HL Deb 21 December 1976 vol 378 cc1216-45

4.15 p.m.

Committee stage resumed.

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 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 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 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 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 —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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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

  1. (a)any net or other fishing gear used in committing the offence;
  2. (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 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 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 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.