Lords Sitting of 26 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

AGE OF CONSENT
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to confirm that they do not intend to lower the age of consent from 16.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, my right honourable friend has no present plans for amending the law in relation to the age of consent. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is undertaking a comprehensive review of the law on sexual offences in England and Wales and the age of consent naturally falls to be considered in the course of this review. Because this area of the law raises medical and social, as well as legal, questions, a Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences has been set up to advise on these matters and provide an assessment of lay opinion.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Do I understand from it that the setting up of this Advisory Committee does not mean that the Government have an open mind on the question, but that the Government are quite convinced that they do not intend to lower the age of consent from 16?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think I have made the position clear. The Government have no proposals in this matter. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary considered it appropriate to set up the Policy Advisory Committee, which is to undertake its work in relation to the work of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. When we get that report, obviously we shall consider the matter.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind, when his right honourable friend gets that report, that young children need to be protected and that those who will be most advantaged by the lowering of the age of consent will, in fact, be those who wish to take advantage of young children? In this connection, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that child molesters, who are called paedophiles, have already formed organisations known as the Paedophile Action for Liberation and the Paedophile Information Exchange to cast a mantle of respectability over their activities? Would the noble Lord agree that children ought to be protected from precisely this type of thing?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I take note, of course, of what the noble Earl has just said. There is no intention at the moment to put any proposals before Parliament. These Committees are considering the matter and, as I have already indicated, the Government have no plans at the moment to deal with this particular question of the age of consent.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, while conducting an intimate discussion with the Front Bench opposite, would my noble friend bear in mind that there are a number of us, who perhaps might be called elder statesmen, who find it a little difficult to hear what he is saying?
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Family Planning Association, a very responsible body, is entirely with the Government in not lowering the age of consent?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I take note of the views of my noble friend.
Lord HALE: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was a Select Committee of this House, chaired by Lord Cairns, which in 1881 conducted one of the astonishing and brilliant fights on behalf of young children against another place (which for four years had Members allied with the brothel owners and white slavers) and which, finally, after sending back a Bill which was obstructed year after year, secured the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not pretend to have the information which my noble friend has on this particular point, but I take note of what he said.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord ensure that the attention of the Policy Advisory Committee is drawn to the purveying of contraceptives to children under 16 by means of mail order advertisements and other channels? These very often carry no warning about failure rate, and some of them address the child as, "Dear Customer ", and ask him to come back for more.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl, that seems to be a rather different question.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does it not refer to a sexual offence? Is that not a sexual offence?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Question related to the law relating to the age of consent, whereas that raised by the noble Earl brings forward a different issue. But no doubt the Policy Advisory Committee will take note of the point made.
The LORD BISHOP of NORWICH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Church is taking an increasing interest in the concern for young people? Is the noble Lord further aware that I speak for many of my more senior brother Prelates when I say that the first part of the noble Lord's Answer, for which I thank him, saying that the Government are not considering a change in the age of consent, will be received with a great deal of relief? May I ask the noble Lord to accept my assurance that anything the Church can do by way of giving evidence or advice concerning the second part of the Answer will be given most readily?
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the fact that there are so many pressures on adolescents today, would not, certainly in the opinion of the very big majority of
814
the people of this country, be an argument for reducing the age of consent?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am aware that there are many strong feelings on this point, and I will ensure that these particular exchanges are drawn to the attention of the Committee.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that great concern is being expressed among the women's organisations about this subject? While I was delighted to hear him say that no decision has been taken, perhaps he can tell us how it is that this idea, that there is to be a change in the age of consent, has arisen and become so widespread?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be able to give the House any answer as to why there should be an impression of that kind. It may have something to do with the fact that the Criminal Law Revision Committee is at the moment undertaking this review. But I think I have made quite clear the position of the Government on the matter.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if the Government have no intention of changing the law, why have they asked the Committee to investigate it?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect, if the noble Earl reads the Report of the reply which has been given, I think he will find the answer.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is it not a fact that this Committee will be making a wide-ranging review, and all that the noble Earl is asking in advance of any evidence is that it be selective, and whether this criterion has been applied to any other advisory committee? We may share his prejudices, but we should like to have some more evidence.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there are a great many in this country who feel that even 16 is too low an age? While one cannot expect so progressive a Government to restore the original age of 18, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that a great many of us are highly relieved by his Answer?

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUNDS
3.15 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to implement Recommendation 15.23 (disposal of Licensing Compensation Funds) of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing, as this is a separate part of the Report.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, we intend to open consultations with interested organisations on the disposal of these funds as soon as possible.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is really serious about this matter? Is he aware that £4,200,000 have been lying idle for something like 30 years? Does he take into consideration the fact that this money could have been suitably utilised by the charities of the liquor trade? Also, is he aware that the Erroll Committee, which reported three years ago, stated that the present compensation system should be disposed of, and is it not absurd to hold this money when it is so necessary for charitable purposes?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think the position is that there is general agreement that the fund should be wound up. But the difficulty is that there is no agreement on how it should subsequently be disposed of.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests giving the money to charities of the liquor trade. But might it not be a good idea to transfer the money to the National Council on Alcoholism, so that the benefit can be felt by the victims of poisoning by the trade?
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact that this money belongs to the trade itself, which is entitled to utilise it for charitable purposes; and that the Erroll Committee has stated categorically—which is quite apart from the rest of the Erroll Committee's Report—that the money
816
should be utilised? Why on earth cannot the Government, or the noble Lord, get in touch with the trade and have consultations about how to utilise it? How can £4,200,000 possibly he kept lying dormant in these times, when this money is so essential for charity?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have indicated that the Government intend to open consultations with interested organisations on how these funds should be disposed of, forthwith.
Lord JANNER: Today?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not think I can guarantee that the consultations will begin today.

BILL OF RIGHTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish fundamental rights of subjects in Northern Ireland and to set out the functions of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Court to enforce these rights. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(Lord Brockway.)
On Question Bill read la, and to be printed.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In moving this Motion, I think it is proper to recall that in the last nine months this Bill has been through all stages in this House on two separate occasions. Moreover, it looks not improbable that in the course of the next few months it may have to go through all its stages once again. But I can say that a great body of people in Scotland are extremely grateful to the House for the attention which it has given to this subject.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 3a, —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House has debated the trade in endangered species of wildlife a number of times over the last two years and last had occasion to do so only three weeks ago. But it is an important subject, well worthy of further debate, and I am very glad that I can now bring before the House a Government Bill.
My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to provide specific powers to implement the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. I think it will be appropriate, therefore, if I begin with the Convention itself and refer briefly to the international position. The Convention provides for the control of both the imports and the exports of whole specimens of certain animals and plants and of such of their parts and derivatives as are readily recognisable. The species to be most strictly controlled, which are those already considered to be threatened with extinction, are listed in Appendix I to the Convention. Other species which, though not in immediate danger, are considered likely to disappear if trade were not regulated are listed in a second Appendix. For this second group trade will be controlled and monitored so that action can betaken if a threat to survival develops. A third Appendix lists species which a contracting State may consider threatened within its own borders, and in respect of which it operates export controls. Other contracting States are to co-operate with such controls in these cases.
818
The United Kingdom was one of a number of countries which signed the Convention in Washington in March 1973. Altogether 58 countries have now signed and 22 have ratified it. The Convention came into force in July 1975, following the tenth ratification.
As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, the Government regret that, although we have implemented the Convention, we have not yet been able to ratify it. This is, of course, a reversal of the normal procedure and there are two reasons for it. The first is that we have been seeking agreement on the best course of action with the Commission of the European Community and our partners. Secondly, although we in the United Kingdom have powers which have enabled us to implement the Convention, not all of our dependent territories are in the same position, and naturally we wish to include as many of the territories as possible in our Instrument of Ratification in order to increase the effectiveness of the Convention.
Our discussions on these matters are well advanced and we expect to be in a position to ratify the Convention early this summer. We certainly intend to ratify it in time to enable us to play a full part in the first conference of the parties to the Convention. This, we have recently learned, is to be held in November of this year. The conference will consider the working of the Convention and the amendments that should be made to the Appendices. Work is already in hand to ensure that the United Kingdom will be able to make a very positive contribution at that conference.
To turn now to the domestic position, as the House knows, we brought the Convention into operation in the United Kingdom on 1st January this year under the powers of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence)Act 1939, but I am glad that we have now found time to introduce the present Bill. It is specifically designed to meet the Convention's requirements and it provides an opportunity for the House to debate fully what we are doing under the Convention. I do not think I can over-emphasise that the Convention is a very complex document, covering as it does several hundred species of animals and plants and requiring a variety of forms of control. The measures we introduced last month

819
were the result of detailed study of the Convention's requirements and the most effective means of implementing them.
This Bill embodies the measures we have introduced. However, I want to make it clear at the outset that we do not necessarily regard them as the last word on the subject and I am well aware that a number of people, including no doubt some of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite and certainly including a number of the voluntary conservation bodies, think that our current controls do not go far enough. They will doubtless have similar reservations on the Bill, especially perhaps on the Schedules. Because of this, the Government intend to consult widely and thoroughly on the Bill before the Committee stage is taken. This may be a small Bill, but it is not a simple one to get right and the Government do not pretend to a monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
We have three scientific authorities to advise us, but I think those authorities will readily agree that the voluntary conservation bodies have a valuable corpus of practical experience in this field and have their own specific contribution to make. Indeed, they have already contributed most usefully. The other people whose views we shall wish to hear are the importers and exporters who will be affected by the Bill's provisions, as they are now by the import/export licensing system which we introduced on 1st January. The species and parts and derivatives in the three Schedules to the Bill are the same as those we have been controlling since 1st January. If, however, there are to be additions or other amendments, the trade interests are, of course, among those whom we must consult. I wish to emphasise that in setting up our control system we have had very much in mind not only the need to protect rare species of animals and plants but also the need to avoid hampering unnecessarily the free flow of legitimate trade. The Government attach great importance to that. In certain sectors, such as the fur trade and the tanning industry, there is an important trade which provides employment and valuable exports and these are assets which we must preserve.
820
As I have indicated, the Bill reflects the way in which we are now implementing the Convention, so it may be helpful if at this point I outline the arrangements. The importor export of all the animals and plants and parts we control is allowed only under licences issued by the Department of the Environment or, in Northern Ireland, by the Department of Agriculture. The Department of the Environment is the principal management authority, to use the terminology of the Convention. That Department is also responsible for any issue of policy raised by the Convention and for communication with the Secretariat, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which is based in Switzerland. We thus have the advantage that only one Department now has overall responsibility in this field.
I know that some noble Lords are concerned about the division of responsibilities for animals between different Departments. There are sound reasons for this division. But here, in the field of nature conservation, it has been possible to bring within one Department responsibilities which were previously divided among several. For example, the Home Office were previously responsible for issuing import licences for birds of prey and owls, while the Department of Trade issued import licences for plumage and certain fur skins and also issued licences on behalf of the Department of the Environment for certain live animals. This at least we have now rationalised to the benefit, I hope, of all concerned.
The Convention requires that import and export licences should be issued on the advice of the scientific authorities. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State now has three scientific authorities. The Nature Conservancy Council, which is the Government's statutory adviser on all matters concerning nature conservation, gives advice on the wider issues of policy raised by the Convention extending beyond the operation of the import and export controls. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is the authority for plants and advises on the issue of licences for them. The director of Kew is appointing a committee, with representatives of other major relevant institutions, to advise him on the operation of the Convention. The Scientific Authority for Animals is a

821
newly established body of individuals with expert knowledge of the status of endangered species and related matters. Its chairman is Professor Wynne-Edwards, who is also the chairman of the Birds Advisory Committees for England and Wales and for Scotland.
We are controlling the import and export of all the animals and plants listed in the Convention. Licences for the endangered species listed in Appendix I of the Convention are, and will continue to be, granted only sparingly. They are not available for primarily commercial purposes. We are going beyond the Convention in requiring import licences for the species in Appendix II, since the Convention places responsibilities for monitoring and regulating trade in species that are considered vulnerable, but not yet endangered, primarily on the exporting country. We have concluded that this is necessary if Customs are to operate the controls effectively.
The Convention is also, of course, concerned with trade in readily recognisable parts and derivatives. I should like, if I may, to emphasise the words "readily recognisable ", since this is undoubtedly the most difficult aspect of the Convention and those words are the key to its successful operation. It is very tempting to say that we should operate controls on anything that is derived from an endangered species. But this would be wholly impracticable. A Customs officer has to know what he is looking for when he is examining a consignment of imports or exports. A clearly defined list of items to be controlled is essential if the Customs officer is to be able to do his job, and is equally essential for traders, who must know what they may import or export.
It may also be argued that controls should be exercised within this country as well as at the time of importation. In other words, it should not be possible to trade in a part or product simply because it has proved possible to bring it in. This is perfectly right, and we have powers under the Customs and Excise Act to take action over any goods which have been illegally imported. But it must be possible to show that the item was brought in illegally, which means that it must be possible to identify it and to trace its origin.
It must also be remembered that the aim of the Convention is to control trade
822
—if there is no trade in parts or derivatives of endangered species, it may not be necessary to take powers to control them. Indeed, it may be most undesirable to do so. Because the problems of identification are much more severe when an animal or plant has been cut up and processed, it may be impossible to control the products except by taking powers to control a much wider range of similar products derived from non-endangered species. We must beware of building up a spectrum of controls which impose unnecessary bureaucracy on our traders.
For certain products, however, we are already requiring licences for all the items in a group, whether or not the species involved are endangered. In the case of fur skins, reptile leather, ivory and tortoiseshell we are requiring licences for Appendix II and non-Convention species so as to make sure that we control effectively the trade in those which are endangered. The skins of many of the big cats, such as the leopard and the cheetah, are highly prized. The number of these animals has been badly depleted and licences are not available for commercial trade. But there are other spotted fur skins from non-endangered species which a Customs officer without expert advice cannot readily distinguish from those of the endangered species, and licences are therefore to be required for them all.
I should like now to say something about the form and content of the Bill. It is designed both to meet the requirements of the Convention, and also to permit adequate flexibility in administration and to allow for possible future changes in the Convention. Clause 3, for example, which provides the Secretary of State with power, after consulting the scientific authorities, to modify the Schedules, gives the maximum scope for necessary changes. I need, perhaps, hardly say that where these would affect trade interests the trade would also be consulted before changes were made.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that Clause l makes it illegal not only for a Scheduled item to be imported or exported without a licence, but also to make a false statement in applying for a licence. Customs and Excise have power under existing legislation to prosecute for a false statement on a Customs document, but not for a false statement on an application for an import or export

823
licence. Clause 1(4) would permit the Secretary of State to prosecute for that. This power would be especially useful where a statement was discovered to be false before a licence had been issued. I think, too, the House may be glad to see that we have included a power in Clause 4 to prevent a rare live animal, once imported, from being moved away from specified premises without permission.
The great bulk of the Bill, of course, is made up of the Schedules and J hope it will be helpful if I give a brief explanation of their contents. It may be worth my saying a word first about the reason for using scientific instead of common names. Those of your Lordships who, like myself, have little Latin and less Greek may be regretting that. But the fact is that many animals and birds have more than one common name, or sometimes the same is used for different creatures. For example, we might think there is no doubt about what a robin looks like, but in the United States that name is given to a quite different bird. When one comes to plants, there simply are no common names in the majority of cases. However, for the guidance of noble Lords who, like myself, lack a classical education, I have had a number of copies of a list of the common names of the species in Schedule 1 placed in the Printed Paper Office, but I must emphasise that the list is for guidance only.
What it adds up to is that only the zoological and botanical names will do for legal purposes and for international trade. One may begin to feel sorry for the traders, but I believe that most of them are familiar with the scientific names of the generally limited number of species which they import or export and, of course, the wildlife conservation licensing section of the Department of the Environment gives all possible help in any case of difficulty. Schedule 1 includes all the animals on Appendices I and II of the Convention. It also includes all birds of prey and owls, thus continuing the restrictions we have imposed on the importation of these for a number of years. In the same way Schedule 2 includes all the plants on Appendices I and II of the Convention.
There are good reasons why the two Appendices of the Convention have been
824
amalgamated in the Schedules in this way. If there were separate Bill Schedules for Appendix I and Appendix II species, the Secretary of State would be obliged to make fairly frequent orders to transfer species from one to the other, either to take account of amendments to the Convention or where he, on the advice of a scientific authority, decided that transfers were necessary. The amalgamation of the Appendices in the Schedules permits such changes to be made without delay. All changes would, of course, be given publicity and, in particular, be drawn to the attention of importers and exporters. The different criteria required by the Convention in licensing Appendix I as opposed to Appendix II species will be applied administratively on the advice of the Scientific Authority for Animals just as at present. The controls under the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act 1964 were on this basis and worked well throughout the 11 years of its operation.
I should say a word, however, about a difference between the Animals Act and the Bill. The Animals Act specified whole families of animals within which some species were regarded as endangered. The Advisory Committee that was set up under the Act then drew up two lists to distinguish between the endangered and non-endangered species. Licences for the non-endangered species were issued virtually on demand. The Convention lists the species, not whole families. In principle, however, it adopts a similar basic idea to the one we had in this country with the Animals Act. It has two lists: an Appendix I of endangered species and an Appendix II of species whose trade requires monitoring because they may become endangered.
The Government have thought it right, in the new situation created by this Convention, to keep as closely as we reasonably can to the internally agreed system. If each country were to go it alone in this aspect, the international co-operation that is so vital to the true success of these measures would be less easily achieved. Some of the species in the families which were controlled under the Animals Act, but which were licensed freely because they were not endangered, do not therefore appear in Schedule I. We received scientific advice that this was acceptable, but we have also asked the

825
new Scientific Authority for Animals to take a further look at this, as it appears there may be a case for adding one or two of these species to the Schedule.
My Lords, to turn to Schedule 2, which covers plants, as I said it includes all the plants on the Convention Appendices I and Il, and is made up of individual species or, in a few cases, groups of species covered at generic or family level. The group approach was developed to cover areas where a large number of endangered species were related to one another and where they could not readily be distinguished from the less threatened species in the form in which they entered trade. Orchids usually travel as what I believe are called pseudo-bulbs, and succulents such as the cacti travel as small plants or cuttings. The Schedule goes further than the Convention, however, in covering all the tree ferns, where recent changes in the grouping of families could cause confusion.
Some of the plant species are never likely to enter trade and should not, in our view, have been included in the Convention. However, monitoring of these species over the next year or two will, we believe, show them to be false candidates and they will be recommended for removal from the Convention Schedules. I would like to emphasise again that these controls arc not intended to discourage legitimate trade. Indeed, we believe it should be encouraged. Here I should declare an interest, in that my family business was very much connected with horticulture in several aspects.
Horticulturists who propagate large numbers of species from stock material will be relieving the pressure on wild populations, and playing a positive conservation role, while ensuring the continuance of a healthy export trade. However, those who rely on wholesale pillage of species from the wild for resale will find it increasingly difficult to obtain export permits from the country of origin, particularly for large numbers of specimens.
I now turn to Schedule 3 which presents the most problems. Here I should like to emphasise two points. The first, as I have already said, is that the Convention requires us to control only readily recognisable parts and derivatives of the species listed on the two
826
Appendices to the Convention. When the Convention was drawn up in Washington, a great deal of thought was given to the means of controlling parts. It was eventually agreed that they must be readily recognisable and a great deal of importance was attached to these two words.
The Government believe that was right. We think it is essential, for the purpose of both Customs officials and traders, to define the articles being controlled. This sometimes means controlling similar items that do not come from endangered species in order to constitute a reasonably identifiable group. We are doing this in a few particularly sensitive areas, such as fur skins and reptile skins, which I mentioned earlier. But it would be very difficult indeed to justify imposing licensing arrangements on a large volume of legitimate trade simply to "catch" parts and derivatives of a few endangered species, the trade in which might be almost negligible.
I think your Lordships will agree there is a balance to be struck here. We have no compunction at all about stopping commercial trade in endangered species. It is a trade that is abhorrent. But we have to take a wider view should we be asked to impose a considerable burden of paper work on an important trade in items from non-endangered species, in order to catch a perhaps minute trade in the parts of some endangered species. We should require a very strong justification before we could contemplate adding to the costs of legitimate trade, especially in present economic circumstances.
From what I have said it will, I think, be apparent why Schedule 3 does not include any manufactured products except fur coats and a few other items made of spotted fur skin. I am glad we have been able to cover that sensitive area. But generally to control trade in manufactured products would compound the problems of identifying simple parts of endangered species. It could, for example, mean trying to trace back through different stages of production in different countries in order to ascertain the origin of the product. However, I certainly do not rule out all possibility of controlling certain manufactured products. I hope we may be able to isolate some of which it is practicable to control. We are looking into that.

827
My Lords, before concluding my remarks on Schedule 3, I should just say that the recognisability of seeds and timber of some of the Convention species is so difficult that we have not covered either product in Schedule 3. Seeds can be removed from mature plants without damage and can be cultivated by the horticultural trade to produce many individuals, so relieving the pressure on the wild population.
As regards possible additions to any of the Schedules, I can assure the House that we shall give the closest consideration to the merits of any proposals put forward. As I indicated earlier, it is the Government's intention to give this House, the scientific authorities, all the many voluntary conservation groups and trade interests adequate time to consider the proposals and the extent of the Schedules before the Bill goes to Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Stedman.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will wish me to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her very detailed and most lucid introduction of this Bill, which has been gestating for so long in the womb of the Government. Now that the long-awaited delivery has occurred, let me at once say that we on these Benches wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. May I further say that the noble Baroness has pre-empted me in many of the points that I was going to make by seemingly guessing what would be the objections and questions. I find myself all the more grateful to her for the fact that she has been able to explain so much of that which has been worrying me personally about the Bill. I should also like to thank her and her Department for providing us with the common name translations of the scientific Latin names, which I am sure will be of great assistance to us all in understanding Schedule 1. I only hope noble Lords in this House will be able to resist the temptation to make funny speeches about some of the names, because they are not unamusing.
My Lords, may I also express my concern on the question of ratification. The noble Baroness has really taken this
828
part of my speech from me by telling me that the meeting of the countries has now been put back from the autumn to November. Had it taken place in the autumn, the expectation of ratification in the summer seemed not to give us the 90 days we need if we are to take part in voting. However, I must say that I am very grateful that the 90 days is now a possibility—and we have the assurance from the noble Baroness that the Government will make sure it is.
Your Lordships would probably like to know that this meeting in November of the ratifying countries is a fairly important one, and if we are going to submit any alterations to the basis of the Convention we need to give 150 days' notice, although if we are in within 90 days it will be quite all right. One thing which was worrying me concerns our Dependent Territories, in particular Hong Kong, where they might be dragging their feet. I imagine that the noble Baroness will be able to assure me that if a Dependent Territory were to drag its feet we would, with what Dependent Territories we could carry, still ratify it to be in time—I see the noble Baroness nod. Anyhow, I hope that the noble Baroness will also be able to say that the Government will consider the evidence which she mentioned that the lists of various plants and animal species covered in the Convention do need urgent investigation and analysis. It is for this reason that our voice has to be authoritative and therefore we must have a vote.
The noble Baroness acknowledged that there are some species which are not on the list but are known to be endangered by trade. Among them are the chestnut-bellied humming bird, the American spur-thighed tortoise and the South American red lined turtle, to mention a few. Incidentally, these also are not on the Schedule to the Bill with which we are dealing, and I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that her advisers and those of her right honourable friend were aware of these facts and would be covering them. with subsequent additions. The flexibility given to the Government in Clause 3 is absolutely vital. It follows the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, which gave the Secretary of State similar powers. To be aware of something is to be able to deal with it.

829
I think it has been agreed by Parliament that the Convention list should probably include all species in the Red Data books and not, as at present, only those species actually threatened by trade. This is something which the Government should be able to discuss and vote on at the next Convention. I hope they will be considering these points. They are wide points, but they are points of principle. Once something is endangered by trade it is probably getting late in the day to effect a remedy. In this context I was going to ask the noble Baroness—again she has pre-empted me —what is to be the fate of the EEC partners? Do we anticipate that we shall all ratify together, or do I take it from what the noble Baroness has said that, whether or not they do so, we shall still be going ahead? I should like to know the state of play with our EEC partners. This is important for our traders, especially for those in fashion goods. If the main competitors in the field of fashion, who obviously come from our EEC partners, are not ratifying or implementing this Convention it will be upsetting for our trade. I am sure our traders are willing to hurt themselves a little in aid of a great cause, but it is annoying for us to do this if others are not seen to be doing it too.
There is one point about which I was not absolutely clear. The noble Baroness mentioned the Animals Act. I had it in mind to ask her whether in some cases in these Schedules there might be a simplification of what might be called the "envelope "principle. The Schedules are admirable. I am sure that the Government, their scientific advisers and the key bodies mentioned, have given enormous thought to this matter. There may be one or two species missing, or one or two slightly unnecessarily included. Nevertheless, it is a fact that when several species in a genus or family of animals arc threatened with extinction because of trade it becomes slightly difficult for the Customs. The noble Baroness mentioned several times that one of the key principles of this Bill is to have things "readily recognisable ", and with these two words I would go along with her all the way.
Last time I voiced the worry lest the Customs and Excise might have too great a load put on them. For example, take
830
the otter family. Some are threatened with extinction because of trade in their pelts, but I am told that it is difficult taxonomically to distinguish those in danger from those not in danger. In such a case, is there not a good case for suggesting controlling the trade in a whole group or family of animals? In one or two cases, do we have to say that it can never be done to a group? I suggest that there might be a case for simplification. This principle has already been applied to plants and some bird groups, so the principle exists and I do not think we need worry unnecessarily about it. I should like the noble Baroness to look at that.
I should like to discuss one of the main differences between this Bill and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to which he gave so much time and effort which has resulted in the Government bringing forward this Bill; that is, the prohibition of the trade in made-up goods from listed species unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, mentioned the other day, the seller can show that the item was not unlawfully imported. I know that this omission from the Bill is causing worry to many good conservationists. I sympathise with the Government's view that it is important not to complicate matters unnecessarily for the Customs and Excise authorities.
As we have said before, "readily recognisable "is the keynote in this matter. I feel that over this question there will be a certain amount of unnecessary worry generated in the debate today. As countries ratify and implement the Convention, the sources of these endangered species goods will become gradually exhausted. Obviously there is a certain number of goods in the pipeline and storehouses, in warehouses abroad, waiting to be shipped and being shipped; but, once existing stocks are used up, it should not be hard for the various countries concerned to prosecute offending traders for smuggling in prohibited species skins and plumage and other things of that description.
We know that conservationists are particularly worried about the crocodile and alligator families, the vicuna and tortoiseshell. These are the most frequently mentioned causes for worry. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that some of these matters are specifically mentioned in Schedule 3, and Schedule 3, like

831
the other Schedules, is capable of flexibility. Other goods can be added if it is thought necessary; taking into consideration that Schedule 3 exists, plus the drying up of stocks, this worry of conservation bodies is probably unnecessary and this Bill will probably meet the case.
This Bill is, of course, our national Bill helping to implement the Convention, and other countries will have to produce similar Acts. It will be important that world opinion is mobilised to influence any country which might try to cash in on scarcity value, and the implementing countries are going to have a common interest in enforcing these Statutes. I should like the noble Baroness, if she can, to give some indication whether there will be any extra manpower necessary to implement this Bill, and also—it seems rather unkind to carp on these matters—whether this Bill will cause extra public expenditure. I do not see that there should be any necessity for these things, but I should like to be reassured.
My Lords, it only remains for me to repeat my welcome to the Bill, and to thank the noble Baroness very sincerely for the great steps the Government have made and anticipated, and for the welcome news about the ratification during the summer, in time for the 90 days, to enable us to play our full part in this Convention and use all our influence. I welcome the Bill, and I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords and Ladies will say.
4.2 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this is the fourth Second Reading in which I have taken part upon an Endangered Species Bill. I need hardly say that I welcome very much the fact that the Government have now come forward with a Bill which will, one hopes, guarantee that we have an Act on the Statute Book before the end of this Session of Parliament. It may be, of course, that your Lordships are not unfamiliar with dealing with problems of legitimacy. There are two Bills before your Lordships; they are both called the Endangered Species Bill, and it may be argued that perhaps one or other should be clearly defined as to whether it is
832
legitimately before your Lordships' House.
I want to make it perfectly clear that so far as I am concerned the Bill which received its Second Reading three weeks ago is a Bill which I do not wish to press against the Government's Bill, but I should like your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government to look carefully at the two Bills and see whether they cannot make the Government's Bill approximate a little more closely, in its features and lineage, to the Bill which I put forward and to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading. It is not that there are vast differences because both Bills are trying to do the same thing. Both Bills are concerned with what your Lordships have agreed on several occasions should be done, which is to ensure that endangered species throughout the world are not exploited and are removed from being endangered, are kept in existence, because we believe that it is wrong that we should obliterate species merely in order to satisfy the vanity, the whims or any other purposes of mankind, that mankind ought to have a more responsible attitude towards the whole of the environment in which we live. So I think that in looking at the Government's Bill we should ask whether the Government's Bill goes far enough in this direction.
That it goes a considerable way I would agree completely, and I was glad that my noble friend Lady Stedman made it perfectly clear that the Government felt it right that there should be an Act to control the whole importation and exportation of these endangered species and not leave the matter to the very dubious expedient of using a wartime trade regulation in order to try to deal with this problem. I am very glad the Government are prepared to do this. We want to be clear as to exactly what we are trying to do in a Bill dealing with endangered species. The matter is put, I think, rather well by Sir Peter Scott in an article in today's Times. If one reads that article one sees that he understands the position very clearly. He does not attempt to hector; he does not attempt to tell people exactly what they are going to do. But what he does do is to explain what ought to be done if we are genuine in our attempt to conserve these endangered species. The title given to his

833
article is, "Plugging the Loopholes that Threaten Animal Survival ". We want to bear this in mind—that if we are out to do this we really have to plug the loopholes.
It is not a matter of making a wide-meshed net which a whole lot of exceptions can go through. I would agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we do not want to take unnecessarily troublesome procedures, we do not want to interfere with perfectly legitimate trade. All this is perfectly true. But one knows perfectly well that it is very easy to have well-meaning legislation which nevertheless leaves such loopholes that there is no problem in getting a horse and cart through them.
It is important that we should try and ensure that the legislation is not onerous but is effective, as effective as we can hope to make it. No legislation can ever be completely effective, as we all know, but at least we can try to do those things which will ensure that the purpose of this Bill, the purpose with which I think all of us are agreed, is properly carried out. There are one or two points where I would ask Her Majesty's Government to look carefully again at the Bill, and be prepared either to move Amendments themselves or to accept Amendments put forward at Committee stage.
In the first place, if one compares the Bill to which your Lordships have already given Second Reading, called the Endangered Species Bill, with the Bill before us, called the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill, one notices that in the Long Title, coming after the initial title of Endangered Species, of the first Bill it says:
"A Bill intituled An Act to control trade in wild animals and wild plants and their parts and products ".
In the Bill which we are considering now we have:
"A Bill intituled An Act to restrict the importation and exportation of certain animals, plants and items; to restrict the movement after importation of certain live animals; and for connected purposes ".
The main difference between those two is that in the present Bill there is no mention of trade, no mention at all of the trade in the animals and their parts and products.
This matter is not trivial because the Bill, as it stands, is aimed at controlling
834
at the point of importation or exportation, whereas the Bill I presented to your Lordships' House was concerned not only with that but with ensuring that the subsequent trade inside the country would be controlled. In other words, if material had been introduced into this country which, by one method or another, had avoided the customs regulations, then the subsequent production of anything out of those plants and those animals—out of their products—was also illegal and was governed therefore by exactly the same kind of control. Therefore, if someone brought a leopard skin into the country, and if the leopard skin had evaded the customs and was turned into a coat, or if the coat had been brought in, then the sale in this country, the advertising for sale in this country, would have been illegal.
It can be said, and it has indeed often been said, that one cannot tell for certain whether something is a lizard, a crocodile, or whatever it may be. You may not be able to do so. But the real advantage in trade is to advertise it in exactly that way and to say that it is lizard, crocodile, or leopard. You do not sell a leopard skin and pretend that it is goat skin. Surely you sell the thing deliberately as leopard skin. You do not sell a shoe and pretend that it is ordinary leather when it is lizard or crocodile. In order to make money out of these things, you advertise them in that way, and my Bill specifically aimed at that point.
I hope that the Government pay some attention to this and are prepared to modify their Bill in a suitable way in order to accept this point. If they would themselves amend the Bill, I should be extremely happy. If they are not prepared to do so, I shall move an Amendment to this effect. I have little doubt that my noble friend, being extremely reasonable and having gone so far in this matter, will be prepared to go the whole way and ensure that we make the Bill quite satisfactory in that respect. I do not want to detain your Lordships for long, because we have had so many Second Reading debates; also, I must say that my noble friend the Minister has given us a remarkably clear exposition of the whole Bill, so it is quite unnecessary for me to go into deail. But I shall also call attention to the fact that there is no control of transit. This may seem

835
unimportant. We control importation. We control exportation. But I think it was only last year when there occurred at Heathrow something which rather shocked the conscience of people in this country.
A load of monkeys, I think, came over from India, and was landed at Heathrow but not imported into this country, because it would never pass through customs. It was put on to another plane, or was going to be, in order to be sent to America, but all the monkeys died. They died because of the bad conditions under which they had been brought in. This is transit. It is neither importation nor exportation. I have asked legal friends and they have assured me that the terms "importation "and "exportation "will not cover such a case, because the animals have not been imported into the country, they have not been exported from the country, they have been merely in transit.
We should surely control transit. It may be argued that we are not entitled to do it. If one looks at the Treaty of Rome, one finds in Article 36:
"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports, or goods in transit."
In other words, it is clearly recognised by the Treaty of Rome that we are entitled to control transit. Therefore, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to take this point into consideration and to introduce into the Bill—a Bill I warmly welcome—this restriction on transit as well as on importation and exportation.
4.16 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am grateful to the Government for at long last bringing in this Bill. I think we can reasonably be ashamed of ourselves that our country has hung so far behind other nations. It is almost three years since we signed the Convention, and three years will have passed by the time we get this Bill on the Statute Book. However, I am grateful to the Government and I am not blaming the noble Baroness. Perhaps if she had been here three years ago we might have got the Bill through in the twinkling of an eye. I should like to say one thing in passing: we are still
836
behind every other nation in the world. If the noble Baroness will look at the Schedules to the Convention she will see retained there the conventional method of writing scientific names in italics. We in this country do not bother to do that. Perhaps she might stand in a white sheet about that and see whether she can put it right.
This is going to be an exceedingly difficult Bill to administer. The appendices are based on the rarity of animals. This is all very well in its way but, by and large, the real ones at risk are those in which there is a trade, and pure rarity is of little importance at the present moment. On the Committee on the Importation of Rare Animals, which controls the importation of animals and on which I sat, we found that we had to make this differentiation between animals which were the subject of trade and were really at risk and those which might be at risk if they became the subject of trade because they were already rare. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will appreciate that factor as much as anybody else. The problem is going to be tricky administratively, and it would be useful to those of us who are interested in these things to have some form of report making it clear which are the animals we are concentrating on and which ones are not so much at risk.
I do not want to detain your Lordships too long because most of us have already talked on this subject innumerable times and over the months have become rather tired of the sound of our own vcices. However, I should like to raise two points which are certainly not mentioned in the Bill. I should like an assurance from the noble Baroness that even if we do not put this in the Bill, we know that the appropriate administrative decisions will be taken, and that again we shall get a report which tells us what is going on.
On import permits for live animals the Convention itself in Article 33B says this:
"The scientific authority of the State of import must be satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it."
I have had several years experience of this, and I can say quite frankly that the Committee of which I was chairman made mistakes at the beginning, when we let rare animals go to places which were

837
not capable of looking after them. What is important is that those animals which are exceedingly rare should go only to places where they can be kept in breeding colonies, and we should not waste individual specimens of a single sex. We found in the end that we had to inspect these places and virtually make a list of those which were capable of looking after the creatures.
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has it at the back of her mind that something like that will have to be done. It would have been better to spell this out, because it is important that we know how this is proceeding, where these animals are going and what is their survival rate to ensure that rare animals which are imported so as to build up breeding units are not taken by any institutions which are not capable of looking after them. Clause 1(6) states that in certain circumstances,
"…the animal, plants or item shall be liable to forfeiture…"
It is important that the appropriate scientific authority, whatever the management authority, is geared up to deal with creatures which are forfeited. It must be able to decide where the creatures are going and these creatures should not be left in the hands of the unfortunate Customs without anybody really knowing what to do with them. These may seeem quite small points and perhaps we can deal with them in Committee.
I reiterate the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, about animals in transit, although I realise, as he no doubt does, that that has nothing to do with the Bill. However, it is a disgrace that we do not control the transit of animals and it will be even more of a disgrace, beyond the inhumanity which is involved when disasters occur, if some of the terrible things which we have heard happen to some of these endangered species. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to comment on that and say whether it is possible to include a provision in the Bill to deal with it. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will speedily get on to the Statute Book.
4.23 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, it will come as a relief to the House to learn that I shall be brief am due to chair a committee in eight minutes from now. I congratulate
838
the Government for introducing this Bill, but I must admit that I preferred the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, introduced, although I quite understand that when it comes to ratifying a Convention, there must be a Government Bill. I commend to the noble Baroness, for whose speech I am full of admiration, especially for the beautiful way in which it was delivered, what Lord Wynne-Jones said about advertising, because when exotic furs and certain scents are advertised, this is bound to induce rich women or their husbands—usually, unfortunately, it is their husbands —tobuy them. It is a pity, therefore, that advertising is not covered by the Bill. There is no reason today, with good plastic imitation furs and other materials being available, why any endangered species should be killed for the adornment of the human being. I should have preferred the Bill to have covered the products of all these species, although I understand, from the trade point of view, why the Government might find that difficult to do at the moment.
Further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I cannot understand why otters have beeen left out of the Bill. I am not aware that the Pacific otter, whose fur is the most valuable among otters, has increased in number greatly. One can still read advertisements, especially in the West of Scotland, of dealers seeking otter skins. I realise that these skins are probably not for export, but I believe that the otter is becoming an endangered species. For this reason, I am surprised that it is not included in the Bill.
I, too, am concerned about Clause 1(6) because it might happen that somebody bought an endangered species without realising that it had been brought into the country illegally. As I read the clause, that person, who I will call the possessor, could be charged and fined. I should like to see the onus of proof put on the seller. Perhaps I am not reading the clause correctly, but it seems to me unfair that an innocent person could become the possessor of an endangered species—a plant, or whatever it might be—and be fined although, as I say, he or she is completely innocent. I do not have time to make many of the points that I should otherwise have made. I must point out, however, that it will be very difficult, especially where rare plants

839
are concerned, to prove the contrary if, for example, somebody says that he has bred the plants and produced them when in fact he obtained them from the wild. The same could apply to animals, because certain endangered species are quite easy to breed in captivity. It is a pity that the Bill cannot somehow cover that point, because that would block what might become a loophole.
Does the Bill cover the Crown, by which I mean the various organisations which come under the Crown? For example, will RAF falconers—I suppose they come under the Crown—be subject to the Bill? And what about museums which come under the Crown? Certain other difficulties seem bound to arise, for example when teeth are brought into the country. Will it not be extremely difficult for Customs officers to differentiate between the various types of teeth? This may even prove difficult with ivory, but teeth could present a problem and I do not know how the Customs officers will be able to differentiate.
My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton spoke about the sources of endangered species coming into the United Kingdom eventually drying up. I do not think that will always be the case, particularly when one thinks of the areas from which certain exotic species come. Are all the administrations of these areas 100 per cent. free from corruption? I doubt whether the sources of exotic species will dry up in the way the noble Lord suggested. Indeed, I think they will still come to this country, and I therefore hope that when the Bill becomes law the Government will enforce the regulations with all the power at their command. Some people say that laws are made only to be broken. I certainly do not agree with that, although I accept that it is very difficult to make them absolutely foolproof. If your Lordships will excuse me, I must now leave.
4.30 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I believe that the House would like to look at the position of Great Britain in relation to this Bill. Now that the United States has clamped down, Britain is one of the main consumers of Wild Life. In fact, Britain, Hong Kong and Japan are, I regret to say, top of the world league,
840
followed by France, Spain and West Germany. So, without doubt, the world looks to us to set an example. I, like other speakers, was indeed glad to have the firm undertaking given by the noble Baroness that Britain will be in a position to attend the conference in November.
It has been difficult to assess the extent of the world trade in these hundreds of animals and thousands of plants listed by the Convention as threatened with extinction. The difficulty is that the legitimate trade is augmented by the smuggled trade. However, with the assistance of the Fauna Preservation Society, I have obtained some statistics which should interest your Lordships. In 1974,the Kenyan trade statistics disclosed an export of 53,000 kilograms of ivory to Hong Kong. When that ivory arrived at Hong Kong, it had grown to 113,000 kilograms —a total of about 4,500 elephants. In 1974, the Kenyan statistics disclosed an export of 3,600 kilograms of ivory to Japan. When that ivory arrived, it had grown to 63,000 kilograms. All in all, Hong Kong imported 461,000 kilograms of ivory in 1974. That is the equivalent of 18,400 elephants.
I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, speaking from the Front Bench, referred to the dragging of feet. Japan is probably little better. Japan imported about half as much ivory as was imported by Hong Kong. In fact, when the Bill is on the Statute Book and is working as I know it will, Japan may soon be the greatest offender. Whales, elephants, rhino horns, coral, mollusc shells, deer, elks and reptiles, including on last year's estimate alone, 1,440,000 lizards have all been imported by Japan.
One slightly more cheerful fact is that the need for measures similar to the present Bill is clearly in the hearts of people all over the world. People everywhere realise the danger that Wild Life is being destroyed. I remember with pleasure the occasion when, many years ago, workers in the fur factories of America refused, with the support of the trade unions, to make up fur coats from the skins of spotted cats. The Bill is necessary and I believe that this nation will make it work.
As has been said, we had a Second Reading debate a short time ago and I do not want to make another speech

841
covering the same points. However, I wish to deal with a few major points. I agree with previous speakers that the Bill has met many of our fears. The noble Baroness trailed her coat—I was glad to hear her—when she pointed out that a single Department was dealing with the whole Bill. She bore out what those of us in the conservation world have been saying for years. I believe that I wrote the same letter to 11 different Ministers, sending them all original copies, about one conservation problem. However, the Bill can he improved and I like other speakers, have a few points to make.
First, my noble friend Lord Monckton asked that it should be in the English language. I see the difficulty, but even if only the family name were given in English, those of us who have little knowledge would be helped. My worry concerns the Schedules. Schedules 1 and 2, as drafted, restrict the import either of the complete family or of a named kind within that family. It is in the naming of the kinds that the danger lies. There should be not an alternative but an additional listing altering some of the lists to those families where the kinds of that family which may be imported are given, thus excluding all other kinds. I know that the Department thinks that this is impossible. I agree that it will be difficult for some families but with other families it is not only possible but the Department will find that it is absolutely essential. There are two reasons for this. One is that a new population of a kind which was thought so rare as not to be worth listing may be found. This has happened in Australia in the case of some small mammals called dibblers and barrannys and it appears to be happening now in South America with the marmot.
However, the greatest risk, unless some of the lists are reviewed as I suggest, is already known. It is that the animals may become endangered while they are not included in any list. For example, for the past few years the import of tiger skins and of the larger spotted cats has been restricted. Noble Lords know that this has resulted in the import of ocelot, and many and varied smaller spotted cat skins. The figures are, 27,000 skins in 1974 and 77,000 skins in 1975. It may already be too late to save some of the smaller cats which were thought not worth protecting. The noble Baroness
842
mentioned crocodiles. They became rare and that led to the import of lizards, snakes and reptiles. The blue whale was banned, so the import of the humpback whale increased; when that was banned, importers turned to the fin whale and, when that was banned, they went to the sei and brydes whales. Those were banned, and now the minke whale and the dolphin are coming under pressure. This could be cured with the right kind of Schedule.
Tortoises have been a great worry. They were over-exploited in the Northern Mediterranean. Vast quantities were exported and the importers turned to the North African tortoise. They became over-exploited, so they are now taken from African regions which are warmer and drier. Another variety, Testudo Horsefeildii, is the only variety which is still available in quantity. Unfortunate little tortoises! Because they come from warm climates they are quite unsuitable to live in the conditions and climate of Britain.
Finally, when the noble Baroness looks at the schedules, she will see that a schedule of what may be imported as opposed to what may not will be a much easier and safer Schedule to administer. All concerned can do it and the scientific authorities will not only be able to advise with greater certainty but will be able to do what Britain, as the main offender should do, which is to give the endangered species the benefit of the doubt.
I now come to the trade in Scheduled items. I find this very difficult. It is almost a Committee point. I would ask the noble Baroness not to answer me now but to write me. I have a feeling that lines 29 to 35 of page 2 of her Bill meet, to some extent, Clause 1(2) of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. I appreciate the difficulty of manufactured items, but that I think we might solve at another stage. I believe it goes some way to meet the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, but I nevertheless support him. I think I also support the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, over the difficulty of transit, certainly if they were landing at the airport. But my noble friend Lord Cran-brook may be right—he is so often right in these matters—so I should like to keep my powder dry here.
The only point of which the noble Baroness made heavy weather, I thought,

843
was about not being quite clear as to the definitions of animals. As she said as to the definitions of both animals and plants, "any readily recognisable part or derivative thereof "should be controlled completely. I think she agreed that the Bill does not really meet that point, except in a very small way, and in particular I am worried about the snakeskin products. She said the Bill protects them. I do riot think it does; but I think one could find an Amendment which would ensure that it did. I really believe that there is a halfway house between the words "recognisable "and "easily recognisable ", and I should like this to be considered in greater detail at another stage.
Running parallel with this point is the question of licences. In the debate on 5th February I spoke at some length on the treatment of species which could be rarer in the wild than they are in captivity. With this Bill, in an ideal situation the Secretary of State, backed by his Scientific Authority, should be able to grant licences in certain cases provided that the plant or animal originates only from a named country. Certificates of origin are a normal part of world trade. In this Bill for the protection of threatened species, should there not be powers to stop up the loopholes, which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, mentioned, that are not going to occur the world over? Our Bill should be able to do this—and here I am on more difficult ground. I merely ask the question: should it not be possible to issue licences under a quota system both for animals and for plants?
My final point is a minor one, but I think it is important. It is about records. Could the noble Baroness, either now or at a later stage, if she thinks it is not in the Bill—I do not think there is anything about keeping records in the Bill—give us an administrative assurance (which your Lordships will always accept from a Minister on the Front Bench) that records will be kept in some detail? What we fear—I hope I am wrong—is that the only significant records which will be kept will be those for the period after there is a significant trend. How can we prove that an animal is becoming endangered if the imports are going on growing until there is a significant trend
844
and it is too late? With that, my Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Bill, which has my full support.
4.45 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I was listening with such interest to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and indeed trying to assimilate a mass of important facts that I almost forgot that I put my name on the list of speakers, and I am almost beginning to wish that I had not done so because it is equally true that at about 12 noon today I read the article by Sir Peter Scott in The Times. This struck me as an absolute model of its kind. It makes clear to any observer how tremendously important this measure is if it can succeed in its operation and how much worthwhile it is that our House should deal with it.
I find a fascination in the amazing influence of animals upon history. We had a programme the other night in which we were told that during the war the Admiralty persuaded the Government to embark on a systematic destruction of the peregrine falcon because they had found out that it could sink a dreadnought—not precisely as King Kong would do it, or indeed the legendary ostrich which could eat a cathedral, but because the peregrine falcon was capable of destroying the carrier pigeons which were taking the last "May Day "messages from a crippled ship.
My Lords, when I saw this Bill for the first time I welcomed it immensely. Many years in politics have led me not to expect much from Governments and at such a time as this. However important this measure, I had almost resolved that at this time of financial twilight I would try not to support any measures which added unnecessary or even necessary burdens upon the public purse. As the noble Baroness in her admirable explanation said, the virtue of this measure is that we can virtually use the existing organisation. We have available the necessary methods and we intend to use them, and in any event the cost of the measure will be minimal. So I am not anxious to be critical of the measure.
I think that after Peter Scott's article for the first time in my political life I have to make an apology on behalf of my former constituents because at about

845
the time when Daniel Defoe visited Oldham and described it as
" containing the most contented unindustrious people on the face of the earth "—
a tribute which was later repeated in more felicitous terms by the first Viscount Norwich—their principal industry was the making of the beaver hat. I cannot believe that even my constituents made beaver hats without beavers, and beaver hats of course were absolutely essential. Nobody quite knows why now, but things are always essential if people have enough money to buy them. I can only urge—and it is a somewhat disreputable argument—that it was a result of the trade in beavers and otters that we got the Dominion of Canada because a couple of French trappers had been refused a licence by the Governor and Charles II was persuaded to grant the charter which led to the Hudson Bay Company and the subsequent struggles. Perhaps it did not have all that merit on our part.
Of course there are points of detail; there are real problems of detail. The noble Lord who is to follow will know much more than me about the definition of a "succulent plant ", but I did find some problems in "euphorbia ", which is a very large classification. After reading Peter Scott's article, a quick glance at the question of otters suggests that perhaps there are some observations to be made on the number of species of otters which are eliminated from the Schedule. There are a number I have failed to find, but in the main I think that I agree with my noble friend who introduced the measure and I hope he will get rather more credit for his labours than John Fielden, the Member for Oldham, who secured the passing of what is known as the Shaftesbury Act in the absence from Parliament at that time of the late Lord Shaftesbury. I think it is an important measure.
I might perhaps irrelevantly conclude by saying in this time of financial twilight while we are celebrating the bicentenary of Gibbon and having some arguments about it, I am on the side of Walter Savage Landor and his saying, "Nature I love and after nature art. "I think he had his priorities right. Perhaps when Piccaso's doves—which an ornithological friend tells me could not fly—are to be seen flying over "Truncheons ",
846
and perhaps some future young Gibbon, possibly an Angolan with a degree at Havana, impressed by the sight of the bare-footed mendicant friar of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, after a simple meal of Campbell's soup, singing vespers in the colonnades of the London Brickworks, resolves to write the "Decline and Financial Fall of the British Empire ", I am confident that, starting from the middle of 1910, he will conclude in a moving passage in which he felicitates us all here today on our part in a comprehensive measure which helps preserve the boa constrictor, the python and the lesser celandine.
4.51 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, there are many reasons why I enjoy being in your Lordships' House and one of them is the opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hale, speaking as he has just spoken—something which I have been enjoying since 1945. I join in welcoming the fact that the Government have now presented this Bill and I should like to add my voice to those noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on his persistent and polite needling of his own Front Bench, which has been very effective. Everyone is agreed that from the international view-point the Washington Convention was long overdue and that this is a horrid trade exploited by the mindless misbehaviour of many people at both ends of the trade, and in the middle of it. In a way, I think it is a very sad and shaming commentary on our so-called civilisation. Therefore I very much hope that this Bill will be on the Statute Book before long.
I should like briefly to raise three questions: one about ratification, one about the Bill's Schedules and the last about the need for time for further consultation without delaying ratification. On the first point about ratification, I—and, I think, all of us—should like to make sure that I have understood this correctly. I understand that the Government originally should have ratified by 7th March to conform with the Convention and to he in time to propose amendments; but that now the TUCN have confirmed that where any Government intends to ratify before 4th August, amendments may be proposed up to 5th June, subject to the agreement of the Conference in Berne

847
in the first week in November. I believe that I have that right. I thought it would be clearer to give dates rather than to talk of 90 days et cetera. I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding agreement.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness has confirmed the Government's intention to act jointly with our partners in the EEC, which should avoid any problems in intra-Community trade. The Commission, it goes without saying, are strongly in favour of joint action, as they were with regard to the Council of Europe Convention for protecting animals during international transport, which was drawn up for signature in Paris as long ago as 1968. But it is well known to all of us that views differ widely in the Community countries on this subject as on many others and we are by no means all in step. For example, there is a wide divergence of view between West Germany and Italy. That, I feel, would be the classic example. I hope that in spite of the fact that it would be nice to proceed together, if we cannot do so, we will regret that fact and go along with those other countries which are prepared to go along with us.
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us about the attitude of the Dependent Territories, the progress made with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I am thinking of those territories which should be associated with the Instrument of Ratification. There are some Dependent Territories, obviously, that have little importance in this context. Hong Kong has been mentioned and perhaps it has more importance than all the rest put together, being a well-known centre for international trafficking in rare animals and their products.
My Lords, this leads me to the second point about the Schedules to the Bill. I do not feel that they can be regarded as satisfactory in that they do not go wide enough and seem to include many anomalies. Naturally, I shall carefully avoid putting what noble Lords may regard as Committee points, but I must give an illustration or two. For example, why include tortoise shell but not turtle skin? We all know that a great deal of use is made of turtle skin and also that tortoise shell comes from the turtle.
848
There seems to be an anomaly here. Why are at least six species of birds listed in Volume II of the Red Data Book as "rare and endangered "but not in the Washington Convention and not in Schedule 1 to the Bill; although all six have been imported into this country in the last three years? As a last specific example, why does the Convention list the comb duck which is common in three Continents as needing protection while the bald ibis, described as "very rare and localised with its numbers rapidly decreasing ", is not listed at all? The bald ibis has been traded in the United Kingdom, although it is a rare bird, in the last few years. The more one looks at the Schedules the more it is clear that there are a great many anomalies which will have to be put right.
Should not the Schedules to the Bill serve as models for other countries, giving the benefit of the doubt where necessary to the flora and fauna, taking into account that supply and demand is unpredictable; and when trade in one item is restricted, trade can swing very quickly, sometimes before it is barely detected, and certainly before it can be controlled. I cannot help wondering whether the distinction in the Convention between Appendix I and Appendix II which are taken together in Schedule 1 to the Bill and Appendix III is a satisfactory and real distinction. Should not, to put it another way, all the really rare species of fauna—and I leave aside flora for obvious reasons—be added to the Schedules now if there is a risk of the survival of these species being endangered by trade? Personally I think so. I should be grateful if consideration could be given to that.
Should not thought also be given to adding to the Schedules species or subspecies of birds which cannot be reliably distinguished from their rare and endangered relatives? Unless this is done, enforcement will be difficult and law breaking made easier. I notice that the noble Baroness who opened the debate stressed the importance of fauna which have to be controlled or restricted where trade is concerned being readily recognisable. This is again a valid point from the point of view of the Customs officer and the legitimate trader. Would not the legitimate trade in birds be at any rate easier to control if another Schedule were

849
added to the Bill listing certain species of birds; for example, the nectar-eating humming birds or the insect-eating hoopoes which suffer such ghastly mortality rates in transit. Then it would be easier to enforce the IATA standards which are so widely broken, I am told, in up to 90 per cent. of all the instances of birds being imported into this country.
Lastly, how can proper control be exercised over trade in rare birds if there is no control over their eggs? I may have missed something, but so far as I can see there is no mention of that at all. I was very pleased when the noble Baroness said that she had an open mind about amendment of the Schedules, and I am sure that many of your Lordships will share my view of that. Incidentally, I see nothing in the Government's argument, which I understand has been used over the past few months, that the Schedules to the Bill must conform as precisely as possible with other national lists or, for that matter, with the Washington Convention. In any case, the Government seem to have conceded this point by including birds of prey and owls—and rightly so, if I may say so. Article XIV of the Convention (paragraphs 1 and 2) makes it absolutely clear, and perhaps I may quote two lines from paragraph 2, which read as follows:
" The provisions of the present Convention shall in no way affect the provisions of any domestic measures….".
Therefore individual countries can take what measures they think right in this context. And what better backing could there be for British Government amendments to the Washington Convention than that after the fullest consultation in this country the Schedules to the British Act are really comprehensive from the British viewpoint, having taken full account of national and international expertise, both statutory and voluntary?
My final point concerns the need for genuine consultation with all speed, in order to make up for a great deal of time which has, if I may say so respectfully, been wasted during the last few years and of which far greater advantage should have been taken. I was very pleased to see this matter dealt with in a letter which was sent by the Department of the Environment to all the voluntary conserva
850
tion bodies on 12th February which contained this sentence:
" Ministers have decided that it would be best to publish the Bill now, but to leave a sufficient interval between Second Reading and Committee stage to permit adequate further consultations with all concerned."
That has given the voluntary bodies a great deal of pleasure, and I am pleased that such a promise has been made. But it contrasts very sharply with the failure to consult the voluntary conservation movement earlier. After all, the Convention was signed three years ago, and I should like to remind the noble Baroness that last July all the major voluntary bodies, working together, asked her Department to meet them. However, they were unwilling to do so and it was not until 14th November that there was any meeting at all, and then only, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if I may quote from his letter dated 5th November,
"to explain to conservation groups the measures we shall be taking."
My Lords, that is not consultation; it is simply informing people what the Government intend to do. I do not think that was either right or excusable.
Many people feel that until recently the Department's advice has not been adequate, and therefore I was extremely pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that the Schedules arc by no means the last word—I must not put words into the noble Baroness's mouth; I think she actually said that they were "not the last word ", which is not quite the same—and that there were to be wide and thorough consultations in spite of the fact that the Bill is now in the middle of its Second Reading. I am grateful for that as well. Time is of the essence, and if full use is made of it the Bill and the Schedules can be suitably amended without delaying ratification or restricting the Government's chance to move Amendments, as I hope and believe they will, when the parties to the Convention meet in Berne in November.
I would conclude by saying that I look forward to the Government's comments on the questions I have raised about ratification; on the need for substantial changes in the Schedules and on the importance of genuine consultation, not least with the voluntary bodies, because they have much to offer. The stiffer the

851
controls in the recipient countries, the tougher and more uneconomic becomes the poacher's game and the role of the profiteer in the middle. This country has frequently given a lead in conservation matters, and I am quite sure that we can do so again.
5.6 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I am pleased to support this Bill, which implements the Convention of 1973 to which we were, and are, a party. I regard the Bill as a step forward in regulating this important matter and I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on his continuous efforts to keep this subject in our minds. I must say that, in certain aspects, I prefer this Bill to the one we are now discussing, and especially on the point made by the noble Lord himself this afternoon; namely, the inclusion of trading in these items, as well as their importation and exportation. That is the point to which I shall now refer, as briefly as possible.
The particular aspect which is not covered by this Bill, and which I think represents a shortcoming which could delay the speed with which the intentions of the Bill can become fully effective, is the total disregard for existing stocks of hides, skins and other parts of those endangered species which are already in this country and waiting to be made up commercially for sale in shops and markets. This matter was referred to by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and I believe it to be a very important one. As long as these articles continue to be made and sold from these endangered species there will be a demand for these commodities. This demand will encourage poaching in the countries of origin and the smuggling into this country of yet more of these restricted items. If these existing stocks, as listed in Schedule 3, and especially in paragraph 10 and subsequent paragraphs, are not enforceably registered now, the words "existing stocks "will become the continued excuse for maintaining the sales of these items made from endangered species.
I believe the noble Baroness implied that authority already exists to make such registration compulsory, but I should be grateful if she would confirm that,
852
because without that the effectiveness of this Bill will be greatly reduced. If existing stocks are continually being "topped up "by smuggling into this country or other means, this will lead to all sorts of problems such as increasing the work of the Excise both here and in the country of origin.
Perhaps I may take the vicuna as an example; and I should like to do so partly because I have seen this beautiful and graceful animal in its native Peru but also because it is listed in the Schedule under its Latin name, which happily coincides with the English one—I was not aware of the list so kindly provided by the noble Baroness before I drafted my speech, and so I clung to a word that I could readily identify. The vicuna, which inhabits the high grasslands of the Andes, provides the finest and softest wool in the world but, unlike its more common cousin, the alpaca, it cannot be cropped annually and each vicuna can provide only a very small quantity of wool. Nevertheless, the demand throughout the world in the more expensive shops and markets everywhere has been very high. Until recently, due to this strong demand, it has been heavily poached in Peru and killed to such an extent that it was almost extinct. My noble friend Lord Mowbray told me yesterday that within the last 12 months eight guards of wild parks in Peru have been shot dead, which shows the viciousness of this form of poaching. It also indicates our responsibility to see that the trade in this and other rare items is rapidly discouraged.
Thanks largely to the personal efforts of Senor FelipéBenairdes, who is President of the Peruvian Wild Parks and of the Lima Zoo, and also first winner of the Paul Getty prize for the preservation of wild life, I am happy to say that the vicuna is now rapidly increasing in numbers again. But it is still possible to procure vicuna wool here in London, and the reason given last week was that it was existing stocks, which strengthens my argument on that point. A length of kashmir wool sells for, say, £40, but if it is called kashmir/vicuna the same length will sell for double that figure. The inference is that it contains 50 per cent. kashmir and 50 per cent. vicuna, which may or may not be true. But if that is so, then it is more a matter for the Consumer Council than for this

853
Bill. Nevertheless, my point is that if we were now to require existing stocks of vicuna wool, and, indeed, of all other items listed in the Schedules, to be registered in order to determine the quality of the stocks now available, and were also to insist on the percentage proportion to be clearly marked—for example, when vicuna is mixed with another material—it would apply pressure to the existing stocks, and thus the principles behind this Bill would become more effective more quickly.
I have one final point on which I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could give me an assurance—and I am continuing with my example of vicuna, although the principle applies to all the other items in the Schedules. I have been told that one European Community country has rather large existing stocks of vicuna wool. Would the restriction on imports envisaged in this Bill apply to the cross-transfer, and therefore the importation, of existing stocks from one Common Market country to this country, even though the wool did not originate in Europe? This is similar to the point made by my noble friend Lord Mowbray when he spoke about regulations throughout the EEC needing to be in parallel, as otherwise the effectiveness of what we are trying to do in this Bill will be greatly reduced. I have concentrated on what I regard as the one short-coming in the Bill, but otherwise I am very pleased that the Bill has been introduced and am happy to give it my support.
5.14 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I find myself in slight difficulty in being the last speaker in this debate before the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and, inevitably, I shall have to follow, and perhaps even follow-up, some of the points made earlier by noble Lords. I make no apology for this because, with a little luck, it might help to drive these points home and make the voices heard rather more loudly by the Government. I also find myself in some difficulty on this occasion, because we arc debating the Second Reading of a Bill which is broadly similar to that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to which we gave a Second Reading less than a month ago, and on which I made my maiden speech. It must be something of a record
854
that your Lordships are debating this subject for the second time in such a short period, and the temptation for me is to repeat what I said on the previous occasion, which would surely serve no useful purpose. I shall also try to resist the second temptation of comparing this Bill with the previous Endangered Species Bill, in competition with others who have already spoken much more competently than I could on this aspect. I feel that it would be wise to treat this Bill on its merits, with some reference to the International Convention which it seeks to ratify. I have no intention of taking the Bill apart in detail, but I have several general and, I hope, quite valid points to make.
My first point is in regard to the Title, which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, mentioned at some length. As we know, it is called the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill and one would at first assume that it was one of the rare species of legislation dealing with conservation. One would, in a sense, be right, but, on looking at it a little closer, it becomes apparent that it does not seek to control species of animals—in the broadest sense of the word "animals "—including lepidoptera, birds and species of plants in their wild habitat per se. It does, in fact, seek to conserve them by regulating the trade both in the species and in their readily recognisable products, and I feel that the word "trade "could with advantage appear in the Title.
Secondly, it appears to be constructed primarily for animals, with plants tacked on almost as an afterthought. Here I have to declare a similar interest to the Minister, both as a professional horticulturalist on the production side and as an amateur gardener on the consumer side. On the plant side, it is immediately apparent that this is not a Ministry of Agriculture Bill but a Customs Bill, and those parts of the Schedules which refer to plants could at least be said be to extremely vague.
The obvious example is the genus cyclamen, under the family primulaceae in Schedule 2 on page 23. Some cyclamen are extremely rare for example, cyclamen libanoticum and mirabile from Turkey, and cyclamen rothsianum from North Africa. But others are very common in the wild, such as cyclamen

855
hederifolium. This may not be a name which your Lordships will recognise, but the botanists have renamed the cyclamen neapolitanium which so many of your Lordships will have in your gardens and which flowers in the autumn. They have also been attacking, not to say mucking about with, cyclamen purpurascens, which used to be called cyclamen europaeum, and which, again, can in no sense be described as endangered. All cyclamen, whether rare or common in the wild, are to be controlled as to import and export. This would seem to be completely unnecessary and, though I can see that it is quite impractical for a Customs officer to tell the difference between the corm of one cyclamen species and another, a botanist can tell almost at once at the point of entry of the goods, in the nursery or in the stockroom of the importer or exporter.
This raises another point. There is no date given for the introduction of the Bill. It would surely be in the interests of both the Government and traders for the latter to be inspected before the introductory date, to show that they will not be exporting items that are imported illegally. This point probably needs a little amplification. As I understand it, under the order which came into force on 1st January this year, an importer has to have an export licence from the country of origin of the goods before he or she can obtain an import licence. One assumes that items imported before the Bill comes into force are not imported illegally, but, in theory at least, unless an inspection is made before the introductory date, it will be impossible for the exporter to prove that he has not imported the goods illegally. For example, like the noble Earl. Lord Cathcart, I understand that there are comparatively large stocks of vicuna hair already in this country, which are used for manufacturing wool mixtures. This manufacture is, I understand, quite legal until the Present stocks are used up. If there is no inspection, it will be impossible to tell at what point illegally imported hair is used, as the Secretary of State will have no idea how long the existing stocks can be eked out.
For my next point I must turn to the Convention, which itself has appeared recently to be an almost endangered
856
species. It has proved to be very difficult to obtain, probably because it is filed under the title of "Animals ". Perhaps this goes some way towards illustrating my second point, that of plants being an afterthought. At the top of page 16 there is Article No. XVI, which is about a third Schedule dealing with animals and plants which a country wishes to protect unilaterally because they are locally endangered. I can see nowhere in the Bill where this is even mentioned. In this country we have the Wild Plants Protection Act whose Schedules surely make an ideal starting point to a fourth Schedule to the Bill that we are discussing now. I have heard a rather unconvincing argument against this from one of the advisers to Her Majesty's Government; that is, that what is endangered in one country is not necessarily endangered in another. This is probably quite right, but I hope that when she sums up the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will agree with me that a species that is endangered in one country today is quite likely to be endangered in another country, or, even worldwide, at a future date. A fourth Schedule to this Bill, covering our own species, would provide a very good lever for the United Kingdom at a future control meeting of the Convention. This would allow us to have a particular species moved up a grade from Appendix 3 to Appendix 2, and so on.
Departing for a moment from my horticultural brief, I will take my example from the lepidoptera. In doing so, I shall also support my noble friend Lord Craigton regarding his point about species in which there is no trade at the moment. Although the large blue butterfly is not traded in at the moment, it could well be and there is concern for it. This species is endemic in North Devon and Cornwall, where it is now very rare, and in Northern France, where it is fairly common. The reason for its rarity in this country is purely environmental. During one stage of its life the grubs feed on wild thyme. This itself is dying out in the areas in question because, due to the rigorous control of rabbits, the grass is growing taller and swamping it. Therefore, we have a situation of no thyme and nothing for the grubs to feed on—hence, fewer large blues.
The taxonomists among your Lordships will know all about lumping and

857
splitting. However, since this is an even more specialist subject than my own, I shall explain briefly that there are two ways of naming plants and animals. One is to lump together as many as possible different animals or plants under a species or genus, so long as they show even a superficial resemblance to one another. The splitters do exactly the opposite and tend to proliferate the number of genera and species; and new ones are created for quite small differences. By nature I am a lumper, both taxonomically and legally, and I can see no need for two genera species, or even Acts, where one will do. From statements that he has made recently in this House, I rather think that I have an ally in the shape of the noble and learned Lord who is not on the Woolsack. Is it too much to hope for an ally in the noble Baroness the Minister?
Another criticism that I have of this Bill and, indeed, of the Convention is that it brings politics into the world of conservation, which is not always a good thing. One can understand countries being keen to have their own endangered species recognised, but I am alarmed that species which are not endangered appear in the Schedules. I would refer your Lordships to page 64 of the current journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, the Garden. This is so rigorously edited that I have no hesitation in believing what I read.
In a couple of paragraphs on the monkey puzzle tree, Araucaria araucana, the point is made that, though rare, it is by no means endangered. I should like to quote from the Society's journal:
"They seemed like vegetable dinosaurs. Unlike dinosaurs, however, they are far from extinct or even threatened. In their own country they are doing fine, with their younger generations following on their parents and grandparents as vigorously as ever."
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that it will be possible for the United Kingdom representatives at future control conferences to make the point that Her Majesty's Government would like to see conservation of endangered species and not the preservation of rare species. There is a definite difference between not only "endangered "and "rare "but also "preservation "and "conservation ". I was glad to hear the Minister pre-empt me on this point.
858
I will now turn very briefly to the issuing of licences. This may well be something which should not properly concern your Lordships, but it revolves around one of my earlier points—that of the distinction between animals and plants. I understand that a trader can apply for licences in a very straightforward manner. However, a licence has enough space on it only for six species. This is probably a fine arrangement for animal species where the numbers to be imported or exported are necessarily limited; but it is quite common in the plant world for a licence to be required for at least 30 species, and I have heard of one application for 100 species. As the rules now are, this means five licences, which inevitably means five pieces of paper that have to be kept track of. May I respectfully suggest—even though (unlike what the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, told us yesterday) I am neither a man nor a woman of the trees—that conservation should begin at home: less paper, less trees. That, I hope, will not look quite so flippant on paper as it sounds. It is supposed to be a serious point.
Lastly, I should be grateful for clarification of Clause 5 of the Bill. I cannot quite see what the Government are getting at. If they are saying that a corporation should be responsible for its employees' behaviour, why not go so faras to say that a corporation would be fined because of the action of its employees? If, on the other hand, the employees of the corporation are to be the targets, why not prevent the corporation from either paying the fines of its employees or reimbursing them after the event?
I have been somewhat critical of this Bill, and your Lordships will probably be quite right in levelling at me the accusation that possibly I have been making Committee points. However, it is a very complicated piece of legislation and we have been told that there will be ample time to discuss it before the Committee stage. Perhaps, however, it is worth while that I should have given your Lordships my ideas on what I hope are valid points. I feel very strongly that there is a great deal to be tightened up in Committee, and in the day-to-day operation, but I also support the aims and objectives of the Bill and shall have

859
no hesitation is supporting its Second Reading.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that this has been a very good debate. As a comparative newcomer to this subject I have been impressed not only by the degree of concern that has been revealed here today but also once again by the very wide specialist knowledge of the Members of your Lordships' House. Certainly the debate has been very useful to me and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to it.
This is not the time to make another long speech. Many points which have been raised today we shall no doubt come up against at the Committee stage of the Bill. May I, though, refer briefly to one or two of them. Both the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, referred to the question of the position with our colleagues in the EEC. When the Washington Convention was negotiated the view was taken that it was desirable that all the members of the EEC should become parties to the Convention at the same time and subsequently they set themselves a target date for simultaneous ratification. But it was quite apparent in advance of 31st December 1975 that they were not going to be ready to proceed together at that time. The matter has now been further considered by the Community and the Commission has now set a target date for the Community of 30th June1976. All the Member-States are working towards this and indeed they have, I think, fully recognised the importance of making progress in implementing this Convention. They have also recognised the need for as many Member-States as possible to have ratified the Convention, independently if necessary, in time to take part in the first conference which has now been arranged for November. I understand that we have seen considerable movements in the Federal Republic of Germany, which although it has not yet formally ratified the Convention has made arrangements to put that in train. So there is some movement on the European front.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, also raised a question about
860
the difference between the number of species in the Red Data book and the number in our Bill, but I think it is important to remember that both the Convention and our Bill are concerned with trade whereas the Red Data book includes many species which are endangered, not by trade but by the destruction of their habitats. To add to the Schedule large numbers of species for which trade is not the relevant factor would, I think, tend to weaken the controls rather than to strengthen them.
Several noble Lords have referred to the difficulties about manufactured products. This is something that is causing the Department and its advisers much concern and we are giving a great deal of thought to it because we accept that there are difficulties here. There are strong feelings, too, in some quarters that restrictions ought to be imposed on the manufacture of goods, especially in reptile skins, in ivory and in turtle products. I sympathise with those views but when we come to identifying the manufactured goods we get into even deeper water and greater difficulty and we must have some regard to the side effect on legitimate trade while we are considering all the other things. However, I can assure your Lordships that we are looking carefully at this aspect to see what we can do about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, also raised a question about our reservations on the concept of Appendix 3 as it appears now. We see considerable complications in trying to operate it because the contents are open-ended; it would entail elaborate instructions to traders and customs officers and it could result in a big increase in licensing, much of which might be of little value. But we are seeking the advice of the scientific authorities on the implications of the various proposals by other countries for Appendix 3 as they emerge. We shall keep our options open but we are aware that there are difficulties here. Lord Mowbray and Stourton mentioned —quite rightly in our present economic position—the possible manpower needs and the public expenditure requirement in implementing the Bill, and I am sure that since then he will have looked at the financial provisions and the background provisions and will have seen that this is something we can get on the Statute Book

861
without very considerable cost to the nation in so doing.
My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones gave this Bill a most generous reception, and I am grateful to him for that. He has worked so long to see something come on to the Statute Book and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has accepted the Government Bill. He and all the voluntary conservation societies have done a lot of work and a lot of prodding, and that prodding has at last paid off in that we have something before us today. In the Department we want to work very closely with any noble Lords who are interested and who have ideas as to how this Bill might be improved, and with the voluntary conservation societies, in the few weeks between now and the Committee stage. I too read Sir Peter Scott's very valuable and reasoned article today and I hope we shall have more opportunity for open discussion and expressions of opinion through the media while this Bill is going through all its stages. We have waited a long time for it and it is essential that we should get it right now.
My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also asked us to look at Amendments to the Title because it did not cover trade, and trade is important. I will consult with my advisers and with both noble Lords to see whether we cannot come to some agreement or find some means around this before we get to the Committee stage. Lord Wynne-Jones also raised the question of the control of transit. The care of animals in transit, which are only really changing planes, as it were, in this country, is the responsibility of the carriers or the exporters. But I noted the reference made by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones to the Treaty of Rome and I will ask my advisers to have another look at this point.
We also had points raised about the goods which have been imported contrary to prohibition or restriction. Here again there are powers under the Customs and Excise Act to seize the goods and to prosecute people who are importing contrary to the restrictions. A point of sales control might raise some difficult problems, but in the Department we are already aware that there are strong feelings about this and we are examining
862
the position to see whether we can also tighten that up.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and also the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, raised the question of otters. These pose certain problems of identification and control. If we are going to try to control them we might be controlling a number of common species in which there is a legitimate trade. It is one of the matters that we are investigating and about which we are still having consultations.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke of the Schedules and the printing type. It was a valid point and I will certainly ask my adviser to look at it in order to see whether we can conform with the way other people do it. There will be reports from our scientific authorities and we shall have an opportunity of knowing what is going on, how we are working and how the Act itself, once it is on the Statute Book, performs the duties which we hope it will perform. I am not in a position at the moment to give answers to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, as to how we set about identifying teeth, but I will see what I can find out about it and will write to him on that point.
I take the point made so positively by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, about the position of the United Kingdom as a consumer of wildlife. I hope we shall be in the forefront with our Schedules and that they will be the sort of Schedules that other countries will want to copy and to use. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, also raised the question of ivory. The African elephant is not mentioned in either of the Appendices to the Convention; the Indian elephant is, but we require licences for all ivory and we hope that may help to stop up some of the gaps.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, asked about the arrangements for the disposal of animals that were seized by the Customs. When these are covered by conservation restrictions and are seized the Customs always seek advice from the Department of the Environment, who in turn ask the scientific authority. The disposal of them is usually to a reputable zoo or a safari park approved by the scientific authority. I hope the noble Earl will accept my assurances that we really do care about these animals and we do

863
look alter them once they have been taken into our care. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, also raised the question of lizard and snake skins. We are having consultations about these. We appreciate that there are trade implications but consultations are going on and we are aware of the concern felt by noble Lords and by societies outside this House.
We were also asked, I think again by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, about the number of specimens that were likely to be licensed and how we would know. We are proposing to keep statistics which will show the number of specimens that are licensed, how many have been actually imported and exported, by species and by importing and exporting country. The statistics will be required of us anyway, annually, by the Convention Secretariat and they will be produced at more frequent intervals by the scientific authorities. We intend to make these summaries available and they will be made public. They will enable us to keep some track of what is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and other noble Lords asked about the Dependent Territories. In order that we can take part in this first conference we must ratify the Convention at least 90 days in advance, which answers another colleague's point. It seems almost certain that the Dependent Territories will have to have powers to implement the Convention under their domestic legislation if they are to be able to be included in our Instrument of Ratification, since it is now unlikely that our Bill will be enacted in time to be extended to them. But we are having discussions with the Dependent Territories. Those discussions are very well advanced, and a substantial number of the territories have already indicated they are willing to be included and hope to have the powers in force in time.
Lord CRATGTON: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether that includes Hong Kong?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, not at this stage. We cannot be precise about the number of territories likely to be included. We believe that Hong Kong is the territory likely to take us perhaps a little longer in negotiation than
864
others. I put it at no more than that. But we expect that attention will be concentrated on the domestic United Kingdom implications of the Convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, raised points on the ratification which I have confirmed. I have noted his comments about tortoiseshell and turtle shells, and also about the distinctions that ought to be made. The noble Lord also asked how we are to distinguish between birds: or how parts of them can be recognisable. He asked why we could not have a separate Schedule to make it easy to enforce standards. We will look at the points raised. On the question of consultation, also raised by Lord Chelwood, my right honourable friend in another place has been particularly insistent that this Bill at all stages is to be the subject of the widest possible consultation with the voluntary organisations and all others interested. We want these consultations to be ongoing. We want their advice, help and suggestions all the way through consideration of this Bill and even after it is on the Statute Book we shall still want their help in suggesting necessary additions or Amendments to the Schedules.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, confirm that the assurance is an absolutely firm one that there will be ample time between Second Reading and Committee stage for voluntary bodies to be consulted, with particular reference to Amendments which they may wish to put forward to the Schedules?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it all depends on one's definition of "ample time". I would hope we might have started Committee stage before Easter, which gives us some four or five weeks. Whether we complete Committee stage in one day, or whether we have time left over after Easter, I should not like to say. But I know that the officials in the Department are anxious to get on with the consultations, and will be very happy to meet anyone who has points of view to raise.
On the question of existing stocks of things which it will now be illegal to import, compulsory registration of that stock is not provided for at present, but the officials are having discussions with traders who might be holding those stocks. We hope voluntary arrangements

865
might follow. This is something to take back and look at again between now and Committee stage. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised this question and went into some details on the question of vicuna. We already ban the import and export of vicuna hair and skin. It is not easy to identify cloth which contains vicuna hair, but we are considering the possibility and having discussions with various organisations at the moment about adding cloth and yarn to the controls. If this happens we will come back to your Lordships at Committee stage with suitable Amendments. We are going to talk to the trade and are hoping we might have such an Amendment to put forward on Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, also asked about trade between EEC countries. Our controls will operate against other EEC States until they, too, implement the Convention, so they will not be able to dump stuff on us just because they have not implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, spoke about the difficulty of obtaining a copy of the Convention. It is perhaps not customary to put in "a commercial "from the Dispatch Box, but copies of the Convention are still available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office; it is Cmnd. 5459 and it will cost your Lordships 38p. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was also concerned about the import of plants. I share his concern on the question of licence forms. Having in the past had to deal with some of the licensing forms issued. I have noted his comments, and I will ask the officials to give consideration to the format of licensing forms for plants to see if we can alter it. We have had the needs of plant growers much in mind, and have consulted expert botanists at all stages on the development of the licensing system we are proposing. I hope the noble Lord will not have too many harsh comments to make about it a little later on in the Session. We are continuing consultations on the content of the Schedules, and these will be continued at all times.
My Lords, very many points have been raised, of which we shall take very careful note. If any noble Lord wishes to have any further information or help in understanding what we have done I hope he will contact us, and come and see us. We consider the views of the scientific
866
authorities, of the voluntary conservation groups and of the trade interests. I hope we will have a fruitful exchange of views between one another over the next few weeks. I can assure your Lordships that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that the provisions in the Bill will be as sensitive and as effective as the subject demands. It is not customary to have a dedication to a Bill from this House, but if it were, this Bill ought to be dedicated to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE (BANKING SERVICES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
5.48 p.m.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Tyne and Wear Bill. Your Lordships I think will be relieved to know that the Second Reading can be moved in a relatively short compass. The Bill is promoted by the Tyne and Wear County Council and each of the constituent districts of that county; namely, the City of Newcastle, and the boroughs of Gateshead, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland. Your Lordships may wonder why it falls to me to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I should say at once that I have no special concern with any of those local authorities mentioned. I am moving this Second Reading in my capacity as one of the vice-presidents of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
As I understand it, my function is merely to indicate quite shortly why it is desirable that this House should give this Bill a Second Reading. The Bill will then go to a Committee for detailed consideration, in the course of which the Promoters of the Bill will be able to deal with the merits, and Objectors will be able to raise any criticisms or ask for any explanations. The necessity for the Bill arises from Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, which repeals a great many of the enactments previously giving powers to a number of then existing local

867
authorities. It obviously becomes necessary that the newly created local authorities should be able to carry out and continue the duties that were then entrusted to former authorities. Of prime importance and of urgency in this matter are the provisions of the Bill relating to the Tyne Tunnel and the six bridges over the rivers Tyne and Wear. Those are contained in the bulk of the Bill.
It has been thought desirable by the Promoters that the opportunity should be taken of adding to the Bill certain other provisions, none of which I propose to deal with except to say that at the Committee stage the Promoters will be anxious and willing to give all the explanations required. Your Lordships will have noticed from the Order Paper that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is proposing to move that, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, an Instruction be given,
to the Committee to whom it is committed that they should give special consideration to Clauses 48, 50, 102 and 103 [in order to] satisfy themselves that they do not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field ".
As I understand it, the major apprehension on this subject felt by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her friends relates to Clause 103. I am authorised by the Promoters to say that in view of the representations she has made the Promoters are prepared to make amendments in the Bill to limit the operation of Clause 103 and will do so by an Amendment to be filled out in due course. I should say that the Promoters do not intend that Clause 103 should extend their existing statutory powers in relation to their function. They will seek to amend the clause so that it merely makes available to them an alternative legal means of implementing their existing statutory powers and using to the full the specialist skills and knowledge available in the private sector in the interests of all parties.
My Lords, with that assurance—and I make it at this stage because it will save time and render a second speech unnecessary—I should like formally to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Fletcher.)
5.52 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, for explaining the provisions of this Bill and introducing it to the House. I think it would be helpful if I said immediately that I hope this Bill is given a Second Reading. I fully understand the reasons why the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county want to promote this piece of legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, has already indicated, they are doing so because under Section 262 of the Local Government Act most local powers will lapse to the counties in 1979. It is therefore not my intention to debate most of the provisions of this Bill. There may well be matters in all the clauses to which I have not referred in my Instruction which will require amendment. If that is so I am sure that they should be so amended by the Opposed Bills Committee of the House.
I say this because I am deeply interested in local government. I speak, too, as a vice-president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and I would not want anyone to think that I was trying today to use some extraordinary Parliamentary procedure to delay many important clauses of this Bill. Indeed, it is my view, and one which I think the whole House expressed when we debated the County of South Glamorgan Bill, that the Government ought to bring in a major piece of legislation on general powers for local authorities, otherwise all authorities will be forced to promote private Bills of this nature, and I cannot believe that this is in the best interests of Parliament or, indeed, of local government itself. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be able to say something about this matter. Perhaps I could say in passing that the Bill now going through another place does not really meet the requirements that local government needs, certainly before 1979.
My Lords, there are already five Petitions against the Tyne and Wear Bill and so, as I understand the procedure, it will go automatically to the Opposed Bills Committee of the House. Nearly all the Petitions against the Bill are against the clauses to which I wish to draw attention.

869
I hope therefore that this Bill has a Second Reading and that the House will accept my Instruction. It has been deliberately drawn in what I hope are moderate and conciliatary terms, for I believe that Clauses 48, 50, 102 and 103 as proposed are major extensions of the powers now held by local authorities and I think they are grounds for believing that these powers arc not necessary for what local authorities wish to do.
It might be helpful if I turn in detail to the four clauses. In regard to Clause 48, it may be thought that there are possible parallels with the County of South Glamorgan Bill, but I do not believe this to be the case. Clause 48(1)(ii) is not to be found in the South Glamorgan Bill, nor is proviso (i) of subsection (2); and in subsection (3) only paragraph (c) has a direct parallel in the South Glamorgan Bill. The Petitioners against the Bill have made the point, quite rightly, I believe, that the local authorities, that is the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear and the five district authorities, are seeking major extensions of their powers under this clause.
As I understand it, at present these local authorities have the power to provide services—largely those of repairs and maintenance work—to a large number of authorities besides the local authorities themselves, which include the universities, the Regional Hospital Boards and even the citizens' advice bureaux. To these existing powers would now be added the power to construct buildings on land which the authorities do not own and in direct competition with local industry and commerce. I believe it to be true that it is not intended that these new powers should be used often, but it seems to me that the Committee must satisfy itself by finding out practical examples of the way in which the local authority would intend to use these powers, in what way it cannot at present carry out this work or, indeed, in what way at present this work cannot be carried out by existing local industries or firms. I know it will be argued that in every case there must be a competitive tender between the local authority works department and a private firm, but there is room for a great deal of doubt as to whether these two compete fairly and whether the system of accounting is similar between a direct
870
works department and a local authority direct labour force.
I have read with great interest the report produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy which makes a series of proposals as to how direct labour works department accounting and that of private firms might be brought more into line. It seems to me that we need some necessary thought on this subject otherwise an aggrieved ratepayer, who might feel that he has been left to foot the bill as a result of some activity by a direct labour force, has no chance to object because he has not got the full facts before him. As a last resort he would be unable to object at the district audit because once again, he would not have the full facts before him. Furthermore, it seems to me that in the serious financial situation in which the country finds itself at the present time, and with the publication last week of the White Paper on Government expenditure, this is not a time when it is advisable to ask ratepayers or local authorities to take any further risks with public money. For all these reasons I believe that this clause ought to be looked at with great care.
Clause 50 is another clear extension of local authority powers. I understand that the intention behind the clause is to find a way of helping industries over their problems of cash flow, and specifically to provide employment in the inner areas of the cities within the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. There is a precedent for such a clause in the Industry Act 1972, but it seems to me that if these powers are necessary this should be a matter for central Government rather than for local government. Again I think there must be accountability to ratepayers, and I believe that the Opposed Bills Committee must satisfy itself that these powers are really necessary. Furthermore, I think it would be helpful to know what is the view of the Department of Industry on this extension of powers which local authorities have at present.
As I understand it, Clause 102 extends the geographical area over which direct labour departments could operate. At present, direct labour departments have generally only one client; namely, the local authority, and they can operate only at district level in the areas of the former county boroughs. The power under this clause would enable them

871
to tender for any work and to operate over much wider geographical areas.
There are, I think, four difficulties here. First, there are adequate construction resources in the private sector within the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear which are currently underemployed. Secondly, as 1 have already indicated, the system of financial reporting currently applied by direct labour departments, and which is in no way revised by this Bill, is incapable of showing whether an economic return on the resources employed is being achieved. Thirdly, there would be an involuntary risk to ratepayers' money, as it would be invested in a commercial operation to provide a service of construction already available to the community from private contractors, and at no risk. Lastly, but I think very important, there could be a potential conflict of interests, placing the private contractor at a competitive disadvantage, because the local authority exercises powers to grant planning permission as well as offering competing services to construct the buildings concerned.
I was very grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, said about Clause 103. It seems to me that as it stands it would have the effect of creating a kind of local enterprise board by the Tyne and Wear metropolitan council. I am not at all convinced that this is a proper use of ratepayers' money, and I am, therefore, very glad to hear that the Promoters of the Bill would be glad to see an Amendment of this clause. I think it is important that the Opposed Bills Committee should look very carefully at the proposed Amendment, because, as I understand the wish of the Promoters, they have in mind a particular case which they hope will be covered by this clause. If this is so, it seems to me only right and proper that the clause should be so redrafted that the particular case might be covered and not couched in these very wide terms, as it stands at present.
My Lords, in putting down this Instruction, I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way trying to tell the Opposed Bills Committee its job. That would not be my wish, and I am certain that I would not succeed in that aim if it were. But I care very much about good local government, and that it must
872
not only be good, but must be seen to be good. It seems that in the case of the very extensive new powers contained in the four clauses to which I have drawn attention it would not be right to agree to accept them as part of the Bill until the case for them has been conclusively made out beyond a shadow of doubt. As it stands, I am glad to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am bound to say that I do not think that a case has been made out for the inclusion of these four clauses as at present drafted.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I intervene at this time because it may be helpful to give the House a brief indication of the Government's views on this Bill, which is a Private Bill. We recognise that many of the provisions should assist the local authorities to cope more effectively with some of their very real problems. The renewal and the updating of the provisions relating to the various undertakings, such as the Tyne Tunnel, should make the law applying to these undertakings more easily ascertainable, and enable the authorities to repeal earlier local Acts that have become obsolete.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has, however, raised a number of points with the Promoters and has suggested modification of several provisions, including the powers to assist industry. We hope shortly to be discussing the provisions with the Promoters, and in fact my right honourable friend's officials will be meeting them on 5th March and will report to the Select Committee on the Bill in due course.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is in another place at the present time, is only part of our attempts to provide general powers for local authorities between 1979 and 1984. We are considering suggestions from the local authority associations for other powers and how best to carry the Bill, or the suggestions, forward. So I hope the House will decide to give the Bill a Second Reading and will send it to the Committee. It will be in a very much better position than we are to examine the details of the issues involved, and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert advice.
6.6 p.m.
The Earl of SHANNON: My Lords, I had intended to make a very short intervention in this debate, which has now been made even shorter by the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, who moved this Bill on behalf of the Promoters, that they would be happy to see amendment of the clauses under discussion. I have no quarrel with the bulk of this admirable Bill, but I think your Lordships should be very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for drawing attention to these particular clauses. Before I go any further, I should make it clear that I have absolutely no interest whatever to declare. It is now nearly 10 years since I ceased to be a practising architectural metalworker, or, more simply, an ornamental blacksmith, and in my experience no sane local authority would every dream of trying to get involved in that particular side of the industry.
Like the noble Baroness, I was very worried when I saw these permissive provisions to which she has drawn your Lordships' attention. In many areas there seems to be a popular fallacy that because a contractor makes a profit, if one can then dispense with the contractor, the job must be done cheaper. This do-it-yourself approach is all very well for the private householder, who buys materials often specially packed for him more expensively than they would be for the trade. He rolls up his sleeves and gets on with the job. It is cheaper only because he provides his own free labour. Local councils, however, purchase materials and employ labour in the same way as the trade. They, therefore, do not get this large reduction in cost which comes to the private householder who does a do-it-yourself job. The popular fallacy tends to fall down because it does not acknowledge that the contractor makes a profit, not by being a contractor, but merely because he learned his job in the hard, but only successful, way of using his own finance. If he makes a mess of his job, it is his own money that he loses. It is only because of this hard-earned expertise that he makes a profit, and deprived of the strict control of financial incentive he can only land himself and others in trouble.
In the past I referred in your Lordships' House to occasions when one was
874
worried when Governments, local government, or Government agencies have gone, one might put it, into competition with private industry. One is always worried that inconvenient overheads somehow, by some tortuous system of accounting, get allocated elsewhere and do not really show up on the accounts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested. She referred, quite rightly, to the recent report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy with regard to direct works undertakings accounting. But even so, were this to be entirely implemented, I would still not be completely happy. I am not supporting local industry. I am merely asking, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the Committee on Opposed Bills of your Lordships' House looks carefully and satisfies itself that it is not leaving a way open for future ratepayers of the Tyne and Wear Authority to pick up the bill for extra costs of works done with a mass of good will and enthusiasm, but lacking the hard financial discipline. I support the Second Reading of this Bill, and look forward to hearing what Amendments the proposers are suggesting to the Committee on Opposed Bills to amend the clauses which we have asked be looked at rather carefully.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a few words about the Instruction that is to be moved by the noble Baroness. Lady Young. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House of this Instruction. It does no more than draw the attention of the Select Committee to which this Bill, as the noble Baroness rightly said, will be referred if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, to points which will also be made by the Petitioners against the Bill; namely, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.
I mention the Petition because even if the Instruction had not been moved by the noble Baroness, the Select Committee will have to consider the clauses she mentioned—Clauses 48, 50, 102 and 103—because they are complained of in the Petition. The Select Committee would, of course, require to be satisfied by

875
the Promoters that there was a need for the powers asked for in the Bill. I would add that it is the usual practice of a Select Committee to make a special report in cases where the House has agreed an Instruction. This, of course, is a matter for the Committee to decide.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom it is committed that they should give special consideration to Clauses 48, 50, 102 and 103 to satisfy themselves that they do not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field.—[Baroness Young.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILK (GUARANTEED PRICES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
6.12 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Milk (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order simply substitutes the word "litre "for the word "gallon "wherever it appears in the Milk (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1956. This makes it possible for the guaranteed price for milk to be determined in pence per litre instead of pence per gallon and for the standard quantity to be determined in litres instead of gallons. The order has no other effect. It has no implications for the actual level of the guaranteed price or actual size of the standard quantity.
The changes envisaged by the order follow naturally from the industry's own decision to adopt metric units as the units of measurement at the production level and in relation to sales off farms. In response to the request by the farming organisations for Government support for their proposals to adopt metric units, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 11th June 1974
876
that the 1976 Annual Review would be conducted in metric units. This year's Annual Review White Paper will accordingly be in metric terms. It will also give the imperial equivalent as a guide, as a convenient aid to readers.
The units of measurement used for the purpose of sales off farms and sales to dairies are matters for the industry and trade themselves to determine. The Scottish Milk Marketing Boards have decided to start using metric units in their contracts from 1st April this year. The Boards for England and Wales and Northern Ireland will be doing the same from 1st October. The Government's proposal—that the guaranteed price and standard quantity should be in litres from 1st April this year—follows naturally from the approach which the trade and industry have themselves adopted to metrication. I hope, my Lords, that in the light of this explanation of the effect of the order and the background to it, the House will be prepared to approve it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Milk (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could give the House any idea as to the total cost of producing new bottles for the new measurements?
6.16 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having introduced this order. May I apologise to him for not having been in my seat when he started? I regret that. The order is perfectly simple. It merely changes all units of milk from gallons to litres, as I understand it, in the wholesale state. I am bound to say that the whole principle of metrication seems to me curious in so far as it was never put to Parliament whether or not we should go metric, but yet when one has to change "gallons "to "litres "you have to get Parliamentary approval, in which case of course it is too late to do anything about it.
I am bound to say that I have my own reservations as to whether metrication is going to do any good at all. I would feel that it was likely to be a very considerable waste of time and money and effort.

877
I could not help being slightly amused by what A. J. P. Taylor wrote in the Sunday Express a few weeks ago when he said that metrication,
" is a product of those superior people who claim to know what is good for us and that they can run our lives better than we can ourselves."
He went on to say:
"The peoples who have long groaned under metrication do not like it at all. French housewives do all their shopping by the pound, though it was abolished in 1795. Danish beer drinkers use mugs with a capacity that was abolished even earlier. No self-respecting Dane would ever drink half a litre or even a litre.
Finally, the entire metric system is nonsense. The metre is supposed to be a precise decimal fraction of the earth's circumference. The calculation was made by a French mathematician in the eighteenth century. He got his calculations wrong."
My Lords, I make that only as a passing observation upon the metric system, but I have two reservations about this order. The first—and perhaps this is slightly reactionary—is that if we do go metric as regards milk, it will of course make it much easier for liquid milk to be imported into this country. I do not wish to go into details, but it would have a very bad effect on the dairy industry on which, in fact, the whole agricultural industry is so dependent. If wholesale milk is to go metric, it will be only a short time before retail milk also goes metric. In which case, what happens to the "pinta "? This is a serious point because the greatest strength of the dairy industry is the size of liquid milk consumption. Here, of course, we are streets ahead of the European Community. One of the reasons why the European Community has surpluses of milk is because of the very low proportion of milk which goes for liquid consumption—particularly compared with the United Kingdom.
The European Communities could do much to alleviate their milk problems if they tried to stimulate more the consumption of milk. I hope that when we go metric in the retail system, the Government and the industry will take great care to see that this does not adversely affect liquid milk sales. I believe that the pint is 568 millilitres; one wonders whether the pint will be kept or whether it will be rounded up to 600 or rounded down to 500. In any event, whichever happens, I have no doubt that the Govern
878
ment will take great care to see that it does not adversely affect the retail supply of milk, because this is absolutely vital.
Perhaps the noble Lord could clear up a point that is troubling me. I think he said that as from this year the guaranteed price and quantity will be in litres, and 1 understood him to say that farmers will be paid for their milk in litres but that the retail system will still be in gallons. At what juncture will we get the changeover? Will the Milk Marketing Board pay for it in litres and will it be collected and bought by the dairies in litres and then sold off in gallons? It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell me at what point the system will change from litres to gallons.
6.22 p.m.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I should hate the impression to be created that everybody on these Benches supports my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his views and comments against metrication; and while he comes from a much more agricultural background than I do, it might be fair to point out to him that the reason why we have such a high consumption of milk is because we have daily deliveries and an efficient distribution system. A strong case can be put forward that, because of this distribution system, if at the retail level we start distributing in litres the consumption of milk will go up. I would remind him, too, of the view expressed on the Continent; that one reason why the British are so big and tall is because of the large quantity of milk they drink. We have many French friends and as my noble friend pointed out that it was a Frenchman who determined that the metre was an article of measurement, we should bear in mind that it was George HI who said with a smile that 1,760 yards, being the year he came to the throne, would be the mile. We are not all in favour of metrication but we are not all against it, and I should hate there to be any assumption that my noble friend speaks for all of us.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that people will drink more milk when it is sold in litres at the retail end is incorrect. The litre is a considerably larger measure than the pint, and my studies of the subject lead

879
me to think that women will tend to buy less milk. The 500 millilitre measure will be the nearest to the pint—I believe it is exactly two cups of tea less than we have at the moment—and, knowing the English housewife, I suspect that she will go for the smaller quantity rather than the larger. I hope that this will not be so because, as the noble Lord rightly said, we have built up our splendid race on a high consumption of milk. I also hope that the daily delivery, the last service left to us, will not go.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I am not yet the Minister of Agriculture, but I would remind the noble Baroness of what happened when we went from the half-pint to the pint; there was a slight fall in sales, but that had no real effect and the housewife adjusted to it.
6.26 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps one day the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will be Minister of Agriculture, but I hope—I say this not on personal grounds—that that will not happen for many years. I am grateful to him for the support he has given to metrication and I have noted carefully what noble Lords have said. I stress that this order has been brought in with the consent and agreement of the industry, which has been consulted throughout. Before proceeding further, I must pay tribute to the milk delivery services of this country and to the milkmen. We enjoy an absolutely first-class service. My milkman at home delivers all over the Christmas holiday, at Easter and at Bank Holidays; there, unfailingly, is the milk on the doorstep every morning when one goes down to pick up the newspaper. One cannot be appreciate enough of the wonderful service our milkmen give in all weathers.
Before I deal with the question of the retail side, I should comment on the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about how this will affect the returns received by dairy farmers and milk distributors. These are not directly linked with the level of the retail price of milk. The cost of the guaranteed price to farmers and the controlled margin of milk distributors is met through a notional account known as the milk fund. Until
880
the introduction of the milk subsidy it had been the policy of successive Governments that the retail price of milk should be set at a level sufficient to ensure that, taking one year with another, it met these costs. The price of milk is now being subsidised and the resultant deficit is being met by the Exchequer. Consequently, the current retail price of milk does not reflect the true cost of milk distribution nor the guaranteed price paid to farmers.
In regard to metrication and its effect on the retail side—on the "pinta ", as it has been described—I would remind noble Lords that successive Governments have endorsed the voluntary metrication programme since 1965. The question of the metrication of retail sales of milk is a matter for discussion with the trade, consumers and the Metrication Board. I understand that, for its part, the Dairy Trade Federation has only recently told the Metrication Board that it wishes to retain the pint as the retail container for domestic sales of milk. The Board earlier this week passed this view to the Government.
Under the Treaty of Accession to the EEC it is possible for special reasons to negotiate the retention of certain imperial units beyond 31st December 1979. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about the cost of changing from pint bottles because it may not be necessary to do so. I do not want to be drawn into too much detail on this because it may be a matter for negotiation. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, says, a pint equals 568 millilitres and it might be possible to use the old pint bottles but label them as well "568 millilitres ". For retailers who use non-returnable cartons, it would probably be possible to go straight on to the half-litre and one litre but, as I say, the trade has requested that the pint should be retained for certain sectors and we are bearing this very much in mind in our negotiations, and we have till 1st January 1980 to do so. I hope that I have answered the points which noble Lords have raised, and I beg to move the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) SCHEME 1976
6.28 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1976, laid before the House on 10th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I commence by apologising to the House, first, for addressing your Lordships once again and, secondly, for the delay in laying a Scheme which should have come into effect on 1st January. The delay arose through a combination of factors, principally the publication by the EEC in December of proposals for the restructuring of the inshore fishing sector, a matter which may materially affect national aid arrangements, and the decision to make last-minute changes in respect of the length of certain control periods. I shall refer to both these matters later. However, to avoid uncertainty the Government announced just before Christmas their intention to continue the grant at the 25 per cent. level. During the interim period the statutory bodies have been able to consider applications in principle and indicate where matters may proceed without prejudice. I can assure the House that through this procedure no applicant has suffered hardship.
The Scheme before the House today substantially repeats the provisions of the one made in 1967 as amended by five subsequent schemes. This Scheme renews for a further year the well-established procedures and arrangements for Exchequer grants for the construction of new fishing vessels and the improvement of existing ones. The rate of grant will continue unchanged at 25 per cent. of the approved expenditure.
It may help noble Lords if I explain briefly the way the arrangements work. Applications are made to the White Fish Authority or Herring Industry Board according to the type of vessel concerned. The appropriate statutory body satisfies itself about the applicant's financial standing and ability to operate the vessel, scrutinises the specifications for the work to be done and the form of contract to be used between applicant and contractor and seeks to make sure that the contractor is in a position to carry out the work.
882
The statutory body approves the expenditure involved and, when the applicant has committed his own agreed share, arranges payment of grant. For vessel construction and major improvement work, payment is generally made direct to the contractor by stage instalments. Qualified staff employed by the bodies check the progress of aided projects for the purposes of technical and financial control. It is a condition of grant that the completed vessel be kept in fishing, as part of the United Kingdom fleet, and adequately insured for a specified control period. If the vessel is lost or taken out of fishing during this period all or part of the grant may be repayable. In the latter connection, I should like to draw to the House's attention a change which has been made. In paragraph 15(2) of the Scheme the control period has been standardised at five years for all improvement work. This removes a longstanding distinction whereby improvements to vessels of over 80 ft. in length, or those costing more than £10,000 for any vessel, were subject to ten year control periods. Much of the equipment may have, by design, a shorter, though fully effective, economic life. By removing the last remaining link in the Scheme with vessel length, we have completed the process started last year when vessel grants were standardised at a single rate for all vessels. Noble Lords will recall that this was done to ensure that investment decisions were not distorted by differing levels of aid determined by increasingly arbitrary and irrelevant distinction.
A second change occurs in paragraph 11 where the words "and on the completion of the improvement "have been inserted in the fifth line to give the appropriate body statutory right to inspect improvements on their completion just as they may do for new construction. This was a loophole in earlier schemes which, though not leading to difficulty in practice, is better closed.
I should like to turn aside from the order to say a brief word about external factors which may bear on this subject. The major problems and uncertainties of the fishing sector are so well known they do not need rehearsing here to day. But for both fishermen and agencies responsible for aid administration the questions of access and conservation are crucial to future investment decisions. Until real

883
progress can be made on these issues, through general agreement, structural uncertainty seems bound to persist. Curiously it was against this background that the Commission decided, just before Christmas, to issue draft proposals for the restructuring of the inshore sector, seeking to ignore for the time being the essentially interlocked deep sea sector and the absence of information upon which meaningful estimates of future activity may be based. The proposals, which have been remitted for study in Brussels by an official Working Group, will clearly require very thorough examination. Whatever emerges is unlikely to have effect this year. The same applies to longstanding but as yet unresolved proposals for the harmonisation of national fishery aids given within the Community. But having regard to possible future consequences of all or any of these factors long term commitments are undesirable. We think it right therefore that this new grants Scheme should be made for one year only.
However, that in no sense detracts from our firm belief in the value of this form of aid. Expenditure this year is expected to be about £8.5 million and about £6 million next year. These figures largely represent work commissioned a year or so ago. Currently, few orders are being placed for new vessels. This is understandable in view of present economic and operational uncertainties. But grants also provide valuable aid towards the modernisation of existing vessels, particularly so that they may take full advantage of improved technology relating to safety and efficient operation. It is clearly of great importance to the United Kingdom's ability to take full advantage of future opportunities that a strong core of modern, efficient vessels be maintained. That is central to the purpose of this Scheme. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Scheme to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1976, laid before the House on 10th February, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
6.37 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having introduced this order
884
and for having explained the changes which it brings about. It is an annual order which allows the Government to pay grants on the building of fishing vessels and with that we have no quarrel whatsoever, though we may question not only the level of the grant but also the state of the industry for which grants are being given. I was grateful for the information which the noble Lord gave us.
Over the years, Governments of all Parties have paid out progressively more money in grants. In 1970–71, the figure was £2.7 million. The next year it went up to £3.5 million and the year after it was £6 million. This year, as the noble Lord said, it is likely to be £8.5 million. These sound fairly impressive increases, but I wonder how much of the increase is due to inflation. Presumably, as inflation takes place, the vessels cost more. Is it possible for the noble Lord to give us some indication of the number of vessels being built during these years and whether the number of vessels or the tonnage is increasing, or whether it is merely the cost which is growing?
This also brings into question the size of the fishing fleet and the Government's policy for fishing. The industry is going through a period of great uncertainty and anxiety and I believe that it is a measure of this that no new orders are being placed. I should have thought that this would be a cause for much regret. My belief is that over the last few years the number of vessels in the fleet has declined and if the noble Lord is able to confirm that impression I shall be grateful. Of course, it can be argued that acquisition and improvement grants should be questioned if the Government intend to see a contracting industry. Why, for example, should one stimulate the construction of more vessels if the Government wish to see a smaller fleet? Then there is the effect of the "cod war ". The catch from our traditional fishing grounds appears likely to be at least curtailed and vessels which have been specifically designed for those waters may be excluded. They may find themselves—as they are indeed already doing—turning to other fishing grounds where they are playing havoc with the livelihood of those who have been traditional fishers of these grounds. Then we find the stock of herring and mackerel being put in jeopardy.

885
My Lords, this is of concern at the moment, and I would refer to this particular point. Some of the deep-water vessels have filled their quota from the white sea area, and some of these vessels from Scotland and the Humberside have been coming down to Cornwall and fishing for mackerel there. I have no doubt they arc allowed to do this, but the fact is that they are taking the fishing away from the traditional inshore fishermen. I do not know whether your Lordships realise that one of these colossal ships can catch in one day more than the whole of the Cornish fleet together can catch in one day. The French market is now open, and much of the fish is also being sent up to Humberside to be made into fish meal.
A lot of this alteration in fishing may be due to the fact that there are large Communist fleets just beyond the 12-mile limit and Danish industrial trawlers which are working in the North. This has caused, therefore, a change in the pattern of fishing. This is causing much distress, and I advise Her Majesty's Government to have a look at this matter if only to avoid a repetition of history, when, in the 1890s, the Newlyn riots took place because East Coast fishermen, with their better and bigger boats, came down and poached off the fishermen's fishing grounds in Cornwall. I am sure that the Government and the industry are concerned to see that the effects of the "cod war "are not extended to those waters which are nothing to do with the prime area of concern.
But on top of this come two other problems. The first is the EEC proposed Directive, to which the noble Lord referred, which aims at the restructuring of the inshore fishing industry. As at present drafted, this would withdraw 17 per cent. of the British inshore vessels from service and give a grant to those who leave the industry. I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to go a little further than he did on this matter, because it is very germane to this order which we are discussing. I hope that the Government would oppose this Directive, or at least try to get it altered, as it comes at a time when the fishing industry is, as I said originally, in a very uncertain state of affairs, and when it is already contracting. Further contraction will weaken the United Kingdom's bargaining posi
886
tion in the negotiation of the common fisheries policy—and that is the second problem to which I should like briefly to refer.
My Lords, I hope that the negotiation of the common fisheries policy will result in the Minister bearing in mind that, within the 200-mile European limit, 64 per cent. (which is just about two-thirds of the fishery interests) belong to the United Kingdom. Of all the European countries, the United Kingdom has the biggest stocks of fish; it produces the most food from the sea and has the greatest consumption of fish; and 80 per cent. of the fish which we catch goes for human consumption—and that is far greater than is the case with any other EEC country. So I hope that the Minister will vigorously guard our fishing rights, because otherwise there is no point in subsidising vessels to be built if we are going to lose our fishing grounds and contract the industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be able to say that that is his right honourable friend's intention.
I have only one other point of pure detail about which I would ask the noble Lord; that is, that the Statutory Instrument does not, I think, mention mackerel fishing. As I understand it, mackerel is n5t a white fish; therefore, it does not come under the White Fish Authority. Nor is it covered by the Herring Industry Board. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord could say whether mackerel and vessels used for mackerel fishing are covered by this order; and, if not, why not.
6.45 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, unlike the noble Earl, I do not really want to widen the subject too much, although I am aware that it raises many other points. I think the extension proposed in the order must be welcomed, as even in bad times provident people want to improve their boats and replace them. Certainly the fleet, particularly the inshore fleet, needs to be kept at a high standard of efficiency, and the grants have certainly played an enormous part in doing this. I have only one question. I assume that the loans, which normally are as important as the grants, do not need any extension, and that they go on. Otherwise, no one, I think, could do anything other than welcome this

887
order. It might have been more welcome to the fishing industry if perhaps it had contained a renewal of the subsidy, but at the moment, at least, this is very useful.
6.46 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what they have said, and for the general welcome that they have given to this order. I have noted carefully the various points the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has made, which I shall do my best to answer. First, he asked me whether the recent increase in grant expenditure was due merely to inflation. My Lords, the levels of expenditure in recent years reflect both the increased costs of vessel construction and improvement work and an increased level of approvals for construction in 1972–73 and 1973–74. The renewal of vessels is of course a continuous process. Naturally, new vessels are designed to be more efficient, and so some reduction in the size of the fleet does not necessarily imply a reduction in catching capacity. The total number of registered fishing vessels is increasing each year. The overall figure conceals a fall in the number of deep-sea vessels. For example, there were 498 in 1972 and 455 in 1974 but there was an increase in the inshore fleet from 5,829 in 1972 to 6,461 in 1974. Complete figures are not available of course for 1975, but preliminary returns show that these trends continue.
The noble Earl asked if these grants were payable for mackerel vessels and I think the sort of vessels which are also used for weekend pleasure trips. The grants are available for all vessels which are built for and engaged in fishing. No type of fishing vessel is specifically excluded by the terms of the scheme. The White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board have regard to the wider issues of efficiency for the fleet as a whole in giving approval for grant aid. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I may say that the loans continue as normal. They operate under separate schemes.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, touched on—as I knew he would be bound to do, and as indeed it was his duty to do—the wider issues involved. I may say that, of course, a lot of this impinges on
888
the forthcoming United Nations Law of the Sea Conference which is due to reconvene in New York on 15th March. A broad consensus has emerged at the Conference in favour of 200-mile economic zones and the United Kingdom supports this concept. The Government have taken every opportunity to urge all countries to reach a negotiated settlement at the Conference and we are still hopeful that this will be achieved. If other coastal States go ahead with unilateral action, however, the Government will be ready to consider any steps necessary to safeguard the United Kingdom's interest Sometimes noble Lords ask from the other side of the House whether there could not now be an extension of the United Kingdom limit to 200 miles. The Government support the concept of a 200-mile limit but we lay great stress on the need to proceed by international agreement, and to act unilaterally now could prejudice our position at the Conference. It is certain that other countries would not agree to be bound by a new unilateral move on our part.
The noble Earl referred to the breakdown of talks with Iceland. The Government very much regret Iceland's action in breaking off diplomatic relations, but this does not alter our desire to obtain reasonable agreement. Although catches are good we regret the need to use Naval vessels for protection. We are willing to recognise Iceland's dependence on fisheries and to abide by the requirements of conservation; but any agreement must also take account of the dependence of our industry on the waters off Iceland. After all, we have an unemployment rate of 8 per cent. on Humberside—and I speak as the son of a former Humberside Member of Parliament—and in Fleetwood; and Iceland has no unemployment.
In order to build up breeding stocks of cod, the Icelanders have argued that there should be drastic reduction in fishing, the brunt of which would fall on the British fleet. We have replied that the same conservation effect could be achieved by a more moderate reduction in fishing sustained over three years. We should be willing to play our part in this, while taking our interests into account. At present, the British fleet is voluntarily restricting its catch to 100,000 tons a year.
The noble Earl asked whether it was true that United Kingdom vessels

889
excluded from Iceland are now forced to fish off Cornet all. Our vessels have continued, and are continuing, to fish at Iceland. There were a number of new vessels fishing off the South-West of England for a brief period recently, but these mere mainly Scottish vessels driven South because herring, stocks were at low level. Only a few are currently in the area and these vessels are not of the same type as our trawlers off Iceland.
My Lords, I should like to deal briefly with the present position on the Common Fishery Policy referred to by the noble Earl. The Common Fishery Policy provides for access for all Member-States to fish in the waters under the jurisdiction of any other Member-State. In practice, this is qualified by the derogations in the Treaty of Accession which provide that waters within the six-miles limit are reserved exclusively for United Kingdom vessels. Fishing in the waters between six and 12 miles is restricted to certain specific countries and specific species. A reappraisal of the Common Fishery Policy is currently under way to work out the changes which will be necessary to meet the very different circumstances which will prevail in the Community following adoption of 200-mile limits.
The noble Earl referred to the new Commission Paper on the Common Fishery Policy to provide a basis for Ministers to discuss these changes in the policy. The Commission have now prepared a new Paper, as he says, which contains suggestions for development of the Community role in conservation, for the division of resources among Member-States, and for reserved coastal belts of 12 miles. I realise that this last element does not match the demands from some sectors of our industry, but the proposal must be considered as a whole and the Government have made it quite clear that they will negotiate with all the strength at their command on this important issue.
There is also a draft EEC regulation on the restructuring of the inshore fishing fleet which applies only to the inshore fleet. The Government take the view that proposals should be prepared for the restructuring of the whole fleet once the current uncertainties over future fishing opportunities have been resolved. Proposals
890
on restructuring on our sector alone are therefore premature. The draft regulation was published as recently as last December it will not assume its final form for many months and it is unlikely to have any effect in reducing the size of the fleet while the access provisions of the Common Fishing Policy arc being re-appraised.
My Lords, I hope that that answers the various points. It goes beyond the scope of the order, but I thought it might be useful to give the latest position on the points raised by noble Lords. In conclusion, I can assure the House that the Government are very well aware of the industry's problems and anxieties. We are working vigorously to achieve by way of general agreement a solution which will be both fair and durable. Despite the present difficulties, it is important that the heart of the fleet be maintained in an up-to-date and efficient form, and to this end I am grateful that the House has indicated its support for the scheme in this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidated Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.