Lords Sitting of 30 March 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
The Lord Hesketh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CONCORDE: ROUTE LICENCES EXTENSION
2.36 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are currently being taken to extend Concorde route licences East of Bahrain so that a service from Britain to Australia can be mounted.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are pressing ahead with discussions with the countries concerned, but while they are in progress it would not be appropriate to give details. Further statements will be made at the appropriate time.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that, unless more traffic is made available to Concorde, there will not be utilisation of five aircraft already ordered by British Airways, let alone orders for any more? Is he further aware that the air travelling public is taking to Concorde—as the load factors and bookings show—and that Concorde is the most punctual of all aeroplanes at present being operated by British Airways?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the whole House is in sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. As soon as information is available it will be given.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that on 24th September
994
last, in view of the complicated issues which arise we asked that, in negotiating these new supersonic routes, we might have a Cabinet Minister who would make himself responsible? We also asked for a slightly greater sense of urgency, since it was essential that the Bahrain route should be extended as far as Australia at the earliest possible moment to match some of the very productive routes which the French have. Can the noble Lord assure us that some sense of urgency is now being applied to solving this problem and getting on with these very important negotiations?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said; that is, that the matter is being treated as one of great urgency, since we are all hoping to utilise the potential of this great aircraft.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in view of the Ministers' meeting in Paris yesterday, presumably the route from Bahrain to Australia over India was discussed. Will the Government be making an official Statement about yesterday's meeting?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords the communiqué has not yet been issued, but I should imagine it will be issued at any time now. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to comment upon it when it appears.

BNOC OFFICES
2.39 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why expensive office accommodation has been rented in London for the British National Oil Corporation in view of their much publicised statement that its headquarters would be in Glasgow.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, the location of staff is a matter for the Corporation. As the

995
noble Lord has remarked, the Corporation's headquarters are to be in Glasgow; but, in addition, I have no doubt that the Corporation should have officials and offices in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom as needs dictate.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Were last week's Press reports correct, that one building in Glasgow has been used for only a few hours for three monthly meetings? Are the Government happy about a situation in which the main office is nominally in Glasgow but most of the work is likely to take place elsewhere, in particular Aberdeen and London.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, the situation is as the noble Lord has said. Three meetings have taken place in Glasgow and three meetings here in London. Negotiations are in progress to lease suitable accommodation in Glasgow. There will certainly be a need for BNOC to have some staff in London, but, as I have already said, BNOC's headquarters will be in Glasgow.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that there will be several offices—head-quarters? Can he tell me whether one will be in Yorkshire?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should consult the chairman of BNOC.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL: UK REPRESENTATION
2.41 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: 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 state who will be representing the United Kingdom at the meeting of the European Council on 1st and 2nd April.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, whatever the outcome of procedures at present under way elsewhere, I can
996
assure the House that the United Kingdom will be adequately represented at the European Council.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord to know that for once the United Kingdom will be adequately represented. Could the noble Lord kindly confirm to the House that whoever goes to the European Council in Luxembourg will have the authority and the power to take all the necessary decisions at that meeting, and that the United Kingdom will not once again he seen to be backsliding in its obligations in European affairs?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, whoever represents this country and has represented this country in European meetings has given a very good account of himself and of this country, and there has never been any question of our backsliding on our obligations.

CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS
Baroness VICKERS: 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 consider asking the local authorities to keep a register of suspected cases of child abuse, to enable them to help and advise parents and to give protection to the battered child.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this has in fact been done. In a circular issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in April 1974, on the need to strengthen measures to prevent, diagnose and manage cases of non-accidental injury to children, the importance of maintaining a central record of information in each area was drawn to the attention of health and local authorities in England.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, thank the noble Lord for that reply. Has he read the Report submitted by the Social Committee of the Council of Europe, with many recommendations including this one? Have any of the other recommendations been fulfilled? How many local authorities have actually taken action following the circular?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness confines her Question to asking whether local authorities are keeping a register of suspected cases of child abuse. I have said that the advice that they should do so has in fact been given. There are, I think, about 100 area committees which correspond with the AHAs in this country, and I think I can safely say that of the whole number only about two or three have not as yet got a record of children who may be liable to non-accidental injury.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us on which tier of local authority the responsibility rests to maintain the register and what is the nature of the circulation and its contents?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the circulation of the circulars to which I referred has been to everybody who is likely to be involved in this particular problem, which means that it covers very many departments of the regional health authority and the area health authority as well as voluntary organisations and local authorities. It may be of interest to know that I have put a copy of the 1974 circular, as well as the one of February 1976, in the Library because it is rather extensive. Generally speaking, the register is being kept by the local authority social service under the supervision of the Director of Social Services.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
2.44 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Oram will repeat a Statement on the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report on asbestos.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, where can we obtain a copy of this Report? I have been to the Printed Paper Office and it is not available there. Without it, it will be difficult to ask questions.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it will certainly be available after the Statement. I am sorry it is not there now.

LOTTERIES AND AMUSEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure consolidation Bill. The principal enactments consolidated are Parts III and IV of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and the Lotteries Act 1975. The Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.46 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to encourage an increase in the amount of trout fishing available on a permitted basis. There are many people who wish to fish for trout in Scotland, but, not having waters of their own, are unable to do so; either they cannot find waters which they are permitted to fish, the charges are prohibitive for them, or the permit conditions are too restrictive. As noble Lords will have noted, a "proposal"—to use the term in the Bill—can evoke a response from the Government of statutory protection to trout fishings. I say advisedly "trout". The Bill of

999
course refers to all freshwater fish, but defines these so as to exclude salmon and sea trout, which are already protected. But the main objective is to improve trout fishing opportunities. If it did not cover other freshwater fishing—that is, for coarse fish—it would leave a loophole in the protection it offers. It would be too easy in many places for anglers fishing for trout to maintain that they were innocently trying to catch coarse fish such as pike or greyling, to name but two.
In offering the opportunity of obtaining protection for trout fishings under this Bill, our aim is of course not to enhance the capital value of private property rights. But as every angler knows, very many rivers and lochs could provide better fishing if they were restocked, and if physical improvements were carried out to the banks and fishing effort was related reasonably to what the stocks would bear. It is very difficult for clubs or individual owners to do any of these things, unless they are motivated by pure philanthropy, without having control over access. Furthermore, without such control, it cannot be too long before our present widespread stocks of trout will drastically decrease under the ever-increasing angling pressure upon them. So the offer of protection to riparian owners and clubs holding waters—or such of them as prove willing in return to offer increased and better access to trout anglers—should benefit both anglers and proprietors by leading to the improvement of fishings. It may, indeed, lead to some small increase in rural employment, because men will be needed to undertake the management of this, but I do not suggest that it would be very great.
Noble Lords will see that the Bill offers protection only if the Secretary of State for Scotland, having received proposals offering access to freshwater fishings in an area, first, is satisfied that a significant increase in the fishing available on permit will be forthcoming on the waters which are the subject of the access proposals when these are implemented; secondly, has consulted a body which he is satisfied is fully representative of all types of persons wishing to fish for trout in Scotland; and, thirdly, is satisfied also that if the proposals are implemented a reasonable amount of fishing will be avail-
1000
able.In this context "reasonable" relates to the demand from people wishing to fish in the area on a permit basis.
Where these criteria cannot be met, the angling situation will remain unchanged, as there will be no question of protection being given under the Bill. But, where they are met, a protection order can be made. Some flexibility is necessary in this, of course. For example, there may be times when it would be convenient to cover only part of a large river system, or on the other hand more than one river, or to deal separately with large lochs or with complexes of lochs. But the normal "area" will be a whole river system bounded by the natural watersheds. To use a term now coming into use in another context, we should be seeking to define the area by hydrological boundaries.
There has been some criticism in another place that under such an arrangement protection will be given to some riparian owners who are not prepared for their part to offer any increase of access to trout fishers. But to debar such estate waters from protection within a large protected area—as was proposed in the White Paper, Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland (Cmnd. 4821), presented by the Conservative Administration in November 1971—would, in the Government's view, lead to piece-meal protection. This would cause great confusion about which parts of a river were protected; few people would know the exact state of the law at any one place, and it would take considerable central administrative effort to keep track of the individual agreements and access arrangements involved. On the other hand, if no protection was given to an area without the unanimous offer of access from all holders of fishing rights in the area, then I very much fear that the Bill would turn out to be a completely dead letter.
The principal provisions of the Bill are contained in Clause 1. This clause not only spells out the criteria which must be met before any protection will be given, but provides for the obtaining of full information by the Secretary of State for Scotland to enable him to decide on the worth-whiteness of the access being offered so that he may make up his mind as to whether it merits the giving of protection. It also ensures that,

1001
once protection has been given, he can call to account all those who offered access to inform him as to how they are implementing the proposals which they submitted to him. If he is not satisfied, then he has full powers to revoke the order.
Reasonable rules must of course be enforceable if better fishing is to be enjoyed by those taking advantage of the opportunities offered under the Bill. Otherwise overfishing of better stocked waters will occur and those who have paid for permits to fish would be fully justified in complaining. The Bill therefore allows the Secretary of State to appoint wardens from persons nominated by the holders of fishing rights in the area of a protection order and prescribes their powers. It is left to the proprietors and clubs themselves to provide the wardens, as well as to carry out the other elements of management. The powers given to wardens by the Bill are the absolute minimum which it is considered they need to enable them to deter people from fishing without permission. There may be some noble Lords who feel strongly that these powers should be increased; on the other hand, others may feel the opposite. The Government commend them as being sufficient without being unduly draconian. It must be remembered that fishing for trout without permission has hitherto been no infraction of either the criminal or civil law in Scotland unless attended by aspects which brought it within the law of trespass on private property. To make it an offence is a big enough step without putting it straight into the serious crime category and arming people, many of whom may be part-timers, with over-strong enforcement powers.
Clause 4 of the Bill improves the legal status of the right of freshwater fishing in Scotland. Up till now these rights have not been enforceable against a new owner on a change occurring in the ownership of the land adjoining the water. Although an angling club could obtain the agreement of a proprietor to the club using his waters, any such agreement automatically lapsed on a change of proprietor. In these circumstances, tenants such as clubs were not encouraged to develop their fishings. Nor could they commit themselves to longer-term proposals offering fishing to meet the public
1002
demand—something vital to the Bill's purpose. For these reasons, the Bill provides that written contracts entered into for a consideration and lasting more than a year will be leases recognised under Scottish law. They will consequently be binding throughout the period of the lease, and the rights of fishing so authorised will be dealt with as a heritable property under the law of contract, succession and so on.
The Hunter Committee in 1965 recommended the formation of a Scottish Anglers Trust. Under that Committee's recommendations, there was much more for such a Trust to do than there is under this present Bill. But we still see advantage in a central voluntary organisation whose primary objective would be to acquire the control of fishings with a view to making them available on a permit basis at a reasonable cost to persons wishing to fish for trout. There might come a time when the Trust could spread itself to salmon fishings, but we would see its primary concern as being trout fishing. It could take over and develop fishing held both by proprietors not interested in their fishings and public bodies willing to have such an organisation manage their water for fishing. Sometimes the Trust would have to buy fishings; at other times it would be able to rent them; others might even be gifted to it. We do not envisage large sums of money being required, but it would need funds for these and other expenses. The Government are convinced that angling must be self supporting and that a Trust must be in the long-term self-financing through subscriptions from its members and income from its activities. But we accept that there must be some injection of public funds to set it up and allow it to get along. The Bill therefore provides in Clause 5 for financial contributions to such an organisation, if and when it is set up, during the first three years of its existence, and the Government are prepared to provide up to £160,000 for this purpose.
The remaining clauses of the Bill are really incidental to its main purpose. Clause 6 provides for the updating of penalties relating to offences against salmon and freshwater fisheries conservation legislation. It is now almost a quarter of a century since any of these were quantified and many were last fixed

1003
in the 19th century. Both in themselves and compared with penalties for similar offences in England and Wales, they are out of date. Similar penalties in England and Wales were revised in 1972. It is clearly desirable that in Scotland we should bring ours up to a more realistic level. Generally, what is being done is to increase fines and, except for offences relating to gang poaching, to cut out imprisonment.
Clause 7 as far as possible removes the anomalous legal restraints under which our fish farmers are working. These arise from the application to them of legislation conceived purely in terms of the conservation of wild stocks of fish. Such legislation has of course no logical bearing on operations carried out by them relating to wholly managed stocks. Noble Lords will be conscious of the recent demands of fish farmers to be freed from the counter-productive effects of such legislation. Some may wish we had been able to go further. But the Government feel that they have done what they can for the present—and only for Scotland, of course. The removal of other anomalies and the clarification of matters such as the position regarding rights in the sea will have to await more comprehensive or more specific legislation.
I realise that it can be argued that this Bill is a poor response to the wide and comprehensive recommendations of the Hunter Committee. We accept that it is a small one. But I would remind noble Lords that it is now over a decade since that Committee made its report. It is perhaps significant that no other Administration have during that period managed to present any legislation whatsoever to Parliament based on Hunter. Both sides have tried, but without success. There are unfortunately much more pressing matters demanding Parliament's attention in these not too prosperous times. It was with this fully in mind that the present Bill was drafted. It sets out to do no more—and I stress "no more"—than to take a short first step towards securing an increase in the amount of trout fishing available in the rivers of Scotland. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
3.1 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having explained to us concisely the background to the Bill and its purposes. As he said, it deals with trout in Scotland, and that means the native brown trout. We on this Bench agree with him that legislation is needed to improve trout fishing in Scotland. For too long Scotland has been without much good trout fishing which Scots could have enjoyed, and it could also have been an additional attraction to visitors on holiday to Scotland. Certainly those representing the tourist industry in Scotland have for a long time been hoping for new legislation.
Except in isolated areas in Scotland, it is simply not worth the trouble of clearing weeds, stocking the water, reducing predators, and taking other action to ensure that trout are there to be caught. This is because there is no proper protection against the wholesale removal of trout by mass or individual poaching. The position is different from that in England and Wales where, I understand, there is a system of protection. The protection in Scotland is confined to salmon and sea trout for which, as the Minister said, there is a considerable amount of legislation.
I wish, briefly, to give an accurate description of the position, and I do not think that it could be better set out than as follows:
"…unauthorised fishing for brown trout"
in Scotland—
"is not a statutory offence but is merely an infringement of civil rights. The only action open to a riparian proporietor against unauthorised trout fishing is the cumbersome and relatively ineffective one of applying to the Courts for interdict against individual anglers. This is seldom resorted to, and there is a commonly-held, though mistaken, belief in Scotland that brown trout angling is open to all."
That is the position. I was quoting from the White Paper of November 1971, to which the noble Lord referred, which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State, who at that time was myself. That was my own White Paper, and that was the part dealing with trout. So in theory there is a method of redress, but in practice it is completely ineffective. The result is that many bodies consider

1005
that action should be taken to help anglers who see lochs and rivers, where they think there ought to be good trout because conditions are such as would normally harbour trout, but who find when they fish that there is nothing there.
It is only in remote areas, such as the Orkney Islands, that de facto protection can be secured. For example, there are lochs there where the fishing goes with local hotels, and there is a season when anglers stay at the hotels and fish in those lochs. But because those lochs are far afield from the centres of population, and because the Orcadians (the local people) know how valuable the trout fishing there is to the local community, there is protection, and anybody who was to poach would suffer considerable ignominy vis-à-vis the local population. There are other lochs which can be fished only from boats, and there again control of the boats provides some protection. But that is as far as protection goes; it is de facto for reasons of that kind.
The White Paper from which I have just quoted also dealt with salmon and sea trout—migratory fish. Although there is protection in existing legislation, the question of adding to that protection now raises very weighty problems. For example, the employment of between 1,000 and 2,000 men is directly involved in the net fishings at the mouths of rivers and in the estuaries. I understand why the Government are now tackling only brown trout.
This is a limited, but welcome, measure, and it need not be held back while the Government are considering such issues concerning salmon. None the less, I am sorry, as my White Paper indicated, that we are not able to deal with salmon and sea trout as well. We would have tried to improve the situation for those species also because there is a danger of a serious reduction in stocks. I must declare an interest in speaking in this debate. I own the fishing in part of the River Nairn, a small river, where it flows through the modest amount of land which I own in Nairnshire. Salmon and sea trout, besides brown trout, are in that river. I do not fish myself, being disabled, and it is not a financial interest which I have as I do not let the fishing. I allow fishing on a permit system; that is local anglers from the village of Croy and nearby,
1006
and genuine visitors and holiday makers have permits. The permits are free and are there simply to regulate the numbers of people fishing at any time. But this is not entirely philanthropic, because they sometimes present to me the fish that they catch—
Several Noble Lords: Ah!
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: None the less, my Lords, I pay rates, because salmon fishings in Scotland are rated, and on the whole I lose because the rates are based on the amount of salmon caught.
Fishing for trout has been a neglected Scottish asset. A system is needed to promote more good trout fishing for Scottish anglers and to provide an attractive sport for tourist visitors. The present state of the law in Scotland, as I have described, does not make it worth while stocking or maintaining trout fisheries. What is needed is protection from poaching, in return for proprietors operating satisfactory schemes with reasonable access to the public. On this Bench we are in agreement with the principle of this Bill.
However, I am sorry that other parts of the White Paper of November 1971—providing added protection from over-killing of salmon and sea trout—are not being tackled. Salmon are being subjected now to greater hazards than at any other time. The Government are tackling one fairly non-controversial area, covered by the Hunter Report of 1965. It is not very enterprising, but I am glad that they are doing it. It is certainly better than doing nothing. As the noble Lord said, the difficulty is fitting in legislation at all on this subject when the Parliamentary programme has pressure upon it for more urgent matters to be considered.
I have some comments on the Bill and some criticism of the drafting. Since substantial changes were made at the Report stage the last time this was considered in another place, with apparently little time to think out the changes, I hope that we can help the Government to do some revision. There is a need to make the provisions clearer and to remove some anomalies.
I have been involved with this subject since 1961. The Hunter Committee was appointed in 1962 because of the

1007
drift-netting for salmon at sea by sea fishermen, which was then starting. This was a threat to salmon stocks. Salmon have to come up the rivers in order to spawn and reproduce, and when they are swimming towards the river mouths they are near the surface. Therefore, drift nets, nets hanging from floats, each net spreading more than 10 miles if necessary, could have virtually wiped out the salmon population. If, round the mouths of rivers, there had been boats operating for 24 hours out of 24, they could virtually have caught every fish trying to come up the river to spawn. The Hunter Committee recommended very quickly, in an interim report, that the ban which had been placed temporarily on drift netting for salmon should be continued; in their final report in 1965 they confirmed that, and that ban has been continued ever since. It is renewable in Parliament. My Lords, the reason why this happened in the early 'sixties was mainly the use of new materials. Nylon and other strong man-made fibres, which could not be seen by the salmon, meant that it was possible to catch salmon in this way, whereas it had not been in the past.
The main recommendation in the Hunter Committee's Report of 1965 was a radical one. It was that all net fishing in estuaries and at river mouths should be abolished, and that there should be only one trap system in each Scottish river together with an automatic counting device. That was a revolutionary proposal; and it would also have meant the disappearance of about 1,500 jobs—the jobs of the men who operated the nets at present in the firths and at the mouths of rivers. In my White Paper of November 1971 I stated that, after looking into this, a Conservative Administration had found that that particular recommendation was too difficult or impossible to operate in many Scottish rivers, and I discarded it. But we proposed that there should be licensing of such nets, which was also recommended by the Hunter Committee. New methods of netting in estuaries and river mouths, and the new materials, were taking a heavier toll, and there was a danger that the weekly close period for salmon under the Acts was no longer sparing enough fish to go up the river for angling and for reproduction.
1008
Now the Government are not pursuing this, although it is the major problem and was the reason for setting up the Hunter Committee initially. I would therefore ask the noble Lord whether he could tell us when he replies to this debate: Are the Government considering legislation to deal with this important matter besides the Bill which we have before us, which is simply dealing with part of the Hunter Committee's report? Secondly, in the meantime can we assume that the Government intend to continue the ban on drift netting in Scotland, which means orders being brought before Parliament every two years or so? Incidentally, I should point out that there is a difference between the law in Scotland and that South of the Border. In Scotland it is legal to have what are described as fixed engines—that is to say, bag nets and stake nets—in the firths and at the river mouths. That is not allowed in England. However, off the coast of England it is possible to carry out drift netting at various places under licence, so it is controlled in that way. But I think it is worth noting that the systems are completely opposite North and South of the Border.
While considering the provisions concerning trout in this Bill we must have in mind the far more important resource, where Scotland is concerned, of salmon. It is vastly more valuable as a Scottish resource, and in particular as a provider of public funds by way of contributions to local authority rates. Trout and salmon affect each other in rivers. We cannot deal with one species and completely ignore the other. Salmon, as I have mentioned, are at present under pressure, not only from the netting in estuaries but also, unfortunately, from the impact of disease in recent years—udn; ulcerated dermal necrosis. Then there has been the Atlantic fishery off Greenland, where boats belonging to other nations have found the ocean feeding grounds of the salmon and have been able to catch them in great quantity, with possible dangers to stocks.
To give an example of the value of the salmon fisheries to Scotland, may I take the River Spey? Visitors are prepared to pay a lot for fishing for a week or two on a beat of the Spey. Hotels and other enterprises in the area benefit from this, and they also benefit outside the normal summer season, because it begins

1009
very early in the year and goes on after the summer holiday season. A large proportion of the money which is paid by the people who enjoy this fishing goes to the local councils. A large proportion goes in rates which are paid, and because the amount of rates is calculated on the basis of the number of fish caught over the previous five years the present position in regard to the Spey can be worked out. Noble Lords might like to knows that, in the current year, each single salmon now being caught in the Spey means a contribution of more than £3 to the local authorities. So everybody in the area should be hoping that as many visitors catch as many salmon as possible, because every single one means more than £3 straight to the local authorities in rates. Now if that source of local revenue were to disappear through the decimation of salmon stocks, this would be a painful wound for local government and would probably mean that central Government would be expected to provide more in grants. I should mention in regard to the River Spey that much of the river is not owned by private proprietors and that the fishing is open to local people and to visitors. There are miles of town water at various places which are open to local anglers for salmon, and also to holidaymarkers.
There are two conclusions from this. First, the Government should not wait for long before tackling the task of modernising salmon legislation to ensure protection of stocks; and, second, in this legislation concerning trout we should take care that we are not doing anything which would seriously damage salmon fisheries. So far as trout are concerned, where there are independent lochs the position is straightforward. A system of controlling the numbers of people fishing, which includes reasonable access by the public and where there is good husbandry of the stocks, should in return have protection from poaching and marauding. That is quite clear, I think, for lochs where they are independent. When we come to rivers, the position is more difficult because fish move. Stocks of fish may be put into one stretch of a river, and they may swim to another. They may go to a part of the river belonging to another riparian owner.
There are also certain conflicts between the interests of brown trout fishing and
1010
salmon and sea trout, and these should be avoided. This is an area where the Bill needs clarification. For example, brown trout cat salmon eggs. They are predators of salmon, and it would be a ridiculous situation if under this Bill brown trout were to be put into a river and the stretch of river were to be stocked with brown trout just where the salmon redds were in the gravel, just where the salmon spawn; because they would then be eating the salmon eggs and reducing the stock of salmon in that river—which are a far more valuable asset to Scotland. For similar reasons, river fishery boards in Scotland have a practice of electrically removing predators from burns and small tributaries of rivers where salmon fry are hatching and starting their existence. The predators are not only eels and lampreys but brown trout. Then the stunned brown trout are moved to another part of the river or loch where they can revive and be fished for without having killed off the salmon. Clearly co-ordination is needed. There is nothing in the Bill on that.
This is a trout Bill but, for the reasons that I have given, we cannot ignore salmon, for the damage could be out of all proportion. The principle of the Bill, extending protection for trout fisheries by law as applications for satisfactory schemes are approved, is one with which we agree and which was put forward in that White Paper of 1971. The principal difference between this Bill and those proposals is that the Government are suggesting that whole river systems or catchment areas should be included. I understand the administrative convenience of this, and I understand also why it may be difficult to deal with stretches of river individually. If it is possible, of course it will be best to deal with the whole river as one unit; but there is an objection which was mentioned by the noble Lord and raised in another place during the passage of this Bill. It is that some proprietors could benefit by getting protection without accepting any of the obligations because they refuse to carry out what the Bill requires.
As I have mentioned, where there is a loch or a group of lochs it is easy to isolate them, but where there are rivers it is important to consider all types of fish, including migratory fish and coarse

1011
fish, as well as trout. I am not sure that it is necessary that the whole of the river should be treated as a unit for the purpose of a scheme under this Bill. Out of perhaps a hundred individuals and bodies with fishing on a single river, there might be one or two proprietors who would refuse to co-operate. Either they would have a veto on the scheme's going forward or else the scheme would go forward and they would then be receiving the benefits while not themselves complying with the conditions.
In the scheme that we put forward in 1971, we recognised that this problem could be dealt with by a self-adjusting device. If a proprietor was determined to be the odd man out, his stretch of river or his loch was likely in future to be very heavily poached; it was likely to be the target of the poachers because the other waters in the area were receiving the new protection. In such circumstances there was a built-in inducement to that proprietor to join in a reasonable scheme without compulsion.
What we need is legislation to encourage responsible husbandry of trout fisheries and reasonable access for the public. I would ask the Minister also whether an angling club constitutes "the public" for the purpose of the Bill. I presume that the Secretary of State would examine its constitution and rules of membership when he was considering a scheme. This may be a Committee point but it is an important one for the whole application of the Bill.
My Lords, there is another point that I must draw to your attention at this stage. When a whole lot of new wording was introduced into the Bill at the Report stage in another place the following was included at the beginning of Clause 1:
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that, if proposals submitted to him under this section were implemented, there would be a significant increase in access to fishing".
The point turns on the word "increase"; because, under that wording, it means that protection will be given only if it can be shown that there is an increase in access for the public. Some proprietors already give full access. The wording would produce a situation where someone who was already carrying out everything which the Bill prescribes would not qualify for protection. This would be
1012
penalising the paragon and cannot be what the Government intend. I am sure that re-drafting is needed here to indicate that where everything which the Bill asks for is now being done by somebody, he can get protection as well as somebody else who shows an increase in access for the public.
My Lords, I give a qualified welcome to this Bill and I am sure that both sides of the House would hope that it will provide more and better trout fishing in Scotland. There are many visitors to Scotland, tourists who bring a trout rod and tackle in their cars, and if they are visiting Scotland for the first time I am afraid they are disappointed. They go to inviting-looking lochs and flog the water and find nothing there; and they will be told by the locals that nobody has ever thought it worthwhile to stock or to keep trout there for the reasons I have given. We support the aim of this Bill based on the principle, concerning trout, of the orderly spreading of protection in return for fulfilling certain obligations. We shall have various suggestions for changes at a later stage, but the aim of the Bill is one that we put forward first in 1971 and which we are now glad to see being brought forward in legislation.
3.26 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I should, I suppose, begin by declaring my usual quiverful of interests. I am an angler, I am a proprietor of both trout and salmon fishings, I make them available to the public, I let them to tourists and so on; but I think that my greatest interest in this Bill is in the opportunity it offers to make more of Scottish trout fishing. I am, myself, a tremendous believer in the fact that very much more can be made of many of the trout waters of Scotland. Therefore, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in welcoming this Bill, although, like him. I would say that there are a number of drafting Amendments and a certain amount of drafting revision which ought to take place before the Bill is enacted.
I welcome the Bill but, in spite of the lengthy debate in another place, I consider that it contains some very serious flaws. One was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when he spoke of a problem of great concern to my friend in another place, Mr. David Steele: the problem that people may get protection

1013
without themselves contributing to a total scheme. I think this is something that we want to examine, if not now, certainly at the Committee stage.
The other serious flaws will be the subject of Amendments from these Benches which at a later stage I propose to move and to press. First, let me give my reasons for welcoming the Bill. As a trout angler myself. I welcome the statement by the Scottish Office that they are intending to encourage fishing for trout, the sport of angling, in spite of what was said when the Government introduced the Hare Coursing Bill in another place when they stated that this was the beginning of a drive to do away with all sports, including fishing. I am glad to see that the Scottish Office takes not a blind bit of notice of that final intention and is going to look after the interests of us anglers.
I welcome particularly the giving of legal status to trout fishing. This will undoubtedly give an impetus to the improvement and proper management of this important resource. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spotted this; but it will also, I am sure, contribute to rates; because if this Bill is enacted trout fishing will become a hereditable property, it will become rateable. If you improve it, make it better, then, presumably, as in the case of your house, the rates will go up. When you restock the loch it will be like putting central heating into your house, thereby increasing the rates. That is fair enough if you get the fishing and the improvement. In itself, this provision will make available more fishing and better quality fishing. It will give hope of return to those who are willing to put effort and money into proper management and improvement schemes.
The basic resources are there in the shape of large areas of totally unimproved waters, and the knowledge of how to bring about the improvements is available. Excellent work has been and is being done in the fresh water fisheries laboratory at Faskally, and I am sure that the scientists there will welcome the opportunity which the Bill will give of seeing a proper use being made of their researches and the facilities which they offer for advice, and so forth, within their laboratories. However it will be important for Her Majesty's Government to
1014
see that the laboratory gets enough money and personnel allocated to it in order to be able to cope with the big demand which will be made upon its services and upon its advice after this Bill has been enacted. There is no doubt when improvement schemes are thought out it will be necessary to call in the services of the laboratory at Faskally, and I have no doubt they will be very hard pressed. I hope the Government have taken careful note of this need. It is much more important than setting up a trust to lease or buy fishings; it is much more important to see in the first instance the available places, the available lochs, waters and rivers are in fact given the proper scientific help and advice.
It is right that those who live near and those who own trout fisheries, in accepting this legal status which is being given to them, should give in return a quid pro quo to their less fortunate brother anglers by offering reasonable access to their waters. However, I must emphasise that, in my view, the word "reasonable" has to be interpreted in such a way that there shall be no diminution in standards of quality of any fishery. It would be wrong, for instance, for a traditionally fly-only water to be forced to admit spinning simply because a considerable number of people only know how to spin. If good fly-only water is being made available, then it is worth while for people to learn how to enjoy this much more intriguing branch of trout fishing. However, I do not really expect any Secretary of State for Scotland to be so badly advised as to allow protection orders in terms which would actually be harmful. I merely sound the warning so that those who are hoping to gain access to new fishing waters are prepared to accept that they themselves are entitled to this access only if they exercise a proper standard of conduct and conservation.
So far I have been giving a warm welcome to this Bill, so your Lordships may well be asking yourselves what are the flaws which I see in it. First and foremost, the Bill sets up no organisation, no machinery, no administrative bodies, to implement its provisions. The noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, told us it will just vaguely be left to proprietors—who may be individuals or angling clubs—to implement the schemes as best they can. I consider this to be a flaw because the

1015
Area Boards are conspicuously lacking. We had all expected them to be the focus of the local effort to implement the provisions of a protection order. Most dangerous of all it seems to me is the fact that this Bill will create a new class of official called a warden with powers to enter upon land and demand production of licences, question anglers and seize their tackle. There is absolutely nothing in this Bill to show how the activities of wardens will be supervised or controlled. Once a warden has been appointed, he just tucks his authorisation into his pocket and carries on as he sees fit.
I think we need Area Boards to supervise and, if necessary, train wardens. We need Area Boards to facilitate the sharing of wardens among various fisheries in an area to which a protection order applies, or in order to bring more wardens to the spot if there is need at certain times of year for their services in one part of the protection order area.
Then we need Area Boards to provide a point of contact between district salmon fishery boards and the trout and other fresh water fishing interests in an area which is under a protection order. I suppose at this point I should confess to another interest in that I am the President of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, and this is a matter of considerable concern in that there are bound to be—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already said—certain areas of conflict between the interests of trout and salmon. Therefore a forum should be set up where these areas of conflict can be reconciled. This could best be done through the medium of contact between Area Boards. It would be unacceptable to have two different owners carrying out different and possibly conflicting policies on the same stretch of water, yet this could easily happen. There should be this point of contact between these two interests. On a river bank there might well be three interests: the owner of the land, the agricultural user; the heritable owner of the trout fishery; and a third person would be the heritable owner of the salmon fishery. They may be different people and two of them may have different kinds of "policemen", in
1016
the shape of a warden and a water bailiff, acting on the same bank each with powers of search and question, and so on. We need Area Boards in order to resolve this kind of situation.
Area Boards could also be useful for another purpose. After a protection order has been made, and a protection area set up, things will start to change within that area, because that is in the nature of the purpose of making a protection order: you are going to improve the fishings and get more people to fish on them, improvements will be carried out; new schemes will be considered; angling pressures will change and so on. The situation is different in different parts of the country.
The problems on the Tweed are quite different from the problems on the Thurso. So different changes will take place in different parts of the country. Local knowledge will be important in dealing with these problems, and local knowledge will be useful to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State already has contact with local knowledge in the area of salmon fishing because he has a statutory contact with the district fishery boards and salmon fishery boards, which are under a statutory obligation to report to him on all matters affecting salmon within their district. It is clear that he would be just as well advised to have a similar contact with a body that has charge of the interests of trout fishing within the same area. Area Boards, therefore, would be an admirable way of keeping the Secretary of State in touch with local problems and giving him the benefit of local know-how.
My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I want to sec it succeed in its objectives. But I think it will have difficulty in doing so without the help of a proper machinery to administer it. It cannot be administered solely from St. Andrew's House, nor is it desirable that St. Andrew's House should attempt the task. All my experience suggests to me that Area Boards can provide the right machinery. Accordingly, I hope that during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House we shall be able to amend it to include Area Boards and thereby greatly improve its structure and its chances of real success.

ASBESTOS: OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
3.40 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Oram repeats the Statement on asbestos being made by the Secretary of State in another place, it might be for the convenience of the House if I replied a little more fully to the Question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I am sure the House will understand that reports by the Parliamentary Commissioner are made to the Member of Parliament who has raised the question, and the Ombudsman publishes reports from time to time. The publication of this particular report is not expected until 29th April. In the meantime, of course, my honourable friend the Member who raised the matter was given a copy of the report by the Ombudsman, and he made this available to the Press, which is why it appeared yesterday. There are no copies of that report; this is not under the control of the Government, but is a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner and the individual Member concerned. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State thought it right to make a statement today, and copies of that Statement will be available in the Printed Paper Office after it has been repeated to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Oram.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will recall that the Ombudsman has two courses open to him and it is entirely a matter for him as to which course he takes One course is to report to Parliament on matters of importance, and the other is, as a matter of normal courtesy, to send a report to the Member who poses the question and asks for the inquiry to be made. The Parliamentary Commissioner decided to take the latter course.
I should like to say that when I approached the Parliamentary Commissioner about this first thing yesterday morning, I was received with the utmost courtesy and with every desire to help; and I was given an assurance that they were considering the problem. On the other hand, I promised a long time ago to send copies of this report to the Medical Officer of the European Economic Community,
1018
to the ILO and to the World Health Organisation. Really, it is no one's fault, but it is an impossible situation. It is only a 50-page report, and a large number of copies could easily be duplicated by the Ministry and made available. In view of the fact that I have a Question down for discussion immediately after the vacation and, I fancy, before the date stated for publication, this does become important.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the whole House appreciates the particular interest which my noble friend has in this question, and for which I think we owe him a debt of gratitude. I am grateful for what he has said and for his understanding of the position. I think the report will be published on 29th April, which may be just before his debate—I will check on that—but in any case we are doing everything in our power to keep the House informed about this very important matter.
3.44 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now read a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"The Parliamentary Commissioner's report on his investigation into the enforcement of the Factories Act at Acre Mill, Hebden Bridge has given rise to serious public concern. Although the Parliamentary Commissioner recognised that responsibility for complying with the Factories Act and the Asbestos Regulations rested with the occupier of the factory, he made several criticisms of the action of my Department and of the Factory Inspectorate. These I accept.
"The Health and Safety Commission and its executive, of which the Factories Inspectorate is now a part, will study the report closely and, if anything still remains to be put right, this will be done.
"I would emphasise to the House that the report relates to the circumstances at Acre Mill between 1939 and 1970. The position has changed radically in the years since then. New regulations to control the health risk from asbestos came into force in 1970, backed by stringent hygiene standards

1019
for the control of asbestos dust. These regulations are being rigorously enforced by the Factories Inspectorate, who are currently instructed to make special visits to all firms subject to the Asbestos Regulations.
"Fifty-one firms have been successfully prosecuted for 120 contraventions of the Regulations. Effective use is also being made of the new powers given to the Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act since the beginning of 1975. Sixty-six prohibition notices and 15 improvement notices have been imposed on 45 firms to remedy hazards involving asbestos.
"More than 150,000 copies of a leaflet Asbestos and You have been distributed to workers in the industry; 193,000 copies of technical data notes on asbestos have been distributed free, and 27,500 copies of an on-sale booklet Asbestos Health Precautions in Industry. Guidance is also to be issued shortly on the problem of dust arising from the use of sprayed asbestos in buildings. A labelling scheme for consumer products is being introduced.
"In 1971, work started on a long-term medical environmental survey of asbestos workers. This survey is intended to obtain more information about the medical effects of asbestos exposure and to measure the effectiveness of dust control methods for the protection of workers.
"I have discussed the present position with the Chairman of the Health, and Safety Commission and the Director of the Health and Safety Executive. I have every confidence in the way they, and the Factory Inspectors throughout the country, are carrying out their responsibilities.
"However, we still do not know all we need to know about the health risks from asbestos, including risks to the public and the causes of mesothelioma. The Health and Safety Commission, by agreement with Ministers concerned, has therefore decided to set up a committee to undertake a wide-ranging review of the health risks from asbestos and to make recommendations on any further action which, in their view, ought to be taken.
1020
"The Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Simpson, will himself act as chairman of the new committee, whose membership will be announced in due course. Interested Government Departments, including the Central Unit of Environmental Pollution, will be closely involved in the work of the committee.
"The composition of the committee will reflect a wide range of scientific, medical and practical expertise and will include representatives from both sides of industry. The committee will have the following terms of reference:
"To review the risks to health arising from exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos including: persons exposed at work; members of the public exposed to asbestos generated from work activities; and members of the public exposed to asbestos from consumer products and from asbestos waste.
"To make recommendations as to whether any further protection is required.
"The committee's terms of reference enable it to cover all risks from asbestos, including its release into the working and general environment and either to satisfy itself that present safeguards are adequate or to make recommendations on how improvements should be made.
"The report of the committee will be published and considered by the Health and Safety Commission and Ministers responsible for the matters reviewed.
"I wish, in conclusion, to thank my honourable friend, the Member for Sowerby, whose skill and persistence in raising this matter has been of such importance for his own constituents and for many others besides."
My Lords, that ends the Statement. But before I sit down, may I add a further point in view of my right honourable friend's deserved tribute to Mr. Max Madden, the Member of Parliament for Sowerby? As my noble friend has already said, in this House the matter has been pursued diligently by a number of noble Lords, but most notably by my noble friend Lord Hale. I think it would be your Lordships' wish that I should

1021
pay tribute to the zeal, persistence and deep knowledge which my noble friend has brought to this subject over a long period.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I know that my noble friends would wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for that Statement and to join in his generous tribute to the persistent work done by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, in this regard. We, on this side of the House, welcome the very necessary action being taken on a matter of deep public concern. But noble Lords will recognise that it is very difficult to make any responsible reply, in view of the fact that the report is not available. Of course, we accept the very courteous explanation given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, as to why this report is not now available, but perhaps one or two points should be put to your Lordships. Naturally, I am not asking for an immediate reply from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, but I should be grateful if he would take them into consideration and at some later stage give an answer, perhaps in the Official Report.
First, I understand that this disease is a long-term one, that the effects of asbestos dust are delayed, and one cannot tell for perhaps 20 to 25 years whether such a disease has been contracted. But though it seems from the Press reports and the Statement that the last investigation went up to 1970, we have had to wait six years for the report which is now being given to the honourable Member for Sowerby. So I should like to know whether the delay has occurred because the effects on the individual who made the original complaint were not known until much later than 1970, or whether the effects were known earlier but it has taken six years for the administrative procedures to reach the present stage.
Secondly, with regard to the warnings on goods to be sold, I appreciate that in the Statement there is mention of the fact that asbestos goods which are to be sold to the general public will be labelled. But in view of the very widespread recommendations by various Departments to save energy and to use insulating materials in houses which are under construction, and suggesting that individuals
1022
do this work themselves and at their own expense, it is surely urgent that consumers throughout the country should be warned of the possible dangers of working with this material which produces dust, particularly as it is laid in attics which are always in a very enclosed space and with no outlet for fresh air. I should have thought that a quick TV campaign, or something like that, was needed to make consumers realise the dangers of this material—if, indeed, it is proved to be so dangerous.
Thirdly, I should like to comment on the composition of the committee. I notice that the Statement says:
"…we still do not know all we need to know about the health risks from asbestos";
and the immediate reaction of the Government, as always, is to set up a committee of experts. This seems to me a contradiction in terms, because, if we do not know all the results, who are these various experts who will make this wide-ranging review? So I should like to ask the noble Lord—and, again, I do not expect an immediate answer—what research is being done in universities and by scientific institutions to find out exactly what are the dangers of asbestos to the health of individuals. It seems to me that this is a very important area for research where money could be well spent, and the fact that this committee is being set up should not stop urgent research into it. For the time being, those are all the questions we on this side wish to ask. We shall, of course, look forward with interest to reading the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner when it is available, and reserve our right to raise further questions then. Finally, I thank the noble Lord again for repeating this Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to thank the Government for making that Statement, for their immediate acceptance of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner and for the establishment of the committee to which the noble Lord referred. May I ask him whether the committee will be empowered to look at materials which are increasingly being used in substitution for asbestos, in regard to which the Central Electricity Generating Board has given the

1023
lead of applying the same regulations as are laid down in the 1969 rules for asbestos? Will the committee also be able to extend its study to the aetiology of other malignant neoplasms of the pleural cavity, caused by materials similar to asbestos? I should point out that, of course, I do not expect immediate answers to these questions, any more than does the noble Baroness.
May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has pointed out that the hazards of asbestos extend to many groups of workers who were not at the time covered by the Factories Act, and will the committee look at the position of those workers prior to the Health and Safety at Work Act? Is the study, which the noble Lord mentioned, the one which the EMAS is conducting in conjunction with the Factories Inspectorate on the long-term medical environmental survey to monitor the health of asbestos workers? If that is so, will the noble Lord consider whether this committee might make an interim report in order that the workers concerned can be properly informed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act?
Also, can the noble Lord say whether the Medical Research Council's pneumoconiosis unit at Penarth, which was planning a detailed study employing the latest methods of identification of asbestos in lung tissues, has made an interim report, and whether any further recommendations on the hazards of asbestos were made by the Department of Health and Social Security's Standing Sub-Committee on Cancer, when they considered this matter at their meeting on 29th October? Finally, will the committee be able to take into account evidence not only from this country but also from the many studies overseas, particularly those which have been made in Canada and the USA on the epidemiology of asbestos and mesothelioma?
3.58 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the nature of their questions and for releasing me from any obligation to go into too detailed an answer. First, in some reply to the
1024
noble Baroness, I can confirm that this is a disease which develops long term and, therefore, the investigation which started in 1971 cannot have reached very firm conclusions. But, if I may say so, I think she was mixing two reports, unless I misunderstood her. The medical investigation to which I have just referred, which started in 1971, has not yet been concluded. That is not the same report as the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Therefore, we are dealing with two different reports. The noble Baroness raised the question of labelling and the need to give warnings to consumers. I can assure her that other Departments of Government will be taking an interest in the setting up of this committee, and I have no doubt that the points that have been raised by the noble Baroness will be looked at carefully by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and that they will take note of what she has said. The noble Baroness then asked about the research that is taking place in universities. Clearly I cannot give a detailed answer to that question, but it seems almost self-evident that when the committee gets to work it will immediately set about asking itself that same question and will be looking at the work which is being done in research institutes. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether the Committee would take the question of substitutes within its aegis.
As I read them out, the terms of reference refer to exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos; so if one reads the terms of reference very strictly, I suppose the answer may be, No. If, on the other hand, the Committee takes a common sense approach to its work, the point which the noble Lord has made will be taken care of. In any case, I will ensure that my right honourable friend is made aware of that point, which seems to me to be an important one in relation to the terms of reference. I think that the noble Lord will confess that his other points are very technical and detailed. I feel it will be better, therefore, if I find some other way of communicating the answers to him.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not being present when he repeated the Statement, but I was listening to the Minister making his Statement in the

1025
other House. May I express my sympathy with the relations of the 40 people who are known to have died. They must have had great anxiety, since these cases go on for so long. I understand that 350 cases may be developing over the next 15 or 20 years. May I therefore ask the noble Lord what protection and care these cases will be given? In view of the fact that £2 million was paid in damages during the last six years, I cannot understand why the health authorities were not more careful in their inspections and more assiduous in trying to find out the causes. One person, for example, received £35,000 in compensation. In view of the report we have read in the Press that within 100 yards of the junior and infants school there is an asbestos waste dump, surely before the Committee reports this matter might be looked into. It is known that at least six residents who live in the neighbourhood but who have not worked in the factory have already contracted this disease, because it is carried through the air in dust and can affect anybody who is living in the neighbourhood. I hope, therefore, that action will be taken swiftly.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House echoes the sympathy of the noble Baroness with those who have suffered through the situation which has developed. Turning to the second question of the noble Baroness, I am not clear whether she fully appreciates that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner deals with the situation up to 1970 and that since then considerable action has been taken, some of which was dealt with in the Statement of my right honourable friend. Cognisance has, therefore, been taken of the situation and it is better now than it was during the period reported upon. I do not say that everything is satisfactory; that is why a Committee is necessary to find out whether more can be done. I am glad that the noble Baroness raised the question of the dump. The Committee will be sitting for a longish period to examine this complex question, but certain practical matters are revealed in the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner—the noble Baroness has called attention to one—which ought to have immediate attention and ought not to wait for a Committee to examine them at length. Therefore, I will certainly call the atten-
1026
tion of my right honourable friend to the point that the noble Baroness has made.
Lord HALE: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for what he has said. Realising that my noble friend is answering on behalf of a colleague and perhaps has not been fully informed, would it be in order for me to ask him to remember that for nearly two years one of the most efficient medical monitoring services has been conducted within his own Department. It is under Dr. Greenberg at the Employment Medical Advisory Service at Notting Hill. Also, the committee of experts at Luxembourg, of which Dr. W. J. Turner is a member, is considering at the moment, with a large body of representative experts, a massive medical report that has been compiled after immense research. There really is no shortage of medical research. However, there are two diseases, and nobody can speak with authority about their length and incidence. May I put one point to my noble friend, which I regard as of real urgency. I gather that the report will disclose what certainly is the truth: that within 100 yards of this mill there is a grass mound which is full of asbestos, which is an active source of poisoning, which at this very moment is—I use the inaccurate word "radiating", but I use it metaphorically—radiating poison and which, the moment dry weather comes, may still be a potential source of further poisoning within this industrial area. This is not a matter for heads but for spades and bulldozers and action must be taken.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it would be false of me to say that I was aware of the information contained in the first part of my noble friend's question, but I am sure that he will continue with his diligence and make sure that the committee becomes aware of that and all other relevant information. I notice that my noble friend has tabled an Unstarred Question relating to health, and I think he will agree that that will be the more appropriate time to pursue these matters. My noble friend referred to a grass mound, which I think is the same as "the dump" referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. All I would ask is that my noble friend should study the reply that I gave to the noble Baroness.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I ask a brief, factual question. The Statement mentioned 51 prosecutions. Are

1027
Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the level of fines being imposed when prosecutions have successfully been brought? I am told that in January 1975 there were three successful prosecutions against a firm in Glasgow, for which the penalties were £20, £30 and £40 out of a maximum penalty of £400.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, this is a matter on which I should not like to pronounce now, but obviously it is a most important point. If these fines are to be deterrents, they must be looked at and I will ensure that they are.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, from the Back Benches may I confirm what has been said from both Front Benches in tribute to my noble friend Lord Hale. I was in another place with him for many years and the persistence with which he drew attention to the danger of asbestos is something that we all remember. When he first raised this issue, if his advice had been accepted, many lives might have been saved. I want to pay my tribute to him for the exposure which he made before it was popular and which now has been so tragically endorsed.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.10 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, having made four, five or even six false starts, I should like to direct your Lordships' attention back to the subject of fishing. First, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because owing to the fact that I missed my train I am afraid I did not hear his opening speech. I shall of course read it with interest.
I have an interest to declare, in that I am the proprietor of salmon and sea trout fishing and also brown trout fishing, but the latter are rather conspicuous by their absence. Therefore I welcome this Bill in relation to brown trout. The law in Scotland on brown trout has always been a mystery to me, because as I interpret it, any member of the public can fish for brown trout on a proprietor's waters but in order to do that he in fact commits a trespass by crossing one's
1028
land. Although no landowner ever prosecutes an angler for trespass, because he would have to prove damage, in fact if the angler had to abide within the law it seems to me that he would have to acquire a helicopter and a rubber dinghy, fly over your loch, drop the dinghy in the water and fish from there. Therefore, I am extremely pleased that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to regulate the law in Scotland regarding brown trout fishing.
In one respect brown trout fishing has encouraged a great deal of poaching, especially with sea trout. One has people fishing for brown trout on the river or the loch but with the same tackle they can catch sea trout, and also salmon if they use the right lure. From that angle I welcome the Bill with regard to regulation of the law in Scotland in relation to brown trout fishing.
I should also like to relate the experience in New Zealand, which adds weight to the Bill. As your Lordships know, New Zealand has a very small population: I believe it is barely 2 million, in a geographical area the size of the British Isles. In that country anyone was able to fish anywhere but eventually the Government had to introduce a system of permits because there was soon a scarcity of fish. To a similar extent I think this applies to Scotland in regard to brown trout.
I should now like to turn to Clause 1 of the Bill. I am worried about subsection (3)(b) with reference to making a protection order, where it says that the Secretary of State,
"has consulted a body which in his opinion is representative of persons wishing to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland…"
We do not know how the Secretary of State will set up this consultative body, but in my opinion the majority of members on such a body should be representatives of angling clubs with long leases and riparian owners—in other words, people who are responsible for stocking and managing fishings. This clause seems to me to be rather overloaded in favour of people who only want to fish, whether for a day or a week.
The other paragraph of Clause 1 to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister is paragraph (g) of subsection (5). If the Secretary of State

1029
issues too many day tickets or weekly tickets there will be a danger of over-fishing. I have mentioned the experience in New Zealand. I hope that this will not occur here, because we should then be going from the frying pan into the fire. Another paragraph in subsection (5) to which I should like to refer is paragraph (b), concerning the permitted methods of fishing or tackle. Subsection (5) says that:
"…the Secretary of State may have regard to the circumstances in which fishing is made available in any waters other than those to which the proposals relate…"
Here again, would it not be better if the riparian owner or lessee angling club concerned laid down what method of fishing he required? Surely, the angling club which has a long lease of the fishings, or the proprietor, should have the first word—and indeed the last word—in deciding what type of fishing the anglers are to be engaged in, whether by spoon or minnow, or by the fly, or even by worms.
Another point concerns the powers of the wardens. In many of these cases the wardens, who will come under this Bill, and the water bailiffs, who come under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, will surely be one and the same person, because where there are brown trout in salmon waters it seems rather an unnecessary expense to have a water bailiff as well as a warden for the brown trout fishing. However, the wardens for brown trout fishing would appear not to have sufficient power. They certainly do not have the same power as the water bailiffs under the 1951 Act, but I see no reason why they should not be given the same power. If they had that power it would obviate the employment of two people on a water, by the water bailiff having powers over the brown trout fishing.
A further point concerns Schedule 2 on page 11, where it refers to Section 23 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868, dealing with penalties. I am not sure whether this point has yet been raised. It says:
"Failing to remove boats, nets, etc., in close season".
I should like to know what the "et cetera" covers, because all sorts of gear, such as wooden tripods for drying nets, are really permanent fixtures. You might
1030
have a shed and various other permanent fixtures. Surely it is not necessary to remove these every close season. I quite agree that the boats and the nets ought to be removed, but I cannot see that the fixed equipment should be removed.
I do not want to say any more about the Bill, except to wish it a speedy passage through this House. I hope that when it becomes law it will bring joy to the hearts of many anglers. Of course, it is difficult for many tourists to get fishing when they come to Scotland because, as I said earlier, much of the brown trout fishing is fished out, and there are great numbers of lochs where there are now no fish at all. With the encouragement of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, I am sure that this will be rectified. One point which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy made, and which I must make, regards salmon fishing and sea trout. If thousands of brown trout are poured into salmon rivers, they will not necessarily stay where they are poured in, where they are stocked. As my noble friend said, brown trout eat salmon spawn and also the larger brown trout will eat the fry or parr. This point must be borne in mind. With that reservation, I should like to give a welcome to the Bill.
4.22 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, as this useful Bill arrives from another place it is certainly a better Bill than the original one proposed by Her Majesty's Government. My hope is that by the time the Bill leaves your Lordships' House it will be still better. I wish for a few moments in my brief remarks to concentrate on one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. To me the great blemish in the Bill is that when put into operation it may provoke a confrontation between not only trout fishermen and salmon fishermen, but nets-men and the salmon industry which, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, employs some 2,000 men in netting alone, and plays an important part in tourism for Scotland. The one thing we wish to avoid is such a confrontation.
The Bill does not mention salmon conservation. It limits its purpose to freshwater fish, and of course a salmon does not come within the definition of a freshwater fish. I have no objection at all to

1031
the limitation of protection as defined in the Bill, but I would ask the Minister to admit two facts on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. First, would he admit the national value to Scotland and to the whole of the United Kingdom of the conservation of salmon species? Secondly, would he admit to me that it is not possible to manage a river for the exclusive benefit of trout without harm to salmon conservation?
River management must cover all the fish in the river. As drafted, the Bill would allow a host of trout fishermen flogging a stretch of a river over the spawning beds of salmon. This is but one danger to salmon conservation and the interests of salmon, if we allow uncontrolled trout fishing in protection areas. There are other dangers to salmon conservation which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned: unless watched over serious damage to smolt stocks during the migration period; damage to stocks of parr on their feeding grounds in nursery areas of rivers; uncontrolled stocking of trout (which is allowed under the protection proposals) and particularly rainbow trout, in headwaters of rivers and in lochs, will mean competition with parr for the limited amount of food available. If rainbow trout are stocked into a loch which has an access to the sea, very soon the species will spread right through the river system, with tremendous harm to the conservation of salmon. We must remember that trout are predatory so far as salmon are concerned. So if we are to enjoy the greater trouting of the Bill, and still preserve salmon, fishing must be co-ordinated and not done in isolation.
During the proceedings in another place there were added to the Bill the words at the top of page 2. The subsection reads:
"The Secretary of State shall not make a protection order unless—…
(b) he has consulted a body which in his opinion is representative of persons wishing to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland;"
If the Government will consent to widen that to persons interested in management and conservation of fishing in Scotland, the Secretary of State will then have the benefit of the advice of those who know much about the conservation of salmon. In due course, I shall propose a simple
1032
Amendment to widen this subsection which was inserted in another place. My hope is that first the Government, and secondly your Lordships' House, will support that Amendment because, by doing so, a Bill which is too narrow in scope will become one of benefit to all the river fish and not only to selected trout. The nets, rods, the employment interests, and tourist interests, will be reassured that they are not forgotten when we pass legislation for trout.
4.29 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to support most strongly what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has just said. To omit consideration of the salmon in this whole business of the brown trout is to make a biological nonsense of the problem. What my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has pointed out about the relative monetary value to the country of salmon as compared to trout must be given every consideration. I welcome the Bill, but wish it had gone further, and I take note of the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that there may be another Bill in what I hope will be the not too distant future.
The grounds—or should I say the waters—of this Bill have been so well covered by previous speakers that I am not going to say very much. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, seems to me to have a point in noting the omission from the Bill of an organisation to implement any scheme approved by the Secretary of State. Also I would most strongly support the noble Lord in his plea for the reinforcement of the freshwater fishings research station at Faskally. I have visited this establishment. It has tremendous potential and has knowledge which can be of the very greatest help to those concerned in the conservation of the fish stocks in the rivers of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke of the diseases of the fish. Work on these is going on, but it needs a little more encouragement than it is getting at the present time. It is going forward at the Government station at Torry in Aberdeen as well as at Faskally. Perhaps the most intriguing work is that being done at Stirling University at the department of aquatic pathobiology, which is being done without any Government grant whatsoever at the present time. It is working on these diseases of the

1033
salmon. The grant from Nuffield on which it is working and by which it is financed now comes to an end in a matter of about 18 months.
I would particularly commend Clause 7 of this Bill, which enables fish farmers to go about their business without fear of prosecution under laws designed for quite a different set of circumstances. It has been wisely and widely drawn and the drafting of subsection (4), which deals with the use of a boat, appears to me to be both ingenious and encouraging for those who have got themselves embarked on this adventure of increasing the nation's food resources.
There is, however, impending one development which eventually will require legislation. Last week at a symposium on fish farming conducted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the chairman, Lord Cameron—the Cameron of the Cameron Report of, I think, 1970—elicited that some cultivated salmon released down the loch had returned to their place of origin. The hazards of their journey across the Atlantic are considerable, not least of which is their capture by fishermen, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said; their worst predators are the fishermen from Denmark. The proportion of salmon which returned is small, somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent., but when it is remembered that it is the feeding and the husbandry of the farmed salmon that is the costly part, it can be appreciated that such a relatively small percentage can be balanced by the release of more young stock, which is not so costly. With some degree of protection from netting in Scottish waters, the proportion of salmon returning might be very much greater. My Lords, can you get a better example from the text:
"Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days"—
with emphasis on "many".
4.34 p.m.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I also must declare an interest. I am not sure that I can rival the interests of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, but I have rights in three potential trout lochs, I let a small section of the upper Spey to a club, and I am a director of a commercial salmon fisheries company. Your Lordships will note that I said "potential" trout lochs. None of these lochs has good spawning,
1034
and they need money to be spent on them for restocking and also for improving the spawning areas. Neither myself nor my neighbours have been prepared to spend this money as the law stands at present, as these lochs have been so poached that they are now not worth fishing. Let me give a small example. There is a pond—one can scarcely call it a loch—which we stocked with 100 yearling trout, largely as an amusement for my 12-year-old son and some of his friends who are the sons of employees on the farm. These boys had enormous fun and came back with a two-pounder one day. However, one night last summer one of the poaching fraternity from Inverness took out 22 of these fish by spinning. A few nights later he came back with a friend and took out 28. How do I know this? The reason is that he talked too much in the pub, and my "information service" around Inverness is fairly good. In two nights they had taken out half the fish I had put in. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that there is no point in improving fishing in Scotland with the present law.
First, let me congratulate the Government on attempting legislation on this subject. It is a highly prickly problem, because a considerable number of people have been getting something for nothing up till now, something to which they were not entitled. "Free for all" soon means "nothing for anyone", as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard illustrated by what has occurred in New Zealand. The Government, in attempting to improve things, failed to grasp the nettle securely, and I am afraid have got truly "prickled" as a result. Now we are left with a Bill which may be better than nothing but is sadly deficient and questionably operable. I found the proceedings in the other place made sad reading. Instead of trying to produce an Act which would have improved the fishing for everyone in Scotland, certain Members—mostly those who admitted that they knew nothing about fishing—tried to play politics with the Government's Bill. I would like at this juncture to give credit to the Liberals in the other place. The honourable Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles had been briefed by a very large number of fishermen in the Borders, and he was consistently constructive throughout the passage of the Bill, as indeed his noble friend Lord Thurso has been this afternoon. I hope that that

1035
constructive attitude for the general improvement of Scottish fisheries will prevail in your Lordships' House. I join with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in hoping that we can help the Government to improve the Bill.
Possibly some of the hostility to the original Bill arose from the failure of the Government to understand that there are two types of angling club. There are the clubs, some of which own fishings but most of which rent them, who do their best to look after these fishings. It would be invidious to name any of them, but almost without exception their members and visitors get fishing at very reasonable rates, and I am sure most people interested in fishing would have no objection to representatives of these clubs being given a major say in the management of their catchment areas.
There are, however, angling clubs with no waters of their own, who tour around at the weekend, with the boots of the buses frequently loaded with alcohol on the outward journey. They descend upon waters which they have no right to fish, and they more often than not fish by illegal means, such as fixed lines with perhaps two or three rods per person, and through sheer weight of numbers and the inadequacy of the existing law make it impossible for action to be taken against them. They have ruined many excellent trout lochs and do nothing to improve or maintain the fishing in Scotland. There is, therefore, no grounds nor justification for allowing these clubs—perhaps one might called them "cormorants"—any say in the management of fishings in Scotland. I fear, however, that it was some of these people who influenced the Government at that infamous meeting at the Golden Lion which was held recently.
I should like to touch just briefly on some of the failures of the Bill. Perhaps the greatest danger—I hope a non-political one—is that trout and other freshwater fisheries are being treated separately from salmon and sea trout. There is a grave risk of a clash of interests, as several noble Lords have already said. If one is fishing for one species one will inevitably catch another. If one stocks the upper waters with trout, they will eat the salmon fry. Will fishery boards, where they exist—and
1036
remember, existing boards cover only a small proportion of the existing rivers—have over-riding control? I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about Area Boards because I feel that this is important and could well be the answer to the problem. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked: Is the wording "significant" an improvement? This is worrying, as the existing well-managed fisheries are probably already at their capacity and it would seem wrong that they should not get the same protection in like manner as fisheries which are capable of improvement.
Then there is the problem of esturial fishing; and many of the good angling clubs to which I referred have their fishings at the mouths of rivers. I do not see why they should not get the same protection as fishermen upstream. Someone fishing for brown trout—and brown trout go into brackish water—is far more likely to catch a sea-trout, and it seems wrong to give the right of automatic free fishing in tidal waters. Some Members in another place expressed surprise that fishing for salmon in Scotland is already illegal on a Sunday. The position has now become such that it has been impossible to enforce this law, as those caught maintain that they are fishing for trout. On this aspect there is little doubt that trout fishing should be brought into line with salmon fishing; I see no reason why the water bailiffs and wardens should not have at least one day of respite.
Then we have the non-co-operative owner of fishing. In another place this was looked at from the point of view of rivers, but the position is even more significant in lochs with several owners. I have a particular interest in Loch Ness, where there are many owners, and unless there is some compulsion I feel that things will be very difficult. The Government have recently proposed legislation of a similar nature where they are permitting compulsion for recalcitrant crofters on common grazings, and there seems to be no real reason why the non-co-operative owner should benefit under this Bill.
A small but significant point was raised by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard; it was also raised in another place, but unfortunately received no action. I refer to the unsatisfactory state of Section 23 of the Salmon

1037
Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868. This Act, now out of date, relates to failure to remove all gear from netting stations. I believe that in the other place it was said that this was not a suitable Bill in which to include this matter. I suggest that we should not increase the penalties under this provision because it does not seem right that while we should not be able to amend the measure we should be able to increase the penalties.
There is, then, the complication where trout fishing may vest in two or more owners on the same piece of water. There could be the riparian owner on each bank and the owner of the salmon fishings. Indeed, it is terrifying how complicated these matters can become. It would have been much easier if the Government could have seen their way to have brought brown trout and other freshwater fish into line on salmon fishing. Good protection exists in England and this seems to be a case where Scotland could take a leaf out of England's book.
Given proper protection, there is substantial—not even "significant"—room for improvement. Given this improvement, which would involve many new waters becoming available, there should be no fear of greatly enhanced charges for the right to fish, as this would be controlled by the law of supply and demand. There appears to be a risk of heavier pressure from illegal fishing on those waters which do not get a protection order. I hope that the Government will examine this because it could be very significant. I hope, however, that the Government will take firm action against those who have been spoiling Scottish fisheries by taking something for nothing, and will ensure that the conservationists have a controlling interest.
4.45 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I do not apologise for entering the debate at this rather late hour, having listened to every word of it, because for a long time I was connected with this particular problem. What surpries me is the number of people who always want action to be taken, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, quoted a White Paper which he said he produced in 1970—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: It was in 1971, my Lords.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I was about to say that the noble Lord produced the White Paper in 1970 or 1971.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lord, lest anybody reading Hansard is misled, it was in November 1971.
Lord HOY: I said 1970 or 1971, my Lords. In any event, the White Paper having been produced, nothing flowed from it. I am not complaining about that, except that when a White Paper is produced, that is normally done for a purpose, but it was left to certain of my right honourable and honourable friends to do something about it, and we did. I am a little surprised when noble Lords opposite complain even about salmon fisheries. I remember the row we were in over salmon fisheries, but it was a Labour Government who made great changes in the rules applying to these fisheries. I am sure that there are noble Lords in the House this afternoon, including two former Secretaries of State for Scotland, who will remember that we changed the law for Scotland in this respect and allowed convictions to be made on the evidence of one witness. Up to that time it could not be done without two witnesses. I must say that I did not altogether support the changes that were being made, but that was done by the Government I supported and those matters comprised the two great debates which took place on this issue; the change in the law of Scotland and our attempt to find a definition for "legal poachers", which we found somewhat difficult to do. Thus, the record of this side of the House is much better on fishing legislation than that of any other Party.
I am rather disturbed when I listen, for example, to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, urging that we must bring in some other organisation—that we must have somebody to supervise this—and this request was reinforced by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. One of the great difficulties in life is that whenever we start to do something, it is thought that any Government—I am not here talking about a Government of any political complexion—must superimpose another organisation to get it done. I always feel that when that happens the job is not done as successfully as it might have been if it were done directly, and of

1039
course it is much more costly. I am the only noble Lord who is a non-riparian owner to take part in this debate; I think that every speaker so far has been a riparian owner. I therefore speak from the section who indulge in fishing.
I am simply saying that it is not good enough simply to come here and make the sort of complaints that have been made to a Government who have done more by way of legislation than any of their predecessors. Indeed, I resent it somewhat when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, say, "I want a personal assurance" as if he had some commanding height over every other noble Lord. If legislation is to be transacted, it must be transacted not only for this House but for the country, and we are here dealing with an industry, in my view a very valuable one. Despite what happened in another place, this Bill is a considerable improvement legislatively on anything we have achieved so far. If any noble Lord thinks differently I will gladly give way to him so that he can get up and say so.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord comparing this with any other legislation put forward by this Government, or is he referring only to the sphere of freshwater fisheries?
Lord HOY: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord understood what we were discussing this afternoon. Is he not aware that we are discussing freshwater fisheries?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Of course I am, my Lords.
Lord HOY: Well, my Lords, that is the only point I am making. I am simply saying that no other Government have done as much as we have in this matter. I do not claim that we have gone as far as we might have gone, and certainly when I was responsible for it I should have liked to go much further, but Lord Campbell knows that there are limitations not only on what Ministers can do but in terms of the time that is available. All I want to say in conclusion is that, despite the limitations, this is a considerable step forward. There is no noble Lord here this afternoon who has wanted to sneak differently about the Bill. If they have a criticism, it is that they would
1040
have liked to take two steps forward rather than one, but if we have taken even one step forward with this very difficult problem, we have made great progress. I simply want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kirkhill on introducing the Bill and on the fact that, at a time of great economic difficulty, the Government have found time to introduce this measure to improve something which can be a great tourist attraction in Scotland and which will give great pleasure to the people who reside in our country.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that it was he and his Government who suggested the method of Area Boards? It was not I. I was merely suggesting that his original thought was better than his present one.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I would not dissent from that at all, but nor would I make up my mind this afternoon which suggestion is best. It can become very silly to stick to opinions formed 10 years ago. It may be that, after 10 years, we want to make a change. I should not like to think that the Liberal Party would lag behind me in this respect.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, may I say to him that he said he had listened to the full debate? I listened to it and I thought that almost every speaker who got up congratulated the Government.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I do not want to continue the debate for too long, but I did not say that they did anything other than that. I said that the great trouble was that, having given congratulations for one step, they complained that a second step had not been taken.
4.53 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hoy for his congratulations to the Government on taking this fist step. At the risk of some reiteration, may I simply say that we on this side of the House must emphasise that this is a first step? We do not consider the Bill as being full of perfection. Ideally, we should have wished to go somewhat further, but we are constrained by the schedule of the Parliamentary timetable on the one hand and, on the other hand, are conscious of the fact that, at a time of some economic crisis, it is a general

1041
view that there are more pressing matters which properly come before the Houses of Parliament.
I must, of course, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his generous welcome to the principle underlying the Bill and, indeed, for his emphasis—an emphasis which was also expressed by my noble friend Lord Hoy—on the beneficial aspects for tourism which are certainly, at least by implication, built into the Bill as it will become part of Statute. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, whether there must be a significant increase in access before protection may be given. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that encouragement is given not just to improve the quality of the sport but to make it more widely available. There were many complaints from the Government's supporters in another place that the Bill could be of greater benefit to landlords seeking protection than to anglers looking for more waters in which to fish. It was to ensure that this would not be the case that the provision, against which the complaint in question is directed, was inserted.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord so soon, but I feel that this is an important matter of interpretation. We entirely agree with the principle, but the expression,
"a significant increase in access to fishing",
cannot apply to a person who already allows the entire public access to his waters all the time. He cannot increase the access any further.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I accept the point which the noble Lord makes. It might, depending on the individual construction put upon this section, be seen as somewhat unfair. In fact, one might almost say that it outrages the laws of equity. But I have to assert that we are not engaged in an exchange of quids for quos here. There is a clear bias in the Bill in favour of more access for trout fishing. I cannot really add to that point at this stage.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, if no more access can be given than is already being given, can the noble Lord tell us what he intends? In other words, what
1042
will be the position if maximum access is already being given?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the point I am attempting to make is that, where an almost total access is being given, the owner of such access stands, as against other future owners who may be offered protection, in a disadvantaged situation as he would see it. But that is not how we construct our interpretation of the Bill.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, surely the main purpose of the Bill is to have more fish for the angler to catch. Does that not override the desire to have more access?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I believe that the main purpose of the Bill is to protect the brown trout, and, as a consequence of that protection, to increase its availability to a growing number of people who may wish to fish for brown trout.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whether some proprietors will receive protection without offering access. The point was made that they were not sure whether or not this would work essentially on a whole river basis. In reply, I say that we can be flexible and that we are prepared to consider large tributary systems or complexes of lochs, as I indicated in opening.
The noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Balfour and Lord Balerno, whose general welcome to the Bill is, of course, appreciated, asked whether it would be wrong for a river to be stocked with trout in the part where salmon spawn and where small salmon fry live. I believe that a good measure of co-ordination will be needed. Certainly co-operation will be essential. There is no doubt about that. I am prepared to say that I appreciate the qualms raised in the minds of noble Lords by the picture which has been presented of the depredations on salmon fry by large numbers of rainbow and brown trout. Both those species were mentioned. Certainly, those trout might be introduced as an effect of the present Bill. That is admitted. However, we must take care not to attach too much importance to this.
Before I explain how my right honourable friend is empowered to deal with

1043
such a situation, I remind your Lordships that, in a great many cases, the riparian rights to the waters in question will belong to the same salmon proprietors who will be anxious not to endanger their much more valuable salmon stocks. However, even accepting that there may be cases where riparian owners with no salmon interests may be encouraged by the provisions of the Bill to attempt to develop their trout fishings—this is certainly what the Bill has in mind—I see no need for district salmon fishery boards and individual salmon proprietors to fear unduly for the safety of the salmon stocks. It is not only anglers who are entitled to object to the proposals for access submitted to my right honourable friend with a view to obtaining protection for trout waters; it is equally open to salmon proprietors and to the district boards to question such proposals. If no information is given in the original proposal as to plans for developing and restocking waters, those interested in the possibility of overstocking may ask my right honourable friend to require such information to be provided by the proposer. Then, if the facts warrant it, those interested can object to the restocking proposals, and their objections will be fully taken into account by my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also asked whether an angling club constitutes the public in terms of the Bill. The answer is, No. Its members, through the club, can occupy fishings. To qualify a club would have to offer permits to non-members. The noble Lord also asked whether the Government would continue their ban on drift netting in Scottish waters. I can reply that the Government intend to continue this ban under existing legislation. The present prohibition orders do not expire until 1983, as the noble Lord probably knows, and this will give the Government time to consider alternative primary legislation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, suggested that there should be area boards to administer the Bill rather than leave it to the Scottish Office. I think that that was the phrase he used. This would have entailed the setting-up of the whole area board structure now, and this is one of our problems. We accept that this should be the ultimate objective, but I have been
1044
attempting to explain that there are obvious economic difficulties in proceeding to that point at the moment. In the view of the Government, the present measure is meant to meet a demand for more trout angling in the simplest possible way at this time. I am not able usefully to add to that at this stage.
The noble Viscount also asked whether funds would be available for advisory work by the freshwater fishery laboratory at Faskally. I should like it to be appreciated that the prime function of the Government's fishery laboratory is to research and to advise the Government. It is true that the scientists are able to give advice to private persons from time to time, but it would be wrong of them to allow this to encroach upon their prime function. The noble Viscount also posed a question as to the definition of reasonable terms and conditions, and asked whether these should be allowed to work against the good of the fishing, for example, by too much spinning, which I think he mentioned. It will be up to the proprietors to say which methods of fishing each will allow on his water. Protection orders do not lay down conditions of fishing. They only make it illegal to fish without permission.
The noble Viscount also asked whether there was anything in the Bill to control the activities of wardens: at least he used a phrase of that kind. I can tell him that wardens are given only minimal powers under the Bill. They are not authorised to do anything other than ask anglers for their permits, and they can seize tackle if, and only if, they suspect a contravention of the relevant protection order.
I appreciate the general welcome for the Bill given by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who posed a number of questions. He asked whether I thought that if the Secretary of State issued too many tickets this might result in overfishing. The position will be that landlords will say how many tickets they are prepared to issue. This will not be a question for the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount also asked what type of offence is covered in Schedule 2 in relation to Section 23 of the 1868 Act, concerning:
"Failing to remove boats, nets, etc. in close season."

1045
This point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The purpose of the provision is to impose a penalty for a first offence of £100, and a penalty for a second offence, and subsequent offence, of £200. Section 23 of the 1868 Act requires proprietors and occupiers of fisheries to remove all boats, nets, et cetera during the close season, to prevent these being used in fishing until the end of the close season.
At present a person who contravenes the provision is liable to forfeit the gear which he fails to remove, and for every day that he so neglects he is liable to a penalty of £10. The Bill substitutes penalties for for first and subsequent offences, and is in line with current policy of specifying, where possible, a specific penalty in relation to a specific offence, and not a daily rate of penalty in relation to a daily and recurring offence.
The noble Viscount, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, suggested that the consultative body should be made up of angling club representatives and those responsible for fishings. The purpose of the consultative body is to ensure that the Secretary of State is advised on the part of anglers—that is, those wishing to fish—as to the value of the proposals. Therefore, the consultative body should be composed of anglers. They could be individuals, or they might be representatives from clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked for a definition on Clause 1(3)(b), raising the question of whether or not the Secretary of State should consult a body representative of the fishing position. I believe that I have dealt with this in my reply to the noble Viscount.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, the point I was trying to make was that I did not want to confine the consultative body to freshwater fish, but to cover those interested in fishing which would enlarge the whole scope and make inclusive all the fish in a river.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, at the moment we are of the view that it should be a question of individuals and those who are members of clubs, or perhaps representatives of clubs. But we could certainly look at this point. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, also asked whether the Government would admit the national value of conservation of salmon species.
1046
I would reply to him, Yes; the Government are constantly on guard to preserve salmon stocks, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. But this Bill is a small first step to try to get only one thing; namely, more access to trout fishing. The noble Lord asserted that is is not possible to manage a river for trout only without damaging salmon interests. My view on this was contained in the point I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when I responded to a similar question which he raised, and I do not think I can add to that at this stage.
With regard to the risk of rainbow trout entering from other rivers, there is no scientific evidence of any rainbow trout stocks in Britain having entered the river from the sea, and in only two rivers, in Derbyshire, have rainbow trout proved able to reproduce from season to season and become established. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, suggested that to admit salmon is to admit to a biological nonsense. I can only say that salmon already are fully protected, and I reiterate that all this Bill does is to provide some protection for brown trout in return for improved access to trout fishings.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked whether estuarial fishing should have protection. I can reply to him that there is no private right to fish for brown trout in tidal waters. It is not the aim of this Bill to extend private fishing rights: just to give protection to existing rights is the aim of this Bill, in the hope that this will improve areas of access offered for trout fishing. Finally, the noble Lord also asked whether district salmon fishery boards will have overriding control. I would reply to that: No; these are concerned only with salmon. The Government accept there should ultimately be area boards to have overall control of all fishing, salmon and trout, but this must await legislative time. This is indeed the point I made earlier when I replied to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. My Lords, I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on that? He said that fishery boards were concerned only with salmon, but at the present time they take out brown trout from the salmon spawning areas. How is this going to be reconciled? Because

1047
it could well be that someone is putting them in and the fishery board is coming round and taking them out.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I myself, as an individual, have no personal knowledge of these rather esoteric fishing matters, and if the point which the noble Lord makes is one of considerable substance I can of course look at it at a later stage, in Committee, certainly.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give way—and I am grateful to him for doing so—because I pointed out that fishery boards electrically stun predators, which include brown trout, but that then the brown trout, live, can be taken to another place for trout fishing. What is therefore needed is co-ordination, and there need not be a conflict. But I am sure that this is a point which we ought to go into at a later stage of the Bill, at the Committee stage or the Report stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords. I emphasised to your Lordships earlier that the question of co-ordination will be very important, as indeed will be the question of co-operation between a number of proprietors. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, highlighted the possibility, indeed, that three different proprietors might well be involved in a particular stretch of water. Still the Government consider this Bill to be a major step forward—a first step, not a huge step, but a major step. The Government feel that they can take credit for taking the initiative in this instance—something which previous Administrations have baulked at. In those terms, and in the light of the remarks which I have just made, I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.13 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before your Lordships' House today has a single purpose. It is to raise the statutory limit on the
1048
maximum amount which the Secretary of State may lend out of the National Loans Fund to the Scottish Special Housing Association to finance capital expenditure on new houses and major improvements. The total of the Association's borrowing from the National Loans Fund is limited by Parliament. This limit, which has been increased from time to time by legislation, is at present £290 million. The Association has to date borrowed sums approaching £250 million, and the contracts for building work which it has already entered into commit it to expenditure which will bring total borrowing to over £270 million. We expect that, taking into account actual borrowings, plus the Association's contractual commitments, we are likely to reach the £290 million borrowing limit by the summer of this year. Consequently, to avoid any pause in the Scottish Special Housing Association's building operations, which play such an important part in public sector housing provision in Scotland, the statutory limit on borrowing needs to be increased now.
The housing programme which the SSHA has developed in Scotland is one to which the Government continue to attach a high priority. The Scottish Special Housing Association has contributed a very great deal to the solving of Scotland's housing needs, and we see a substantial continuing role for them in the kind of work I have described. For these important purposes additional loan finance is necessary. We think it right to give the Association firm statutory backing for a 5-year programme of work, subject to the need to obtain a Ministerial order beyond the immediate increase of £85 million for which we are making provision meantime. The figures of £375 million and £500 million in the Bill have been determined on this basis. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, again we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his concise explanation of the purposes of this Bill. It has come from another place, where it received a good "going over", and I do not therefore propose myself to raise again here the points that were there

1049
brought up. I will say only that the SSHA has operated for about 40 years in Scotland, and its general purposes and its work are supported by this Bench here as well as by the Bench opposite. I thought it was better use of our time today in your Lordships' House for me to concentrate on the Bill we have just been dealing with, the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries Bill, and I hope noble Lords will take this into account if they noticed that I spoke for a little longer than usual in considering the background and the principle of that Bill.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I should like, of course, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his generous acceptance of the Government's need to increase the commitment of the SSHA housing programme, and to assure him that, speaking personally, I had not noticed that he had taken a longer time than usual during the freshwater fisheries debate. I was, as always, interested in the points that he had to make.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be not committed.
Moved, That the Bill be not committed.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as this is a Money Bill, we on this side of the House see no point in considering it further in Committee.
On Question, Committee negatived.

DEFENCE OF NATO
5.17 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on NATO's vulnerability to surprise attack. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name. It is concerned with the article which appeared in The Times disclosing a NATO leak as to the vulnerability of the forces in Germany to surprise attack. In the same edition of The Times the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put in a scenario of how that surprise attack might operate. Both the article and the scenario considered the difficulties that might arise from the fact that the consent of the President of the United States is necessary before any tactical
1050
nuclear weapon can be used. They considered the question that he might be in bed and asleep, and not be able to be wakened until the invading divisions were well committed. I think there is a difficulty greater than that. One would not merely have to find him and wake him up: one would have to find that he had also gone quite mad if one wished to obtain his consent to throwing nuclears about in Germany in the first hours of an invasion—nuclears which would not only kill literally millions of civilian Germans but would incinerate the entire NATO forces, which would be "sitting ducks" in their barracks, from which they had not had time to deploy themselves. Really, the idea that you could use tactical nuclears in these circumstances is absurd.
There was a correspondence which followed and which seemed, in the main, to say that this NATO report was "old hat". Of course it is. This vulnerability has been known for many years. When I was the spokesman for my Party on military matters—I am not certain which year it was, about ten years ago—I was present with the late Sir Basil Liddell Hart when we worked out how a surprise attack would be likely to develop. The idea was rather different from Lord Chalfont's. Sir Basil visualised a Soviet commander probably choosing a winter's night when the North German plain was frozen, and calculated that if he started at last light he could have three divisions on the Rhine by first light next morning. If they turned up the Rhine they could be on the Swiss frontier by the third day and completely across the whole NATO communications; and with nine airborne divisions there would be little difficulty in moving in troops to line that corridor. The fact that it is "old hat" is perfectly true; but it seems surprising to advance it as an argument. It is an argument which would only be relevant if it were to be said that this is a danger which has passed and we are now prepared to meet it. Obviously, that is not true.
Every year the forces of the Warsaw Pact have become stronger and the forces of NATO have become weaker. It derives from the Lisbon Conference of 1952 when the Chiefs of Staff of NATO met to advise their Governments on what was necessary to defend the Western

1051
position. The answer came out: 50 divisions at the ready, 4,000 front-line aircraft, another 120 divisions at so many days and, most important of all, the main striking force to be held behind the Rhine because if it were put forward it could certainly be surprised.
This was back in 1952. We had not the will to provide the divisions and the Germans certainly had not the will to provide the battleground. Instead, all that we did was to find 22 divisions, a very scratch force, to be placed on the German frontier—not really even on the German frontier but on convenient barracks—convenient for housing troops, but not for deploying them. It was said that they would be a tripwire; that they might not be able to do much in the way of fighting; but that if they were attacked, the nuclear blast would leave America and descend on Russia. This was to be the deterrent. Now the bomb has gone! The tripwire is disconnected. The SALT agreements, in substance, amount to this: that neither the Russians nor the American will guard themselves against the other's attack; in other words, each party will expose his naked breast. That means very simply that the Americans have said in the SALT agreement: "We are not going to accept the incineration of our country for anything that happens in Europe." There is no nuclear deterrent left.
The Warsaw capacity in these years has much enlarged, and so far as NATO is concerned, what morale it ever had has disappeared. I think that it is time to say that. Britain has a small, professional, highly-efficient Army. It is loyal to its task. It would fight if it could; but it is stationed at least nine hours further from its deployment position than the Russians whom it proposes to meet, so that its chances of ever being able to fight would be remote. Behind that highly professional Army we have a generation that has never pulled a trigger. France has retired. Italy is not there.
Germany has become democratised, and very successfully democratised. She has been demilitarised and successfully demilitarised. Her Army is highly democratic. It is no danger to her civil Government and no danger to the Russians either because it is universally agred that
1052
it is heavily infiltrated at all levels from the East. Apart from that, we have established in Germany the civil right over the military right. There is no power by which one could mine the advance route of the enemy; no power to mine the bridges or even to remove petrol from the stations in the line of the enemy advance. Such are the entrenched rights of the individual against the military requirements, rights which we imposed in Germany in our enthusiasm when we created that Republic.
The American troops—well, American battle-worthy troops have been great fighting men; but she has never produced a peace-time Army which was interested in training; and she has not one in Germany, either. The defence of NATO is not a question of a surprise, it is not a question of "old hat". I have been trying to hammer this home for ten years. It just does not exist. We do not have to think in terms of attack. All that the Russians have to do is to sound their trumpets and the walls will come tumbling down.
The article says that there were 16,000 Soviet agents in Western Germany, at whatever date the NATO report was made. I do not know how they counted the numbers; but I suspect that it was quite simple. Those agents are perfectly well-known and nearly every German businessman has got his arrangements with them. The Germans are not Communists, they do not want to be Communists. They vastly prefer to go on as they are. But they are realistic people; they have suffered before—and there are very few German businessmen who have not made their private arrangements as to what they are going to do and how they are going to be accepted when the East moves in. There is going to be no resistance there.
In France, the working class movement is controlled by the Communists; and the Communist-Socialist alliance looks very likely to provide the next President—though that is looking a little far forward. So far as Italy is concerned, the Communists look to be on the point of joining the Government. They tell us they are independent and not under Russian control. Those who like comforting beliefs can believe that, if it amuses them. They also say that they will remain in the NATO Alliance. That,

1053
at any rate, I should think would have the approval of the Russians. It is hard to think of anything which could suit the Russians better. It would not have the approval of Dr. Kissinger, who has indicated that if communism goes on in this way then the NATO Alliance will have to be reconsidered.
For my part, I hope profoundly that it is. I should like to see it wound up as quickly as possible, because I believe that it is an untenable military posture, an obviously untenable military posture. It is not a deterrent but an incitement. We are not defended by NATO. We are not defended by any American threat of nuclear retaliation, because there is none. We are defended by the fact that a highly conservative gerontocracy in the Kremlin have the feeling that they have as many people as they can manage and do not want any more. They have a very strong feeling indeed they have as many Germans as they can manage and if they had more they might have the Germans running them. They have the feeling that they are old men and they hope and expect the present dispensation will see them out.
How long can we entrust our security to that chance arrangement in Russia? All through Russian history there have been periods of lassitude, and then comes a new young Tsar. Perhaps the new young Tsar will be a Communist who really believes in world revolution. Then we can look to the end of this European civilisation so far as the Continent is concerned. But I am convinced that if we look to ourselves we can defend ourselves. We do not have a Communist Party or anything that counts as a Communist Party. We have no Communist Party which could provide the Russians with a credible Government. Russia is not interested in governing countries where she cannot use a local Communist Party for that purpose. That is why the smaller States—Switzerland, Turkey, Finland and Sweden—seem reasonably secure and stable. There are not Communist Parties there, but there is resolve and determination to defend their liberties. Where there is a will to defend, those countries can look to a future.
I do not believe that the Russians, even with a young new Tsar, even with the determination of world revolution,
1054
would wish to interfere with resolute people who are prepared to defend themselves and who are not needlessly provocative. This country should recognise, in view of this report and everything which has been said, that NATO has ceased to be a viable alliance; it has ceased to be a source of security. We should get out of these dangerous entanglements. We should get rid of nuclear weapons which are a danger to us and nobody else because we cannot conceivably use them. We should train our people to defend themselves.
The idea that one can have a whole generation that has never pulled a trigger cannot go on. It is not merely a question of physical ability but morale. If a nation is to live it must have the will; it must have the feeling of being together, of being part of a unit, a determination to be a nation and defend itself. This is absolutely essential. A long period of military training is not necessary. It should be on a local basis. The battalions ought to be brought into being, roughly at school leaving ages, and should have a ten-year life. They should be based upon their local area with fairly simple weapons. They should be designed to go underground if necessary, to be guerrillas if necessary, to defend their locality, to become a community imbued with defending the idea of independence. I believe that would be a deterrent to any invader, for no invader wants to take on Ulsters voluntarily, let alone trained, determined guerrillas who would be far more effective than any Ulster terrorists. There lies the deterrent, and there is the direction in which our defence policy should go.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask one question? Is not the logical conclusion of his argument that we should restore National Service in this country?
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Certainly, my Lords; I thought I had made that clear.
5.34 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, one cannot but fail to be impressed by the sincerity and authority of Lord Paget's analysis, however depressing one might find it. I cannot follow his conclusion in suggesting that we should wind up NATO. It is

1055
still the best we have, and we would be in danger of falling into the old pitfall of the best being the enemy of the good. Furthermore, he talks of Soviet agents infiltrating the West. In my more depressed moments I sometimes acquire some solace from thinking that Czechoslovakia, for instance, is held down by force of Soviet arms, and while one tends to think of the monolithic nature of the Warsaw Pact countries, I am not so certain that I would want to go to war with the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and Roumania at my back. We do not know the extent of their total identity with the present Soviet régime.
Briefly, I want to support the noble Lord in having asked this Question; but I want to be careful not to pre-empt the full defence debate we shall be having in about a month's time. I am not qualified to follow the noble Lord's penetrating analysis on the strategic balance. The publicity we have recently had on defence issues is wholly desirable. It is dangerous for these issues to be swept under the carpet, for we would be in danger of tripping down the stairs. The particular study which triggered off this Question has probably been slightly overblown in that it was more or less a routine staff study, and these things go on continuously all the time. It is reassuring that these staff studies are being carried out. Perhaps some of the conclusions they come to are worrying.
It has unquestionably highlighted the situation which has been worrying many of us for a number of years. It has proved particularly timely in view of the startling Russian reaction to the speech from the Leader of my Party. This in turn has triggered off a series of useful and informative articles by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Predictably, it has either been followed or initiatives have been taken by that reliable old friend of defence, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has taken certain initiatives about information being made available to this House.
It is important we should retain a balance in studying these reports. If we overdo decrying our weaknesses, we may be in danger of provoking precisely the response we are anxious to avoid. A potential aggressor may be tempted in thinking he could attack the West with
1056
impunity. As the noble Lord said, this is certainly one of the psychological reasons why it is of great importance for the West to retain a credible defence posture. Equally, it would be dangerous for this country to become as paranoid as the Russians are—and indeed historically have been over very many years—harbouring unfounded suspicions that neighbours have the desire or intention of dominating by force.
The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that the Russians feed such fears in the West. We look across the Iron Curtain and see a country which has a long way to go in raising the standard of living of its people in the production of consumer goods and, indeed, in food. Yet they choose, as a land-locked and land-based Power, to create in the space of ten short years the most powerful navy in the world, with a massive spearhead force of attack submarines—which of all the weapons in the armoury is the one which cannot be said to be a defensive weapon. By definition, the attack submarine is not a defensive weapon. Furthermore, in recent weeks the Soviets have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not afraid to deploy this machine in support of their political aspirations. It is therefore wholly understandable that Mr. Solzhenitsyn should be saying that they are on a treadmill and possibly in danger of being unable to control the machine they have created. Nevertheless, I continue to be a believer in the rather overworked word "détente", provided we are clear what we mean by it. We would support frank discussion of our fears and differences in the hope of being able to identify where the conflicting interests lie, with a view perhaps to reconciling some of the differences and expanding those areas of mutual trust and understanding which exist.
I think we must be opposed to détente if by this we mean being lulled into a false sense of security by an over-facile acceptance of palpably false assurances which are not backed up by deeds and performance, and which are simply designed to weaken the will to defend what we believe in. This, again, was eloquently expounded by Mr. Solzhenitsyn the other day. We must oppose détente. If we then progressed even further and, in our weak and troubled financial and industrial situation, used it

1057
as a pretext for the unilateral dropping of our guard, we should be setting an example which inevitably would be followed by our NATO allies. In many cases they are only looking for a pretext to do this. This country is still looked to for leadership in these matters and, if we start, the dominoes will fall fast indeed.
I should like to finish by reminding the Government of an old adage: that the ostrich, with its head in the sand, is indeed in a posture which invites a kick up the behind. I know this is not something which applies to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate, and I know that he personally is aware of how close to the bone we have come in cutting the forces in NATO. I shall be very interested this evening to hear whether his brief allows him to admit how close we have come.
5.44 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, the whole House will have listened with attention to the noble Lord who has just sat down, who has made an absolutely charming, friendly and certainly non-controversial speech. I think, with all humility as a pacifist, I might venture to put one point to him, because he has asked my noble friend the reason for his destructive views about NATO. I would ask him to recall the fate of SEATO, because it was only last September that the final meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation took place in New York. This was rather surprising, but the meeting was held there because it was not safe for many of the representatives concerned to go to Bangkok—Thailand having decided to expel the whole of the American citizens who were there. Of the eight Members, France had not paid a subscription and two or three had evolved a new, anti-American foreign policy. The resolution was passed last September that while they would not abrogate the Treaty—a most charming conception, this—they would abolish the Organisation.
That is the end of one Organisation. Can it happen here? I beg your Lordships to believe this personal statement: I have had no discussion whatever, except for the exchange of a couple of words, with the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton. I did not intend to listen very carefully to his speech, because I
1058
was convinced I should disagree with every word—and I have known him for 50 years or more and am rather an expert on the noble Lord, Lord Paget. But he is surprising. There was indeed quite a long period when Lieutenant Paget of the Royal Navy was writing the most indiscreet letters to Sergeant Hale of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. We exchanged letters and we expressed during that time, with the utmost freedom, our views on the powers-that-be and thanked whatever Gods might be that we had an Air Force! When I wanted to be rude to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, which I was on occasion, I said unkindly that he had brains and no common sense; and when I wanted to flatter myself I claimed that I had common sense and no brains. Then today up gets the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, and in a very brilliant, admirably-reasoned and plausible speech he comes to precisely the same conclusion as I have reached. His views on NATO are my views; his views of the future are my views. I listened to him with almost astonished agreement. He has taken the high road and I, of course, always take the low road; but we have arrived together at our separate conclusions.
I shall content myself with merely reciting a few events of yesterday. Yesterday The Times reported that the opinion was being widely reported from America and the words were believed to be those of Dr. Kissinger—that if Italy had a Communist-participating Government then it was not worth continuing NATO at all and it might as well be wound up. The Times pointed out that this would mean the withdrawal of 3 million American troops from Western Europe. Italy will almost certainly have a Communist-participating Government. On all the informed predictions of the pollsters, France will also have a Communist-participating Government. M. Francois Mitterand is at the moment enjoying a popularity which the Left have not been able to register since the return and subsequent demise of General de Gaulle. France, with her own position in NATO always equivocal, and, indeed, precarious, has in these circumstances to rely on Germany to provide a very substantial measure of support.
But it was announced yesterday, again in The Times—not a paper on which I

1059
normally rely, but on matters of this kind one can at least regard a statement as a provisional hypothesis—that the leader of the Social Democrat Party in the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking in this country, said:
"For long we have been an economy looking for a nation. For a time we looked to Europe to provide it, but we have concluded that this is nonsense. It is impracticable. It is not even visionary."
So, he said:
"I do not rule out for a moment the reunion of Germany".
And let us not forget, my Lords, that Herr Schmidt himself has been negotiating treaties for the repatriation to Western Germany of some of the East Germans. He is very sensible, and I am not criticising the Germans. I am merely saying that steps are being taken, day by day, for the reunion of Germany.
I am far from wanting to criticise the Americans. I think that their foreign policies have been very good, but I thought that President Nixon's discovery of China was perhaps a little belated. I had done it beforehand, though I naturally accepted the assurance of the CIA that it was the Gobi desert populated with supers.
However, we are the area for battle in the event of nuclear war, in the event of the full use of nuclear weapons. There is a temptation to say that Great Britain is an admirable target. You can wipe out Great Britain, without wiping out anybody else. If we have reached that point of no possible return, where someone has to push a button, Russia might well think that if they destroyed Britain it would convince the Americans that they were serious, and an interchange of flashes might avert the final combat. I do not think our American friends have ever pretended that they would sacrifice the whole of their Atlantic seaboard in defence of Britain. It would be unfair to ask them to do so. They have been very generous, and I am certainly in no sense anti-American. So that, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, said, there is a situation in which, if we had not spent £40,000 million on armaments since 1945—a vastly increased sum in 1975 terms—we should not now be enduring our present
1060
economic depression. We should not now be facing as near certain economic extinction as we may be facing nuclear extinction.
The other thing that happened last night—and I tore myself away from a fascinating debate for it—was a programme on the ITV; one of those terriers in the rat pit political discussions which so delight the audiences of the BBC. There was half an hour of bland statements of opinion and of facts, uninterrupted, by five of the most distinguished nuclear scientists in the whole United States—four of them were present, and one was speaking from hospital—speaking with ail the authority and dignity of judges of the Supreme Court pronouncing a decision on law, but in this case pronouncing a decision on science. What they said was that we have gone too far. We have nearly reached the point of no return.
We have a situation in which France is supplying nuclear energy to Libya. Yet only a month or two ago, President Sadat explained that the eccentricities of Colonel Gaddafi were due to falling on his head from a very tall camel when he was 12 years old. It is a somewhat new but rather frightening version of Lady Caroline Norton's most famous poem. Field Marshal Amin VC was also mentioned. President Kaunda might usefully consider whether he would like, on behalf of the coloured races of Africa, to undertake against Field Marshal Amin the same measures that he advocates our taking against the white population of Rhodesia. It is not an easy matter.
However, the professors in America said that there will soon be 300 tons of plutonium floating about. Canada is supplying the stuff to Pakistan, the United States are supplying it to Iran and, I think, Brazil, and so on. They said that if Israel does not have nuclear weapons now, it can make them within a few weeks—of that there is no doubt—and it can use them. If Israel is beleaguered by the Arab nations and fighting for its existence against overwhelmingly superior forces, whatever be the rights and wrongs, who can expect it not to use them?
I know that since 1950 we have had the arguments about strategic and tactical weapons. I never quite know what they are, and they vary from time to time. But the placidity of the last North Atlantic

1061
Treaty Organisation Report was so astonishing as to be almost unbelievable. They took note of the fact that the United Kingdom and Iceland are playing musical chairs, put and take, in the Icelandic seas to no sensible purpose. They did not comment on the fact that war is becoming an instrument throughout the world. Nearly all of them are religious wan, too. Christians are slaughtering Moslems. Moslems are slaughtering Christians, Protestants are fighting Catholics. I have yet to record the first Agnostic war. It may be that there is something to be said for holding moderate and understanding views, but that is the position. My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton for initiating this discussion. I am also grateful for the privilege of taking part in it. After a very brief personal absence from the Chamber, I shall listen to the noble Lord on the Front Bench with the greatest possible interest.
6.1 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the issue raised by my noble friend is very important and deserves careful consideration. I am sure that noble Lords will understand, therefore, why I shall confine myself to the Question and not be diverted into other interesting topics that would fall more appropriately within the ambit of our forthcoming debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1976. It is then that I shall reply fully to my noble friend's arguments and to the points made by other noble Lords.
I think I should begin by referring to the way in which this subject first came to public prominence. Just over a fortnight ago The Times featured two articles—my noble friend has obviously read them—one of them written by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, based on a
"report prepared by a senior officer of NATO's armed forces…now circulating within the Alliance"
and forecasting all sorts of alarming consequences in the event of a surprise attack on NATO. In fact, the articles, with their references to a report circulating in NATO, came as a far greater surprise to NATO than any military attack is likely to be. After some investigation, however, the report was tracked down. It turned
1062
out to have been written for private purposes by a military officer employed in a NATO agency outside NATO Headquarters. It was not prepared by, nor is it being studied in, the civil and military components of the various NATO headquarters.
After what I have been saying, I doubt whether noble Lords will be very surprised to hear that neither Her Majesty's Government nor NATO accept all that was alleged in The Times articles. Of course, some of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, wrote is true, given his assumptions. Any attacker who can achieve complete surprise must gain an advantage from doing so and is likely to be able to make inroads upon the territory of his opponent. This would be equally true on the totally incredible hypothesis of a surprise attack by NATO upon the Warsaw Pact. But the articles assumed, in effect, that NATO's forces are totally inadequate to offer any resistance to the kind of attack that would be delivered without any build-up. The fact is that NATO recognises the possibility of a surprise attack and deploys at all times forces which are ready to counter such an attack. It is part of NATO's strategy that it should do so.
Another assumption was that the Warsaw Pact would have available in a "surprise" situation forces which would not, in fact, be employable without some preparation. Some preparation would be necessary. This would of itself alert NATO and thus reduce the element of surprise. NATO is of course aware of the danger that such preparations might be undertaken in the guise of preparing for a large-scale exercise. There were also the assumptions of the absence of any political indicators of the imminence of an attack, and the inability of Western leaders to interpret and act upon what warnings there may be; and the implicit assumption of complete Soviet confidence that Western leaders, and the United States President in particular, would be unable to take speedy decisions after the attack had begun.
We do not accept these assumptions—nor, indeed, did The Times in its own leading article the day after the original articles appeared. We have confidence

1063
in NATO's flexible response strategy and in the triad of forces which support it. So that it could make an effective and appropriate response to any Warsaw Pact attack, NATO deploys conventional forces, theatre nuclear forces and strategic nuclear forces. Each of these three elements of NATO's forces has a specific role in countering particular types of aggression, but each depends on the other two to constitute overall a credible deterrent. For example, in the circumstances postulated in The Times articles which we have been considering today, NATO would, if necessary, be prepared to use its theatre nuclear weapons. We say something about this on page 10 of the Defence White Paper, which I know noble Lords who are interested in these matters will be studying. I can assure noble Lords that it would be wrong to suppose that NATO would be unable to do so, simply because the attack had come with little warning, or at an inconvenient time of day, or at an equally inconvenient time of the year.
This is a short reply to an important subject, but in the course of the next month we shall have the opportunity of going much more deeply into the total problem of Western defence.

AUSTRALIAN ESTATES COMPANIES BILL
STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.