HL Deb 31 March 1981 vol 419 cc116-28

2.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is an important piece of legislation for our fishing industry. It deals with a wide range of matters: the setting up of a new Sea Fish Industry Authority; powers to provide continuing financial aid to the industry; improvements in the arrangements for securing effective measures for the conservation of fish stocks; fish farming; and the conservation of whales. This is something of a mixed bag. But each section of the Bill reflects one simple concern: the Government's determination to do all in their power to provide a framework within which the interests of our fishing industry can be protected and its rational development can be fostered.

For too long the industry, particularly the catching sector, has had to operate in an atmosphere of uncertainty. This has been caused essentially by the difficulties we have encountered in negotiating a satisfactory common fisheries policy. I am sure that the House will share the Government's disappointment that the Council of Fisheries Ministers which met last week was unable to make any progress in the negotiations for a comprehensive revised common fisheries policy because one delegation was unable to discuss the crucial question of access. It is important for the sake of the fishing industry to reach an agreement which will provide a sound basis for structural and marketing policies, enforceable conservation measures, adequate quotas and reasonable exclusive and preferential access arrangments to safeguard our vulnerable coastal fishermen.

The Government will continue to make every endeavour to reach overall agreement on a common fisheries policy this spring. We look to our partners in the Community to approach further negotiations in a similar positive spirit, to the advantage of the Community as a whole. It will then be for the industry to make the best of its opportunities.

But Government too have a role. This Bill will provide the means whereby the Government can continue and develop the support they give the industry. This is not just a matter of providing financial assistance where this is appropriate and justified, but involves providing for services, whether through the agency of the proposed new authority or directly, which the industry, made up as it is to a large degree by small, independent units, cannot provide for itself but which are essential to its future.

Part I of the Bill provides for the replacement of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board by a single new statutory authority for the whole sea fish industry. There is a general consensus that this is a sensible step to take. The present authority and board already work in the same premises with much of their work being carried out in common. There is a strong case therefore for replacing them by a single authority which can operate as economically as possible. At the same time the new authority can be provided with the appropriate mechanisms to enable it to serve the fishing industry effectively in the years to come.

The Government have carefully consulted the fishing industry about our proposals. Before drafting this legislation we gave all sectors of the industry a full opportunity to express their views about the functions, membership and financing of a new authority, by issuing a consultation paper. Numerous comments were received. I do not claim that there was unanimity of view within the industry on all points. Indeed it was to be expected that differences of emphasis would be expressed. Nevertheless I believe that the Bill takes account of the concerns of the fishing industry and it is clear that the new body is wanted by the industry.

The new authority will retain a number of the features of those it replaces; for example, the industry favoured retention of a number of the functions currently exercised by the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board. I take this public opportunity of expressing the Government's thanks to the chairmen, members and staff of both bodies for their work over the past years. The decision to replace these bodies is in no way a criticism of their achievements, which have been considerable. They indeed have been prominent among those who have seen most clearly the need to replace the present legislative arrangements with statutory provisions which reflect more appropriately the needs of the fishing industry in the future. With new powers the Sea Fish Industry Authority will be able to build further on the solid foundations laid down by the present authority and board.

I would draw the attention of the House to certain particular clauses in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the membership of the new authority. The composition of the authority's membership is a departure from the provisions for the present bodies in that under our proposals the industry will take a direct role in determining the policies of the authority. Up to eight representatives of the industry will sit on the authority together with four independent members. This is quite different from the present system under which all members of the existing bodies are independent of the industry and are advised by large advisory councils of industry representatives.

We make the new proposal in response to strong views expressed from all sides of the industry that its representatives should take a direct part in the authority's decision-making. Ministers will appoint the representative members after full consultation with the industry. Our policy in making the appointments will be to obtain the fairest possible representation of the various sectors of the industry and the various regions of the country. The result will be to bring the experience of the whole industry directly into the decision-making process of the authority, with resulting benefits to its work.

Clause 2 lays on the authority the duty of promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry and of serving the interests of the industry as a whole. Clause 3 gives powers through which this duty can be exercised. The range of powers covers functions for which a considerable body of opinion in the industry expressed support during the consultation exercise we carried out. It will be for the authority itself to determine its priorities and thus the use to which it puts each of these powers.

Much of the remainder of Part I of the Bill relates to the provisions for financing the new authority. A considerable part of the new authority's financial resources will be raised from a levy on the industry as indeed is the system at present. Clause 4 provides the powers. It will be for the new authority, including its representative members, to propose the rates of levy which they will need to raise to fund the tasks they set themselves. The authority will also propose the sectors of the industry on which the levy should fall. The responses to the consultation paper showed a general acceptance by the industry that a statutory levy was the fairest and most appropriate means of raising the necessary resources. There was some interest expressed in changing the form of the levy from the basis used at present, which relates the levy to the weight of fish sold, to a system which would relate the levy to the value of the fish. The powers are drafted to enable the authority to decide which is the more appropriate method. As is the present procedure in respect of the WFA levy, the authority's proposals on the rate of the levy will be subject to confirmation by the fisheries Ministers and Parliament.

In addition to the power to raise finance by levy, Clause 6 provides for the authority, should it so wish, to borrow funds for the exercise of its functions. This power to borrow is subject to statutory controls. In addition there are powers in Clauses 7 to 9 for Government to assist the authority in its borrowing should this be appropriate.

Part II of the Bill provides new powers which are needed to enable the Government to make financial aid available to the fishing industry. New powers are particularly needed to enable the Government to take full advantage of financial aid measures which may be agreed by the Community as part of a revised common fisheries policy.

It is not yet clear what financial measures will be agreed in the Community, but the Bill as drafted should enable whatever measures are agreed to be applied in this country. This matter is of considerable importance to the industry, since it is clear that a measure of restructuring will be needed, and changes in the fishing fleet will be required when the shape of future fishing opportunities can be properly determined.

Part III of the Bill contains provisions to improve the conservation and management legislation for sea fisheries. The clauses make a number of detailed amendments to the existing legislation, which is already a complex area into which to venture. I hope that in my remarks today I bring out some of the main considerations which underlie the provisions; and I will arrange to make some written explanatory material available to noble Lords well before Committee stage on this part of the Bill to assist their consideration of it.

There will be no dispute in this House about the importance of conserving and managing the fish stocks in our waters. Quite simply the long term future of our fishing industry depends on effective conservation, and firm enforcement of the legislation is essential if conservation is to be achieved. After a careful review of the existing provisions we are clear that the measures in this part of the Bill are needed if we are to be able to fulfil our responsibilities to the industry.

The need for the changes to the legislation is fundamentally straightforward. The main powers to manage the fisheries are in Acts passed in the late 1960s, which were partially amended in 1976. Since 1976, and certainly since the late 1960s there have been considerable developments on the fishing scene. The need for effective but flexible controls has grown with the pressure on fish stocks. The common fisheries policy will place on the United Kingdom the responsibility of enforcing Community controls on vessels of all nationalities in our waters and we must ensure that we have fully effective enforcement procedures. The development of the western mackerel fishery and its large transhipment operation brings with it the need for further powers of control over these activities.

These arguments are not new; and they have been put forcefully to the Government. There has in particular been strong pressure for better powers to control the fishing by foreign vessels in our waters and to achieve better control of transhipments. This part of the Bill responds directly to those needs.

Several provisions of the Bill are to provide more flexible powers to manage the fisheries. Present powers are sometimes "all-or-nothing"; for example, our powers to prohibit fishing for a particular species can only be used to prohibit all fishing by all nationalities in vessels of all sizes. Where there is a need for only a limited prohibition the existing powers are therefore inadequate. The present options are not to impose a prohibition, to the detriment of those stocks for which a prohibition is justified, or to extend a ban further than is strictly necessary and thus unnecessarily restrict the operations of some fishermen. Clauses 19, 20 and 22 will reduce these difficulties by giving more flexible powers in respect of setting minimum size limits for fish, including different sizes for different areas, and in respect of licensing fishing vessels, and prohibiting fishing.

There are several provisions to enable better control to be exercised over fisheries in which transhipment occurs. There are powers in Clause 23 to prohibit transhipment operations, and Clause 21 would give Ministers the power to licence all vessels which receive fish by transhipment.

There are powers in Clause 25 to enable enforcement officers to gain access to the receiving vessels to which fish are transhipped so that the transhipment operation can be closely monitored. Powers to obtain documents relating to catches transhipped are important where vessel quotas are in force. Clause 25 will enable officers to seek documents on board the receiving vessels. It will also enable them to seek documents held on shore. The transhipment operations of our fishing fleet are frequently controlled from on shore, and increasingly the documentation recording the catch taken and transhipped by fishing vessels is held in shore premises. Their powers of entry will greatly improve the authorities' ability to monitor the industry's operations.

Considerable stress has been laid on the need for effective enforcement of fisheries legislation against vessels of all nationalities, and in proposing amendments to the legislation we have taken this point fully into account. We have reviewed the general level of maximum penalties for offences and some revised provisions are made in Clause 24. In reviewing penalties the Government have taken into account the high cash returns which can be obtained from illegal fishing operations. We also took into account the rate of inflation since the last review of penalties five years ago. Cases involving foreign fishermen are normally taken in magistrates' courts in England and Wales and sheriffs' courts in Scotland; and it is necessary, therefore, to ensure that maximum penalties available to these courts provide an effective deterrent. Among a number of amendments made in Clause 24 a new maximum fine of £5,000 would apply to certain offences; and the courts' present powers to impose additional fines up to the value of the illegal catch are extended to some additional offences in order that courts can prevent offenders from obtaining any financial benefit from illegal catches.

Clause 30 will also make an important contribution to the Government's powers to enforce fisheries legislation. Its main purpose is to enable our enforcement officers to take action against vessels breaking Community fisheries regulations within British fishery limits immediately such regulations are imposed. Under our present legislation we could not take immediate action against vessels of other EEC countries, because a statutory instrument must be made before fishing by EEC vessels in breach of a Community provision can be made an offence punishable in our courts. The procedure for making a statutory instrument inevitably takes some weeks. We consider that it would be indefensible to rely on existing enforcement powers and to accept that for a period of weeks such Community fishing controls could not be properly enforced in our waters. Our lack of powers would be to the disadvantage of United Kingdom vessels as our existing legislation gives us more effective powers to act immediately against United Kingdom vessels than against foreign vessels.

I turn to Part IV of the Bill, which includes a number of useful provisions for fish farmers. I must pay tribute to the work done by the late Lady Emmet of Amberley in relation to fish farming and to her untiring efforts to bring to the attention of successive Governments a number of problems and difficulties in this field.

The clauses in this part of the Bill meet a range of concerns expressed to the Government by fish farming interests, and therefore I hope that this part of the Bill will be welcome to them. The need for the amendments arises primarily because fish farming on a commercial scale is a relatively recent development in this country so that our existing legislation does not, in general, make specific provision for it. Nor does fish farming fall neatly under the headings either of fisheries or of agriculture; as a result legislation applying to those fields sometimes extends unsuitable provisions to fish farming or fails to give adequate powers in the fish farming sector.

Clause 31 gives powers to make grants for fish farming. The provision of national grant is a condition of eligibility for EEC grants and the provision will, therefore, enable fish farmers to benefit from European Community grant aid in the way that farmers and fishermen already can. Clause 32 provides specific powers for fisheries Ministers to under- take research and development into fish farming and to provide advice on fish farming matters. Fisheries departments already carry out work under both these heads under general powers, but it is preferable to take specific powers where possible. Let me emphasise that this technical clause does not signal any intention to change our policies in respect of the volume of research and development or advisory work we are carrying out in the fish farming area; it will simply underpin our powers to undertake it. Provision is included to charge fees for advice given, but I should make clear that as a matter of policy there is no intention to exercise the power in respect of advice provided by ADAS in England and Wales, which will continue to be free of charge.

In Clause 33 we recognise that many provisions of present legislation for managing and conserving wild freshwater and sea fish have no relevance to fish which are farmed. These regulations unnecessarily restrict the normal operations of fish farmers, and the clause therefore exempts fish farming from the scope of many of them and gives Ministers powers to make exemptions from others.

Shellfishermen are extending their cultivation techniques and now breed shellfish on a range of structures as well as on the seabed. Clause 34 enables shell-fishermen to be given the same protection they currently enjoy in respect of their operations on the seabed to their stock being cultivated on these structures.

There are, I know, a number of other points on which fish farmers would like to see legislation in addition to those in the Bill. We are considering now those issues that have been put to us, in the context of a wide review of inland and inshore fisheries. We shall be issuing a consultation document inviting views on these fuller issues with a view to considering whether further legislation in due course would be appropriate. Meanwhile, the provisions in Part IV of the Bill constitute a useful step in recognising the position that fish farming holds in this country today.

The final provision to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is in Part V; that is to say, Clause 35. This extends the whaling conservation legislation, which already bans the taking of whales both in British fishery limits and, by United Kingdom registered vessels, anywhere in the world. The clause extends these bans to cover all cetaceans, including therefore porpoises and dolphins, and raises penalties for whaling offences. This is an initiative by the Government to strengthen controls against whaling, particularly by giving protection to all cetaceans in our fishery limits, and as such it should be welcome to conservation interests.

There will be an opportunity in Committee to examine the details of this Bill. I have tried here to draw attention to some of the principles on which our proposals are based. The provisions of the Bill are diverse but, in the Government's view, necessary to enable the fishing industry of this country to take full advantage of the opportunities open to it and to enable the Government to play their part to protect and promote the industry's future. I commend the Bill to the House, and beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

3.19 p.m.

Lord Peart

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has presented this Bill. It is an important and a very detailed Bill which we shall examine carefully in Committee. But it is a Bill which I believe the industry will welcome. I hope that speeches will be such that that spirit will continue and that this Bill will become a milestone, if I may use that term, in the history of the fishing industry. Having been a fisheries Minister over a long period, I know the problems of that industry; but I think we can now see a way ahead. Admittedly, we still have problems with the Community. I was never involved in any discussions with the Community on fish as such. I am not certain whether my noble friend Lord Ross was. I think he was several times.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I just said, No.

Lord Peart

Well, my Lords, there is no reason why he should not say, No.

We had yesterday a preview, and I congratulated the Government then for giving the aid which was necessary; the £37 million worth of aid which was also on top of the £25 million which had been granted previously. In other words, the Government are showing their earnest desire to make certain that this great industry should be helped. We still have our problems—the problems in Europe. As the House will know, at the meeting which was arranged to discuss fish at the European Council at the beginning of last week it quickly became apparent that one delegation was not able really to try to come to an agreement. In other words, they had to face the intransigence of the French Government. I hope that we shall be firm and continue to play our part in Europe, but we must see to it that our interests are fully protected. I believe that in the end the countries of Europe will accept basically our approach because we have a long history in this field.

The Bill itself is a long Bill. The White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are to be abolished and replaced by a single new body. I should like to contratulate all those who have served those authorities over the years. They have done a magnificent job, but the time has come when we have to make changes. The Bill contains new powers to make financial assistance available to the sea fishing industry and provides, as the Minister said, a more effective fisheries conservation and management measure; extends restrictions on whaling; and includes provisions on fish farming. This is unique and has been welcomed by many sections of the industry and other industries outside, including the farming community, who are involved in this.

The key proposal is the creation of a new authority, the Sea Fish Authority. I welcome this. The Bill provides for the abolition of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and the establishment in their place of a single statutory body with a range of functions appropriate to the future needs of the sea fishing industry. The Government have taken an early decision to replace the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and I know that wide consultations have been held with the fishing industry and other interested organisations during the summer on the functions, membership and financing of the new authority.

This is a very varied industry. I have here a note which I propose to develop when we come to the Committee stage. Clause 1, for example, provides for the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority consisting of not more than 12 members, four of whom would be independent of, and eight of whom would be representative of, the sea fish industry. The duties and powers of the authority are largely those of the White Fish Authority and of the Herring Industry Board, which bodies the authority replaces.

Here I must give an example. The industry is very varied. The industry comprises catchers; salesmen; buyers and merchants; freezers; canners; smokers, and other processors; distributors; wholesalers; retailers; fryers, and many other parts too numerous to list. The ratio of onshore and offshore employment is thought to be in the region of 5 or 6 to 1, so one can see that here is an industry which is varied and touches on many large sections of our community.

I agree with the Minister. I think it about right for the Sea Fish Authority that eight of the 12 members will be representatives of the fishing industry. It may well be that this will be questioned. I know it was questioned strongly in another place during their Committee stage. But the authority will have powers to undertake research and development advisory work and training. It will also give financial assistance and undertake work in the important area of developing the marketing and consumption of fish as well as exports. The authority can provide services for overseas interests so long as these do not prejudice its activities for the benefit of the industry in the United Kingdom.

The Minister will appreciate that we shall be discussing much of this in much more detail later. The Bill consolidates, as the Minister knows, and extends existing powers to make financial assistance to the fishing industry by way of grants or loans. I understand, though, that for the creation of aid for the new body this will take the form of a levy. I would hope that we would have a reply on this matter as to how this will necessarily be financed. The schemes would be made statutory, by statutory instruments subject to the approval of Parliament, and there are powers for the new Sea Fish Authority to administer schemes as required on behalf of the fisheries ministries.

I believe that this is an important matter. I welcome Part III of the Bill. This makes new provisions which will enable the Government to enforce effective controls on fishing by foreign vessels within our fishery limits, and by United Kingdom vessels in all areas. Amendments to existing United Kingdon provisions are made to ensure that any breach of the European Community measures will be an offence and punishable accordingly. Maximum penalties for a number of offences are increased. I welcome this. It is right that we should make a tough line, and we must stand up to those people who sometimes fish in our waters and break regulations. We have to be much stronger in our approach on this matter than we have ever been before.

As I look through the Bill itself I see there are many proposals which are important. But I know that during its passage on Second Reading in another place there were arguments about certain details affecting the industry. For example, there was a great complaint that we do not train our fishermen; that we have no training boards such as we have in the agricultural industry. In other words, they argue that now that we are seeking to become available from the Common Market to develop fish farming, to give one example, there is now likely to be a surge of interest in the subject of fish farming.

If that is not to be frustrated, major promotion by the Government, the Ministry, the National Farmers' Union and the National Water Council will be necessary. In other words, we shall have to have more discussions, and many of these discussions must later be linked to a desire on the part of the fishing authorities to provide adequate training for the people who will be affected by this. I believe that this is important. I know that my right honourable friend Mr. Mason in another place has stressed it. He argues that one of the first jobs of the Sea Fish Industry Authority should be to launch a study with a view to recommending to the Government how best the employment legislation can be amended to bring this industry abreast of other national industries.

There is also an urgent need to develop training of fishermen on a much wider programme than at present. Here the Sea Fisheries Training Council may be involved. I should like to know whether what was put forward by my right honourable friend is right or wrong, and I ask the Government for an answer. Will the authority take over the implementation of the training council's recommendations? I have noted a welcome increase of training programmes in the past two years, and in the number of fishermen attending them, but there is not yet enough emphasis on safety. Many of their courses are on the use of fishing gear (which is all right in its way), the introduction of new technology, fish detection methods, and engineering and hydraulics.

However, I gather the training council has drawn up a five-year strategic plan with a view to developing schemes involving new entrants and safety training. In its last report it said that at least half of the existing labour force of the seagoing industry had never had training, for example, in survival, fire fighting, or first aid. It added that 60 per cent. of existing fishermen began their working lives without any formal training and that many young people continued to enter the industry in that way. The trade unions, particularly the Transport and General Workers' Union, want training and working conditions improved for the safety of their members, and I am sure noble Lords would agree that that is a worthy aim which we should support.

The safety record of the fishing industry is unbelievably bad, the worst of any industry in this country. The rectification of that state of affairs will necessitate a major effort on the part of the Government and their new agent, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, if we are to tackle the whole question of safety at sea. I know the unions involved would like a public inquiry to be established to examine and recommend how best the appalling casualities in this industry can be reduced. The Health and Safety Executive Report for 1978 showed there were 380 fatal accidents per 100,000 employed in the near and middle distant fleet, compared with 15.8 in Britain's coal-mining industry. The Department of Trade's statistics for 1978 showed there were 247 accidents per 100,000 employed in the fishing industry, whereas in coalmining the rate was 25.4. Both reports prove the absolute necessity to increase the emphasis given to safety training and the development of safer working practices on board seagoing vessels. I could go on citing the problems that will face the new body.

We must remember that it is the fishermen who in time of war always come to our support. It is an industry which has a very fine record. For that reason it is right that we must now seek to modernise the industry. We now have a great opportunity to do so. The Government have done well to introduce the Bill. They have also done well to give the grant aid which we discussed yesterday at Question time. It is fair to say that we are now branching out into a new area which will be of help to our fishermen when they go to sea and even when they stay inland and wish to trade. I congratulate the Ministers concerned for what they have done, and the Bill deserves our full support.

3.33 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I am glad to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and to hear him express approval of the Bill. I was able to support him wholeheartedly from the Bench he now occupies when towards the end of 1976, as Leader of the House, he was the Minister piloting through a fisheries Bill for the benefit of the British fishing industry. When I was a fisheries Minister, as Secretary of State for Scotland, I was involved in negotiations with the EEC and the problems of Iceland. I too give the Bill a warm welcome.

These are anxious days for the fishing industry, an industry which has been passing through traumatic times. In the last six years the world's patterns of fishing have been drastically changed, mainly as a result of the international adoption of a 200-mile fishing limit in 1976. Other countries have had to face drastic changes also. We have been affected more than any other major fishing nation because in the past most of the fish caught by British fishermen were caught near distant shores, notably Iceland. Those fish, mostly cod, were what consumers in the United Kingdom preferred, and that still applies. Tastes have changed very little, if at all.

As much, and sometimes more, fish of the same kind is still arriving in the United Kingdom from the same sources, but now it is being caught by Icelandic and other foreign vessels. British fishermen's access to fishing grounds for cod has been much reduced, but the fish is still coming in, and that is one of the main reasons why prices at the fish quays have remained low against the background of a slump in the North American market in the past two years. A large quantity of fish which in the past was sold in North America has been seeking a market elsewhere in the world. British fishermen have wondered whether they could even cover their costs, which have been continually rising, however successful they might be in their fishing operations. That is why I suggest the Ministers concerned were completely right to hold up the agreement between the EEC and Canada until related arrangements for the home market had been made. Otherwise there would simply be more fish caught by other people, in this case the Germans, landing at United Kingdom ports, creating difficulties and local gluts.

In the last four years, since the 200-mile fishing limit has been internationally adopted, the United Kingdom has had to conform to the new principle of fishing primarily in home waters. More distant fishing off the shores of other countries can be undertaken now only by special agreements with those countries, and so far there have not been many fish available under those agreements. Ten years and more ago, however, our situation was entirely different. We in the United Kingdom had built up one of the world's principal fleets of large ocean-going vessels carrying out distant fishing, for example off the shores of Iceland and Northern Norway. Those boats supplied most of the fish for the United Kingdom market.

What a change there has been since then! Now, few of those large vessels are operating. Most of the catch landed by our boats today is from smaller vessels fishing in home waters. There are now more of these vessels than 10 years ago. Moreover, the total number of fishing boats has risen. There are now more British fishing boats than before. However, that should not be allowed to mislead; the large distant water trawlers which caught most of the fish for British consumption in the past have almost disappeared, with desolating effects on particular ports, such as Hull and Grimsby. Other causes of the decline, besides the 200-mile limit and reduced world market, are the depletion of fish stocks and the costs of fuel.

None of those four principal causes for the difficulties of the fishing industry is the fault, noble Lords will note, of the EEC. The present negotiations within the EEC arise from the 200-mile fishing limit being shared by all the members. I would remind your Lordships that in 1970, shortly before our negotiations to join the EEC were started, the first common fisheries policy between the then six members was concluded. The result of the negotiations, and before our entry in 1973, was that a 10-year virtual standstill of the position was negotiated, and that lasts until the end of 1982.

As part of that, the historic rights at that time of certain European nations were continued, so that some nations could fish between the six and 12-mile limits round British coasts. Now, I understand, France is unable to agree to a revised common fisheries policy, apparently on the same issue of access. My noble friend Lord Carrington, when answering a Question of mine last week, referred to these historic rights as being one of the difficulties in the negotiations. These historic rights have been recognised by this country, and I have with me the charts and records from 1971 of the historic rights registered as they then were. For example, France could fish for demersal fish (that is, broadly, white fish) along the South and South-West coasts of the United Kingdom, and Belgium could fish for demersal fish in the Moray Firth, up to six miles from the coast. But it now seems that France is expecting much more than those historic rights. Indeed, it is expecting that the rights should be spread from individual countries fishing for particular species to other countries—indeed to all the EEC countries. I do not ask that the Minister comment at this stage, when the Government are clearly in the middle of negotiations; I simply draw attention to the problem.

Ever since early 1970 other members of the EEC—the existing members as they then were—had much more to gain by access to our coastal waters than we could ever gain from access to theirs, because the stocks of fish had virtually disappeared around their shores. Our coastal areas are now the most fruitful and most promising for the future. Conservation is essential for those areas, and it is needed for all European fishermen; otherwise the stocks will diminish and disappear.

Had the United Kingdom not been a member of the European Communities, we would now have for our own fishing area, within our 200-mile fishing limits, about 60 per cent. of the whole EEC pond. That point should be taken into account when these matters of access and quotas are considered within the total allowable catch. Moreover, we still have the largest fishing industry in the EEC. Our Government are rightly insisting on certain sea areas where local British fishermen will have priority and where large vessels will be prohibited or restricted. This Fisheries Bill is required for the new arrangements now in prospect.

Part III of the Bill provides for licensing and control. Wider and more flexible powers are to be granted to British sea-fishery officers. As I have said on previous occasions, I believe that licensing will have to play a part in the new règime within the EEC. Furthermore, entry into the fishing industry, and participation in it, must be controlled. The catching power is too great for a free-for-all. However, there is room for both the modern methods, with their formidable and deadly catching power, provided that they are regulated, and the older, traditional methods. Unless there is control, however, there will be either over-fishing, or frustration when conservation bans require vessels to be kept idle for weeks or months in port.

I am glad that, besides the national fishery officers, for which the Bill provides, the British Government have espoused the idea of a corps of Community inspectors. That was one of the recommendations in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, which was debated on 22nd October last year, and it now seems that on the initiative of our Government the other members of the EEC have accepted that as a part of the new system.

I welcome the clauses on the transhipment of fish, which I note were strengthened while the Bill was passing through another place. For several years the practice has been to sell to foreign fish cargo vessels fish which have been caught in our own waters. These vessels have been called "Klondikers". They might or might not be "factory" ships. The term "Klondiker" simply covers a ship that does not catch fish, but buys fish caught by British fishermen. Since the 200-mile limit was adopted there is more reason for the East European "Klondikers", which cannot catch fish within the 200-mile European limit, to buy fish from us. Many British fishermen have found "Klondikers" rewarding in the past. "Klondikers" represent an alternative market to that of the quayside, and often provide a better price. Fish caught within the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, where only British fishermen can catch them, are available to the East European vessels. In particular, in the North-West of Scotland, at Ullapool, the practice has been operated for some years.

There are disadvantages to this system. In many cases the fishermen might have liked it, but the first disadvantage is that the quota system could not be strictly observed. There has been no proper check on the quantities which were disappearing after being caught. The second disadvantage is that the United Kingdom fish handlers and processors have been by-passed, and they have been losing the work and added value. Therefore in future we must have a system which licenses and controls the transhipment, and what has been proposed in the Bill should be welcome.

Part II of the Bill puts forward financial arrangements which should cover the restructuring of the industry when the shape of it becomes clearer. In the meantime, I welcome the extension of the support scheme announced yesterday involving a further £25 million. But that can merely continue to cover the gap until a common fisheries policy is concluded.

As regards Part I of the Bill, a single, new authority has certainly been needed to replace the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I applaud the work and the achievements of those two bodies. The present chairmen of the bodies, Mr. Charles Meek and Dr. Lyon Dean, have made remarkable contributions to the fishing industry during the recent times of upheaval and momentous change. Some noble Lords will remember the Fleck Report which came out 20 years ago, and I recall taking part in the debate on that report in the Commons. Sir Alexander Fleck was asked to head an inquiry into the future of the fishing industry, and he was able to look ahead about 10 or 12 years; but of course it was impossible for him to look so far ahead as to have been able to predict what has happened in the last six or seven years.

I end with an appeal to the media. I would ask them to take more trouble in reporting the fishing industry. The industry is exceedingly important to our country and the negotiations are very delicate. Simple instances, such as the use of the word "trawler" as if it covered all fishing boats, or the use of the word "trawlermen" as if it covered all fishermen, can be misleading. A trawler is a fishing boat, but every fishing boat is not a trawler. There are other fishing boats: for example, seine net boats, known as "seiners", and drift net boats, known as "drifters". One does not need to mention them all, but serious mistakes can be made due to not knowing the terms. Last night on television, when the £25 million grant was being announced, it was stated that it would be paid to trawler owners. It was clear to me that this was intended to mean all fishing boat owners, but many in the fishing industry who were trying to understand what it was about would have been misled. The first thing such a person would have wondered was: is the grant going to be available to the owners of other fishing boats, too?—for seiners, drifters, shellfish boats. So I ask the media to take more trouble. That may mean arranging for someone with some knowledge of the fishing industry to cast an eye over the texts and the scripts before announcements are made.