework of military law. That is why we are so pleased that he is speaking tonight for the Government. We know how highly he rates welfare as an element among the general benefits of the defence forces.
It seems that many of us still think of defence problems as mainly in the area of combat forces. Nevertheless, the Servicemen and women are required to take an increasingly wider interest in welfare; and this is so at all levels. Indeed, the report of the Committee chaired by Professor Spooner draws attention to this aspect, I think in paragraph 480 and the following paragraphs—this particular aspect of Army dependants who live, as the report puts it rather crudely but effectively, in what they call "cantonments" which can do much to foster corporate life and welfare in the garrison or unit. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alport, there are 26 separate units of varying sizes in and around Colchester.
All of us who are able to go on visits to Service establishments learn when we do so of the vast amount of time and trouble taken by the wives of Servicemen, by housing officers and by the padres; and many of these tasks are undertaken voluntarily in addition to other duties which may be or are performed by such people.
1278
Noble Lords will agree that it is very sad indeed to find these problems occupying the minds of our Armed Forces personnel; because the House will agree that we are asking more and more of our Servicemen. They have to become proficient in all sorts of different tasks and these particular tasks have changed out of all knowledge—certainly in my own case since I left the Army on completion of two years' National Service, 17 years ago. I have kept in close touch with all arms of the Services and I am most impressed and embarrassed by the amount of technical knowledge that all arms of the Services and all ranks require to have. As the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and all other Members of the House will be aware, soldiers in particular are now liable to be flown, moved or ferried from the United Kingdom, or back here, at short notice, even at as little as 24 hours' notice. These movements may he to Europe or to Northern Ireland or to further afield.
Thus, my Lords, we believe that it is of the utmost relevance to discuss the military hospital in Colchester tonight since soldiers who are liable to be separated from their families suddenly and for up to six months would feel happier, and will be able to perform their duties more efficiently and without strain, if they are confident that their families' problems, and particularly those of health, can be settled while the Serviceman is away, swiftly, efficiently and, above all, quietly and discreetly. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned this evening—and told me earlier—that approximately 4,500 Service children (if that is the appropriate term) are in and around the garrison of Colchester. Naturally, any health care, apart from major and chronic problems, could be, and I believe would be, dealt with at the hospital at Colchester. Service families demand a high standard of health care, and we believe they are entitled to do so as we ask the Servicemen to carry out obligations the like of which we civilians would hesitate to fulfil in the conditions in which the Servicemen carry them out. I am sure that both Lord Winterbottom and Lord Melchett would agree that in Northern Ireland these problems of morale and of spirit are particularly relevant.
Surely it is very relevant that the United Kingdom "mobile fire brigade" as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, called it, which

1279
is liable to move anywhere in the world, is quartered at Colchester. This means that instead of this particular garrison being a training establishment where the Servicemen, both carrying out the training and learning new tasks and drills, are able to look forward to some form of routine, the mobile forces are at instant readiness; and of course welfare problems must loom large in the minds of both the Servicemen and their families. All of us in the House look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will say, since the noble Lord who raised this Question is asking for the hospital to be kept open for only a further two years beyond the present planned closing date.
My Lords, this may appear to he a constant whine, particularly from all of us who seek to reduce unnecessary Government expenditure at all levels; but we hope that it is not unreasonable in this field for the Government to defer what we would call a permanent decision, especially as we may wish—and, indeed, Lord Winterbottom's Department may wish—to redeploy the Army mobile forces in the near future, within the next two, three or four years. When the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, replies, will he give some indication of the financial saving expected or anticipated as a result of closing the Colchester Military Hospital, and particularly in view of all that we have heard of what I call the "substitution effect" whereby Colchester Military Hospital is able to assist in the medical needs of the civilian population which may not be directly connected with the Colchester Army garrison?
Of course we are aware that the Government wish to improve, as they call it, the "teeth to tail" ratio in the Armed Forces. Many of us are very grateful when funds are spent on combat weapons, particularly aimed at improving the efficiency of the forces. Yet all of us will agree—and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, more than most—that the most important element of all is the spirit, enthusiasm and keenness of our volunteer forces. They are indeed second to none. They are, above all, professionals; and we have to see that when we ask much of them we do not treat them as mere machines, drones, conscripts or "bachelors in barracks", as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, put it so poetically earlier. We
1280
believe that welfare is coming increasingly to the front of Servicemen's needs, and all of us must do more to help them. For this reason—and for many others which we have not time to go into tonight —we support the noble Lord, Lord Alport, most warmly in asking this Question and look forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will have to say.
7.13 p.m.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSEN-DALE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having raised this matter tonight because it is one of considerable importance and can have long-term effects upon the attitude and reaction of the Services to the way that the civilian world treats them. do not want to be over-dramatic about this question because the logical and rational case is so strong as not to need emotion. Nevertheless, I must confess that I was for a time a patient in the Military Hospital. I had suffered a mild heart attack in the Middle East, was convalescing in Essex and drove into Colchester one day to visit a friend in the intensive care ward. As I drove into the hospital grounds, I discovered that I was having a further mild attack. Within five minutes I had my ECG; in 20 minutes I was in bed, and for three weeks I was a patient in the intensive care ward. Without the prompt treatment which I received on that occasion, it is possible that I would not have been addressing this House tonight.
I cannot speak too highly of the treatment that is given in the Colchester Military Hospital. It is given so utterly unselfishly and so devotedly by both the officers and civilian helpers. It is given to the citizens of Colchester just as much as it is given to the members of Her Majesty's Forces. I am grateful to them, as are a large proportion of the 50,000 people who signed the petition asking for the hospital to remain open. I believe that to close it in favour of a "pie in the sky" major civilian hospital would be the height of folly and, indeed, a case of reckless extravagance.
Over the past two or three years some-thing in the neighbourhood of £400,000 has been or is being spent. There is a completely new operating theatre; the

1281
intensive care ward has been completely reequipped and many facilities that the hospital offers are as good as one would find anywhere in the country. I hope that the House will remember what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said about the affection that Colchester has for the military presence. As my noble friend Lord Rhodes said to me a few minutes ago, Colchester ought to be cherishing the Servicemen who are there or who have left their families there while they serve abroad. Unless one knows Colchester as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and I do, it is difficult to understand the place that the garrison occupies in the respect and affection of the people of the town. A noble Lord referred to the inconvenience and expense to which the relatives will be put if they have to go all the way to Woolwich to visit those who are sick or injured. It is no way of cherishing them, as my noble friend suggested, if one puts families to that expense and inconvenience.
Having studied the hospital thoroughly, it will be much better to abandon the idea of a mammoth civilian hospital and the infliction of great hardship on the military. I believe that the Military Hospital (which is, incidentally, extremely accessible to all the villages around Colchester) should be kept open at least for the period that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, suggested. Much of it, as I have said, is reasonably modernised to a high standard. The site should be developed. It is perfectly feasible to do it from an architectural and planning point of view, and it should he partly financed by the National Health Service contributing on a per capita basis for the cost of the civilian patients which the Military Hospital is only too happy to care for.
My Lords, I do not want to take up any more time. In my view it would be much cheaper, would cause less disturbance and bring great happiness to my fellow citizens of one of the oldest military towns in the country, if the Government could see their way to concede to the modest request that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has made tonight.
7.20 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, forgive me for butting in at the end of this debate, for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport. The noble Lord
1282
put the case very well indeed. I should like to ask a few questions about what happens if the Ministry of Defence go through with this plan. First of all, how far is it from Colchester to Woolwich? A man might die on the way. Secondly, what happens to a soldier who is very seriously injured, say, in the Stanford battle area, some 50 or 60 miles to the North and of which I have charge? Thirdly, what happens to an RAF pilot who has a terrible flying accident at one of the many airfields in East Anglia? Does he go to an RAF hospital, to a civilian hospital, or to Woolwich?
The noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, have both mentioned the friendly feeling that exists between Colchester garrison and the town. I have experienced this myself. I know the Colchester Military Hospital very well indeed. I would suggest that this is not just a question of saving money; it is a question of saving morale. I would ask: What are the chances of a soldier in barracks at Colchester, after this move has been carried out, going to a civilian hospital? If lie should go there, although he may get very good treatment he will say. "The Army ought to be looking after me"—and the Army is at Woolwich, 60 or 70 miles away. I do not think this issue ought to be measured in terms of money but in terms of morale.
7.22 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships and my Department will forgive me if I do not cling too tightly to my brief. May I start with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, when he talked about the almost historic battle between the Millbank Military Hospital and the Tate Gallery. I had in fact the very pleasant experience of being laid up in the Millbank Military Hospital next to the Secretary of State at that time, Mr. Denis Healey. From that admirable institution, we seemed to be able to run the affairs of the Ministry of Defence with some efficiency, particularly in view of the fact that alcoholic beverages were not considered to be unhealthy. I remember that at that time, as I was turned over and some unpleasant things were done to me, I was never allowed to forget for one single minute about the sinfulness of the proposals then existing. I notice, incidentally, that the Millbank

1283
Hospital still stands and the Tate goes on with developments on land which it already possessed. But, my Lords, that is a small aside.
More seriously, I should like to say that I regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to the "medical white elephant "at Woolwich. That is a major hospital which is just about to become an operating organism. It is due to open on 1st April next year. At one point of my life, I was involved in hospital design and the manufacture of equipment; and the hospital at Woolwich may very well be a pioneer as regards hospital design and it may form a model for other hospitals to copy in the future. It is not a white elephant; it is going to be a major medical centre. The problem we have to face is that as medicine becomes more complex, the various services required have to he provided by larger and larger units. That is the situation—the noble Lord, Lord Alport, shakes his head but, unfortunately, as medicine becomes more sophisticaed units have to become larger. That is one of the facts of life.
As I see it, we are dealing here with three sets of things. Perhaps the most important, assuming that we are not engaged in a major war, is the one which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, concerning the soldier who is seriously injured during a training exercise, a soldier seriously injured in Northern Ireland, or an Air Force pilot who has crashed, and so on. In my view, to take care of these cases is the primary objective of a military hospital, and not looking after over-weight Ministers such as myself. I should have thought, as things now are, that a serving soldier who is injured in training or on active service would be moved by helicopter to Woolwich. It would thus take no more time to take him from a battle training area or from an airfield crash than would be the case at the moment. I have not really looked at the total layout of the Woolwich Hospital complex, but I am perfectly certain there would be a helicopter pad there. Any hospital dealing with neurosurgery must have one so that people with broken backs, and so on, can be moved without undue movement into a place where they can be treated.
The closing of various peripheral hospitals has been mentioned. I had a very
1284
interesting debate in your Lordships' House concerning the closing of one hospital on Salisbury Plain, and the noble Baroness mentioned one in another area. We have to be prepared to face the fact that if we want to be able to perform major neurosurgery and provide sophisticated medicine, we must have a large central hospital to which an individual suffering from severe damage can be moved by helicopter and treated by the most sophisticated means available to us.
Then we come to the enormous tail which the Army possesses these day—the wives and families, and so on. Obviously, it is highly desirable that medical services should be available to them almost on their doorstep. In a sense, that will continue hut, if rather more than the simple taking of temperatures and the dispensing of pills is necessary, then what is proposed in the relationship between Colchester and Woolwich is a twice-daily round bus service, which will take two hours each way. so that the individual patient, whether a soldier or a family dependant, can go to this major central hospital, have his case examined and treatment prescribed, and then be taken—
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, if I may intervene just for a moment, I understand there are not going to be maternity services at Woolwich; nor is there to be a paediatric department. Therefore, although I would accept fully the importance of good medical and surgical attention for soldiers, the point I was really emphasising, and which has been emphasised throughout this debate, is the problem of wives and children.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is absolutely right. Your Lordships are entirely right to raise this issue. But, in defence, I should like to call to my support the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who said, quite rightly, that until recently the military hospital in Colchester was treating civilians and military personnel in the ratio of 4½ to 1. Is that not correct?
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDING-TON: No, my Lords. It is the other way round—I to 4½
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I am sorry, my Lords. That is a difficulty of communication. Nevertheless, it is not the

1285
duty of the Armed Forces to look after the civilian population. The Armed Forces are under constant pressure to make economies, unlike other Departments of our society, and the pressures brought to bear on the Ministry of Defence are far greater than those brought to hear on the Department of Health and Social Security. I know that this is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has brought to the attention of the Treasury and, so far as I understand, he has not yet received a reply.
Your Lordships and the country must accept the fact that if defence expenditure is cut the first things that will go, and must go, are the trimmings—the benefits which the Armed Forces can give to the civilian population. Those have to go. The civilian population may not like it, but they must accept it. They have willed it, and they must accept it. So what I see happening is that we shall have at Wool-wich and elsewhere very efficient, highly specialised military hospitals to which the wives and children of the Servicemen will go, and the civilian population will have to be looked after by the Department of Health and Social Security.
What I cannot understand is that it has been said, partly by the noble Baroness, and hinted at by my noble friend Lord Greenwood, that the National Health Service does not seem to want to take over the Colchester facilities to provide for work that has so far been done by the Army.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I do not think there is any argument any longer about the National Health Service being quite happy, and quite prepared, to pay the cost of the use of beds in the Military Hospital, on the basis of what it costs us to run a bed in a National Health Service hospital. The argument about Colchester is that the capital requirement to uprate it is such that the Health Service cannot afford it at the moment.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot accept what strikes me as a bureaucratic argument. There is a solid block of medical facilities which the National Health Service could offer, if it so willed. If the only argument against it, which was put forward by the noble Baroness and was, I believe, countered
1286
by my noble friend Lord Greenwood, is that it happens to be in the centre of a military complex, that is just too bad. The civilians may have to rub shoulders with the beastly military, if they want treatment. But do not let them come whimpering here, if they are unwilling to take it over.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, the noble Lord is being most unfair on this. There has never been any question, on the points I put to him, as to whether it was in the interests of the civilians. I would draw the noble Lord's attention once again to the fact that the whole of my argument was based upon the interests of the soldiers and their wives and children. If he is simply lumping the wives of the Servicemen with the rest of the civilian population, then I understand it. But that is certainly not how we look at it in Colchester.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I am anxious to be absolutely clear about precisely what the noble Lord is saying in regard to this matter. If he is telling your Lordships that, in the present situation of economic difficulties and so on, with which we understand the Minister of Defence has to contend, then in no circumstances must civilian personnel be treated in military hospitals—the corollary of which is that no military personnel must be treated in civilian hospitals—I would say that he is embarking on a very wasteful and extravagant course.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I did not say that. Perhaps I have been foolish to stray too far from the safety of my brief. The hard fact of life is that I am absolutely certain that the arrangements being made with the new Woolwich hospital will provide for the medical needs of the Armed Forces. I say this quite firmly to the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I am certain that the sense of duty and dedication that: exists within the Armed Forces will make sure that the very good modern facilities being arranged at Wool-wich will supply the needs of the Armed Forces.
The argument has been that this hospital is being closed, and nothing is to take its place. Throughout the discussion, I heard the lament that everybody is waiting for a white elephant, a major civilian hospital, to be built in the area. We all know that hospitals take about 10 years to build, so

1287
why should the National Health Service not take over the hospital in question? I have not heard any argument except that it is in the middle of a military area. That is my view. I believe that the facilities provided for the Armed Forces and their families will continue to be adequate, and may even be improved. The Armed Forces, quite rightly, particularly when they are separated from their families, are concerned that their wives and children are well looked after, and I believe that they will continue to be well looked after.
We have time for thought as to what we do with the excellent facilities described by my noble friend Lord Greenwood. The new Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital opens on 1st April, and Colchester is planned to close on 1st January 1978—about a year from now. If the National Health Service and the area feel that it is desirable to keep the existing facilities open, then there is time for them to make up their minds on the subject. But I am quite confident, knowing the attitudes existing within the Armed Forces, that they and their dependants will continue to be looked after extremely well when Colchester is closed.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him a question? I understand that there are 60 beds available at this military hospital in Colchester. Have they allocated 60 beds in the Woolwich hospital for the benefit of the soldiers and their families? The Minister keeps saying: "Oh, yes; they will be taken care of". But we have heard all that before. Have they made special arrangements for those people?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Woolwich hospital will absorb a large number of beds from the Royal Herbert, among others. It is a very big, modern hospital complex. Obviously, there will be room for the individual soldier and his family in the new, modern hospital at Woolwich.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, it may be that there is room, but will the Minister answer my question? Have they made arrangements for 60 beds, instead of the 60 beds at Colchester?
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, there are 114 beds at Colchester.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are playing the numbers game. My figure is 91, and the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is the operational number. We are not quite up to strength in nursing staff. But I am certain that the planning is such that the requirements of the hospitals that are to be closed will be fully met by the new and modern hospital that is to be opened.
Lord STONE: My Lords, are there any specific arrangements made to cover what will happen when the Colchester Military Hospital is closed down?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I tried to explain, nobody seems to know; but I understand that the National Health Service could have it. At the moment, however, they do not seem to want it.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer one question which follows on from his explanation? Does he know whether the Ministry of Defence has consulted the Department of Health and Social Security? We are wondering whether there might be some possibility of aid being I given to Colchester, thereby lessening the drain on what the noble Lord has said about defence expenditure. Secondly, I think that the noble Lord will agree with me that there has been much ammunition flying around. Certainly I have adopted a low profile so far as the civilian aspect of the Colchester Military Hospital is concerned, but so far the military aspect of the noble Lord's reply has been some-what inconclusive. I will not play the numbers game, but does the noble Lord believe that even to provide an equivalent or greater number of beds or facilities in Woolwich will help Colchester families? If the noble Lord believes that this is the case, will he use the same theory and the same argument so far as Tidworth is concerned?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is a fair distance from Tidworth.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is a fair distance from Tidworth, but I wonder whether it is a

1289
fair distance by road. As the noble Lord will be aware, to travel from Colchester to Woolwich involves coming right down and using the Dartford Tunnel. I do not know what mileage or complications are involved in getting there, but if I were the wife or husband of a person serving at Colchester I should wonder whether the answers given so far by the noble Lord were fair and reasonable so far as the substitution of Woolwich for Col-chester is concerned.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am now going to cling tight to my brief and read it in ringing terms. We are satisfied that, after the closure, the medical facilities available to Servicemen and their dependants in the area will be adequate and comparable to those available to Servicemen and their families in many other parts of the country. The new hospital at Woolwich will be no further away than the nearest Service hospital in many other areas, and we shall also open a 10-bed medical reception station in Col-chester when the hospital closes. That is similar to the arrangements at Tidworth. These will provide cover for Servicemen and their dependants, although of course dependants are fully entitled to use National Health Service facilities and so they will be able to opt for the local National Health Service treatment if they so wish. The provision of medical facilities for the civilian population is of course a matter for the National Health Service authorities, and the Department of Health and Social Security were fully consulted about the closure. This is the answer to the noble Lord's question. The hospital was offered to the National Health Service authorities for civilian use, but I under-stand that they decided that the existing buildings could not be adapted for National Health Service use at reasonable cost. Well, what is "reasonable cost"?
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a final question on that point? Since the noble Lord has told us that he is satisfied that if and when this hospital closes the accommodation in other establishments will be adequate for civilian needs, is he therefore saying that there is surplus capacity now in the civilian hospitals in this area? That is the obvious inference from what the noble Lord has said.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that there was a very good 91-bed hospital waiting to be taken over by the National Health Service if they wished to have it.