Lords Sitting of 13 February 1986

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

Traffic Restrictions: Palace of Westminster
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether the restrictions on traffic proposed by the Greater London Council on the road immediately adjoining the Palace of Westminster are consistent with the sessional order on stoppages in the streets.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the sessional order requires the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to take care that:
"the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open; and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of the Lords to and from this House".
I understand that the experimental bus lanes proposed by the GLC have not yet come into operation, and therefore it is too early to say what their effect will be.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether the GLC has had the courtesy to consult the authorities of this House on this matter, and what is the view of the Metropolitan Police?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am informed that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has expressed reservations and is worried about fulfilling his duties under the sessional order. I understand that there have been discussions, that this House and another place have considered the matter, and that some reservations have been expressed to the GLC about the proposals.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that this is a matter that should be looked at in the light of representations that may be made by the Metropolitan Police, and also of what success may be achieved in traffic regulation? What should not happen, I hope the noble Viscount will agree, is that this matter is determined through any kind of political prejudice against the GLC.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says. I understand that the bus lanes in Millbank have been introduced by experimental orders for a period of 18 months. There is no procedure for objections to such experimental orders. During the period of the experiment objections may be made to the orders being made permanent. Of course, when the GLC finishes on 1st April, this is a matter that will properly come to be considered by the Westminster City Council.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that Millbank is not a thoroughfare of unlimited capacity, does my noble friend not agree that it seems odd to the point of eccentricity to restrict the use of it in favour of a very limited number of bus routes? Does my noble friend appreciate that, as often as not, the space that is now ruled off, whether legally or otherwise, is completely empty while the rest is congested? It seems daft.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my noble friend, having been a Minister of Transport, has had considerable responsibility in all these matters. The fact is that this order has been introduced experimentally. Objections can be made if it is seen not to work. I understand that it was supposed to come into effect on 10th February, but the covers on the signs have not yet been removed, so it has not come into effect.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that even today there were five charabancs parked in the bus lane, which meant that buses had to use the only single lane now open? Is this really necessary? If this is happening in February before tourists and visitors come to London, whatever is going to happen in June, July and August when we are deluged with visitors? Surely, we do not have to wait 18 months to prove that an experiment of this sort is abortive, restrictive and unnecessary.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, clearly, after 1st April this will be a matter for the Westminster City Council to consider, and it is properly its duty so to do.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would it not solve the problem if there were lights at each corner of the square instead of at two corners only? I am sure that this would solve the whole problem of traffic around the square. It is so obvious that I do not understand why it has not been done.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, many of the points made over the years by the noble Lord have seemed eminently reasonable to me, too. I should have thought that this was one. It is a pity maybe that neither of us has any responsibility in the matter of deciding upon experimental traffic arrangements.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, am I to understand from my noble friend that it is the Westminster City Council that will be responsible for reversing this malicious and mischievous nuisance?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand that this responsibility falls to that council on 1st April.

285
What it does with that responsibility when that time arrives is a matter for it.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that many of the experimental traffic systems that we have experienced in London, such as the traffic lights at Hyde Park Corner—but not, one hopes, the bus lane outside your Lordships' House—have a habit of becoming permanent?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: And of working, my Lords.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have to admit that for a long time I thought that the lights at Hyde Park Corner, which I frequently come round, were crazy. I was always informed by some people that they were a very good idea. I am now bound to say that it does not take me any longer to get round than it did before. But it took a good deal of time before. It may be a good arrangement. I simply do not know.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, have the Metropolitan Police intimated how many hard-pressed traffic police and others will be needed to enforce these bus lanes when they become operative?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, that would of course be a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He has two duties if the bus lanes come into effect. First, he has to maintain the law. Secondly, in accordance with the sessional order, he has to ensure access to this House. Knowing the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as well as I do, I expect that he will be well able to complete both duties at the same time.
Lord Morris: My Lords, on the subject of access to this House, have the authorities considered with great care the position of the island opposite this House, bearing in mind the accommodation in Abbey Gardens opposite for Peers, whose lives and indeed votes are in danger?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, obviously this is a matter which can be discussed with the authorities of the House and particularly with Black Rod.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that Westminster council has expressed firm opposition to the bus lane outside this House? Does he therefore believe that we can hope for an early reversal of the system?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have been very careful not to express any views about the Westminster City Council. It is important, I believe, that when a council takes over responsibility it should come to its own judgment. If the question was prejudged by me that would not be very welcome.

Stansted Airport: Rail Link
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in elaboration of their reply to Baroness Burton of Coventry's Starred Question on 16th January (cols. 1157–8) they are in a position to announce their decision on the financially justified scheme concerning the rail link to Stansted Airport submitted to them by the British Railways Board in November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we hope to be able to announce a decision on the board's proposal shortly.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the Minister inadvertently misled the House on 16th January, when he implied that the passenger throughput at Stansted was 1 million whereas the number is half that—to be exact, the figure is 513,000—does he appreciate that I am extremely wary about answers given me concerning Stansted? With regard to what the Minister has said today, although we have a certain grain of information, can he say why the Government are so reluctant to give us information concerning this airport? Does this mean that the Government are aware of the poverty of its position, in that the inevitable subsidisation of Stansted in the years to come must inevitably be to the financial disadvantage and detriment of the development of regional airports.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the Answer I gave to the noble Baroness on 16th January I fear that I might inadvertently have misled the House, because the capacity at Stansted is a million; the actual throughput is about half a million. We are not reluctant to give information about Stansted. The noble Baroness and the House will be aware that any project of the size of Stansted is bound to be loss-making initially before it gets into full gear. I do not think that this will affect regional airports.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the Minister refers to the exchange on 16th January I think that he will find he is mistaken. However, referring to the Written Answer on 10th February—when the department had had plenty of time to study the position—is he aware that the word "capacity" was introduced as a face-saver? It was not mentioned in the Question.
Furthermore, is the noble Earl aware that even that figure is not correct and that the capacity of Stansted was 2 million without any development at all as at February last year, and not 1 million?
Is he further aware that I have become very tired of this incorrect information? I do not think that it is good enough. Will the noble Earl and the people concerned look at this point before they answer any more questions?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness disputes the figures that my department have given me and notes that I wrote to her. I can only stand by what my department give me. They say on present traffic flow that the capacity of Stansted is 1 million.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am sorry to get up again. I thank the noble Earl. May I appeal to the Leader of the House on this matter? Could I appeal to the Leader of the House on this?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am so sorry.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I wanted the attention of the noble Viscount. This is a general matter. I have complained before but I have here a perfectly good case, and I wonder whether the noble Viscount would look at it. Is he aware—and if he looks at the papers he will see—that I have accused (if that is the correct word) the Government and the unfortunate Minister in this case of giving incorrect information not only at Question Time but in a Written Answer also. I have substantiated that. I think that I am correct. I think that it is a disgrace. Will the noble Viscount be good enough to look at the matter to help all suffering Back-Benchers?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, since I was rude enough to be addressing a comment on some other matter when the noble Baroness first spoke it enables me to get up and say that I apologise profusely to her for my rudeness. I am extremely sorry.
As for the point made by the noble Baroness, of course I shall look into that with my noble friend. I know that my noble friend has given his information in absolutely good faith and I would stand by that. But in view of what the noble Baroness has said, of course it is proper to look at it and I shall do so with my noble friend.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, reverting to the original Answer of my noble friend, with regard to the important word "shortly" does it mean within 1986 or after that period?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, hopefully well within 1986.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the noble Earl will appreciate, I am among those who are apprehensive about massive development at Stansted. Is the noble Earl also aware that I recognise that if there is to be this develoment a British Rail link is essential? What will be the effect on British Rail's external financial limit in the event of this scheme being approved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the link, if approved, will not be in operation for some years. When British Rail submit their request for financing, that will be judged on a commerical basis and will doubtless be taken into account in the EFL.

Oil Policy
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To as Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on oil in present market conditions.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, there have been no changes in Her Majesty's Government's policies that production levels of United Kingdom oil are a matter for the producers, and that the prices of United Kingdom crude oil are determined by the world market.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in view of the fact that there is a present world oil surplus which could continue for some time, and that the reserves of Britain's oil in the North Sea are limited, there is a good case for considering a policy of conservation?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern which the noble Lord expresses in view of the present world oil surplus. But I think the noble Lord should bear in mind that it is to everybody's advantage that the levels of oil production are determined by producers. Arbitrary cuts in production would damage investment confidence and our prospects for oil production in the 1990s and beyond.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that there is a close connection between the level of oil prices, the sterling exchange rate, and the level of the interest rate, and that being so the Government cannot fail to have a policy about oil prices?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot take the point which the noble Baroness seeks to make because there is no question of the Government not having an oil policy. I have already this afternoon stated twice that the Government believe that it is in the best interests nationally that the production of oil should be left to those who have made the investment and are producing the oil rather than for Government to interfere.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the first casualty resulting from upstream losses in the oil industry is likely to be in cuts in the exploration budgets of companies involved in this field? Would my noble friend therefore bear in mind, and take the point on board, that at this time it may be very important for the Government to look out for possible easements of the tax burdens, in order to maintain the impetus of exploration despite the discouraging losses which producers are now facing?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I certainly accept the first point which my noble friend has made. However, as far as the second point is concerned, I am sure that he would not expect me to follow him down this route. This must be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's judgment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has admitted that the Government have no oil policy? In fact he says that the only oil policy which exists is that of the oil companies. Is he now sorry that BNOC was disbanded? If BNOC was still available at least the Government would have some input in relation to talks with OPEC. Does the noble Lord think that it is a profligate waste of this country's resources that we should be selling oil now at 16 dollars a barrel and over-producing it, when in the 1990s oil will probably be double that price?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, with regard to the first point, I would say to the noble Lord that if the creation of more than 100,000 jobs, 65,000 of them onshore and the remainder offshore, is the result of not having a policy, then perhaps we should dispense with a few more policies.
I would also say to him that I happened to be on the Opposition Front Bench at the time that that corporation was created and, far from being concerned about the abolition of the British National Oil Corporation, ever since the day of its creation I have felt that it was unnecessary, and I am delighted that we have now been able to dispense with its services. I believe that the way in which we are proceeding with the development of North Sea oil is a very great credit and a very great tribute to the private sector and private investment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to have a policy on anything does not mean that one has to promise legislation? It is just as clearly a policy to announce that one is not going to introduce legislation; it is equally effective. As I understand it, a policy is not always calling for new statutes.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, as so often is the case, my noble friend has summed up the situation very well indeed. Of course I agree with him entirely.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that we have a moral duty to have some kind of policy over the stewardship of oil and conservation of supplies?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, yes, I certainly would be hesitant to become involved in an argument with the right reverend Prelate about where the moral responsibility in various aspects of life lies. However, as far as the oil industry is concerned, I am satisfied that if we were to hold back, as some would suggest now, the effect on the investment in the North Sea and the consequent result on jobs—in which I know the right reverend Prelate is very interested—would be very serious indeed. To hold back at this stage on production and to take away the incentive of the oil industry to make investment in the North Sea would be very serious. It would have exactly the effect which the right reverend Prelate would not wish it to have.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one aspect of the Government's policy is quite clear—namely, that the revenue from oil of f 17 billion should go to meet the cost of the dole, which is £17 billion?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I would be reluctant to spell out precisely what is being done with some of the oil revenue; but it would be quite wrong to suggest that it was all being used for one purpose. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that much of the help that is given to industry comes from the Treasury, and of course if the Treasury did not have access to oil revenues it might not be possible to be as generous as has been the case in many instances.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that the same considerations as he has outlined in relation to the exploitation of North Sea oil apply in the case of the Norwegian fields? Is it true that the Norwegians have decided to cut back on the exploitation of this finite resource?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, with great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord—and I acknowledge his close involvement in the oil industry through his other interests—is comparing like with like. The requirement for self-sufficiency, for example, by Norway so far as concerns their oil production can in no way be compared with that which this country requires; and nor can the extent of the reserves, nor the areas for which they are being explored and exploited. Therefore, I would not accept the point that the noble Lord seeks to make.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the revenues have been spent largely on the formation of foreign investment? Can he give an indication of by how much foreign investment has gone up in the last period during the present Government?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that without notice I cannot give the noble Lord figures in answer to the question that he has put to me. However, I can certainly guarantee to him that the attitude of this Government since 1979, and particularly since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget in 1983, has had a very good effect on the continued investment by the oil industry in the North Sea.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, given the finite nature of the oil reserves in the North Sea, would the noble Lord the Minister care to spell out for us the case for selling more for less against selling less for more?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I certainly would not go into figures with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, because he has had such intimate contact with the Treasury and the industry over the years that I know that he will know the figures. Regarding his reference to selling less for more, or selling more for less, perhaps I may say this. It is a fact that a good many of the fields in production in the North Sea at the present moment, despite the low oil price at this time, were decided upon when the oil price was substantially lower than it is today. I go back to my first point, that if we were to follow what many noble Lords have suggested today we would be inhibiting rather than stimulating further investment in the North Sea with all the ill effects that that would have.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the Government are keeping in close touch with the leading OPEC countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, on the whole problem?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Government have always followed the policy of keeping close contact with those countries. Those contacts are of course unofficial since we are not members of OPEC; but I have no doubt that that policy is still being pursued.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, whether or not the Government have a policy, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the world price of oil has dropped from 31 dollars a barrel to 16 dollars a barrel? Would the Minister be good enough to explain to the House when the poor old motorist is really going to get some advantage from that? I am sorry that this is not one of those esoteric arguments about policy; but when is the motorist going to get the benefit of the fall in price? Is it not about time that all oil companies reduced the price of petrol at the pump?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my information is that there has been quite a substantial fall in the price of petrol at the pumps. and I have little doubt that this will continue. If the price of oil continues at its present level, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there may yet be another price war, and it is only the motorist who can benefit from such a situation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the Dispatch Box, but the noble Lord has not yet explained why he thinks that it is good policy to maximise the output of North Sea oil at a time when the price is at its lowest, rather than to conserve the North Sea oil over a much longer period of time when the price is likely to be very much higher in the long term. That is the question we asked, and we have not yet had the answer. Can the noble Lord give that to us?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, my Lords. I shall try to do so as briefly as I can. Oil production has been more or less stabilised for about two years. The oil price has dropped very suddenly within the past few months. There is no guarantee that the oil price will remain low and at that level. If we were to institute production cuts, there would undoubtedly be many fields in which production would fall away considerably. It might be very difficult for those fields to get back up to their present production and that might have inhibiting effects on companies in the future. For those reasons, I do not take the noble Lord's point. We do not know how long the oil price will be down. We saw what happened in 1973, and what happened again in 1979; and the price can rocket up just as easily as it can tumble down.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us what is the difference between an oil quota and a milk quota?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we do not have cows in the oil fields.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if we exploit North Sea oil too rapidly, what is going to happen to the employment situation, about which the Minister is so concerned, when the oil is exhausted?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I do not think that the point that the noble Lord seeks to make is relevant here because there is always an argument as to the speed at which oil is depleted and the speed at which production is allowed to advance. At the present moment we are doing all that we can to ensure that the jobs which have been created in the North Sea will not end when our own North Sea oil production ceases. We are trying to export our technology to the best of our ability, and it is to be hoped that many of those who have learned their skills in the North Sea will be able to use them in due course in other parts of the world.

Meningitis Outbreak
3.29
Lord McNair: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to discover the cause of the continuing high incidence of cases of bacterial and viral meningitis in the areas of Stroud and Gloucester.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, everything possible is being done to discover the cause of the outbreak. The Medical Officer for Environmental Health and his colleagues are investigating meticulously all patients reported to have meningitis, together with their contacts and environment. Advice and assistance are being provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in an effort to discover any evidence of a link between patients which might be responsible for these infections.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she confirm that there is an anti-meningitis vaccine at present being manufactured? Does she know whether this is yet available? If it is available would the Ministry recommend its use in the Stroud district?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are vaccines available for groups A and C and they have been used with success abroad, for example on British servicemen in Nepal, where this disease is prevalent. Unfortunately it has not yet been possible to produce a vaccine for the group B organism, which occurs most frequently in this country.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is a very vicious disease, can my noble friend the Minister say whether she has any figures of the national incidence of this complaint?
Baroness Trumpington: In this country, my Lords, since 1965 annual notifications of meningococcal meningitis rose from about 500 to 1,300 in 1974, and subsequently fell to about 400 in 1983 and 1984 in England and Wales. In 1985 they rose again to about 550. In the past few years about 60 per cent. of laboratory isolations have been group B.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the part of the reply given by the noble Baroness which indicates that she and her department are making inquiries into what is a deeply disturbing problem. In 1983 in the Stroud district this type of meningitis was 17.5 times the national average. My second point, and I wonder whether I may press her on this, concerns the disturbing factor that 47 per cent. of cases have, it seems, not been reported. Does this not show an extraordinarily lax attitude on the part of the medical profession? Can the noble Baroness assure the House that she is considering that side as well as the very high incidence of meningitis in the Stroud district?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already expressed the Government's full sympathy to the local committee from Stroud who came to see me on this matter. Of course they have everybody's sympathy as regards this extraordinary incidence of the disease. I agree with the noble Lord that there may have been some undernotification generally, but that is not likely to occur in areas where the disease causes concern. The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre has it under constant surveillance, both in respect of notifications to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and in respect of laboratory isolations of the causal organism. All forms of acute meningitis are required to be notified under public health legislation.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that when the factors responsible for the high incidence of meningitis are identified in these areas of Stroud and Gloucestershire, the same conditions may exist elsewhere? Therefore there might be a need for central rather than merely local action. Does the noble Baroness further agree that the reply she has given to my noble friend underlines the statement she made to this House on the report on the Stanley Royd hospital, to the effect that there is an urgent need for a review of the operation of the public health function and of the role of the speciality of community medicine in general?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to take the latter part of the noble Lord's question, no, I do not think this has anything to do with the Stanley Royd report or outbreaks of food poisoning by salmonella. This is quite a different kettle of fish. In relation to the national notification rate for meningitis, since 1970 there have been five similar outbreaks: in Anglesey, Plymouth, Devon as a whole, Bolton and Monmouthshire. I appreciate, as I have said before, the public concern and anxiety.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I know nothing of kettles or fish. I referred to her statement that an inquiry was to take place into the whole function of environmental health and to the role and specialty of
294
community medicine. She made an announcement that it was necessary then: does she not still think it is necessary?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure what the noble Lord is getting at. If he is talking about research, an enormous amount of research is going on throughout the world because this country is not the only place to have the disease. All that information is freely shared. If that is what he is talking about, that is one thing. Apart from that I do not think that I have anything more to say.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, could these strains of meningitis be carried by birds or animals? If so, has full co-operation taken place with veterinary surgeons? Are these infections resistant to antibiotic treatment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am talking off the top of my head and I stand to be corrected, but the outbreaks of the disease are in places as various as Nepal, parts of Africa and parts of America, so I should not have thought that the bird suggestion was possible. But let me explain—I am sorry to detain your Lordships—bacteria are more easily treated with antibiotics than are viruses. If it is quickly identified, antibiotics are usually successful in treating the bacterial causes of meningitis in this country, where the meningococcal form is the one best known.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the meningitis epidemic in Stroud has revealed the gross inadequacy of the whole system of infectious disease notification in the country? Would she suggest that the department sets up an internal inquiry as to methods of improving infectious disease notification? At the moment, is she aware that it depends on—
Noble Lords: One question!
Lord Rea: Will she listen to my words and perhaps pass the message to her right honourable friend?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I certainly shall pass on those words. The medical officer for environmental health and his colleagues are meticulously investigating all patients reported to have meningitis, together with their contacts and environment. Advice and assistance are being provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in an effort to discover any evidence of a link.

Business
3.38 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Salmon Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) Scheme 1986 will be taken.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Salmon Fishery Districts]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("low water mark") and insert ("the base line referred to in section 1(1) of the Fishery Limits Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite straightforward. The problem is that the low water mark is largely undefinable. The low water mark is not a fixed mark. As a result of this problem of low tides a vast number of criminals have, I am informed by the lawyers in Edinburgh, escaped conviction because this is an undefinable mark. It would be better if the definition was as in the amendment:
"the base line referred to in section 1(1) of the Fishery Limits Act 1976"—
which is a quite clearly defined mark. If that was not accepted—I sincerely hope that it will be—it should be the "low mean" water mark. I think that is the right wording. I think it is quite clear that, as the Bill is currently worded, the low water mark is not a definable mark and we want something better than that. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would push the seaward limits of some salmon fishery districts far out to sea because the base line referred to in the Fisheries Limits Act 1976 goes around the outside of the Outer Hebrides. It is not appropriate that district boards should have responsibilities and duties in, for example, the whole of the Minch. I do, however, take the point that "low-water mark" is not very precise. The term "mean low water springs" might perhaps be better, given that it is delineated on the Ordnance Survey maps.
I think I can best deal with this matter if I say to my noble friend Lord Burton that I will look into this before Third Reading with a view to making a change. I hope that on this explanation my noble friend might be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, with that undertaking, for which I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench, of course I should be very happy to withdraw it. I think this could well resolve the situation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("and in relation to a district designated in accordance with section 1 of this Act, may by order vary the provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is essentially the same amendment which I moved at Committee and which received support from all sides of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, kindly undertook to take it away and look at it to see whether he could meet the wishes of noble Lords in this connection. Unfortunately, I am advised by him that he has not seen a way of meeting the wishes expressed at the Committee stage.
I also looked at the amendment to see whether there was some other way in which we could deal with this
296
problem. The problem is that not every river is the same, or not every district will be the same, and it may be desirable that we should have power to vary the shape and composition of district boards in order to meet particular conditions of size, complexity, or whatever. In particular, I cited examples which showed that it might be necessary to protect the interests of smaller rivers which were grouped under the shadow of larger rivers with very strong voting powers and where the interests of the smaller rivers might never be adequately represented without changing the constitution.
I looked at the possibility of introducing an amendment in Schedule 1 where the proposals for a designation order are being brought forward to the Secretary of State, asking for a new district to be designated, and considered whether it might be possible to put in some mention of proposals to be brought forward by the rivers concerned at that point. However, the more I looked at that route, the less I liked it. I felt that it was going to produce far too many requests to be different and was really going to encourage people to argue that they were different, instead of trying to get district boards all off on the same footing, which I recognise is the right idea.
The more I looked at it, the more I came back to the original amendment, which was simply to empower the Secretary of State to vary the provisions of a designation order if he was so advised in a particular instance. If the powers are there, then it is surely open to people to come forward with proposals or to approach the Secretary of State and say, "We have a difficulty. In our particular area the method of representing rivers and so forth is not working fairly and we would like to have it altered". If the Secretary of State is empowered to consider this and, if so persuaded, to place an order before Parliament, then I think that the needs of different districts will be satisfied. Thus, the more I look at it, the more I come back to the original amendment which I proposed in Committee and which I have now put down again here for your Lordships' consideration. The amendment reads:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("and in relation to a district designated in accordance with section 1 of this Act, may by order vary the provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act.")
My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcomed this amendment. I only hope that it is effective and that my noble friend will be able to accept it. I have very strongly felt all along that there must be room to make these boards different sizes. The Tweed has a great many more people in its set-up at the moment than any of the fishery boards. It is quite ridiculous that a river such as the Tay or even the Spey should have a similar number of people on its board as the Thurso has. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this flexibility.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, from the note which was given to me earlier, I understand that we are also considering Amendment No. 28 along with this amendment. In case there has been any complication

297
about that note, as I think we found during an earlier stage in the Bill, I wanted just to give my noble friend Lord Lansdowne the opportunity of speaking, if he wished to speak to his amendment along with this one, since the amendments are grouped together.
Amendment No. 28: Clause 13, page 13, line 16, at end insert ("and any such order may vary those provisions in different ways for different districts").
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I really put down this amendment in the hope of helping my noble friend Lord Gray. I know he wants to help us over this difficulty. My amendment really seeks exactly the same end. Therefore, thank you, but there is really no need for me to speak to it.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Schedule 2 provides standard rules for the election and co-option of members of district salmon fishery boards. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has discussed his proposals with my officials, following Committee, and I am sure that he had a useful discussion with them. I venture to suggest that the rules in the schedule are complicated enough without, as the noble Lord has suggested, making them variable for different districts.
I am satisfied that the arrangements in Schedule 2 will work and I hope that your Lordships agree. Apart from anything else, it would be wholly inappropriate to subject what would be an essentially local order to full parliamentary procedure. I am fortified in all of this by the fact that if boards, constituted in the way the Bill provides for, wish to involve a wider group of people, then there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to prevent their having advisory or consultative committees or the like. I believe this already happens in some districts at present. I really think—and I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to consider very carefully what this entails and to bear in mind what I have said—that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to prevent their having advisory or consultative committees if they so desire.
Much the same considerations apply to Schedule 3, which the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne also covers. That schedule allows for the orderly transition of existing boards into new boards. I cannot see the need for a power to vary the procedures on a district by district basis. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend will agree to withdraw their amendments. I fear that on this occasion, if they were not prepared to do so, I should have to ask the House to reject them.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, if the schedule is as perfect as the Minister would have us believe and it does not require any variation, why has he taken the power to vary the schedule—because that is what is given in Clause 13(10), which says:
"The Secretary of State may by order vary the provisions of Schedule 2".
It is already in the Bill. What has he in mind, if he thinks that it is so perfect, in taking this power? What has he in mind that could be varied?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think that what I tried to explain earlier was that there was nothing in
298
the Bill to prevent the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, from achieving what he seeks to achieve by way of consultative committees or the like if various boards wished to have them. The power to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, refers is just a protective power which is there in case, for one reason or another, the Secretary of State wished to implement it. I should not have thought that this case would be one in which it would be justified because, as I explained, the boards can do this if they wish. I think it would be a mistake to write this into the Bill. It is much better to leave it as it is, where the boards can do so if they seek to do SO.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am very puzzled by the noble Lord, Lord Gray's, reaction to this. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has pointed out that the Secretary of State is to have powers to vary the whole thing. But it is then going to be a matter of everybody changing courses when this variation takes place. The Minister has already admitted that the present set-up may have areas where the shoe pinches. Now let us suppose that these areas where the shoe pinches are on just one toe, as it were, on just one district. Why should that district go on in perpetuity having a set-up and a constitution on a statutory foundation which suits every other board in Scotland but not this one?
It seems to me entirely wrong that if there is going to be power to vary the thing at all there should not be power to vary it flexibly in individual cases. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that there is a very large difference indeed between a consultative committee and enfranchisement. I do not think that we should like it very much if we lived in a country like Russia, where we could have a consultative committee but we could not vote on who was to represent us. Likewise, I do not think that the smaller rivers in a district are going to like it if they think that they are being forever totally disfranchised by the weight of the valuations of the larger rivers within the district.
I do not want to prolong this point. We have a very busy agenda here. I still think that there is more support in the House for my amendment among people who know about and are interested in salmon legislation than there is for the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to throw it out. But I do not want to waste your Lordships' time in dividing the House if there is still room to discuss this, and if there is still room perhaps to bring in an amendment along these lines in another place. Therefore, while, with the greatest reluctance, I will not divide the House on this matter, I beg the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, to listen to the argument and to realise that there may be individual cases where it would be helpful if the power existed to vary district by district. There is power to vary all of the districts, as I see it, but not district by district.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, there is no limitation on the power of the Secretary of State to vary the provisions of Schedule 2. It is without limitation in the statute.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gray, could advise us on that.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps I could just point out that this is a general power for the whole schedule and is a standard provision. What the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, seeks to do is to vary individual elements virtually on an ad hoc basis. That is what I am not prepared to do. I have made it clear that there is nothing to prevent individual boards, having consulted the committees, if they seek to do so, but I made it clear at the outset that I cannot accept this amendment.
I note that the noble Viscount intends to withdraw it and there is no reason why it cannot be discussed in another place; but I think the House would agree that I have listened very carefully throughout our earlier stages. I have accepted a great many amendments and taken many things back which will result in amendments today. But, on this particular issue, I have made the position of the Government quite clear. I am sorry but I cannot accept the noble Viscount's amendment.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is not going to accept this amendment and that the only way that I could put it across would be to divide the House. I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time by doing so, but I intend to go on pressing this principle by all the means in my power. I hope that perhaps those in another place may be able to persuade the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to see sense over this matter. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Regulations]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, along with this amendment, we take Amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19, 20, 27, 34 and 74.
Amendment No. 15: Clause 6, page 6, line 18, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 18: Clause 9, page 8, line 28, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 19: Clause 11, page 11, line 6, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 20: Page 11, line 23, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 27: Clause 13, page 13, line 11, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 34: Clause 14, page 14, line 14, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 74: Clause 26, page 23, line 37, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
These amendments all relate to references in the Bill to "the commencement of the Act". During the Committee stage, Clause 32 (Citation, commencement and extent) was amended to provide that the new Clause 20 (Permitted methods of fishing for salmon) could come into force on a different date from the rest of the Bill. There is therefore no longer a single commencement date for the Bill as a whole.
The effect of the amendment is to change references to "the commencement of the Act" to references to "the commencement of the [relevant] section". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
(";
(f) the construction, alteration and use for the control of the passage of salmon of—

(i) screens in off-takes from inland waters; and

(ii) structures associated with such screens.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps for the convenience of the House we could discuss Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 along with this amendment.
Amendment No. 8: Page 4, line 15, leave out ("subsection 2(c)") and insert ("paragraphs (c) or (f)").
Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 19, leave out ("made under that power") and insert ("so made").
This amendment honours the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, at Committee to consider how the access of smolts to off-takes might be restricted under the Bill. I am attracted to his proposal which follows naturally from the 1862–68 Act provisions regarding the safe passage of salmon at mill-dams. This amendment goes a little further than the amendment which the noble Lord withdrew. It allows my right honourable and learned friend to regulate by statutory instrument the construction, alteration and use of screens in off-takes from inland waters. Regulations would ensure that salmon, including salmon smolts, may not be drawn into off-takes at a river bank. The power is wide enough to allow control of the placing of screens in order to ensure a safe passage of salmon and may be used to ensure that alternative escapes for the salmon from an off-take may be required when a screen is not fitted at the entrance to the off-take itself.
Amendment No. 8 allows exemption to be made in the regulations for specified categories of works. For example, it would be possible to exempt screens in off-takes too small to permit the passage of salmon or off-takes which were otherwise the responsibility of a statutory undertaker who may already be obliged to make appropriate safeguards. The regulations will not apply in the case of streams not frequented by salmon.
Amendment No. 9 is a consequential drafting amendment. These amendments achieve what was asked for and, indeed, go a little further in safeguarding the passage of salmon. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am most grateful once again to my noble friend for having put in this amendment. I am a little apprehensive about one point he was making, in that it does not appear to apply to statutory undertakers, and where a lot of highland rivers have the Hydro Board (which may be covered under something else I had not appreciated, as I have not had a chance of checking this) or even the Caledonian Canal drawing off water, there may well be other statutory undertakers, and it would be unfortunate if they did not have to screen off any abstraction points, I hope that this was very carefully looked at.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps I could just answer the noble Lord, Lord Burton. This can apply, but there is a discretion to exempt.

301
Perhaps I should also mention that I did not indicate that we were considering Amendment No. 84 as well. Amendment No. 84 is consequential on the principal amendments and provides a definition of "inland waters".
Amendment No. 84: Clause 29, page 26, line 17, at end insert—
(" "inland waters" has the same meaning as in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Biddulph Lord Biddulph moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) sand and gravel extraction;
( ) the abstraction of water, to ensure sufficient riverflow for the passage of migratory fish".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and several other noble Lords, expressed concern about the extraction of sand and gravel from rivers and also water abstraction. The noble Lord the Minister in his concluding remarks on the debate indicated that we might have a chance to discuss this later.
Again, in response to the manuscript amendment tabled at the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Haig (who cannot be with us here today as he has a previous engagement in Russia), the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said: "We look forward to hearing from him at a later stage". I am sure we are all well aware of the importance of gravel beds for fish spawning and of the desecration of river life which can result if these are dug up. Such interference with the river can also afflict fishing itself. Again, I am, sure that the anglers among us can all quote examples of fishing being ruined by the arrival of discoloured water from abstraction activities upstream, whether from sand and gravel extraction, river bank protection or general river work.
In England and Wales the regional water authorities have control over such activities, but as there is no equivalent body in Scotland I would anticipate that the noble Lord the Minister would argue that control would be exercisable through the regional planning authorities. I would subscribe to the role of the planning authorities if I believed their remit could adequately cover river conditions; but although they consider a wide range of issues they are concerned primarily with land development, and therefore have to rely heavily on others regarding the conditions for protecting the river systems and how these are complied with.
Pollution control measures are exercised by the river purification board, and that body would be anxious to ensure that the stream life was not affected by any extraction. Redress would also be available under common law, But what my amendment seeks to do is to give the Secretary of State power after consultation with all legitimate interests—and here I would most strongly include the district fishery boards—to make regulations controlling sand and gravel extraction.
My amendment is in no way restrictive because it would allow full dialogue to develop so that plans can be drawn up to determine such things as the quantities of sand and gravel available for extraction, the method, timing and period of extraction, etc., to minimise damage to fishing and to fish life.
By taking these powers upon himself, the Secretary of State would ensure that a proper overview of such extraction was required to safeguard fish and fishing. This is a view which I am sure was accepted by the district fishery boards and river purification boards in Scotland.
Turning now to the question of extraction, my views here are quite simple. At present in Scotland if any body or individual is the riparian owner of part of a river he can make an abstraction from that river, subject only to control under common law action from a downstream proprietor, or by the very back-door control whereby the river purification board might impose a volume restriction on any subsequent discharge. But, of course, not all abstractions are returned to rivers as discharges. The sensible management of the river system depends upon the balance of the discharges to the river and the amount of water available for their dilution. If any abstraction takes place, this reduces the amount of dilution water available; and, indeed, the abstraction itself might add to the pollution load by being discharged back to the river as an effluent.
It is a commonly held view that in Scotland there is sufficient water to make abstraction controls unnecessary; but the apparent adequacy of water belies the difficulties that can and do arise as, for example, in the developments in the recent past of some of the fish farms where lengths of particular rivers were almost denuded by uncontrolled abstraction of water.
In England and Wales, the regional water authorities already have the advantage of control of abstraction, and yet there are parts of England, and certainly of Wales, where the adequacy of water is no less than in parts of Scotland. With the passing of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 there is now one pollution Act covering the whole of the United Kingdom, and it would seem to me highly iniquitous that the river life in Scotland should be in a less favourable position than it is in England and Wales merely by the difference in abstraction control afforded by earlier legislation. My amendment seeks to remove this glaring anomaly by giving the Secretary of State power to control abstraction of water by making regulations, and it is based on the philosophy of river management and the importance of consultation thereon with all interested parties. Again, I would like to list the district fisheries board and the River Purification Boards as two of the prime bodies concerned with abstraction control
In conclusion, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that in introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, at Clause 3, he advocated the use of regulations to make changes which at present would require primary legislation. I would hope that he still held to that view for this amendment. Additionally, under Clause 3(b), the Secretary of State is able to make different provisions for different areas, which in respect of my amendment would allow him the ideal opportunity of responding to the need for sand and gravel extraction and of water abstraction control as circumstances dictate, without the criticism of the blanket use of these powers. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Biddulph for outlining his thinking behind this amendment, and I would say that my

303
noble friend Lord Haig did indicate to me that he would be unable to be with us on this occasion.
I am aware that this is a subject of considerable interest not only in this House but among salmon bodies outside. My first difficulty with the amendments is that a Salmon Bill is not the place for any change in planning and related procedures. The amendments would enable my right honourable friend, as part of his power under Clause 3, to make regulations relating to fisheries. This could well conflict with powers available in planning legislation.
Turning to suggestions that have been made that district boards should become statutory consultees in relation to sand and gravel extraction and water abstraction, I think that the significance of this for boards could well be exaggerated. It is arguable; but it is most unlikely that because of the advertisement requirements and the interest these arouse the proposals for sand and gravel extraction would escape the attention of district boards. There is nothing at all to prevent boards, although not statutory consultees, objecting, and even if they were statutory consultees, there is no guarantee that their views would be heeded by the planning authorities.
On water abstraction, the existing common law and specific statutory arrangements make provision for control of a particular river or a stretch of river, allowing the local circumstances to be taken fully into account. They also provide extensive safeguards for the rights of all persons and bodies with an interest in the river; and new provisions in favour of the salmon fishing industry relating to the control of water abstraction would almost certainly lead to claims for similar consideration by others.
The report of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee on the control of water abstraction from surface and underground waters in Scotland, published in 1978, concluded that the volume of evidence was not such as to justify the introduction of a comprehensive system of licensing abstractions. While individual cases of difficulty, including those affecting the salmon fishing industry, have been drawn to our attention since then there is no evidence that general control provisions such as are proposed in the noble Lord's amendment are required.
In short, I am not persuaded that there is a real case for extension of the already complex statutory consultation arrangements. As I have said, these are not issues to be dealt with in the Salmon Bill. However, in view of the interest in this I would, as a separate exercise, be glad to have officials organise a meeting with bodies such as the Association of District Boards to discuss the matters more fully. I hope that perhaps on this note the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am very disappointed with that reply. I am not clear how the fishery boards are expected to know about all the planning applications; they are not all advertised. One point which was not mentioned but which is extremely important for fisheries is not so much the pollution aspect but the digging up of salmon reds where they have spawned or are likely to spawn. That can have a very material and long-lasting effect on a salmon river.
304
The purification boards——and as a member of one of them I know this is correct—are most anxious that these powers should be taken. The planners do not propose adequate protection. They are not fishery experts: nor are they purification experts—we have purification boards for that purpose—and it really seems quite wrong that this kind of abstraction, which could cause purification troubles and pollution because of the digging up of gravel, should not go to the requisite board concerned. It does not go to the purification board and it is quite wrong that these powers should be left entirely with the planners. It may well be that this Bill is not a satisfactory Bill in which to impose this, but in that case I would ask my noble friend whether he would not come forward with a Bill to amend the planning Acts so as to include this. It is something which is definitely needed.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I go along very much with the two noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, says in relation to the first part of the amendment that it interferes with the ordinary planning authorities. On the second part, he says that we do not want general control of the abstraction of water. That is all very well, but what we are seeking to do in this Bill is to ensure that the conservation of salmon is a key thought for all the bodies who have something to do with the rivers. I do not think it is enough to say, "We will see if we cannot have a talk", as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said. I would have thought it was possible to say somewhere, even in this Bill perhaps, that those who are concerned about this shall have a definite right to have their voices heard both in the abstraction of water and in regard to sand and gravel extraction. If it is known as a specific part of the work of the planning authorities, and so on, then I think we are very much better off. But really, as I understand it, just to say, "I will have a discussion, but things are not really going to change", does not seem to me to be good enough.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps I may very briefly deal with the two points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggested that if it was not possible to include the amendment in this Bill we should come back to the House with another Bill to do so. Obviously, I cannot give an answer to that; but I should have thought that the suggestion I made could be helpful. I said that we could have a separate exercise and that I would be glad to organise a meeting with officials and with the appropriate bodies such as the Association of District Boards (although it need not be restricted to that association and others could be included) in order to discuss this matter more fully. There is no reason why in due course that might not lead to further legislation; but certainly I would not be in a position to give any guarantee on that matter.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is answered really by what I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I appreciate the concern which noble Lords have expressed on this matter, but I do not think that it would be right to include in this legislation a provision such as they request. However, I am

305
perfectly happy to make the necessary arrangements for further discussion to take place so that a reasonable conclusion can be reached.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give us any information about the complaints which have been made to the Scottish Office as regards sand extraction? I remember making them in respect of the effect on fishing in, I think, the River Irvine, but I do not know that it would require a change in the legislation to get the business put right.
The other point which concerns me was this. I wonder how many of the noble Lords who have been listening to the debate have the right to extract water themselves, because it is a very tricky point. I can remember one particular Bill that we had, which entertained me for a few Fridays, in which we dealt with the extraction of water. The number of people who have the right to extract water was amazing. Would I be right in thinking that it would be much more complicated to deal with the second part of this amendment than with the first part?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. With his wealth of experience in Scottish Office matters, he may well have come across difficulties in regard to this issue. I think that he is probably correct; the second half of the amendment would be every bit as difficult to accommodate as the first. However, I think I made it clear that I would not be considering accepting either part of the amendment, and of course the second part could equally well be included in the discussions which I have proposed. With that suggestion, I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Biddulph: My Lords, I am not terribly impressed by the strength of the Minister's argument against including my amendment in this Bill. The problem I have illustrated will always remain and I shall be pleased to hear from him where and when he would anticipate that the problem should properly be taken care of.
I am not particularly pleased with this, but, on the other hand, the noble Lord the Minister has given me assurances that he will have meetings with the appropriate bodies to see what comes of this. So far as I am concerned I shall, with your Lordships' leave, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) the use of tackle, lures or bait in rod fishing.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when I moved a similar amendment in Committee I think I used the wrong wording for the amendment and on the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, I withdrew the amendment, full of hope because he said at the time that he would like to give further consideration to the matter and that he was sympathetic to what I had in mind.
I have introduced into the amendment now words which I think he could accept in that I am suggesting that power be given to regulate the use,
"of tackle, lures or bait in rod fishing".
This does away with the objectionable word "adequate" which was, as we saw in Committee, an inadequate word. I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will continue his sympathy to this power to control lures and bait and so forth. Therefore, I put the amendment before your Lordships.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, took so many things away to consider that I am not surprised that he perhaps overlooked what I think is a very important amendment. Now that the objectionable word "adequate" has been removed, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will feel able to accept this amendment. I think it is a really important one and I speak from personal experience. I hope very much that the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will be acceptable.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I would be in favour of this amendment in certain conditions. We were talking about it before in relation to very low water when nets and rods might reasonably be expected to alter the methods of fishing. This, I think, applies to the river at all times: the river board ought to be able to intervene and, let us say, order that bait of any kind should not be used. This, I think, could have a pretty serious effect on tenants taking fishing, they might find themselves in great difficulty. I should like to hear my noble friend's reaction.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am conscious that the subject of control of baits and lures interests a good many of your Lordships and I agreed to look again at whether it would be possible to provide appropriately in the Bill for the sort of control that seems to be desired. One of the points to be considered particularly carefully is the type of control and the arrangements for introducing and enforcing it. I think this is what my noble friend Lord Home has in mind.
The amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, would have the effect of adding control of lures or baits in rod fishing to the list of general regulatory powers of the Secretary of State as prescribed in Clause 3(2) of the Bill. It was made clear, however, in our earlier discussions that such a power could be effective only if capable of being used on a local or district by district basis, whereas Clause 3, with one exception, provides for regulations to be made on a national basis. As an alternative to the procedure in Clause 3, there may be other possibilities.
As I said at Committee, I am sympathetic to the general principle that Lord Thurso has in mind, but it is proving to be by no means a straightforward matter. I require, for example, to consult with salmon bodies, particularly the angling interests, who would be directly affected by such restrictions on their activities. Therefore, despite the plea from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, and with the assurance that I am still looking at the matter closely, for the reason which I

307
have given regarding consultation it has not been possible for me to come forward in a position either to accept the amendment of the noble Viscount today or to bring one of my own. With the assurance that I am still looking at it and am sympathetic to it, I wonder if the noble Viscount would consider withdrawing his amendment.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am very pleased to know that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is still considering this matter. I think it is important and I hope he will come up with a solution, taking into account what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, also said. I think this is a power that should be used locally with discretion; it should be a reserve power, as it were, rather than one which would be constantly and capriciously used.
But with all the assurances which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has given me, I am happy to leave matters as they stand until we see what progress he can make. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) the placing of cages to hold fish in any river, loch or estuary.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this again was an amendment which I introduced in Committee and I think people had rather a short time to consider its implications. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, had rather a short time to consider its implications, and it is for that reason that I reintroduce it at this stage.
It seems to me that there is a grey area where there is no control over the placing of the net cages. When I say "control", I mean supervision so that pollution, the spread of disease, interference and all such things do not take place. To a certain extent, this amendment is still a probing amendment and I hope by now the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will have had a chance to look at this matter in greater depth and with great care because I think there is an important point here. So it is in the hope of eliciting some more information about the plans the noble Lord and indeed the whole department have that I move this amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am conscious that a number of your Lordships spoke in general support of the reasoning behind the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, at Committee. For this reason, I agreed to take the point away for further study, although I think I made it quite clear at the time that I did not feel I would be able to come back with an amendment to the Bill which would satisfy the noble Viscount and others.
My study of the matter since Committee has confirmed my view that this is indeed a very complex area involving local planning authorities, river purification boards, the Crown Estate Commissioners, and the National Farmers' Union on behalf of fish farmers.
The position, as I understand it, is that cages sited in fresh water lochs to rear rainbow trout and salmon
308
smolts require specific planning consent with the local planning authority consulting the purification boards and others.
4.30 p.m.
Applications for planning permission are advertised. In short, the development of such cage farms is controlled through the planning Acts. More normal is the practice to use seawater cages for ongrowing salmon smolts to market size. These cages need deep salt water reasonably sheltered from storms and not subject to fast tides. The cages need to be moored on the seabed and this is owned by the Crown. Some confusion may have arisen in our earlier discussion about whether parts of the seabed in estuaries had been given off by the Crown through private charters. These references may have been to areas of the inter-tidal foreshore given off by the Crown to private ownership. But these are not really suitable for salmon cages.
As regards the seabed in ownership by the Crown, all known fish farms' cage sites are subject to Crown leases or licences, so far as I am aware. The Crown Estate Commissioners can impose conditions which in themselves may help to meet some of the concerns of other interests. In addition, my officials are considering with the Crown Estate Commissioners what further consultations the Commissioners should conduct before new leases are granted, and it is hoped that these new procedures will help towards a better local understanding of what is involved in the siting of fish farm cages.
Our assessment is that the sea water cages at present in use are less likely than may be thought to cause difficulties for wild salmon fisheries. There is, so far as I am aware, no firm evidence of lateral transfer of fish disease from caged to wild fish and the most probable danger to wild stocks would be from escapes of farm fish. The important point here is that the only certain losers from such escapes are the fish farmers themselves who lose valuable stock. They are conscious that it is very much in their interests to make every effort to prevent escapes.
I hope I have explained that the position in relation to fish farm development is much less loose than might have been inferred from our discussions in Committee. I know that the fish farming interests, through the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, are concerned at the prospect of further controls on their activities and I can certainly appreciate that.
As I have indicated, there is already control depending on where the cages are sited by local planning authorities and the Crown Estate Commissioners, with established consultation procedures. I think that the best way forward is to continue to develop these procedures as separate exercises, and I remain quite unconvinced that this Bill would be an appropriate measure to interfere with planning and other legislation. Therefore, I hope that with that explanation the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I am afraid that if he insists on pressing it, I shall have to resist it.
Lord Burton: My Lords, once again I find that a most unsatisfactory answer. After all, it was fish farms

309
which caused UDN—I believe that it came from southern Ireland—which absolutely devastated salmon stocks all round the country. There is now practically no control. One of the sponsors of this amendment was the purification boards. My noble friend said that things are referred to them; but they are not in any way referred to them. The purification boards have no say whatsoever in this matter and I think we would all feel a lot happier if they had. Only last week, someone in Skye asked my advice because the Crown was about to let fresh sites in front of an existing fish farm, and there was much concern about it. As we said on the netting rights, the Crown do not seem to mind terribly to whom they let fishings, nor are they concerned about to whom they let fish farms. All they are concerned with is how much revenue they can derive from exploiting these matters. It is most unsatisfactory and I hope that my noble friend will look very seriously at this again.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, may I, as a sometime First Crown Estate Commissioner, say to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that it is not true that the Crown Estate is interested only in the money that it can get out of these things. It has many other considerations in mind, which are essentially those of a responsible body with the fishing interests very much in its thoughts. So I hope that that idea is totally removed from what your Lordships may think.
It is quite true—I was very much encouraged to hear this and not surprised—that the Crown Estate Commissioners will be talking with the appropriate body. But I think I am also right in saying that on the seabed around Scotland the Crown Estate has no more than between 60 and 70 per cent. of the rights. The rest of them have over many centuries been granted by charter to other interests. It is perhaps very important since it is such a large percentage—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Will he make it perfectly clear that it has not only been granted by charter? There was a failure of the Crown Estate Commissioners timeously to appreciate that other people were exercising rights. I think that if they exercised those rights for 14 years, without any objection from the Crown Commissioners, they were allowed to continue. Most of the seashore rights which the Crown Commissioners lost were lost in that way and not by the granting of rights.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I do not want to get into too much argument. There is some degree of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, says. But they used to have to exercise a right over 40 years, and not 14. The sequel to that was that it was almost impossible for the Crown to police the whole area around the coast, which is very large. There have been large areas granted by charter which has nothing to do, in a sense, with the Crown Estate but was to do with the times when the kings were in control.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that he has given an answer only in relation to between 60 and 70 per cent. of the whole and there remains 30 or 40 per cent. which, in areas, is very important. For
310
example, I think of Nigg Bay. The ownership of part of that estuary is in private hands and that, I suspect, is an important salmon area. So it is not enough to say that the Crown will collaborate. There remains a large other body which ought in some way to be brought into the net, which is perhaps the right word to use.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for drawing our attention to that point, which I shall answer in a moment. I do not think I should get involved in a discussion about the Crown Commissioners with two people so knowledgeable about their functions as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. But I think the points have been well made, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Burton has taken them on board.
With regard to the fact that there are others involved, apart from the Crown Commissioners, I think that the position is as I described it, and I am concerned at what my noble friend Lord Burton has said. My understanding is that cages sited in freshwater lochs to rear rainbow trout and salmon smolts require specific planning consent, with the local planning authority consulting the purification hoards and others. My noble friend Lord Burton has taken issue on that. If he has specific cases in mind which he can draw to my attention I shall investigate them further. But it seems to me that there is provision for the local purification boards and others to be consulted. Of course, the applications for planning permission are advertised and, in short, the development of such cage farms is controlled through the planning Acts. I do not think I can add more to what I have already said. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he inform us whether these fish farms pay rates either to the local authority or to the fishery board?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without a little reference, but I shall keep talking until the advice arrives and I shall then give it to my noble friend. I am quite sure that I shall get useful information in a moment. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend. It appears that he has bowled a googly which has fooled not only me but the Box as well. I shall let my noble friend know in due course.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has said enough to show that there was and still is a problem in this area. A whole lot of things are still unresolved. There is the 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of non-Crown seabed. There is the question of whether the Crown Estate Commissioners, willing though they be to police and monitor these matters, would have the expertise to police and monitor what was going on where a cage was sited. There is the question in my mind of whether a cage sited within a fresh water loch for a part of the year would need planning consent. If it were moored for a short time, would it need planning consent? If it did, surely every keep net along the Thames and along the canals of this country would require planning consent. I do not know at what point

311
planning consent and so on is required. I have brought up before the difficulty of monitoring and policing the terms of planning consent.
All these grave difficulties surround the whole question of net cages. I readily accept, though, that my amendment will probably not solve this problem, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will take seriously the questions which underly what has been said and will initiate within his department serious discussions with a view to trying to solve this problem by means other than the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed earlier: col. 300.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 8):
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("subsection 2(c)") and insert ("paragraphs (c) or (f)").
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 9:
[Printed earlier: col. 300.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 9):
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("made under that power") and insert ("so made").
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("subsection (2)(d)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I am grateful to my noble friend for having accepted at least part of this amendment. He has accepted the part to which we refer in the next four amendments—"part of a district" or "parts of districts"—but this amendment goes a little further. It asks that regulations should be in the hands of the Secretary of State not only on the question of meshes, materials and so on but also with regard to close time, the construction and use of cruives, and dams and obstructions. The amendment is generally rather wider than the actual part or parts which, as I said, I am pleased he has accepted. I feel that the Secretary of State should have such powers. If he is going to have to have powers for the actual materials, why cannot he have powers for things such as the construction of obstructions? I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to discuss along with Amendment No. 10, Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 22, at end insert ("or different parts of a district").
Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 22, at end insert ("or parts of districts").
312
Amendment No. 13: Page 4, line 24, after ("district") insert ("or part of a district").
Amendment No. 14: Page 4, line 24, after ("district") insert ("or parts of districts").
As the Bill is drafted, regulations under Clause 3 will be applied to the whole of Scotland, apart from those in respect of the meshes, materials and dimensions of nets, where it is thought that there might be room for local differences. Any regulations made under Clause 3 will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which is wholly appropriate to such national regulations. The noble Lord's amendments would have the effect of enabling all these national regulations to be made for individual districts or parts of districts and would subject the local regulations to the negative resolution procedure, which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, would not be appropriate.
On the other hand, I can quite see why the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Marquess would wish to extend the possibility of making regulations for the meshes, materials and dimensions to parts of districts as well as whole districts. This might be of particular advantage following the creation of a larger district out of two or more smaller districts. I am advised, however, that the amendments are not appropriately worded and I have therefore brought forward appropriate government amendments, Amendments Nos. 11 and 13. I hope that the noble Lords will be prepared to accept these amendments and will withdraw their own amendments. I cannot accept Amendment No. 10 for the reasons I have given, and, with these explanations, I trust that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments, which are either not appropriate or cannot be accepted and accept my amendments instead.
Lord Burton: My Lords, in view of the fact that half the amendment will be accepted by my noble friend's next amendment, and in view of the fact that I shall require further time to consider what he has said on the first part, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I think that my noble friend is taking back a number of things which may come up again on Third Reading and I cannot guarantee that I will not bring back this first part again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 11:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 13:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Annual close time]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 15:
[Printed earlier: col. 299.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 15):
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("two proprietors of salmon fisheries") and insert ("a proprietor of a salmon fishery").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a little difficult. It is only a fairly small point but it refers also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 88.
Amendment No. 17: Clause 7, page 7, line 33, leave out ("two proprietors of salmon fisheries") and insert ("a proprietor of a salmon fishery").
Amendment No 88: Schedule 88, page 28, line 9, leave out ("two proprietors of salmon fisheries") and insert ("a proprietor of a salmon fishery").
Some of the smaller districts may have only two proprietors. Where we have a single-proprietor district there is no trouble but where there happen to be two, or there might be two, only one of whom may want some kind of alteration in the annual close time or in the estuarial limits or may want to apply for a designation order, it would not be possible for the one proprietor to put his views forward to the Secretary of State because the other one would not agree. We are therefore suggesting in these amendments that it should be possible for the Secretary of State to consider matters even if only one of the two proprietors wished to do so. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 16, to which I have added my name. The particular difficulty with which it deals does not apply in my own area but I know that it may do so in others. It seems to me that it would be unfair if one of two proprietors were not allowed to have his say, and so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, there is no particular reason why we chose to give the role of a board to two proprietors in a district where there is no board, although there is clearly a loose tie with the provision in Schedule 2 to the Bill that it takes at least two proprietors in a district to set in motion the procedures for creating a board.
It seems to me not unreasonable to take the line that, before my right honourable and learned friend is required to consider an application for an annual close time order, an estuary limits order or a designation order, he should be assured that there is at the very least a modicum of agreement within a district. Some might argue that applications for orders of that kind should come only from a board and therefore that proprietors should have to form a board if they feel that changes are called for. I myself do not propose that, but reducing the requirement from two proprietors to one would be a step in the wrong direction. I can understand what it is that my noble friends seek but I suggest to them that to reduce the number from two to one would not be the right way to go. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friends will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, again I am not happy. It is not as though it is a question of setting up the board; the board might already exist. One of the members might die, or someone else might buy over one of the properties, and some new person might come in by that way. There could be a considerable feud between two landlords; that has not been unheard of before. It is only a small point and it applies only where there are just two proprietors on a board. But where it does apply, it does not seem unreasonable that one of those two people should have the right to go to the Secretary of State: that is all. The Secretary of State might say "No", but as the clause is worded at the moment it disfranchises such a person. I hope that my noble friend will take a further look at this point, but it is a small matter and one that is not worth pressing further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Estuary limits]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Application of regulations and annual close time orders to the River Tweed]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 en bloc:
Amendment No. 18: Page 8, line 28, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 19: Clause 11, page 11, line 6, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Amendment No. 20: Page 11, line 23, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [District salmon fishery boards]:
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A committee elected by qualified proprietors in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act shall he the district salmon fishery board for that district; and the purposes of that board shall be the protection and improvement of the fisheries within that district").
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I found great difficulty in understanding why there is a need to have two organisations—the association and the board. However, it appears from the way that the Bill is worded that the formation of an association of proprietors in a salmon fishery district is a prerequisite for electing a salmon fishery board. It is not clear to me that the association even has to be one of all the proprietors in the district.
I suppose that some people could agree to join an association at the sheriff's meeting and that others might decide that they did not want to do so. But that association would appear to be sufficient to proceed with the election of a board.
After a board is elected, presumably the association then continues in being. I cannot see the purpose of that. The association is made redundant because the board that is elected in accordance with Schedule 2 will have the powers and duties conferred upon it by the Act. The status of the board in the absence of the association of proprietors is that of an unincorporated association, which is the same status as that of the

315
existing board. I can see no reason to establish the association, which would merely be to create a superfluous and potentially confusing body. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will be able to explain my confusion. I beg to move.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the noble Lord is not present in the Chamber and so he is unable to do so.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I hope that I may be able to explain this matter to my noble friend, even if the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is not with us at present to make his contribution. Amendment No. 21 relates to a number of other amendments, all of which are designed to remove the association of proprietors, whose committee may become a district board, from the Bill. I appreciate that the structure we have created is complex, but I hope to be able to persuade noble Lords that it serves a very real purpose. Existing district boards constituted under the 1862 and 1868 Acts enjoy a somewhat doubtful legal status, and their powers are limited to what statute provides for them. In the new structure we expect a board, in its character as a committee of a voluntary association, to avail itself of the common law powers appropriate to such a body, as well as the additional powers given to the board in the Bill. Likewise, the underlying scheme allows for ease of transfer between boards where districts amalgamate, and also removes any possible vacuum that might arise when a board lapses. It is important therefore that the board retains its capacities as the committee of a voluntary association, and the Bill has been carefully drafted with that in mind. I hope that explanation will satisfy my noble friend.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, that was a very clear exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I only moved the amendment because the existing wording seemed unnecessary and therefore rather confusing. If that provision is absolutely essential—as well as very confusing—then of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before the noble Marquess does so, I may say a word in support of his amendment. I must confess that I, too, listened with great attention to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but my mind, which is not as sharp as that of the noble Marquess, remains confused.
The reason why we have to keep in being a voluntary society in case a board goes out of existence, and the advantage of having a committee of that voluntary society, have so far escaped me. However, this is the amendment of the noble Marquess and if he is satisfied and clear in his own mind about what we are doing, and if we really are making legislation clearer and not more confusing—which I doubt very much—then I would not for one moment oppose the amendment being withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 12, line 42, at end insert ("; but, for the purposes of the winding-up of such an association, any assets of the former board remaining after the settlement of the liabilities of the former board shall be distributed amongst all the proprietors in the district who were liable to the fishery assessment immediately before the date on which the committee ceased to be such a board, according to the valuation of each fishery as entered in the valuation roll at that date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Burton tabled an amendment which was designed to ensure that when a district board is finally wound up any assets remaining should be divided among the proprietors in the district in proportion to the value of their fisheries on the valuation roll. I told my noble friend at that stage that I was attracted by his suggestion. I have given further detailed consideration to the matter and have brought forward this amendment which will meet the point.
The amendment makes clear that on a winding up, once all liabilities of the former board have been settled, the assets will be divided among the proprietors in the district according to the valuation of their fisheries. This is sensible and fair and I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, once more I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment. I think that we are nearly 50–50 now on agreement and disagreement. I should like very much to thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 27:
[Printed earlier: col. 299.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 27):
Page 13, line 11, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section")
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
[Printed earlier: col. 297.]
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I simply tabled this amendment in order to give a greater degree of flexibility. It seemed to me a sensible thing to do. I believe that there should be a little more flexibility. However, I do not want to speak at any length.
Lord Gray of Contin: By leave, my Lords, I dealt with this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 2 and I think it has been covered.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. It is covered. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Financial powers and duties of district salmon fishery boards]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A district salmon fishery board shall, each year, hold a meeting of qualified proprietors in that district and shall at that meeting present annual accounts together with a report of the board's activities during the previous year. The annual meeting shall take such steps as they think proper for auditing and attesting the accounts of the board.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is just a tidying up of the matter. As the Bill stands at the moment the proprietors, tenants, or whatever, will have only one occasion in three years on which to take their board to any task. It must be well understood that a number of these existing fishery boards are not the height of efficiency and it seems to be right that, as in most organisations, there should be what amounts to an annual general meeting at which the accounts must be produced.
It is quite wrong to have to wait three years before proprietors or owners of fishing can see from the accounts what their board is doing. This is accentuated in view of the fact that my noble friend is proposing that we should now be able to take on heritable property. That is most welcome but if the boards are to be efficient, they must be scrutinised at least once a year. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I do not want to delay your Lordships with an unnecessary speech but I should like to add a few words in support of the amendment. I am the chairman of a district river board and I have always felt that it would be much better if we were obliged to meet annually. Accountability is of course very important. In addition, it would give an opportunity for riparian owners and interested parties to say what they have to say to one's face, as it were, instead of, as at the moment, having to ask for a special meeting to discuss a subject. I would not be inclined to refuse a special meeting because they are very good things to have, but I think it would be sensible and wise if we were obliged to meet annually. With those few words, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Burton and myself.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment. It seems wrong that important powers should be given to a board to represent such a valuable asset without having a meeting at least once a year. If this, or a similar amendment, is not accepted it would mean, as I see it, and according to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that meetings would be held only every third year. I know that the Minister usually finds that the wording of amendments is not quite what he wants but perhaps he can indicate that he is, in general, sympathetic to it being part of the duties of the board to meet at least once a year to let people know what is happening and to give a report of their stewardship for the year. I think that this is the least that can be done in such a Bill.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I add my support. It would be of enormous good to the salmon industry. If there is suspicion of the board's activities this would go
318
a long way for riparian owners to have a chance to be heard, as my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said. If my noble friend is not able to accept the amendment, will he undertake to discuss with the Association of Fishery Boards a similar amendment which would enable them publicly to meet their constituents, so to speak, annually in some way or another? It would do a considerable amount of good to the whole salmon scene.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can well understand the thought and the reason behind this amendment. It seems very reasonable that boards should have a means of communicating with the fishery interests they represent and that their accounts should be prepared annually. Indeed, I understand that a great many boards already have regular meetings and that some publish annual reports.
However, given the wide variety of circumstances in which boards are constituted and operate it would not perhaps be appropriate to require them by statute to have meetings according to a set pattern. Boards depend upon proprietors for their election and I would expect them to respond to the wishes of their proprietors by calling meetings at times suited to local conditions and wishes.
I am not prepared to accept this amendment. I hope that my noble friends will consider withdrawing it. However, I am certainly prepared to accept what I consider to be a very reasonable suggestion made by my noble friend; that I draw the attention of the district boards to this matter. I think the best way forward would be for the district boards to encourage this practice but because of the very wide variation in circumstances which exist in different board areas I am reluctant to write into legislation that they should be required to have meetings according to any set pattern.
In the light of that suggestion, and in the knowledge that I am prepared to raise this matter with district boards, perhaps my noble friends would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I should like to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the reply of my noble friend the Minister for the very reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I feel that the smaller boards are probably the most likely to transgress and regard an annual meeting as being unnecessary. I do not think that will happen in the case of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne and his board but I do think it might happen with some of the smaller boards.
While one must accept that there are many different conditions and sizes of boards, I think there should be something somewhere in this Bill laying down that they must allow their shareholders, or ratepayers to meet them once a year to hear exactly what they have to say for themselves.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I go along with the problem, but I wonder whether instead of the mandatory "shall" in the amendment we could perhaps use the word "should" and go on to say something like:
"but if there is some reason why the board does not feel it appropriate it should so notify the Secretary of State."

319
The Secretary of State, or whoever might be the right authority, could then decide. If the noble Lord understands me, I wonder whether that might meet all our worries.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I sense that there is a genuine concern about this matter. In view of what has been said, I take the point that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has made. I was perfectly prepared to discuss the matter with the Association of District Boards. If it is the general wish that we should go further than that, then I shall, without commitment, take this back, have a look at it again, and perhaps return to it at Third Reading.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put forward suggestions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for putting forward a very worthwhile suggestion. Between us we seem to have persuaded the Minister to change his mind. That is very satisfactory. I hope that this will continue, that my noble friend the Minister will take it back, and that he will come forward on Third Reading with a suitable amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 13, line 32, leave out from ("district") to the end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House if with this amendment I take Amendment No. 35.
Amendment No. 35: Page 14, line 34, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) In carrying out its purpose, a district salmon fishery board may authorise expenditure, including expenditure for the acquisition of heritable property, out of sums accruing to it from—

(a) the fishery assessment;

(b) the exercise of the power, under subsection (8) above, to borrow; or

(c) any other source;

but it shall not pay to any member of that board any salary or fees for his acting in any way as a member of or under that board.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments, which have to be read together, stem from the discussion during Committee stage about the purchase of heritable property. Several noble Lords argued strongly that the proposed restriction on the purchase of heritable property should be relaxed and I shall in fact be moving an amendment on that specific point later. The purpose of these two amendments is to make it clear that a board may meet the costs of carrying out the purposes given to boards under the Bill from any source of money available to it, whether that money comes from the statutory powers of assessment and borrowing, from capital transfers at amalgamation or from transactions in the ordinary course of its business.
The amendment also provides that a board which, in its capacity as the committee of a voluntary association, can purchase heritable property, may meet the costs of such purchase from any of the funds available to it as a board.
The amendments maintain the provision that a board shall not pay any of its members any salary or
320
fees for acting as a member of the board or for it. Noble Lords will remember that I pointed out during the Committee stage debate that this provision does not prevent a board from paying travelling expenses to members if it so decided. These are minor amendments, clarifying some of the board's powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 36, leave out ("or rates").
The noble Lord said: This is more a probing amendment. The Bill as currently worded says:
"The fishery assessment shall be assessed at such uniform rate or rates as are determined".
I thought that these boards would set a rate. I cannot see where the word "rates" comes in. My amendment suggests deleting the words "or rates". I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can understand the concern of my noble friend regarding this question that district board rates should be applied to all fisheries in the district equally. I can see that the use of the words "rate or rates" would give rise to the impression that differential rates were envisaged. The purpose of using "rate or rates" is to ensure that a board can impose a supplementary rate or a special rate in addition to any regular assessment if it so decided. The possibility of this being interpreted as allowing differential rates was anticipated. That is why the word "uniform" was inserted in the clause immediately before the words "rate or rates", to make sure that the assessments could not discriminate between fisheries of different sorts. I am assured that the subsection as drafted has that effect. I hope therefore that, with that explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I must congratulate the drafter of the Bill. As it is drafted, it has foxed us. It is, however, very sensible and I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 1, after ("assessment") insert ("including interest thereon").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is again concerned with the question of interest. I thought that at Committee stage my noble friend was going to look at this. I had rather hoped that he might have proposed what I am now suggesting. As matters stand, there are from time to time inclined to be people who are very slow in paying their assessment, often a very small one. To take them to court costs a lot of money. If they pay up before going to court, you have lost out on legal expenses. It is all rather unsatisfactory.
The situation could easily be overcome if the boards were able to impose an interest charge should the rates not have been paid within a certain time. When it is a matter of local authority rates, this is quickly put into the sheriff officer's hands and one obtains an extra 10 per cent. charge straightaway. I do not believe that this

321
applies to fishery board assessments. It is essential, in my view, that the matter should be tightened up. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We have often found this difficulty in my board. The position should be tightened up. Quite a number of letters have to be written on certain occasions. This wastes the clerk's time and the board's money. The matter should be tightened up and interest thereon added. I hope sincerely that the noble Lord will accept the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps at the outset I can point out to my noble friend Lord Burton that his amendment is defective inasmuch as there is no specification of rate of interest and there is no indication of when interest would be due. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment and thus keeping the interesting suggestion before us.
I did say in Committee that I would consider the implication of this proposal. I have not yet completed that consideration and I would be grateful for a little more time. There is, for example, the question of the need to make specific provision for the charging of interest, not simply the recovery of arrears, and whether or not a statutory rate should be laid down. I hope that with this explanation my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, on that assurance, one has little option. It is, however, rather difficult to fix rates at this time because rates are liable to alter. I beg leave, however, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 34.
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 34):
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 35:
[Printed above.]
Lord Burton: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed I think that probably it will not be possible to take my Amendment No. 39 because it will aready have been dealt with.
Amendment No. 39: Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Reference to the acquisition of heritable property shall include references to the purchase or lease of heritable property and where heritable property is acquired title shall be taken in the name of the chairman of and clerk to the district salmon fishery board for the time being as trustees for the board.)"
This amendment contains a slight addition to what appears in the amendment of my noble friend. I hope that he will examine it. It relates to the question: if there is a heritable title, in whose name should the property be held? The suggestion is that it should be the chairman and the clerk of the fishery hoard concerned. But it may be that there should be someone else. If I do not raise it at this juncture, there will not be an opportunity later on.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, we are discussing amendment No. 35.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord made reference to Amendment No. 39. At this stage, we are dealing with Amendment No. 35. All I can say is that I have noted what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 35):
Page 14, line 34, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) In carrying out its purpose, a district salmon fishery board may authorise expenditure, including expenditure for the acquisition of heritable property, out of sums accruing to it from—

(a) the fishery assessment;

(b) the exercise of the power, under subsection (8) above, to borrow; or

(c) any other source;

but it shall not pay to any member of that board any salary or fees for his acting in any way as a member of or under that board.")
Clause 15 [General powers and duties of district salmon fishery boards]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 15, line 1, at end insert—
("(d) research into the state of salmon runs in its district").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite a simple little matter. I really cannot add to what is on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for this amendment. It gives me this opportunity to assure your Lordships' House that district boards will under this Bill be able to carry out research and meet the expenses of it from their funds provided that the research is relevant to the good management of the stocks and their district.
I am advised that research of that sort could be undertaken within the power that boards will have under Clause 15(1)(a). That is:
"the protection or improvement of the fisheries within their district".
We have deliberately tried to draft the general powers of the boards as widely as possible in order to give them the broadest flexibility of action within their general purpose. I hope on the assurance I have been able to give that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 37, I should inform your Lordships that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 38.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 15, leave out lines 2 to 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that when an amendment on the purchase of heritable property was being discussed at Committee stage, it was suggested by several noble Lords that the limitation requiring the consent of proprietors of fisheries totalling four-fifths of the total

323
value of the fisheries in the district should be relaxed. The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, suggested as an alternative that the purchase of heritable property should be subject to one-fifth of the proprietors not objecting to it. That suggestion poses some difficulties in that it would be necessary to ensure that all proprietors knew of the proposed purchase so that they had the opportunity to object to it if they were so minded.
Those who were present at the Committee stage may also recall that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, suggested that a government amendment relating to purchase of heritable property be withdrawn because I had agreed to review the position. Events have proved the noble Lord to be right on this occasion, as on many others.
In considering all the points made in the debate at Committee stage, and accepting the general thrust of the debate, I have decided that the limitation on the power to purchase heritable property should be removed altogether. The purchase would have to be for the purposes of the board—that is, the protection and improvement of salmon fisheries in the district. There is a limitation on the board's power to borrow money. That would apply to the borrowing of any money for the purchase of heritable property. If, however, a board already has enough money, or can borrow enough money within the limitations imposed by the Bill, then it should, I think, be as free to purchase a garage or a house as it is to purchase a vehicle or to pay a water bill. I beg to move.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House, if I were to say a word about Amendment No. 38, even though I shall not be able formally to move it, assuming that the Government's amendment is accepted.
Amendment No. 38: Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("board") to first ("or) in line 4 and insert ("if objections to the acquisition are lodged with the clerk to the district salmon fishery board by proprietors of fisheries which together amount to one fifth").
I feel that we must have been over-persuasive at the Committee stage and have got the noble Lord the Minister to move rather too far in the direction that he has moved. This is quite all right for the smaller boards, but some of the larger boards have a very substantial income and, if they can spend twice their rateable income in any one year on buying heritable property, they will be able to buy very considerable amounts of land.
I should have thought that the Bill as originally drafted was in this way quite a good idea because it would put some control on them. As it is now proposed, provided that they do not exceed this twice—or, I suppose if they are really clever they could make it by deferred payments which would mean the cash could be spread over two or three years—they could, theoretically, buy up to six times their annual income if they spread it over three years. I am not sure that this is a good thing. I think that it is unlikely to happen because we must have faith in the boards that we are setting up and believe that they will not go ahead and become mini-financiers in this way. However, I should like to utter a warning that perhaps we have moved a little too far in the direction of freedom.
324
Having said that, I shall not oppose in any way the amendment of my noble friend. I very much hope that it will be carried.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for giving way so gracefully to an amendment which was strongly supported at Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this matter before. I think the amendment is probably now defective and should not be moved. I feel it is important that we should bear in mind in whose name any property that is acquired should be taken. I would ask my noble friend to look at this. I do not know whether he can answer this point tonight, but I think this provision will be required in the Bill.
[Amendment, No. 39, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 40, not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("co-opt") and insert ("appoint").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 41 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 95, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109 and 111.
Amendment No. 51: Clause 17, page 17, line 10, leave out ("co-opting") and insert ("appointing").
Amendment No. 95: Schedule 2, page 32, line 13, leave out ("co-opting") and insert ("appointing").
Amendment No. 103: Page 33, line 9, leave out ("co-opt") and insert ("appoint").
Amendment No. 104: Page 33, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) the clerk of the Board shall give notice at least once in each of two successive weeks by advertisements in a newspaper circulating in the district

(a) indicating the intention to hold elections for the appointment of representatives of salmon anglers and tenant netsmen;

(b) indicating arrangements for the nomination of candidates;

(c) appointing a time and place for the holding of elections; and

(d) including provision for voting by post.")

Amendment No. 105: Page 33, line 13, leave out ("co-opted") and insert ("appointed").
Amendment No. 106: Page 33, line 15, leave out ("co-opted") and insert ("appointed").
Amendment No. 108: Page 33, line 19, leave out ("co-opted") and insert ("appointed").
Amendment No. 109: Page 33, line 20, leave out ("co-opt such persons") and insert ("hold elections").
Amendment No. 111: Page 33, line 21, leave out ("co-opted") and insert ("appointed").
I think those are all the amendments I would wish to speak to now. They relate to a wish to enfranchise the representatives of anglers and tenant netsmen. I am quite ready to admit that I may have got the drafting wrong in this instance, but I think the principle is right. It is important that anglers should not only be part of the district board structure but also made to feel part

325
of it and made to feel that they do not come to the district board owing their appearance there to the generosity of the proprietors; and they should in some way be able to determine who of their number should represent them in the district boards.
The object of this series of amendments is to remove the word "co-opt" and substitute "appoint". At the end of the series, your Lordships will notice that there is to be provision for elections of angling and tenant netsmen representatives. When the anglers and tenant netsmen have held their elections and decided who they wish to be their representatives the existing boards would appoint those persons.
5.30 p.m.
The whole object of this series of amendments is to try to achieve this state of enfranchisement for the anglers and the tenant netsmen. It is important in this connection that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. The value of district boards is that they are, and will be, a forum where different sides and different opinions within the whole salmon industry will meet and discuss policy in relation to specific rivers and coasts. It is important that all possible voices should be present at these discussions and should feel themselves to be properly placed there, and properly able to make their views heard and make their presence felt. That is the purpose which underlies these amendments.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will be able to give us some comfort along these lines; some idea that the angler and tenant netsman will not be a second-class citizen but just as first-class a citizen as any other person who has an interest in a salmon river or the coast off which salmon migrate. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this amendment seems to me to have one major flaw. The flaw is: how do you define an angler? Are you going to have a series of weighted votes? Is somebody who just takes one day rod on the Dee going to have a vote the same as someone who owns a stretch and fishes it all his life?
It is impossible to have a reasonable basis for an angler or rod electorate. Therefore, I think that the proposal falls down not because it would not be quite nice to have voted in rod members, but because the practicality of defining what is an angler presupposes that it is inherently nonsensical.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I hope that the Government will resist the amendment, because as I understand the position anybody with a rateable value of £500 in a watershed is entitled to a seat on a district fishery board. I am confident that that is the position. It seems a sensible position to maintain. I do not know how otherwise you would select, from all the people who fish your river, who would be a member of the district fishery board, and I hope that the Government will leave the situation as it is at present. I appreciate the liberal sentiments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, but I do not think that his suggestion will be an improvement.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not take the advice they have been given by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. We had better accept that the anglers are an important aspect of fishing in the modern day. I do not think for a minute that any board would appoint someone (even if they knew who he was) who had been up there for only an hour and never reappeared. That is not likely to happen. We have to be realistic about it. By the way, that is why I did not like the word "appoint". I wanted appointments from nominations of the angling associations themselves. They should have a say.
On the drift of what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, says, he has certainly got my approval. They have to be there, if you are going to be fair to all the interests who have the well being of salmon fishing at heart. The district board will not have the authority it should have unless it is representative of all the real interests in fishing on the whole river.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I should like to add a word on this subject. I spoke about it on a previous occasion and I used the expression, "second-class membership". I am strongly against any suggestion of second-class membership. I am equally strongly opposed to the idea of disenfranchised members.
The amendment seeks to deal with this, and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, but I cannot go the whole way with him. Of course the anglers are very important indeed, and as the years go by we shall realise that they are becoming increasingly important. I shall have a word to say about that later this evening in another context. But I feel that those who have continuing interests in the river should have the major say. That is why I would wish to support the idea of the anglers and the tenant netsmen not having parity with the others; that they should be two in number rather than three.
I hope that something along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, can be brought about. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, to oppose it out of hand, but as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said on an earlier occasion, we have to think of the salmon fishing industry in rather a different way these days. That is why it is immensely important that the angler and the tenant netsman should be considered, and that his voice should be heard.
I hope that your Lordships will think again about this. It is an important amendment. It may have imperfections, I do not know, but I should be pleased if the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who is in charge of the Bill, could give us some assurance that he would at least attempt to see whether it is possible to work out some means whereby the suggestion of the noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, can be implemented.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, your Lordships will see that I have tabled a number of amendments relating to co-option. I think that these enable us to see the general idea rather more clearly. I have looked again at the proposals of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for election of angling and tenant netsmen representatives other than co-option, but I remain of the view that co-option is the best course.

327
One of the amendments I have tabled requires a district board to consult as it sees fit in the process of co-option. I should make it clear that the Bill does not preclude a board from making its own arrangements for holding election meetings from which co-option could be arranged, and such an arrangement could readily be linked to the consultation provided for in the amendment I have tabled.
However, I am clear that, particularly given the removal of the ban on co-optees voting on fishery assessments, the final decision as to who comes on to the board as representative of the angling and tenant netting interests should be for the board itself. Quite apart from the financial point to which I have just referred, it is possible that an attempt by a board to hold elections could be unsuccessful and that the board would have to take its own steps to co-opt directly in the absence of names coming forward as part of a consultative process.
I hope that, particularly bearing in mind the other changes to this part of the Bill I now propose to make, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, would see fit to withdraw his amendment. If not, I am afraid I must ask the House to resist it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before addressing myself to what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has said, may I put at rest the fears of the two noble Lords opposite, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. I suggest in this series of amendments methods by which elections could be held. If they had looked at Amendment No. 104 they would have seen that there was a method by which the clerk of the board would give notice of the type of election to be held, how it would be done, and the arrangements which would be made.
To allay any fears that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, might have that by electing anglers one would somehow elect vast numbers of small proprietors—which I simply do not understand—the point of all these amendments and all of this Bill is that equal numbers of the different parties that find their way onto a district board would be elected in every case so that there would be the same number of angler representatives as of tenant netsmen representatives and of upper and lower proprietors. In other words, there would be four pillars holding up the structure: upper proprietors, lower proprietors, anglers and tenant netsmen.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, I used "appoint" because I think I have made it clear that an elective process would produce the names and they would have to be accepted by the boards. I should have liked to use "elect" but, without completely redrafting the Bill much more violently than I was seeking to do, it was difficult to fit it in. It was easy to fit in the elective process by changing "co-opt" and "appoint".
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has given me some cause for hope because he said that his amendments will completely unshackle the representatives of anglers and tenant netsmen who find their way onto the board. Whether they be co-opted or whether they be elected, they will become full participant members of the board. I believe I am right
328
in taking that from what he said. That goes a long way towards meeting the problem which I felt in my mind.
It also goes a long way towards meeting my fears that he said that there is nothing to preclude a board from running elections if it so wishes. Even if I withdraw these amendments I shall not withdraw my adherence to the elective principle. There will be at least one district fishery board where elections will take place to find out who the anglers are. I hope it may prove to be a shining example to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) make byelaws in furtherance of the purposes referred to in subsection (1) above, which byelaws may make different provision for different parts of a district and shall be subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State:").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a suggestion that the district boards ought to be able to make by-laws for the protection or improvement of the fisheries, which they are instructed to do. There may be cases where it is difficult for the board to enforce certain things which it might like to do; for instance, we have spoken about restrictive methods of fishing which may be for the benefit of a particular river. The by-laws, according to the amendment, would be subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State who, if he felt these were not reasonable, could turn them down. Places such as country parks can insist that a dog be put on a lead, and that is not unreasonable; but where these fishery boards are looking after their fishing and for their fishing interests only they should be allowed to make by-laws which would be enforceable. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 15 is to give a district salmon fishery board power to take action at its own hand for the purposes specified therein. Examples of the kind of action it might take under Clause 15(1) are given in Clause 15(4). In addition, under Clause 15(1)(a) and (b) a board might decide to construct and operate a hatchery for the purpose of increasing stocks.
The Bill has been constructed on the basis that the power to take action on certain other matters connected with the protection and improvement of stocks, and particularly those which affect private rights, should rest with the Secretary of State. For example, Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations with respect to the construction and use of cruives, and the extent of, and due observance of, the weekly close time. It is therefore neither necessary nor appropriate for the boards to have by-law powers for the purposes of this clause. Moreover, it could lead to confusion and conflict, given that the appropriate powers are given to the Secretary of State.
I should add that I am advised that the first amendment is defective in that the additional words do not flow properly from the end of line 15 which includes the words "by agreement". The second amendment is in similar terms to Section 29 of the 1862 Act which we are repealing because, when regulatory powers are given, it is considered preferable for suitable offences and penalties to be prescribed,

329
with enforcement in the criminal courts. Perhaps with that explanation my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am not entirely happy with that, but I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved amendment No. 43:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) A district salmon fishery board shall be deemed to have an interest in any fishery within its district for the purpose of instituting court proceedings including without prejudice to that generality proceedings to interdict any act which may be detrimental to the interests of any of the fisheries within its district.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the position here is that one proprietor can take an interdict action but it is unreasonable that one proprietor should have to indulge in expense for the protection of a general fishery. As the Bill is worded the board will not have powers to introduce any court proceedings. As my noble friend turned down something like the extraction of gravel, it might be important that the board should have powers of interdict which should be taken out in the names of all the proprietors and the cost shared among them. I therefore beg to move this amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, although the noble Lord has argued forcefully in support of this amendment, I must point out that Clause 15(5) of the Bill already allows a district salmon fishery board to sue or be sued in the name of its clerk. The Bill places no restriction on the types of action which a clerk may raise on behalf of a board.
Thereafter, it is, quite properly, left for the court to decide, in the circumstances of any action, including an application for interdict, whether the action is competently raised. There could be circumstances where a court would consider it acceptable for a board to seek interdict to prevent damage to fisheries but there could be other circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for the board to do so. Each case should be judged on its own merits, and the discretion should remain with the court to decide on competency in the particular circumstances. I therefore cannot support this amendment and trust that the noble Lords will withdraw it.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I took it that the ability to sue was to allow someone to be pursued, such as a poacher, who might be prosecuted by the fiscal. But if this is extensive I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. I feel this is something which needs further attention. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) At any meeting of the board, each member shall have one vote, subject to the following exceptions—

(a) the chairman, in his capacity as such, shall have both a casting and a deliberative vote; and

330

(b) a person who is both an upper proprietor and a lower proprietor by virtue of section 10(5) of this Act shall have a vote in either capacity or in both capacities according to the capacity or capacities in which he has been elected or co-opted.").

Following the interesting discussions on the whole question of co-option which took place in Committee I have, as I undertook to do, given further thought to the general position and rights of co-opted members of a district salmon fishery board. As noble Lords will be aware, I have tabled a series of amendments making relatively minor but important adjustments in this area. I have accepted that there is no real need to restrict the voting rights of co-opted members so that they are unable to vote on the co-option or removal of members or even on the fishery assessment. But in any event, the system as proposed in the Bill builds in a proprietoral majority in normal circumstances by virtue of the chairman's deliberative and casting votes, and in the light of the mandating provisions.
In these circumstances, there is no reason why co-opted members should not exercise the same voting rights on these matters as elected members. This amendment therefore removes the retrictions originally placed on voting by co-opted members. No distinction will now be made between the votes of elected and co-opted members on any board business. I had originally thought that this was desirable, particularly in the case of the fishery assessment, since co-optees are not required to make any financial contributions to a board. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have one reservation about this amendment and about the method of selecting the chairman. That is because when river stocks are as low as they are, no angling proprietor is ever going to vote for netting interests, and no netting proprietor is ever going to vote for angling interests if he thinks netting activities might be curtailed. If the chairman does not have an extra casting vote, there is stalemate; and if he does, as long as he is chairman, there may be partiality. I myself do not mind as long as he is partial to angling interests. However, I wonder whether it would not be better to have an impartial chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, who had neither angling nor netting interests. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, can comment on this.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly answer the noble Lady. I certainly should not be happy about the involvement of the Secretary of State in the appointment of the chairman of every district board. Indeed, I can think of many reasons why that would not be desirable. Of course, the points which the noble Lady has made are perfectly justified. There is always a difficulty where there are conflicting interests. However, I believe that the solution which we have spelled out in the Bill is the fairest we could have chosen. I certainly should be unhappy about the Secretary of State being directly involved in the appointment of a chairman.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Tenure of Office]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 16, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps for the convenience of the House with this amendment I can speak also to Amendment No. 47.
Amendment No. 47: Page 16, line 32, at end insert ("; and at that meeting each member of the board shall resign.").
Although Clause 17 was agreed by the House at Committee, I have looked at it again and consider that it can be improved upon. The intention of subsection (1) is that before a board reaches the end of its three year life the clerk to the board should call an electoral meeting. At that meeting each member of the existing board will be required to resign and the procedure for election of a new board will operate thereafter. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are, I hope, a useful clarification—there are no subtleties so far as the policy is involved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 47:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 40, leave out ("elected members") and insert ("hoard").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49.
Amendment No. 49: Page 17, leave out lines 1 to 11 and insert—
("(5) Where a vacancy in their number occurs, the board shall, so far and so soon as is reasonably practicable, fill that vacancy by—

(a) the electing by the elected members from amongst themselves of a new chairman;

(b) the appointing by the elected members of a qualified proprietor in the district as a representative of qualified proprietors according to the rules in Schedule 2 to this Act regarding the balance between upper and lower proprietors; or

(c) the co-opting by the board of a representative of salmon anglers or of tenant netsmen in accordance with that Schedule").

The substitution of "board" for "elected members" in subsection (3) gives to the board, as a whole, the role of removing members who no longer satisfy the requirements of membership and do not resign voluntarily. This was previously reserved to the elected members. There is no reason why co-opted members should not participate here and to extend their powers in this way is consistent with the other approach I have already taken to the position of co-optees in other amendments before your Lordships' House today.
The amendments to subsection (5) retain the elected members' role in the filling of vacancies in the positions of chairman and elected members. Co-opted members are not given a role in the filling of these vacancies for the simple reason that they were not involved in the elections for the filling of those positions in the first place. On the other hand, there seems no reason why the board as a whole should not have a say in the filling of vacancies occurring among co-opted members and this is recognised by the amendment to subsection (5)(c).
One of our aims in this Bill has been to allow for greater democratisation in district board matters.
332
These two minor but useful amendments represent further steps in this direction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 49, I must say that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 49:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I feel that I must speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 and the other amendment which follows on them, Amendment No. 112.
Amendment No. 50: Page 17, line 4, leave out ("elected").
Amendment No. 51: Page 17, line 10, leave out ("co-opting") and insert ("appointing").
Amendment No. 112, Schedule 2: Page 33, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The members of a district salmon fishery board shall elect from amongst their number a person to be chairman of the said board.").
I think these amendments would have gone some way towards meeting the wishes of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. My experience of sitting on a board where divergent interests were represented was really with the Red Deer Commission. On the Red Deer Commission, one could hardly seek for more diverse opinion and interests. Represented were conservation, stalking interests, agricultural interests, hill farming interests, and so on. My experience of that body was that however diverse were the constituencies and the people who found themselves up for the board, once these people came on to the board they became aware of the task which lay before them and they conscientiously applied themselves to trying to obtain the best result which their board could obtain. I think that this is what will happen if district boards are well and democratically appointed.
Up to this point, one of the difficulties with district boards was that there was a built in chairmanship, a built in and perpetual chairmanship. I fear that in moving towards the new method of election, although we shall do away with one method of making the chairmanship perpetual, we shall substitute for it another method.
My amendments are really designed to try to produce a proper, democratic structure within the board. I am suggesting, by this series of amendments, that first of all the upper proprietors should be together and elect their representatives, then the lower proprietors should get together and elect their representatives. Then these representatives, which at that stage become equally balanced, meet and choose from among their number the one on whom the majority of them can rely for a fair-minded control of the board during the conduct of its business.
I do not believe they would fail to find some person like that from among their number. I am sure that they would. Of course, this would do away with the position which will obtain under the provisions of this Bill, which is that the party with the largest valuation will still have the largest number of votes and will therefore probably automatically have the choice of chairman. We move from a situation which is clearly all wrong,

333
clearly undemocratic, to a situation which is partially wrong and partially undemocratic. I think that we should go the whole hog and go for something which is not partially wrong but is clearly democratic. That is why I have put forward this series of amendments.
6 p.m.
I think that the Government should consider this very carefully. I am sure that there will be occasions when there will be letting interests that will have the majority as a result of this method of appointing the chairman just as there will be occasions when the upper proprietors will have the majority. But it would be much better if, instead of making sure that one set of interests has a built-in majority, the people who are going to have to work on the board choose from among themselves the person whom they wished to lead them in what is obviously going to be their joint task, and upon whom they could all rely for fair-minded and efficient control of the board.
I think that it will be very sad if we let this go by default but if your Lordships approve Amendment No. 49 then that is what will happen. I feel that I must rely on something being done in another place to democratise the election of the chairman because I feel that there is still need for the chairman to be elected in a more balanced way than is provided for in this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the Amendment (No. 49):
Page 17, leave out lines 1 to 11 and insert—
("(5) Where a vacancy in their number occurs, the board shall, so far and so soon as is reasonably practicable, fill that vacancy by—

(a) The electing by the elected members from amongst themselves of a new chairman;

(b) The appointing by the elected members of a qualified proprietor in the district as a representative of qualified proprietors according to the rules in Schedule 2 to this Act regarding the balance between upper and lower proprietors; or

(c) The co-opting by the board of a representative of salmon anglers or of tenant netsmen in accordance with that Schedule").

Clause 19 [Additional powers in respect of licensing and regulation of salmon dealing]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 24, after ("salmon") insert ("shall be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, now we get away from the appointment of the district boards and we come to the one great new power that is supposed to help us with the poaching problem in Scotland. The first thing that I think I should point out is that this is very much a fall-back position. There are many people who would have preferred as much more effective a system of tagging of salmon. Here we have this system of additional powers in respect of licensing and regulation of salmon dealing.
The one thing that I must first point out is the purpose of my amendment. Page 17, line 24, presently reads:
"an order as respects dealing in salmon made under that section",—
and that is Section 44 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act—
"may".
334
When you go to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act you discover that it is not mandatory; that it "may" be introduced. Here again, we have got the word "may", which refers not to the introduction of the order but to what is in the order. I thought that we really ought to make it mandatory and ensure that we have got it. That is the purpose of my amendment. It will then read: "an order as respects dealing in salmon shall be made under that section". The word "may" remains, but the word "and" comes before it: "and it may". The point is that the introduction of an order has to be mandatory. I do not interfere with what should be actually in the order. It is a fairly simple amendment, I think, but it is one which is desirable because of all the hedging around with "mays" that we have already got.
While I am on my feet, I should like to point out that we did not discuss this clause in Committee. Indeed, I was very angry about it, for I think that we should have had a "Clause stand part" discussion that was worthy of the new power that was taken.
Section 44 of the Civil Government (Scotland) Act is rather a curious section. That is the only reference we have got. Clause 19 begins:
"Without prejudice to the generality of Section 44 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act …".
something shall be done. But the first thing in these additional activities that is introduced into the licensing systems for the local licensing authorities in Scotland is the fact that Section 44 divides the thing into two: (a) or (b). I do not know whether the order is to be introduced under (a) or under (b). If it is under (a) then, first of all, there has got to be a resolution by the local authority that they want to introduce this.
So there is another stumbling block to the scheme coming in. If it is under (b)
"as an activity for which a licence shall be required and which shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions specified in the order",
that is straightforward. The Government can go straight to it. But if it is the other one, then I do not think that many of your 'Lordships would accept it as desirable that there should be another stumbling block to the introduction of this scheme of regulating the dealing in salmon by means of licensing.
So could we have that? Is it one of the optional or one of the new specific activities that require licensing? I think that that is important to know. I will raise further points later on in respect of the curiosities of Section 44. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I gather that it is for the convenience of the House that I deal with Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 57 together.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, what I have got says only Amendment No. 52, 53 and 54 separately. I thought it would be for the convenience of the House to take Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 together because they make sense. The other points are entirely different.
Amendment No. 53: Clause 19, page 17, line 24, at end insert ("and")
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to go along with that. The noble Lord did not

335
say that he was taking No. 53 along with No. 52 when he started. I thought that we were going by the original list, but I am perfectly happy to deal with Nos. 52 and 53.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 seek to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to introduce a dealer licensing scheme by order under the Civic Government Act. The effect of this amendment is presentational only. In practice, it imposes no stricter requirement on the Secretary of State than the existing wording. It would be equally possible to challenge the negligent non-exercise of the discretionary power existing in Clause 19 as it would be to challenge the non-performance of the statutory duty created if these amendments are accepted.
Nor can I support the amendments on technical grounds. I should point out that a further effect of the substitution of a duty for a power in this clause is to disapply the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 which allows powers to make orders to include by implication powers to amend, revoke or re-enact those orders. Where a duty to make an order is imposed there is no implied extension of this kind and further specific provisions would be required. I can, however, assure noble Lords that it is my intention to introduce a dealer licensing scheme following discussions with interested organisations. It would be possible to introduce the scheme both under the powers requiring further resolution by the local authority and under the powers which do not require such resolution. It is intended, however, to introduce this scheme under the latter power. With that explanation, I wonder whether the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am not prepared to argue at this stage of the game about what is desirable or not because we could tie one another in knots. One has only to read Section 44 to realise that. I have it here. What we want is the pledge that it will be done. We accept that. Then, of course, it having been done, we shall see it, because—although it does not say it here—in fact there is a reference to how the order is to proceed through Parliament in respect of anything done in Clause 19 (3).
We have to go to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act, to Section 44 (3) to get to the real nub of the thing. I think this is relevant to what we may be discussing later:
"No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
So we are going to have it. When we have it, then we shall have an opportunity of debating it. I think that is a reasonably good justification for my withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 18, line 5, leave out from ("exceptions") to ("as") in line 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an entirely different point. It is just one for clarification. I propose to move to leave out certain words in paragraph (d)
336
after "… subject to such exceptions"; that is, the words:
"in respect of acts or omissions by a person lawfully in possession of salmon lawfully taken by him or, in the case of salmon reared in a fish farm, reared by him there".
Is it necessary to have these words? Why not just say "such exceptions as may be specified in the order"? That does not limit the power of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I do not see that removing the words which the noble Lords wish to remove will achieve very much, but neither do I see that their retention is necessary. I am therefore disposed to accept the amendment on the basis that those such as fish farmers, who may be excepted specifically in terms of the clause, may still be excepted following the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords. I am grateful. This saves four lines of drafting. In terms of the thousands of copies of this Bill which have to be reprinted later on, we have saved four lines. The Government have done a good job now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 18, line 15, leave out ("water bailiffs and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I make no apologies for returning to this subject again. At the Committee stage perhaps I was rather clumsy in the way I put down an amendment, and I hope this clarifies it sufficiently to enable the Minister to appreciate what I am trying to get at.
The point of the amendment is that, as I believe, the powers being given to water bailiffs by the nature of their appointment are far too great. The whole of this Clause 19 is based on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I took some time to look through the Civic Government (Scotland) Act which gives powers to local authorities, let us remember in most cases elected members, frequently decided at open meetings. Sometimes the duty is imposed on them under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act actually to advertise the names of people who are going to be given licences, and sometimes they must consult with the local police authorities. I quite readily accept that to ask the Secretary of State to do it is too onerous a task considering the number of water bailiffs, but surely at least there could be something more than merely a clerk to the board or the board itself.
To get back to the Civic Government Act, the types of people who need a licence and need to be referred, as I have said, either to a local authority committee or a chief constable, or to advertising, are those dealing in scrap metal, itinerant metal dealers, secondhand goods dealers, street traders. Then there are public entertainment licences, late hours licences. A window cleaner requires a special licence, with all the procedure I have described; a market operator, no matter how big; someone hiring out a boat must get authority and a licence. Even in our present Bill, to deal in salmon you must have a licence from the licensing authority. But to be able to break into

337
someone's house, to break open their car, to make all sorts of serious charges against people, to detain them if necessary, does not need any powers at all except the appointment by the clerk to the board of the area; or perhaps he would need the authority of the salmon board. Nevertheless, there is no statutory control, there is no elective control, there is no wider control on who shall be appointed.
I believe that the people in Scotland do not really yet appreciate just how much power is given to water bailiffs under this Act and, I agree, under earlier Acts, but this is the first real opportunity we have had to raise this subject.
At the Committee stage I gave the Minister an example—and I suggested that as far as I knew there could be many other examples—of totally unsuitable people appointed to act as water bailiffs. I wonder whether the Minister has looked at that particular case I suggested to him; if he has found any others; and if, on reflection, he does not feel that it is far too important a duty to impose on any individual without at least consulting either the representative local authority or the chief constable for the area, and whether he would not seriously consider this amendment. He may have different wording, but I would hope he would consider it with great seriousness.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will resist this amendment. I quite appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael's concern about this, but there are also difficulties. The police are not infallible. Only last week we had the godfather of all the local poachers "in the bag", but one of the policemen started blethering on the wireless and the trap was sprung. It is important that the bailiffs do have the powers, that they know what they are about, and they have an opportunity of catching these people. To remove any of their powers would be the greatest mistake. I know there was a lot of fuss made about one or two appointments that were made in the Western Isles, and I know there have been troubles there, but overall I do not think this applies. It is a case very often of the water bailiffs being a lot of idle ones, rather than being over zealous, I hope my noble friend will resist this amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I would just like to say a word about this. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised this question before, and I fully appreciate what he is driving at. The work of bailiffs is important and responsible, but the members of the board who appoint the bailiffs are also responsible people. The bailiffs are not appointed by the clerk, though the clerk is a responsible person as well I can assure the noble Lords that great pains are taken in the appointment of bailiffs. Of course mistakes can be made, and sometimes they are made. A man who is not satisfactory could be appointed. But I think it is necessary—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will appreciate this—not quite so much in my own district perhaps, because we do not always have to operate in remote areas, but in a remote area if the bailiff has to get a search warrant—perhaps I have misunderstood, but the way the Bill is drafted it gives the bailiff the power of entry.
338
That is an important power because if he does not have the power of entry he has to refer to a magistrate or someone else. I may be wrong—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I accept that there are special circumstances, particularly in remote areas, where it would be very difficult. I am merely concerned that the individual who is appointed should be someone who is approved by someone other than merely the board. To be giving these powers to someone who is appointed by an unrepresentative board—every other example I gave involved at least the local authority or the Secretary of State: even to be a window-cleaner you must get the local authority's approval and you must probably have your name passed over the chief constable's desk in order to get the approval. All I am suggesting is that that should be the minimum. After they are appointed and approved, they have the same powers as the noble Lord is suggesting are vital for a water bailiff.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said. I know he feels very strongly about this matter; but with regard to the powers of entry and search for water bailiffs in connection with the dealer licensing scheme, I would make the point to him that the power is purely permissive and will, like all other such powers, be subject to discussion with interested organisations, including CSLA. The order which will introduce the dealer licensing scheme will, in terms of the civic government Act, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That should be sufficient safeguard for the proper consideration of the rights of those who are likely to be affected by powers of entry and search.
The noble Lord asked whether I knew of the particular instance he had raised earlier. I know of that particular situation and I know of no other similar to it. Therefore I feel that the Bill takes account of the concern which the noble Lord has; and the fact that this is subject to discussion with all the interested organisations, including CSLA—and I know he is particularly interested in local authorities—goes a great deal of the way towards what he seeks to achieve. I am afraid I cannot accept his amendment and I hope that he might consider withdrawing it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not think it is quite as simple as all that. These additional activities are carried on under Section 44 of the civic government Act and of course that takes in the other aspects of licensing. Under licensing there—and this will now be included—powers of entry and search are given to a constable and to an authorised person. The authorised person is the person authorised by the local licensing authority. I presume that will pertain when we proceed to license the dealing in salmon by the local authority.
When we come to paragraph (f), it says: "provide as to the exercise of powers of entry and search by water bailiffs and persons appointed by the Secretary of State under section 10(5)".
I hope that means that the existing powers under Section 10(5) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 are the powers that will apply in respect of dealing in salmon. There has

339
been a lot of loose talking and a loose acceptance that somehow or other there is a new power. As I read it, there is no new power and I think the noble Lord, Lord Burton, sees that there is no new power because the power to enter land is very carefully laid down in Section 10:
" 'land' includes land covered by water, but does not include a dwelling-house or any yard, garden, outhouse and pertinants belonging thereto or … enjoyed therein."
And "land" is land within his district; when it comes to anything outside that you have to go to Section 11, which is not here mentioned. Even there, the powers of search can be exercised only by warrant of the sherriff or a JP who is satisfied by information on oath or suspicion of the requirement to search the premises or vehicle. Even there, the water bailiff can search a vehicle only on private land or on any land within his own district or adjoining it. So there are very considerable limitations, as I read it, if it is limited purely to Section 10. The power certainly is there for a constable.
My Lords, let me get it clear, because at the moment the powers for the water bailiff or constable under Section 10 are to—
"examine any dam, fixed engine or obstruction, or any lade"
on any land within his district and
"stop and search any boat … and examine nets … basket, pocket, … receptacle … [and] seize any fish",
and so on. But the limitations in respect of the land are on any private land.
What I want to have from the Minister is that there is no extension of the powers under Section 10 that have been given. Indeed, all it says in what is proposed is:
"provide as to the exercise of powers"—
that is, as to how they are to be exercised; not that they are new powers. They already have them and this is concerned with how they are to be exercised in respect of salmon dealing. It is a very important point and it is an important point which has been raised by my noble friend. You cannot laugh away the fact that here we have the suggestion by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that all these things are examined carefully and that nobody is appointed indiscriminately without examination. Here we have the actual fact. It probably is a joke but, just to try it out, somebody put forward the name of a murderer who is presently in prison and it was accepted without question. That is incredible and it certainly gives the lie to the fact that there is an examination of the worth of the persons who are put forward.
I do not know whether my noble friend is satisfied with what has been given to him so far, but I think it merits some kind of explanation. I should be very glad if the Minister would clear up the point about the actual powers that the water bailiffs and persons appointed by the Secretary of State are going to have in respect of dealing in salmon.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, on two points which he raised. First, on the existing powers in the Civic Government Act which he spoke about, constables and local authority officers will have powers under the Act; the Bill allows
340
additional powers to be given to bailiffs if it is decided to do so following consultation, but only after consultation.
The noble Lord asked me about the 1951 Act and its relevance. The 1951 Act powers apply only for the purposes of that Act, they will not be used in relation to a dealer-licensing scheme.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that when we read Hansard we shall find that the Minister has not fully answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. On my own amendment, again I find it very confusing that the Minister does not appear to have grasped the point I was making. I was not concerned at that stage in this particular amendment with the powers of the bailiffs and their ability to search and to do all these things. I was concerned about the type of person appointed and the fact that I had thought it was quite inadequate that only the boards should appoint people. Once they are appointed, the powers stay as they are in the Act. It was merely the one point that there should be consultation with the chief constable or the Secretary of State or someone before any individual should be given these great powers.
This question will be raised here repeatedly and also frequently in another place, but, having heard the Minister again and he having heard me again, perhaps he will appreciate better what I am trying to get at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 18 line 17, at end insert—
("(g) provide that it shall be an offence for any person to be found in possession of salmon without being able to produce sufficient authority for such possession".).
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I think this amendment is self-explanatory and there is no need for me to speak to it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before we depart from this amendment which has been so eloquently moved, may I just ask one or two questions of the Government? I have no idea whether the Government have been totally persuaded by the speech of the noble Marquess to accept it, but at Committee stage and on Clause 22 I raised some questions relating to the legal provisions of this Bill. I should be most grateful if the Government, whatever they do to this amendment, could answer one or two rather elementary questions which are in my mind.
Your Lordships will be well aware that salmon fishing as a subject is viewed with suspicion in some quarters in Scotland. Salmon are regarded as a laird's perquisite and Bills for the protection of salmon are sometimes thought to be for the protection of the privileged classes. If your Lordships have any doubt about that, you should read an article which appeared in the Glasgow Herald quite recently in relation to this Bill.
I do not share that view at all, I think this Bill is protecting a very important Scottish national interest,

341
it is protecting a commercial interest, a recreational interest and indeed the conservation of one of Scotland's great natural resources. Nevertheless, I think we should take care that we do not appear to be putting those who transgress in any more serious position in regard to the law than is strictly necessary. I think we should be careful not to appear to be departing any further than necessary from established principles of British law. One of these principles is that it is for the prosecution to prove its case and prove the accused guilty. It is not for him to prove his innocence. There are one or two places in this Bill, and this amendment would be one of them if we accepted it, where we might well depart from that principle.
The other point I should like to raise is this. Can the Minister say whether he thinks that the existing law regarding reset and similar laws are really incapable of safeguarding the interests of those who wish to preserve the salmon in Scotland? Does it need the rather drastic amendments to which it is suggested it should be subject? If the Minister is of the opinion that the existing law is inadequate, can he tell us in regard to what other goods there are precedents for this type of amendment and for other amendments suggested which really shift the onus from the prosecution to the accused? I think it would be helpful in getting this Bill into its proper perspective, so far as the public in Scotland are concerned, if we could be reassured that there are really sound grounds for departing from well-established principles of law in regard to salmon. Can we be told what are the precedents in regard to other goods which may be illegally acquired?
Perhaps I may finish by apologising to the Government for being unable to attend a meeting on the subject of licensing to which I was very courteously asked yesterday. Unfortunately, a previous meeting went on too long.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I understand that it would be convenient to my noble friend on the Front Bench if we spoke to Amendments Nos. 63, 70 and 71 at the same time as Amendment No. 56 and the two other amendments of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, Amendments Nos. 64 and 65.
Amendment No. 63: Clause 21, page 20, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert—
("7A.—(1) The burden of proving that any salmon bought, sold, exposed for sale or in the possession of any person for sale has been obtained from a person authorised to take salmon or sell them shall lie on the person buying, selling or exposing it for sale or having it in his possession for sale.
Such person shall be guilty of an offence if he cannot so prove, unless he can show reasonable grounds for believing that the said salmon had been legally taken or acquired by the person selling to him.
If found guilty of an offence under this section a person shall be liable—").
Amendment No. 64: Page 20, line 7, leave out ("and believes or has") and insert ("in circumstances which at the time of his coming into possession afford").
Amendment No. 65: Page 20, line 7, at end insert ("at the time of coming into possession").
Amendment No. 70: Page 20, line 8, leave out ("has") and insert ("could reasonably be expected to have had").
Amendment No. 71: Page 20, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, failure to possess or supply specific information as to where and from whom the salmon were received shall be regarded as constituting reasonable grounds for suspicion.").
342
In a nutshell, what we are speaking to at this stage is the question of the onus of proof if someone is found with salmon in Scotland. Clause 21(1), (7A)(1) mentions,
"A person who is in possession of salmon and believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has … been committed".
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said at the Committee stage, this brings in the question of proving what was in the possible offender's mind.
My noble friend the Lord Advocate has been extremely helpful since the Committee stage, when he spoke at some length in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on this subject. I have had the benefit of attending a meeting and listening to a further long argument between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. That alone makes me believe that magistrates may be perplexed by this wording and by the problem of proving that somebody was in possession of salmon—and one salmon can look very much like another: there is no identifying mark on it—and the policeman will be even more perplexed as to whether he dare arrest a suspect or seize a salmon that he finds in a van for fear of wrongful arrest.
A great deal was said at Committee stage about the liberty of the citizen in this country and the fact that possession on its own cannot be an offence. Although in Amendment No. 63 I follow a proposal which perhaps gets quite close to possession being an offence—subject, of course, always to the chap proving that he came by the salmon legally—nevertheless I think that we shall probably not want to press on the Government that full clause which is based on the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. I believe that something more on the lines of the amendments that I have down, Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 and, later, on the lines for England and Wales which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, have down is more what we are trying to press on the Government.
We accept and understand the argument of the liberty of the citizen. But I must ask: what citizens are we talking about? If the Government have some hope that they may meet us to a degree on licensing not only in Scotland but in England, which we have not yet discussed, then there will be only certain people who are legally entitled to have salmon. I suggest that those who are legally entitled to take or deal in salmon would be the first to agree that their liberty should be impinged upon to a small degree, by having some requirement to prove that the salmon they have are legally held or have been legally caught.
I have done more reading since Committee stage. Not only do we have the section that I quoted many times at Committee stage in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, but we have in the game laws of this country—which I am not pressing the Government to follow wholesale—powers to search and seize game found, if the enforcement officer who apprehends a man has reasonable grounds to suspect, and not if the man he apprehends has reasonable grounds to suspect. He has powers to demand the production of a game licence.
Throughout our lives, there are other examples of this. The more obvious are in regard to dangerous

343
things like firearms and motor-cars, for which licences must be produced on demand. Even a dog licence must be produced on demand to show that you own your dog. You are allowed to possess only two gallons of petrol. There are masses of exceptions to the general Theft Act provisions about the chattels of the average person. The other main difference, as I have said, is that one salmon is very like another. Perhaps the best example is the Customs and Excise. Because of the problem of stopping smuggling, you have to prove when you return from abroad that what is in your case has belonged to you for some while and has not just been bought.
I ask again: the liberty of which citizen? Only certain people have legal authority at any time to take salmon by net or by rod and line and I trust that only certain people will have reason to deal in them. Therefore, I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 70 and 71, if I may now speak to them, put any undue onus on the individual citizen which every citizen who has a right to a salmon would not gladly accept.
Amendment No. 70 suggests that the word "has" in Section 7A(1) of Clause 21 should be deleted and that the words
"could reasonably be expected to have had"
should be inserted. This turns the situation in the mind of the officer considering an apprehension from "Did the chap think that these salmon were poached?" to "In my opinion, could he have had reasonable grounds?" I then go on in Amendment No. 71 to say:
"For the purposes of subsection (1) above, failure to possess or supply specific information as to where and from whom the salmon were received shall be regarded as constituting reasonable grounds for suspicion".
I am quite sure that the entire community which at times has a right to handle salmon would have no objection whatever to that so-called impingement.
Therefore, I suggest that we should not lean too far over backwards, in our British way, towards being completely and absolutely fair to a deaf and dumb driver. If he is a deaf and dumb driver, and he is taken down to the station because he cannot explain where he got the salmon from, he can write down who sent him and can answer the question. A telephone call can be put through. Our police force are not tyrants. Before the odd case ever got to court, they would find out whether the driver of a van was totally innocent and was ignorant about the salmon. It is hard to conceive of such a case, but such a person would be off the hook very quickly. But the man who sent him would be on the hook.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, if we are discussing the onus of proof generally, perhaps I may try to explain the position in Scotland and in England. The poaching and handling of salmon stand on a very special footing. Up till now, the law in Scotland and in England has aimed at the poacher himself. We have to have a new offence in this Bill of handling, receiving, carrying and dealing in salmon which have been illegally taken. In Scotland, there has been Section 7 of the 1951 Act which has been considered by the courts of Scotland and of England and let me tell your Lordships what the result is. The operative words in Section 7 were that you had to look at the
344
circumstances which afford reasonable ground for suspecting that someone has obtained possession unlawfully.
I will tell your Lordships about two cases in 1963. The one in the Court of Session was, in a way, quite simple. Twenty salmon were found in a butcher's shop in the high street at Canons Wood. They showed traces of having been taken or destroyed by the use of poison. The shopkeeper was charged with unlawful possession under Section 7 of the 1951 Act. The sheriff substitute dismissed the charge, because there was no evidence that the man had taken or poisoned the salmon himself, which was true. That case went to the Court of Session and Lord Clyde held that that was the wrong interpretation of the statute, which was a very special statute. I remember Lord Clyde; I stayed with him and he was a very good judge. It was the case of Aitchison v. Bartlett in 1963, Scots Law Times, page 65. He said:
"These illegal operations against salmon are usually conducted in remote places in the hours of darkness when no outside person is present to witness the commission of an offence and it is, consequently, impracticable to produce evidence of eye-witnesses to establish either the precise time or the precise place when the offence was committed. It is to meet this defect that Section 7 was enacted. It is a most important addition to our statute book".
Then he said what the defence can do:
"After hearing the charge, the accused has the opportunity of establishing that suspicious circumstances have an innocent explanation".
This runs through the whole of the judgment. Let him give an explanation if he has one; and if he has not, he can be convicted. The Lord President went on:
"The charge proceeds on the suspicious circumstances. The conviction follows if the suspicion is not explained away but is confirmed by the evidence".
That is the Scottish case.
In the same year the English court had a case under the Scottish Act because it concerned that little sector of Northumberland where the Tweed runs towards tributaries. The case was dealt with by the magistrates in England and the judges of England had to construe that same section. In this case, a motor van was parked near Canties Bridge, near Berwick-upon-Tweed. I do not know it myself, but there it was. The van was locked up but inside the bailiffs found a wet sack. Inside the wet sack was a hand net fully mounted with gear for taking salmon; all the things were there. There were no fish in the net. The men said that they had found the net 300 yards upstream and had just brought it into land. They said that they had not taken anything or dealt with it wrongly and were going to take it away.
They were charged under Section 7 in the English courts, as I say, before the English magistrates in Northumberland. I am afraid that the magistrates found there was no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the defendants had the net with the intention of netting salmon. The charge against them was dismissed. But it went up to the Divisional Court before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker. He cited Lord Clyde's judgment in the Court of Session and said:
"Lord Clyde was not dealing with this as a matter of shifting the onus of proof but he is saying that if what are reasonable supspicions are not explained away and are indeed confirmed by the evidence, a conviction will follow".

345
As I read the interpretation which the courts of Scotland and of England have given, if there are circumstances which reasonably suggest that the salmon has been unlawfully taken or unlawfully handled, whatever it may be, when you find the man it is up to him to give an explanation. He may explain the situation if he can. If he cannot explain it away innocently, a conviction will follow. Without going into onus of proof, that, as I understand it, is the result of those English and Scottish cases.
The problem arises: does that principle apply in regard to the new clauses which we now have in the Bill? As I read the first one, I do not think it does. I think it is necessary to bring in the words which my noble friend Lord Trenchard has put in. At the moment, in Section 7A, on page 20 of the Bill, we have the words:
"A person who is in possession of salmon and believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting …".
That is Section 7A because it has to follow Section 7 of the 1951 Act, so it ought to be interpreted according to the same principles.
The amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, puts the position exactly in accord with the decisions of the Court of Session—if there are circumstances which reasonably suggest that someone has taken it unlawfully, or is handling it unlawfully, it is up to him to explain it. If he does not explain it, he can be convicted. It is not a question of the onus of proof but of the way the statute is interpreted so as to meet this great—almost evil—difficulty which the prosecution are in when proving illegality completely. If reason suggests that the salmon has been taken unlawfully, let the man give his explanation: if he gives one, all well and good; if he cannot, he can be convicted.
I suggest that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard carry out that interpretation and they should be accepted so as to make the law consistent all the way through. I shall say a little more on the English clause later on but that needs consideration by itself. For the moment, I have said what I would wish to say on the onus of proof.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. Is he saying that the clause as drafted by the Government will not work as the Government want it to, but that if the amendments of my noble friend Lord Trenchard are attached to it it will work as the Government want it to? That is the part which in all honesty I do not follow.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, these matters which involve the possible interpretation of words in the statute by the court make it very difficult for the non-lawyer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is clearly worried at the prospect that the wording we are talking about now, as applied to Scotland, would involve proving the state of a man's mind. That is a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, unless I have him wrong, suggests that the words of the Bill are adequate because it is possible to infer the state of a man's mind from, first, the facts as they present
346
themselves, for example, to a bailiff; and secondly, from the man's attitude when he was questioned—in other words, if he was asked the question, "Where did you obtain the fish?", and he refused to answer, those would be the suspicious circumstances justifying the bringing of a case.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has told us about the prosecution which took place in the Court of Session under the 1951 Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would argue that that is a precedent which the courts are likely to follow in the future. I ask myself whether it is enough to rely on one precedent. Is it not very possible that the obscurity of the words could deter water bailiffs from acting against a suspected poacher? Without any derogation of my two noble friends on the Front Bench, I wish that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was here. I should like to have heard him on this case. I should like in particular to have heard the contest between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
I suppose it would not be possible to postpone these amendments until Third Reading so that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could be here. I do not know whether the Government would feel that that is possible; but it would be a way. It would certainly help me. I could not vote for these amendments at the moment, although I am attracted by them. I should like to vote for them in a way, but I find it extremely difficult to do so without having heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate himself. That is my dilemma. I do not know how it affects others of your Lordships, but it is an awkward situation to be in.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps we may return to Amendment No. 56 of my noble kinsman Lord Lansdowne. I am afraid that I cannot support him on this one. I should like to suggest that if he was in a car on his way home from fishing and had the misfortune to have a car accident, and a policeman came along and found a salmon in his car, the policeman would say, "Oh, my Lord, you have a salmon in here. Can you show sufficient authority for having this in your possession?" It is most unlikely that he would have any written authority with him, and so the officer might say, "My Lord, I am sorry but you have created an offence and I shall have to take you in". I should not like to see that happen, and so I cannot support his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I also have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Home. On the other hand, I am bound to say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate went into considerable detail at Committee stage in order to try to persuade those of your Lordships who needed persuading of the merit of the wording in the Bill. In addition, I understand that he went to a considerable amount of trouble to meet outside this Chamber certain noble Lords who still held reservations about the point we are now debating. Again, I understand that he failed to persuade those noble Lords of the merit of the wording in the Bill—although I believe he felt that he had made progress.

347
I am concerned only with the Scottish aspect of this matter. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to everything that was said by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning. I was able straightaway to fix upon a point of common interest, when he referred to Mr. Bartlett. I take great pleasure in telling the noble and learned Lord that Mr. Bartlett is a native of Contin. We therefore have something in common. Nevertheless, I would need to be much more persuasive than that to convince the noble and learned Lord of the merits of the existing wording of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Lansdowne either felt so confident about the wording of his amendment, or presumed that so many others would participate in the debate that he did not wish to waste the time of the House, that he believed his amendment spoke for itself. Indeed, to a great extent it does so. It seems to me that his amendment is an attempt to allow the creation of an offence of unlawful possession of salmon, where the onus of proof on the accused would be much more severe than has been provided for in Clause 21.
I appreciate that the offence would apply only to a situation where a dealer licensing scheme is in place. Even so, I think that it would not be appropriate. There are many circumstances in which a person may be in possession of salmon that has not passed through a licensed dealer—for example, an angler, netsman, salmon farmer or any person given a salmon as a present, etc. And, with regard to those salmon that had passed through a dealer, it would require those buying from dealers to retain receipts or other proof of purchase. That is not a reasonable burden to place on the general public. My noble and learned friend elaborated upon that point on the occasions to which I earlier referred. It is especially unreasonable in that that burden could apply to parts of a salmon as well to the whole fish.
I hope it will be accepted that Clause 21 is the proper place to deal with the unlawful possession offence. While I can understand why my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has moved his amendment to the dealer licensing clause, I cannot accept it.
We are dealing here with a number of amendments. Amendment No. 70, in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, has a certain merit to it. I fully appreciate the intention of that amendment and can reassure him that the wording of Clause 21 as it stands at present will allow a court to convict in the circumstances where it is satisfied that the accused could be expected to have had reasonable grounds for suspicion. The existing clause is, as I have said, designed to allow conviction on an objective test, while retaining the need to relate the suspicion to the individual accused. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 70.
His second amendment seeks to constrain the court in its interpretation of "reasonable grounds for suspicion". It requires the court to be satisfied that an accused has reasonable grounds for suspicion if he does not possess or supply information as to the origin of the salmon. It is not clear from the amendment whether the court could satisfy itself as to reasonable grounds in any other way. It would be inappropriate to
348
fetter the discretion of the court in that manner and could at the end of the day be more restrictive than I imagine my noble friend intends.
It would also effectively amount to a requirement to keep records of all salmon; that would apply generally to every person in possession of salmon. While that might be reasonable in the context of a dealer licensing scheme, it certainly would not be appropriate to impose it generally. For that reason, I cannot accept Amendment No. 71 either.
My noble friend and others who have joined in the discussion have expressed serious doubts about the likelihood of successful convictions for the offence under Clause 21 of the Bill. Indeed, we dealt with that question in some depth at an earlier stage. The alterna-tive they propose would place the burden of proving innocence squarely on the accused, although it would offer him alternative ways of demonstrating his innocence. I must resist that amendment since in principle I cannot accept that it is right to introduce a direct reversal of the burden of proof in such circumstances.
I understand that since the Committee stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and my noble friend Lord Belstead have both been involved in the discussions to which I referred earlier on this and other matters. I am sorry that, even after those discussions, the effectiveness of Clause 21 is still so much in doubt. I particularly say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I can assure him that the wording of Clause 21 was not something hastily cobbled together. In Scotland, this matter has been considered for years. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate himself took a leading part in the consideration given to the appropriate wording.
We in Scotland believe that Clause 21 will be an effective weapon against both the poacher and the receiver. It places the minimum demands on the prosecutor consistent with the need to avoid the possibility of convicting the innocent. Where a prosecutor can show that the accused ought to have suspected that salmon in his possession were taken, killed or landed illegally, in order to avoid conviction the accused must prove that the salmon were not so taken. The burden of proving that defence is on the accused. It is not appropriate or necessary to go any further.
I fully accept that I am not able perhaps to be as persuasive or to answer so effectively as my noble and learned friend the questions your Lordships may have on this highly technical and detailed matter. However, noble Lords have already received the explanation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. Noble Lords have had meetings with him, when he has most forcefully gone into the problems in great detail. As far as the law in Scotland and the situation there is concerned, we believe that we have got it just about right, and as near to being absolutely right as is humanly possible.
I accept fully what has been said by my noble friend Lord Home: there is a possibility that the amendments might be withdrawn and that we may deal with them in due course when my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate is available. That is the pleasure of those who have tabled the amendments. I hope, if they

349
withdraw the amendments tonight, that they will be gone for good and that we will not see them again. But if they decide not to withdraw the amendments, then I am perfectly happy for my noble friends to resist them, if necessary in the Lobby.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House. I do not know whether we are still on Amendment No. 56 or whether we can come back to it, whichever is to the convenience of the House. However, I intend to move Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 unless my noble friend can go a little further in reply to the very fair question put by my noble friend Lord Home.
I have three sets of legal opinions apart from those mentioned in this House. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate promised, after the meeting which was referred to, that he would think about the problem again. I can find no evidence that he has. Therefore, I think the very minimum would be a request to support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Home that time be allowed, and not that we be threatened by my noble friend who says: "Do not bring them back ever again, dear noble friends". We should be allowed a fair wind, and perhaps by then I will have another three legal opinions and have time to tell your Lordships about all six legal opinions.
The only other question I leave in your Lordships' minds is: who could object to these restrictions on the individual citizen? My noble friend Lord Burton made an amusing jibe concerning my noble friend Lord Lansdowne and a salmon in the boot. It is possible that in the opinion of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne he might have to go down to the police station, although I do not think so from the wording. He certainly would not have to go there under my wording.
I am suggesting only that the chap has an obligation to say where he got the salmon from. It is all very well to talk about conviction in court at a later stage, but the wretched constable has to decide whether to act against someone who is doing the skilful thing and saying nothing. The constable must feel confident that he will not be charged with wrongful arrest.
Therefore, unless my noble friend can be a little more co-operative in giving way to the request of my noble friend Lord Home that we be allowed to discuss this matter fully and without pressure at Third Reading, I shall feel bound to move Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 when we come to them.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I can only say a few words by leave of the House because we may make only one speech on each amendment. I listened to my noble friend Lord Gray, but I was not one of those who had the advantage of hearing the Lord Advocate in private, although I heard him in Committee. I was not entirely convinced by him, but when we come to these Scottish clauses I think we have to accept the Lord Advocate's opinion on Scottish law. Therefore, if the noble Lord can let us talk about these matters again on Third Reading that would be fine as far as I am concerned, but it might inconvenience the House and perhaps be better to come to a decision now.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I just add a few words?
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but we are at the Report stage.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I was going to say only a few words. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the Lord Advocate and myself as to what we intend the clause to effect. I agree with the clause as interpreted by the Lord Advocate but I think it might be stretched against us. As I understand them, these amendments have been tabled simply to make the matter clear so that magistrates in lower courts are not confused. However, I shall not waste the time of the House any further.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but he seemed somewhat to threaten us. With the noble Lord, Lord Home, and others, I feel very much that the right thing to do is to allow consultation, with the thought that at Third Reading the Lord Advocate will be present and there will be discussion, rather than the House now being told: "you cannot have it, it is finished."
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to clarify one point to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I can assure him that there is absolutely no question of a threat. What I said expressed a purely personal feeling that if the amendments are withdrawn they will not be tabled again. We are talking about Scottish law and about the position in Scotland, to which my noble friend Lord Home also referred and indicated that as regards Scotland he is of a mind to take the advice of the Lord Advocate. I hope that that is the advice which prevails.
If the amendments are withdrawn it is, of course, entirely up to those who originally tabled the amendments, and who withdrew them, to decide whether or not they should table them again. My hope is that they will decide against such a course; but I am in the hands of the House and rightly so.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think this is a rather strange way of doing things. I have read many definitions of offences and I must say that this is one of the strangest. I would not have been quite so happy as the Minister of State was in saying that this was the perfect way of putting it. He cites the Lord Advocate. I remember when the Lord Advocate was Lord Clyde and was in another place on the Scottish Grand Committee. Scottish Bank-Benchers are quite un-awed by the dignity of the titles of "Lord Advocate" and "Solicitor-General". Very often we proved that they were very wrong.
I think this clause probably could be improved. I can see what the Government are trying to get at and I probably prefer the clause as it stands to some of the suggestions which have been made, but I hope the Government will have another look at it. You cannot jump to the conclusion that it will be easy to satisfy

351
yourself that someone believes something or other. All that person has to say is he did not believe it.
It is difficult to prove what someone believes—or what he should have believed; that is not easy either. After all, that implies a certain measure of mental ability that the person may not have; that there is reasonable ground for suspecting. There is the person who has offended. You have to prove that a person had reasonable ground for suspecting. That is very difficult to prove. Therefore, I think that the Crown Office and the draftsman should have another look at this. In the meantime, we rest on the absent Lord Advocate and trust that he will be here to satisfy us at the next stage of the Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I moved Amendment No. 56. The noble Lord on the Liberal Benches congratulated me on the way I supported him. The object of my amendment is to put in what I call absolutely plain English the reverse onus of proof. This was dealt with summarily and I accept completely what my noble friend Lord Gray said. As regards the point made by my noble friend Lord Burton, fortunately if I were likely to be arrested at home it would be by my own water bailiffs, so I think I might get away with it.
Naturally, I do not wish to press my amendment. I think we are in an extremely difficult and complicated sphere. I have great sympathy for Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 tabled by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. While withdrawing my own amendment which, in a way, achieved what I hoped it would, I should like to reserve my position and say that when Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 come up, unless very strong reasons against them are explained to me, I shall be supporting them. So, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 56, and perhaps it might be convenient if I say now that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 64 and 65.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, this seems a convenient moment to break for dinner, and I suggest that we do not resume the Report stage before 8 15 p.m. I beg to move that consideration of the Report stage be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) Scheme 1986
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 24th January be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the variation scheme is a modest but important measure. It allows the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme to be adequately funded from existing provision pending its review. This requires the extension to 31st March of the closing date for incurring expenditure under the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme and a corresponding
352
extension to 30th September of the deadline for the receipt of claims.
Noble Lords, will be aware that agriculture in Northern Ireland has to contend with many disadvantages not suffered on the same scale by farmers on the mainland. These include low soil fertility, difficult topography and adverse climatic conditions which largely dictate the type of agriculture which has developed—mainly extensive livestock production with a high dependence on grass. Lack of natural resources and remoteness from markets have resulted in minimal development of industries outside agriculture. But they have also increased input costs due to the additional costs of importing fertilisers and feedingstuffs and they have reduced returns because of the additional costs of marketing on the mainland.
Against this background, the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme was introduced in 1982. Its main legislative basis is EC Regulation 1942/81 which gives it a 10 year life and requires it to be reviewed after four. That review is now taking place. It is designed to offset the disadvantages I have referred to without generating pressure for similar measures elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It provides a stimulus to the development of agriculture in the less favoured areas, mainly by means of enhanced rates of grant for capital improvement works such as drainage, roads, land improvement and buildings.
These grants are funded jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The Ministry's contribution is equivalent to the grant rates paid under the wholly nationally funded Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland provides a small enhancement of these rates. Up to 40 per cent. of the total grant paid is reimbursable from Community funds.
Financial provision for the MAFF contribution is made in the MAFF vote for agricultural support which includes the AHGS. Without that contribution the programme cannot continue on its present basis. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is the Minister designated under the Agriculture Act 1970 in relation to the operation of the AHGS in Northern Ireland. That is why he signed this variation scheme.
For most purposes, the AHGS closed to new expenditure in July 1985 under the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Agriculture Improvement Scheme 1985. For the purposes of the programme, however, the date was extended to 31st December 1985. The deadline for the receipt of claims became 30th June.
It is now necessary to extend both dates by three months to allow the programme to continue pending the outcome of the current review and its negotiation in Brussels. The review has implication for the four agricultural departments and for the Treasury. I can assure your Lordships that there is full consultation between them on all aspects of the programme.
May I say in conclusion that the variation order is necessary to safeguard the development of agriculture in Northern Ireland in the brief period pending the completion of the review. It applies only in the less-

353
favoured areas and until 31st March. It has no effect outside the operation of the programme and is the only way available to us at present to maintain the programme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 24th January be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Swinton.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my noble friend Lord John-Mackie apologises for his absence. I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the scheme and for his clear explanation of it. We are happy to accept it.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has no need to apologise. Her noble friend Lord John-Mackie is a most delightful person and I like seeing him across the Dispatch Box but it is equally as pleasing to see the noble Baroness's pretty face. There is no reason why she should apologise following the very kind remarks she made about the scheme. I thank her for supporting it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.26 until 8.15 p.m.]

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 18, line 22, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. This deals with the question of fees, which is covered in subsections (3) and (4). If one gets rid of subsection (3), then one gets rid of subsection (4).
In Section 44 and the other matters which relate to it, including Schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act, there is a whole section on fees. I should like to know why the Government presume to override the licensing authority in respect of fees. What is so different about fees in respect of dealing in salmon? Paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 states:
"A licensing authority shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below—"
in respect of an application—
"charge such reasonable fees as they may,"
in accordance with that subsection determine.
It goes on:
"the licensing authority shall seek to ensure that from time to time the total amount of fees receivable by the authority is sufficient to meet the expenses of the authority",
in carrying out the licensing procedure. Surely that is good enough. We do not require the Secretary of State to come along and presume to fix the fees or the maximum amount of the fees.
I say that, where one can leave it to the local licensing authority, then why not do as one does for all the other licensing procedures in the Civic Government Act? I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I was in some doubt as to why the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, should not wish my right honourable and learned friend to have the power to prescribe the fees which the licensing authorities may charge.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, "learned"?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend—a new one. This power will be exercised only after consultation with CoSLA and others. It is primarily aimed at ensuring that there is not too wide a variation of fees over the country. There is certainly no intention to prescribe fees which are unreasonable.
There is also the safeguard that orders prescribing the fees will be subject to negative resolution procedures in Parliament. This seems to us to be reasonable and I should be surprised if the noble Lord does not accept that reasoning. I hope he may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords. I have no desire to divide the House on this matter, important though it may be. But why should one have to have an order—a statutory instrument—and be subject to the negative procedure with regard to fees? We have licensing fees for practically everything else. I think that my noble friend read them all out. If we are not worried about the idiocy of the local authorities and generally variations of fees why should we be worried in this respect?
I can only think that the Government wanted to fill the Bill out. The Minister should have learned to resist that. He is a man of some experience now. He has a new Secretary of State. Why does he not express himself and use that power which comes from the authority and experience of this House? He will have my complete support if he does that. Meantime, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 58:
Leave out Clause 19 and insert the following new clause
("Powers to license and regulate dealing in salmon.
19.—(1) The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Minister of Agriculture shall introduce similar licensing arrangements in the whole of Great Britain within I year of the passing of this Act.
(2) The schemes shall provide that in England and Wales no-one shall buy one or more whole salmon without holding a licence to deal and they shall only be permitted to buy from a person holding either a dealer's licence or a licence issued to anglers or netsmen under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.
(3) A buyer of salmon shall be entitled to buy from a netsman or angler in Scotland who shows legal authority to take salmon.
(4) The schemes shall include provision for the buyer of salmon to make a record of the particulars shown on the licence or legal authority of the person selling salmon to him.
(5) The schemes shall provide that no-one shall sell salmon except the possessor of a licence or legal authority in Scotland

355
except for an innkeeper to customers on his own premises.The innkeeper in accordance with subsection (2) above shall only buy from a holder of a licence or legal authority.
(6) The schemes shall provide that anyone with licence or other authority to sell, buy or deal in salmon, who engages a person or persons to transport such salmon, shall supply a consignment note to whosoever is in charge of such salmon during transit. The consignment note shall include the names and addresses of the sender and receiver of such salmon and the particulars of the licence or other legal authority of the sender.
The consignment note shall be produced on demand of a police officer, an employee of a water authority or a district salmon fishery board or other authorised person. Failing the production of the consignment note the salmon may be impounded by the authorities until it is produced.
(7) The schemes shall include such other provisions as the Ministers deem necessary.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment suggests a new clause in substitution for Clause 19. The purpose of making clear in new Clause 19(1) that,
"The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Minister of Agriculature shall introduce similar licensing arrangements in the whole of Great Britain"
is to turn this part of the Bill into a part which applies to England. I understand of course that the Title is only changed if it becomes necessary for this part of the Bill.
My noble friend has been extremely considerate and patient in the amount of time that he has given to the consideration of licensing in England both at Committee stage and between Committee stage and now. I intend to be fairly brief because I understand that he may be prepared to volunteer certain suggestions as to how to deal with an anomaly which every noble Lord at Second Reading and Committee stage pointed out should not exist; namely, licensing in Scotland but not licensing in England and Wales.
To me the main importance of licensing is to make proof of offence more easy. I quoted at some length at Committee stage the game licensing provisions which in England and Wales effectively create a chain right from the people who are licensed to kill game through to the dealers. There are no gaps in that chain.
If my noble friend the Minister is prepared to meet us with an intention to put down an enabling power for licensing in both countries, can he give me at this stage some assurance that the points that I have mentioned in my new Clause 19 will be taken care of either in the way I have suggested or in some other way?
There is one particular possible gap in the chain of licensing, which is when somebody who is licensed, or in Scotland has legal authority, to take salmon, or somebody who is licensed to deal in salmon, wishes to transmit those salmon to another licensed dealer. The purpose of my subsection (6) is to cover that point. I believe that every large consignment from dealer to dealer of any kind of salmon, be they imported, farmed, or anything else, is covered by a consignment note.
My suggestion is that that should become the law for anyone who transmits salmon who has a licence to do so, to make sure that the person who is in charge of those salmon, or the company—if it is by rail, or what-have-you—has a consignment note which shall include the names and addresses of the sender and
356
receiver of such salmon, and, I would add, the particulars of the licence or other legal authority.
If my noble friend can tell me that this would be part of a licensing scheme, then we would have a chain. We were discussing the onus of proof earlier, and I think that this would be the key to prevention of poaching if in fact only authorised persons are allowed to handle salmon. If there are grounds for suspicion as to who salmon belong to, or where they have been obtained—as we discussed earlier, and as we shall come to again in Amendments Nos. 70 and 71—this makes it easier to make it clear that the person who can explain nothing, and has no documents, gives reasonable cause for suspicion that he has poached the salmon.
I want to make one other remark in introducing licensing because my noble friend has been kind enough, through his officials, to tell us that on the game licence side there have been no convictions of breaking the game licensing laws. I presume that that means that there have been no convictions of dealers found dealing in pheasants when they do not have a licence, or that kind of thing. But there have of course been innumerable convictions (which I have had drawn to my attention since he told me that) in the case of game, and it is clear that a good number of those convictions have been made much easier because of the chain of licensing, and thus of the limited authority at any point for the possession of game.
My noble friend may wish to reflect on the irony of a situation of a policeman finding 12 pheasants and six salmon in the boot of somebody's car. Under the laws of the land, even after the passing of this Bill—this refers to what we were discussing earlier—the policeman can immediately seize the pheasants but he has to be quite sure what was in the mind of the man he was apprehending before he can touch the salmon. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 59:
Line 10, at end insert—
(" (2A) No riparian owner of a fishery or owner of netting rights, or a tenant of theirs, shall be a licensed dealer.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, this is a purely probing amendment. The reason for it is that if riparian owners of fisheries, whether angling or netting, or their tenants, can themselves be licensed dealers, it will be all too easy for them to launder illegally caught fish. I do not know whether the Government considered this point when drafting the Bill, or what views may be expressed by other noble Lords, but I should be very interested to hear. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I will say very briefly that I would be prepared to support the amendment.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I would briefly say on this amendment that I could not go along with it for the simple reason that it is important that people fishing should be able to dispose of their fish through legal channels, and it is important to the anglers who

357
come to a river to be able to readily find a legal market for their fish, otherwise they will be tempted to sell their fish in an illegal market. It is a great service to anglers fishing a river that the proprietors should be able to handle their fish for them. It would be difficult if proprietors of a river were forbidden from being dealers.
I myself provide stalking, and hold a venison dealer's licence. I provide shooting, and I hold a game dealer's licence. I have held a game dealer's licence for many years, and I find it important from the point of view of accommodating the sportsmen who come to use the sport, and for giving them a ready, convenient, and legal outlet for the game of which they wish to dispose.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that if he looks at subsection (5) he will find that anyone with legal authority to fish in Scotland is allowed to do what he wants to do.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, point out that I am not talking to the noble Viscount's amendment. I am speaking to the noble Lady's amendment which amends the amendment of the noble Viscount.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would make the position absolutely impossible. It would very much limit the market. The number of licensed dealers in salmon would be very limited. They would be entirely wholesalers. There would be one or two in Inverness, and perhaps three or four in Aberdeen. They could corner the market. If you have a netting station and you cannot sell your fish other than through one of these wholesalers, the price of salmon would drop completely. The whole thing would become completely uneconomic. As the noble Viscount has said, many people have venison licences, and salmon licences would be the same. One wants to be able to sell one's fish where one can. Why on earth we should be restricted in this manner I cannot understand. I hope that my noble friend will oppose the amendment to the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I appreciate and sympathise with what lies behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, No. 58. In saying that, I must point out that the detail of it would cause troubles. As I understand it, it would remove the basis for a Scottish scheme in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which is in the present Clause 19, and does not provide a satisfactory alternative.
On retail sales and purchases, under Amendment No. 58 a housewife wishing to buy a whole salmon for a dinner party would find that she would need to be a licensed dealer. There are details which would cause problems with Amendment No. 58. None the less, I appreciate what my noble friend has done. He first set
358
those of us who represent the Ministry of Agriculture into the line of thought that we needed to respond to the view expressed in your Lordships' House that if there was a dealer licensing scheme for north of the Border there needed to be a dealer licensing scheme for the south as well. This is yet another amendment in that story. In a moment I should like to respond in a slightly wider way.
My noble friend's amendment includes a particular provision to which I know he attaches importance, that is subsection (6) where my noble friend and his noble friends have introduced a requirement in specific terms for the production of a consignment note for salmon in transit. This is an idea that I am certainly ready to examine. But if adopted it would be one of a number of steps to secure enforcement of the law. I do not think it would be appropriate to specify it in the enabling powers in the Bill in these terms. It ought to be for whatever scheme is worked out.
I notice that the next amendment after that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is the general one which was the first amendment we had in Committee stage from the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Possibly the noble Lord might like to speak towards the end of this debate and would allow me to speak in slightly more general terms as an introduction to any remarks which he may make. I shall not conceal from the House that, as a result of the initiative taken by my noble friend Lord Trenchard in moving his amendment in Committee, which was based on the Game Acts, and the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friend Lord Chelwood and my noble friend Lord Onslow, which was an amendment based on the Deer Acts, I looked carefully after Committee stage and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has reconsidered this issue, as I undertook that we would when we debated it on 30th January.
We have had useful discussions in the Government with representatives of the water authorities, who believe that dealer licensing in England and Wales could be a useful addition to the rules by complementing the outlawing of dealing in illegal salmon under Clause 27. In the light of the consultations which we have held, the Government have concluded that a dealer licensing scheme should be introduced in England and Wales at the same time as in Scotland. I should be the first to acknowledge that this is as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House.
It is our intention to seek enabling powers by tabling an amendment at Third Reading. I cannot give an absolutely cast iron undertaking that this can be done in time for Third Reading, but I believe we can and I give a cast iron undertaking that the Government will bring forward such am amendment.
These powers will enable my right honourable friends to provide by order for a definition of the categories of traders to be licensed, the determination of licence fees, the creation of an offence for dealing without a licence with the appropriate penalties, the introduction of the necessary powers of search and seizure for the enforcing officers and any other measures that may prove necessary. Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, speaks, I acknowledge, as he has provided in Amendment No. 60, that this will need to

359
be done by order which will be subject to affirmative resolution.
The details of the scheme will obviously have to be worked out in consultation with the relevant organisations, the water authorities and the trade organisations concerned, and in close co-operation with those drawing up the parallel Scottish schemes. It is for that reason, if the noble Lady will forgive my saying so, that I do not think it would be possible for the Government to accept her amendment this evening, because the details of the scheme have to be worked out. There has to be consultation with the interested bodies. As Amendment No. 59 has attracted some disagreement in the House, I rest on the fact that what the noble Lady has attempted to provide for would need to be a matter of consultation. I hope I have said enough to demonstrate that we fully took on board the arguments of your Lordships in favour of introducing dealer licensing on both sides of the Border in such a way that the schemes complement one another.
I should like to say a word or two in reply to my noble friend Lord Trenchard about the powers of seizure, to which my noble friend referred and to which he attaches great importance in regard to a later amendment. At the moment I content myself with saying that I hope your Lordships will feel that the statement I have made is acceptable to the House.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I am sure that on all sides of the House we are enormously grateful to the Minister for taking so much trouble on this issue. There was too big a hole in the Bill to leave unstopped and he has moved to help us a great deal. I wish to express my gratitude.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it is just for me to withdraw the amendment echoing—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely we are purely and simply discussing an amendment to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I should like to speak to his Amendment No. 58 because coupled with it is my Amendment No. 60. To get some order into this I suggest that Lady Saltoun should speak.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, it might be in order if I were to add my voice to the others who have already thanked the noble Lord for his undertaking. In the circumstances, and particularly in view of the buckets of cold water that have been poured on my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question before the House is whether Amendment No. 58 shall be agreed to?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, with Amendment No. 58 I gather that we are taking Amendment No. 60, which deals with the same point but in a different way.
360
Amendment No. 60: After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Power to license and regulate salmon-dealing in England and Wales.
.In England and Wales the Secretary of State may draw up a scheme for licensing and regulating salmon-dealing and the scheme shall be made by statutory instrument, a draft of which shall he laid before and approved by each House or Parliament.")
I could not possibly accept the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. Here was I sweating and working and eventually had an amendment accepted to improve Clause 19. Now the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, suggests that we get rid of Clause 19 and throw out with it that splendid baby of an amendment that I had accepted by the Government. It would be difficult to justify in law the provision:
"similar licensing arrangements in the whole of Great Britain"
Anybody who knows anything about the differences between Scottish law and English law would find it difficult, because it just could not be done.
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for the attention he has given to this matter. I think it was quite clear on Committee stage, apart from what was said at Second Reading, that one of the very great weaknesses of the Bill was that it applied dealer licensing in Scotland but not in England: it just would not work. A good idea was being rendered nugatory by the failure to extend it into England. I took the trouble to draw my amendment as wide as possible.
Indeed, I am surprised that the Government have not accepted it because I did not tie them down in any way, I even put in the word "may". I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who suggested that I should put in the word "may" instead of "shall". I also put in:
"the draft shall be laid before and approved by each House of Parliament".
because that is what is being done in respect of the Scottish clause, Clause 19.
I have not tied up the Government in respect of time. I think that maybe the one year suggested in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, just would not be long enough. It might be long enough, but at the same time I think we should leave the Government free on that.
I want to express my appreciation here of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said. I was rather sceptical about it. I remember saying to him that I hoped his saying that he would look at it did not mean that he would take it away and forget all about it. However, I know that he has worked on it. He has much more work to do on it. The fact that he has said there will be such a scheme applying to England is something about which the House should be quite pleased, because we have all "done our stuff" on that and the Ministers have been listening.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I should also like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in telling the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how grateful we are for his statement, which means that the gap, which was so big one could drive a horse and cart through it, will be closed.
Baroness White: My Lords, may I echo the words of my noble friend. I showed inadvertence in that I did

361
not add my name to his and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this amendment because of course it covers in simple terms exactly what we were all asking for.
My only slightly carping note on this is that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made no reference whatever to the Secretary of State for Wales. He referred only to his right honourable friend. However, am I not right in thinking that in this situation the Secretary of State for Wales might have some standing? As one or two of your Lordships may recall, when we last discussed this matter I pointed out that the quantity of salmon caught in Wales is at least equal to and probably greater than that caught in England.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene again. Of course, I should have spoken in the plural. "My right honourable friend" should have been "my right honourable friends"; and when I referred to discussions with the water authorities they most certainly included discussions with the Welsh Water Authority.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the statement that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. In my view, this is one of the most significant matters to have come out of this Report stage debate on this Bill. We welcome it most sincerely because it really will make workable part of the Bill which otherwise, in my view, would have been largely unworkable.
Lord Moran: My Lords, having spoken about this matter at Second Reading and at Committee, perhaps I may join in thanking the Minister very much for this announcement, and particularly for his statement that this scheme will be worked out in full consultation with the water authorities, because I think that is very important.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to add my gratification for England. Wales and Scotland have been well represented; the English will be the people affected and it is a very good thing that we should have this. Thank you very much.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it remains for me to withdraw Amendment No. 58 The consultations with the water authorities are to be welcomed because they are very keen on this. May I prey yet further on my noble friend's patience to ask him, if he has time, if he can possibly keep those who have shown an interest in licensing apprised of what he plans to do at Third Reading? Secondly, may I point out to him that the problem of the housewife with one, or even two, salmon for a party is one which I think can be specified and excluded successfully without breaking the chain.
Finally, the most important matter is this. Both he and his officials at different times have said to me, "Do not rely too much on licensing; it may not make all that much difference", and we have turned on him on that. I should say that a licensing scheme that truly completes a chain will make a difference. A licensing scheme with loopholes in it—as the water authorities
362
originally believed when they hoped they were going to have tagging—will be of very little value. So the completion of the chain is very important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Restrictions in times of low water flow.
.Within three years of the passing of this Act, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall lay before Parliament measures which would permit water authorities or district salmon fishery boards to introduce restrictions on salmon netting operations in periods of low water flow in rivers or estuaries for which they are responsible. Such restictions shall be subject to approval by the relevant Secretary of State or Minister.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an amendment that my noble friend Lord Ridley put down, which is on restriction at times of low water. I shall not speak to this amendment but I shall, if I may, speak to a later one in relation to England and Wales only on this same question. Thus I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 62 is withdrawn. I therefore cannot call Amendment No. 62A in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.
Amendment No. 63: before calling it, I must point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 64, 65 or 70.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
The Deputy Seaker: Amendment No. 64: I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 70.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 70:
[Printed earlier: col. 341.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we have already discussed these amendments fully. I should just like to ask my noble friend this. It is put in the light of the very clear difference of opinion on a legal question which exists, which covers not only laymen like myself but also very learned lawyers. It concerns law sources which I have not had time to quote, which include the Law Society of Scotland, which is unhappy with the wording of these onus clauses, even in regard to Scotland. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would accept in a little more grace, that further consultations would be useful with his noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
Perhaps we can prevail on his patience, which has been very great already, to have a few further consultations with those most concerned before the Third Reading. Hopefully, they might produce an

363
agreement. I think we are very much nearer to agreement than we were at the Committee stage. However, we are not agreed and lawyers are not agreed, and magistrates will be confused. So perhaps I may ask him whether we may ask for a further consultation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, and cover at the same time the consultations in relation to onus of proof in England and Wales, and, in the light of those consultations, decide whether we find it necessary to table amendments to this effect at Third Reading.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I have obviously not had the opportunity to contact my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate since we rose for the dinner break. However, on his behalf I am perfectly prepared to tell my noble friend that between now and the Third Reading of this Bill an opportunity will be given for my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to meet with those most directly concerned. I am perfectly certain that my noble and learned friend will be prepared to acquiesce in that assurance.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend be prepared to answer at Third Reading the questions which have been put on the Floor of the House? That seems to me to be the important part. I believe that he has been unable to be here today because he has an extremely important legal case in Scotland, and one readily understands that. I think it would be very important if my noble friend on the Front Bench were to give an undertaking that he would actually be here at Third Reading.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I understand that it is the intention of my noble and learned friend to be here at Third Reading. My noble friend will appreciate that I cannot give an absolute assurance but as far as I know, it is my noble and learned friend's intention to be here.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, on those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert ("and for the words "on any private land adjoining" there shall be substituted the words "in the vicinity of".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this point during the "Clause stand part" debate at the Committee stage. I think it is self-explanatory. The problem is that if a car is sitting in a lay-by, the water bailiffs have no power to search it. It may be a long way from any police officer. The other night, in a big poaching case, it took three-quarters of an hour, as I previously mentioned, to get hold of one of the police officers, who we thought might be an inspector. It could take an interminable time to get a police officer to come and search a car in a remote area. If a person is poaching, he is scarcely likely to drive into someone's field or even on to a bit of rough ground; he will sit in a lay-by, and therefore will be on public land and water bailiffs will have no power to look into the boot of his car. He
364
could well have his nets there and the fish he has taken lying in the car and the water bailiffs will have no power to do anything about it at all.
This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think that my amendment would resolve the situation. It seems a great pity that someone netting a river should be allowed to get away with it through a mere technicality as to whether the land is public or private.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised this matter during the Committee stage and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate suggested that he might take it back so that we could discuss it and see if we could come forward with a reasonable solution. Since the Committee stage we have been looking at this but have not yet reached a conclusion. As noble Lords will appreciate, new powers of search have to be very carefully considered and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment on the assurance that I still have his proposal under consideration.
Lord Burton: My Lords, on the basis that it is favourable consideration, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Unauthorised introduction of salmon or salmon eggs into certain waters.
.—(1) A person who intentionally introduces any salmon or salmon eggs into inland waters in a salmon fishery district for which there is a district salmon fishery board shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of an introduction of salmon or salmon eggs into such waters if—

(a) he has the previous written consent of the district salmon fishery board for the salmon fishery district in which these waters are situated: or

(b) the waters constitute or are included in a fish farm within the meaning of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, withdrew the amendment which would have given district salmon fishery boards and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland control over the stocking of rivers. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me and my advisers the opportunity to consider the matter further. We have indeed given careful thought to this question and the amendment I am moving is the result of these deliberations.
Because district boards are purely salmon boards, it would not in my view be appropriate to give them control over the stocking of rivers with other fish. Noble Lords will recall that during the discussions in Committee I pointed out that it would be unreasonable to allow a salmon board to control, for instance, lawful stocking of trout by angling clubs on rivers. I have had no reason to change my mind on this point.
The question of pike, American crayfish and rainbow trout has also been raised in this context. The simple answer is that this is a salmon Bill, not a freshwater fisheries Bill. Nothing can be done about such fish in the Bill. I am, however, advised that

365
stocking with American crayfish is not, nor perhaps likely to be, a problem in Scottish waters. Rainbow trout is however widely stocked, but is considered to be a fish of a kind "not ordinarily resident in Great Britain"; its release to the wild is therefore controlled under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A general licence has been issued under that Act, authorising the release of rainbow trout but subject to the release having the written consent of the owner of any fishery in the waters to which the fish is to be released. That is some safeguard to salmon interests. I am afraid that nothing can be done in this present Bill about the stocking of rivers with pike but it would always be possible to reduce the presence of such fish using electrical or other methods with the written permission of my right honourable and learned friend.
However, I fully accept that boards should have such control over Atlantic salmon and sea trout as defined in the Bill, and this amendment is intended to achieve that. It will be an offence if anyone intentionally introduces such fish or eggs of such fish into inland waters in a salmon board's district without first obtaining the written consent of the board. The maximum penalty on conviction for such an offence will be Level 2 on the standard scale; that is, £200 at present, which I understand is the appropriate level.
This amendment raises an issue in England and Wales, where the water authorities already have to give their written consent under Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 before any fish or spawn may be introduced into any inland waters. In the 1981 consultation paper on the review of inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales, the Government proposed that these controls should no longer apply to introductions into fish farms in England and Wales. That remains the Government's view and it accords with what is proposed for Scotland. In the amendment I have just described my noble friend will therefore be tabling an amendment, for debate on Third Reading, which will exempt fish farms from Section 30 of the 1975 Act. This will provide for a similar approach on both sides of the Border. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for taking up this amendment. I think it is an important one. So far as salmon goes, he has done very well. We are protected against the cohoe, the chum, the chinook and all the rest of these fish of the salmon sort. I am not convinced by his argument that this is a salmon Bill and that one should not deal with the introduction of species likely to harm salmon. There are waters in Scotland which contain only salmon and brown trout and do not contain other species of fish but I think it would be a pity if it were felt that there was open season for introducing pike and perch and any other sort of fish that might harm the existing native population into these waters.
I am sorry that the noble Lord is not able to go further in this respect and I would invite him to keep looking at this subject to see whether there is not perhaps some way in which protection can be given against the introduction of a species like the rainbow or, indeed, fish which are native to Britain but not native to certain parts of Scotland.
366
I accept that what he has given us is a great advance on nothing at all and I accept that there may well be a difficulty in the shape of this Bill in making the amendment go further. I hope that he and his department will not forget about the rest of the problem. Nevertheless, I thank him most sincerely for his amendment and I wish it well.
9 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I too should like to add my thanks for the little bit we have received here. I am a little confused, because Clause 15(1) says:
"A district salmon fishery board may do such acts, execute such works and incur such expenses as may appear to them expedient for—
(a) the protection or improvement of the fisheries within their district;".
If this is the case, surely they should have powers to deal with predators and they should have powers to deal with pike.
As I understand it, pike were not indigenous to Scotland. They were introduced by the monks for their winter food; and certainly in the Highlands you can trace the monastic settlements by the areas where the pike exist. They have spread up and down considerably from where they were released.
It seems to be a ridiculous state of affairs when, as has happened, people can release pike into important salmon waters which previously did not have these fish in them. It is ridiculous to say that they can be controlled. We have a loch of about 14 acres from which it has been almost impossible to get the pike out. We have tried all sorts of things. We have consulted the Freshwater Fisheries and the Research Department of Pitlochry, and had a temporary action, because the pike in this loch were eating every baby duckling that came down. Maybe we could get something done under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to prevent the putting out of pike because they were eating birds, but it seems we are not allowed to have anything to protect salmon. This seems to be a ridiculous state of affairs.
This is a Salmon Bill and we have one bit in here protecting salmon, so why can we not have a protection against putting out predators against salmon?
Lord Margadale: My Lords, may I just say one thing to my noble friend Lord Burton? We had the same trouble in the Island of Islay. There is a receipt which comes in powder form which can be dispersed from a motorboat, and all the pike will be dead in about two days. If he reminds me I will give him the address.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Prosecution of offences under the Act of 1868]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 74:
[Printed earlier: col. 299.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 74):
Page 23, line 37, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause
("Estuaries and tidal waters.
. Sea fishery committees as established by the Sea Fisheries Regulations Act 1966, in consultation with the appropriate district salmon fishery board or water authority, may make orders to prohibit fishing in specified areas, in order to prevent illicit fishing for salmon in estuaries and other tidal waters.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the loophole between the jurisdictions of the water authorities and the sea fishery committees in estuaries and tidal waters. I set out the case for something to be done both at the Second Reading and at the Committee stage, where I was supported by two noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, Lady White. The Minister said in Committee that the Government were not persuaded, but at my request he undertook to look again at what I had said at Second Reading and at what the Welsh Water Authority had said in their report on salmon and sea trout fishing in Wales. I hope he has been able to do that and that he can now tell the House that, in consultation with the water authorities and sea fisheries committees, this loophole will now be closed. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have indeed met the noble Lord. Lord Moran, on this point and also read the report of the Welsh Water Authority and now concede that the noble Lord has made a valid point.
The Government recognise that illegal salmon fishing could take place under the guise of sea fishing, which was the point made by the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady White, in Committee. We are now looking into what can be done to deal with the point. This will inevitably involve consultation with the bodies concerned. The difficulty I am in is that I cannot offer an amendment at this stage of the Bill, and I have said informally to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I think it would be very difficult for the Government to bring an amendment forward in this House on this particular point. I shall, however, keep the noble Lord informed of progress on this issue, and I hope that with that assurance and with the assurance, which I repeat, that I recognise that a valid point has here been made, and which needs to be cleared up, the noble Lord may feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so, may I offer wholehearted thanks on this occasion to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, again before the noble Lord does so, may I say that the statement that the Government recognise that this practice could take place is an under-statement; it does take place on a very large scale. The fishermen themselves know they are fishing for salmon, but they pretend they are fishing in estuaries or just off the edge of estuaries for white fish. In the case of the Tamar estuary, they fish in places where there are known to be virtually no sea fish at all, and they do it regularly. So it is not a theoretical problem; it is a problem which exists, and I welcome what my noble friend has said.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I welcome his
368
assurance. I hope very much that, if possible, the Government will be able to complete their consultations in time to bring forward an amendment in another place, but if not I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will keep me informed. I hope that the Government will be able to tackle the problem as quickly a possible. In the light of what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Handling salmon in suspicious circumstances]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 24, line 3, leave out ("believing or having reasonable") and insert ("he believes or could reasonably be expected to have")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am again prepared to withdraw this amendment on an assurance from my noble friend that the problem of onus of proof in England and Wales will also be the subject of consultations between now and the Third Reading; so that if we do solve this problem we will solve it in a similar way for the whole of Great Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords. I should like to speak to this amendment because I ought to say two things. I will give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Trenchard that the matter of the onus of proof, so far as the English law is concerned, should be the subject of further consultation between now and the Third Reading stage. The second matter, if I am not wearying the House, is that I think from the point of view of the record and so that we can digest what we are all saying on this subject, I should just reply to my noble friend's amendment. After that we then come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 77, and another amendment of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Amendment No. 78, since they may go together.
Amendment No. 77: Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to any salmon, the burden of proving that he did not believe and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence had been committed in relation to any salmon shall lie on the person accused of such an offence.")
Amendment No. 78: Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, failure to possess and/or supply specific information as to where and from whom the salmon were received shall be regarded as constituting reasonable grounds for suspicion.")
After that I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will be speaking to Amendment No. 79. Perhaps I may now just briefly reply to Amendments Nos. 76 and 78. In my noble friend's first amendment he seeks to clarify the meaning of Clause 27(1), and I think that in everyday speech my noble friend has succeeded in making a very reasonable paraphrase of Clause 27(1). But I am advised that this amendment would not be acceptable from a legal point of view. In particular, the expression "reasonably be expected" could lead to problems of interpretation. When you "expect" you are generally looking into the future; but we do not want to rule out past or present events in our new offence.

369
In my noble friend's second amendment he has replaced the phrase "an accused person" in a situation where if he declined to make a statement he would be assumed to be guilty of the new offence in Clause 27(1). I understand that my noble friend is seeking to assist the enforcement authorities when they stop someone in suspicious circumstances. However, in a case where a reasonable person would consider that the circumstances were suspicious, then the person stopped, under the Bill as drafted, could be charged with the new offence. In that case the fact that he declined to make an explanation would not be of help to him. However, I am afraid that it would not be acceptable as we feel at the moment that any person in possession of salmon could simply be presumed to be guilty if he chose to remain silent about where he obtained them. That is of course very different from the case of a man seeking to take refuge in silence and hoping thereby to acquit himself.
Before I finish, in replying to my noble friend I wonder whether I may refer to a matter which my noble friend, for brevity's sake, has not mentioned but which he mentioned before and after the dinner break: namely, the difficulty which an authorised officer is in when a vehicle, let us say, with salmon in it is found by the side of the road or indeed when an authorised officer comes across salmon and wishes to challenge the situation. It may be helpful to put this on the record. I am most anxious to say that I am advised that the 1975 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act has powers in it to enable an authorised officer to seize articles including salmon, fishing instruments, vessels and vehicles which are liable to be forfeited by order of the courts. That includes salmon which may be required as evidence.
Of course an authorised officer cannot simply seize goods if he has no intention of bringing a charge but I understand that he can seize them, even if he does not immediately make an arrest, when he believes an offence has been committed but wishes to make further inquiries before charging his suspect. I hope that your Lordships may agree that those are very considerable powers. I am not trying this evening to put them forward as particularly making a case because I have given my noble friend an undertaking that we will discuss this matter again. However, I was anxious to put these comments on the record in connection with this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all that he said and will leave it to the consultations. I have in fact told him what happens and that officers are without doubt put in the position of having to scratch their heads as to whether or not they should bring a charge. We have been all through that. If I may, I should like to ask my noble friend's officials to let me know which part of the 1975 Act contains these seizure powers so that I can look at them before the consultations. With that, and pendings the consultations, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 76.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 77:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about consultations before the Third Reading, including England and Wales. I look forward to taking part in those consultations because, so far as Wales is concerned, I believe that this is the single most important provision in the Bill and we have an opportunity now to bring in something that will enable the enforcement agencies to deal with this very serious problem of illegal fishing.
I entirely share the Government's objective. My difficulties with their wording have been and are three. First, it is not clear; the noble Lord, Lord Home, used the word "obscure" about the Scottish clause and I think exactly the same applies to the English clause. Secondly, the water authorities who would have to enforce the clause in England and Wales do not believe that in its present form it would be effective. So far as I know, not a single water authority has expressed itself as content with the present wording. Thirdly, although I am not a lawyer I believe that the courts insist that if Parliament means the onus of proof to be shifted, Parliament should say so explicitly.
I have all along been as reasonable and conciliatory as I possibly could over this question. I raised it on Second Reading; I put down an amendment with my noble and learned friend Lord Denning at the Committee stage. I have twice discussed it with Ministers, on one occasion with representatives of the water authorities present. I put the water authorities' solicitors in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture's lawyers. I have done everything possible to try to get the Government to modify their wording, to make it clear and effective, but all, sadly, so far to no effect.
9.15 p.m.
Ministers have been extremely courteous, patient and kind, but they have not so far changed so much as a comma. I find this baffing. The Government argue, as I understand it, that their clause does what I want it to do, but if it does then surely it should not be beyond the capacity of the Government to spell it out in the Bill in clear and unambiguous language. If, as the Government claim, the thinking behind the clause is clear, then so should be the wording, for, as Doctor Johnson said, language is the dress of thought.
To be effective in a lay magistrates' court the wording ought to be simple, I believe, and readily comprehensible. I myself would prefer that the Government should entirely rewrite this clause. It can be done: indeed, it was done in a slightly different context in Section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. I still think that the Government ought to do it in this Bill, but I recognise that they are somewhat wedded to their own wording based on the Theft Act, which is, I think, common to the whole of Great Britain. The Government have been good enough to tell me in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, sent to me on 20th January that:
"We are satisfied that they do in fact"—
that is, Clauses 20 and 26, as they were originally—
"provide for a shift in the burden of proof in a way which should improve the prospects of convicting those in possession of illegally caught salmon".
So all I think my present amendment does is to spell

371
out what the noble Lord, Lord Gray then told me in a way which can be readily understood.
I feel sure, therefore, that if they stick to their present wording, the Government should be able to accept my amendment. It says that the prosecution must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence, but then it must be up to the suspect to explain how he came by the fish. That seems to me plain and wholly in line with the Government's intentions. So I hope that the Government will accept it and that noble Lords will support my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I feel I am on home ground now we have got to England and to a clause which has to apply in England. Let me tell you the difference at the moment in the Bill between Scotland and England. I may tell you that in my experience the Scottish lawyers are very good, they stick to principle and theory, but the English are far more practical. That is why I hope that this clause, as we want it to be, will be of practical use all the way round. It is much more extensive than the Scottish one which we were discussing, because that related simply to a person who was in possession of salmon. Here we are dealing with the real question not only of the person in possession but of the person who receives the salmon,
"or undertakes or assists in its retention, removal or disposal".
Anyhow, even though he is not in possession of it but it is handed over to someone else or put somewhere else, this is a much wider clause for England, dealing with all the handling, all the people who convey it. See how much more important this clause really is than the Scottish one.
As was said before, you have the salmon taken and landed unlawfully in Scotland. It is then rushed down the road to England in a few hours and sold in Billingsgate or wherever it may be. The offence will happen in England and it has to be prosecuted before English magistrates. Far more offences occur in England than in Scotland, because that is where the salmon will be disposed of and that is where the handling will be done. That is why we want a new offence.
The old offence was simply that of taking the salmon unlawfully. We now want the handling of it to be covered, like receiving stolen property. We want to catch all those down the chain, and that is what this clause does. That is the importance of it. There has been nothing like it before and it is a new offence.
I now come to the crux of the matter and the onus of proof. Sitting as an English judge or an English magistrate, reading Clause 27 as it was, I would say that it is for the prosecution to prove that the man believed or had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence had been committed. You have to prove his state of mind but, as we often say in the courts, the state of mind of a man is not triable. Not even the devil knows the state of a man's mind.
Let us suppose that a man coming down the Great North Road in the middle of the night is stopped by a policeman who looks inside the van and sees a whole load of salmon. The man says: "I am just carrying it down for a friend. I do not know where it came from". If the case goes before the magistrates, they will say:
372
"There is no evidence that he believed or had reasonable cause for suspecting. He just said that he did not know", and they will dismiss the complaint. Surely it is most important from a practical point of view that, when a driver comes down the Great North Road and goes to a hotel or to Billingsgate with salmon, someone should be able to say: "Look at that stuff. It has been poisoned."
There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been unlawfully obtained. The man would be asked. "What do you say about it?" and surely he ought himself to show that he did not have any reasonable grounds for suspecting. In other words, this is a practical way of dealing with this very bad and dangerous traffic which is coming down the Great North Road.
So I support my noble friend Lord Moran, but if the amendment is thought to be unacceptable I have put down Amendment No. 79. It is rather like those Scottish cases about which I told your Lordships earlier on. If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting, then you see what the explanation is and the court can take that into account and draw such inference as it thinks proper. I have tried in the amendment to put into words the effect of those two cases to which I referred earlier. At all events, it is most important that this clause should be cleared up, so that magistrates and judges do not have to interpret an obscure clause.
As my noble friend Lord Moran has said, our objectives are all the same. It is only a matter of getting the wording right. For goodness sake, get it right so that magistrates and judges can act accordingly and not have to trouble the lawyers any more. I support the amendment but, as my noble friend Lord Moran said, we may be having more discussions on it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in Amendment No. 77 the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to clarify the provision of the new offence in Clause 27(1) and he has done so by, in effect, repeating the provisions of Clause 27(1).
In proceedings under this clause and subsection the prosecution will have to prove certain basic facts; that the accused was in possession or was in some way handling the salmon in question; and that achieved, the prosecution must address the question of the defendant's attitude—what is called the mental element—and must either show that the defendant believed the salmon to be taken illegally, which would normally require an admission, or, more probably, that the circumstances were such that a reasonable man would have had reason to suspect that the fish were illegally taken. If the prosecution succeed in proving this to be the case the defendant would then be able to acquit himself only by proving that the salmon were not in fact illegally taken.
I take some comfort from my understanding that that is the situation which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said we were trying to achieve, and, I believe, what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, also feels is the right objective to achieve, and that our difference is of form on the face of the Bill rather than intention. If I am correct, we can go at it again in a discussion between now and Third Reading, as I have undertaken I am very ready to do. Indeed we will have again the

373
advantage of the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate from the Scottish point of view. Perhaps I may simply content myself with saying that to accept at this stage an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which would duplicate the provisions which I believe are in Clause 27(1), would not be something of which a parliamentary draftsman would approve.
At the risk of detaining the House for just a couple of minutes more because I think it is important for us to be able to look at the record before we talk, perhaps I may add this. My advice is that the burden of proving the so-called mental element of this new offence is lighter than under the Theft Act, which after all has been the law for some 17 years. Under this offence the prosecution would not be required to prove that the defendant knew or believed that the salmon was unlawfully taken. They may prove belief—for example, if they have a confession—but in other cases they would need only to show that a reasonable man in the position of the defendant would have suspected that the salmon was unlawfully taken. The prosecution do not have to show whether the suspicion related to any particular offence of unlawful taking. The new provision would therefore ease considerably the burden of proof on the prosecution compared with the Theft Act offence and also with very many other criminal offences.
If we were to consider, as I realise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, have not considered, on this particular amendment the question of mere possession, that I think would be a very drastic attack on the liberties of the citizen. I say it only on this amendment as a matter for the record and because I know it has been a matter of discussion both on the Floor of the House and outside the House as the Bill has gone through its various stages. What we can do, and what I am advised Clauses 21 and 27 together will do, is to enable the courts to convict someone in possession or handling salmon who is culpable because he knew that the salmon was unlawfully taken or believed it was, or because he shut his eyes to facts which any reasonable person would regard as cause to suspect that the salmon was unlawfully taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, chided me for adhering to the wording which is in the Bill. It is for the reasons which I have endeavoured to add and have detained the House for that little bit longer that we have adhered to the wording on the face of the Bill. None the less, I am very ready to discuss it again, and of course to do so with as open a mind as possible.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, decides what he wants to do with his amendment, I would say to my noble friend not again all that has been said and to which he has replied with the Government's arguments, but that there is nothing in Clause 27 stating that the person has to be a reasonable person. That just is not in the clause. That is why I suggested in my amendment that a person might be expected to have reasonable grounds. That wording has faults, but nothing in the Bill states that the constable making the arrest or the court needs to
374
consider reasonableness. The suspected person could be deaf or dumb. He could be unreasonable. The question as written in the Bill is whether or not it was in the person's mind that he had any suspicion. He may or may not have known anything worthwhile about salmon.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will allow me to comment just once again before your Lordships finish with this amendment, if my noble friend cares to read lines 2 and 3 on page 24 of the Bill, then he may change his mind on that point.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say I have read them. They state that:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence if, believing or having reasonable grounds",
that is, the person having reasonable grounds. There is nothing there about a judgment of a reasonable person.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House. I am sure that in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, we are all agreed upon the objectives. The only difference between us is as to the wording. Surely we can get that wording right after a few discussions.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to add only a few short sentences. Those of us who have doubts about the Government's position are basically saying that there has been very high quality legal criticism of the wording in the Bill. Those doubts must be laid at rest. I hope that somebody with a great legal mind will come to answer the doubts that there are and which have been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. If it were not for the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was making such points then it would perhaps be much easier to accept the Govenment's views as stated.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the reply that he gave me. I should like to study it in Hansard but, as I understood him, he confirms that the present wording achieves the objective that we are all trying to reach. Unfortunately, however, the Bill expresses itself in very obscure language.
When I was a very young member of the Foreign Office staff we were all given a little booklet written by Sir Ernest Gowers entitled Plain Words and told to express ourselves in plain English. I suggest that the Government say to the parliamentary draftsman, for whom I have enormous respect, "Forget about the Theft Act. Just re-word this part of the Bill in plain English so that it is effective legally but can be understood by everyone". As I have already pointed out, that has been accomplished with the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, so I am sure that the draftsman will be able to do it again. That is all that I ask. I shall be very happy to take part in the discussions. I hope that the Government will pay attention to what has been said in the House tonight, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord Denning Lord Denning had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to any salmon, the court may take into account any explanation that the person may have given and draw such inference as it thinks proper as to his guilt or innocence.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with the other one but, in view of the discussions we shall be having, I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Restriction of drift-netting
.—(1) Three years after the coming into force of this Act the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall lay before Parliament a report of his review of the measures to restrict the drift-net fishery off north-east England, against the background of the need for a national policy of conservation of salmon, and at that time will if necessary introduce further measures to conserve salmon stocks.
(2) In deciding whether it shall be necessary to introduce further measures under subsection (1) above he shall take into account the views of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, and be guided by the general principles that the north-east drift-net fishery, together with any nets substituted for it in Northumbrian and Yorkshire coastal waters and estuaries, should be gradually reduced with the ultimate aim of reaching a level which is not injurious to salmon in Scottish and English rivers.
(3) He shall also take any necessary steps to ensure that the reduction in the number of salmon caught off north-east England does not result in a corresponding increase in those caught by coastal, esturial and river nets in Scotland and England.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of the drift net fishery off north east England. This is an interceptory fishery. It takes fish heading for a number of rivers indiscriminately and therefore is bad in principle. Drift netting, as was pointed out in earlier discussions, is banned in Scotland, and has been for many years. It is also banned in the United States of America. In Wales, it is allowed but monofilament nets are not permitted when drift netting for salmon. Therefore, I repeat again that unless we and the Irish, for whom of course we are not responsible, are seen to be taking effective conservation measures, NASCO will be paralysed and the very damaging Greenland and Faroese interceptory fisheries will continue and even increase. The Danes and the Greenlanders will use any failure on our part to deal with the north east fishery as an excuse for doing nothing. A deadlock of that sort would be a disaster for Atlantic salmon. That is why so many of us called at Second Reading and in Committee for the phasing out of the north east fishery.
Against that, however, I recognise that it is a traditional fishery and that there is only seasonal fishing which helps the income of fishermen in that part of the world; a group which nationally has had a very raw deal. We must bear in mind that they are not the only people who are intercepting salmon. Although the evidence is that they are taking largely Scottish fish, in Scotland in 1983 net and coble fisheries took 136,000 fish and fixed engines (as they are called) took 153,000. The coastal nets in Scotland
376
are, I believe, as much an interceptory fishery as the drift nets; or, indeed, the fisheries in Greenland and the Faroes.
On Tuesday, with other noble Lords, I saw a deputation from the fishermen who operate the north east drift-net fishery. They put their case very fairly. They argued that catches have already come down somewhat from the figure two years ago of about 59,000 to last year at 46,000. They deny that they are taking more than the declared catch. They say that, as evidence, they have been, and are, strongly in favour of tagging—a point I found interesting. They want the salmon runs to continue and they point out that their nets are restricted to 600 yards long, unlike those used in the Irish fishery.
Although I would prefer the phasing out of this fishery, perhaps by issuing no new licences to anyone who does not have one now, I recognise that there is a case for continuing the fishery at or near the traditional level. However, I think there is general agreement among your Lordships that the fishery is taking far too many fish now, largely because of the introduction of monofilament nets in the 1960s. The Government measures announced last November will, I am sure, help but I do not think that in themselves they go far enough.
The amendment that I have tabled with my noble friend Lord Perth and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, begins by taking up the Government's measures announced in November, and the announcement that they will review these measures in three years' time, and proposes that they should report to Parliament against the background of a national policy on the conservation of salmon. This is an important point because we have had no criteria for this review and I believe that that should be the principal one.
I do not think it can be too often stressed how important it is that we should begin now to have a national policy for salmon. All the debates in this House have pointed in that direction. It also asks that they should take into account the views of NASCO because it is essential that we should now be fully alive to the international aspect of this problem. And that is, I believe, the best way of achieving this. It asks, too, that the take of this fishery should be gradually reduced to a point where it no longer damages the runs of salmon to the eastern part of Scotland and the North-East England rivers. Clearly, this is a matter for continuing scientific advice to the Government.
The last paragraph of the amendment takes up a point made at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that it would clearly be damaging to conservation and unfair if the fish saved from the North-East drift net fishery were simply scooped up by the nets around or in the Scottish and North-East of England rivers. The whole amendment is as moderate as I can make it. It is designed to record the common ground between what the Government have told us and views expressed in this House. Essentially, I believe that this fishery should be wound down to the traditional level of the catches, say, in the 1950s, or somewhere near it. It may be possible to take as one criterion a relationship with the total Scottish catch. You could argue that, in conducting the review, a fair measure would perhaps be about one-sixtieth of the total Scottish catch. The total Scottish catch, by all

377
methods, is somewhere around 350,000 to 360,000 in a normal year and one-sixtieth of that would be about 6,000.
However, the emphasis of this amendment is on conservation and fairness. I would stress the need to follow the best scientific advice. I hope very much that the Government can accept the amendment, and that, in any event, noble Lords will support it. I beg to move.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, as I understand this, we would first have three years in which regulations restricting drift netting are in force and applied. That is, I believe, a good start. During those three years, I hope that the Government will collect statistics and that the results will be reported to both Houses of Parliament. I believe that this is the Minister's intention. I must say, however, that I am attracted by the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that some words should be added to the Bill pointing to the purpose of designing a policy of conservation of salmon that applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. That should be the objective after we have collected all the statistics and have all the knowledge of what has hapened in the three years.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I should perhaps point out now that if this amendment, Amendment No. 80, were accepted, there would be no object in my moving Amendment No. 125.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me essential, as we are not going to get another Salmon Bill, I hope, in my lifetime, that we have a national salmon policy. This means that we have to count the number of salmon that can be taken—reasonably cropped—for the whole of the United Kingdom. In this cropping, what we must not do is take the nets away from the North-East coast drift netters and immediately allow my noble friend Lord Lansdowne to catch lots more. That would not under any circumstances be fair or equitable. I am absolutely convinced that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne would not want that anyway. If we can find out the total number of fish that can satisfactorily be taken from the sea so that we can conserve and, if possible, increase the stock a little, then the quotas can go up and there will be lots for everybody providing that nobody is too greedy—and that is asking a lot of human nature. If we look after the salmon, conserve it, make the right reports, and the right scientific judgments, then I would suggest that there will be room for the traditional North-East fishermen, for the Marquess of Lansdowne's nets, for the day fisherman on the Dee and for everybody else. But we have to be ruthless about not overcropping the stock. That is the whole point, and this amendment brings that out with great clarity.
9.45 p.m.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke now to my Amendment No. 125, which deals with drift netting.
Amendment No. 125: Schedule 4, page 36, line 8, at end insert—
("Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c. 51)
378
. In section (1)(a) there shall be inserted the sub-paragraph—
"(vi) a drift-net.".")
I am very interested in this Admendment No. 80 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and supported by Lord Chelwood, particularly because it emphasises the need for a national policy for salmon. I think that that is a very important part of this whole matter.
We spent an enormous amount of time discussing finer legal points of preventing illegal taking of fish, but I should like your Lordships to apply your minds this evening to the whole question of the legal taking of fish. I endeavoured to point out to your Lordships that I consider that we are in very grave danger of squandering a very great national asset, a renewable asset if properly managed.
I gave your Lordships a number of figures. It always seems to be late at night when I embark on figures, but that is the way our debates have gone. I must remind your Lordships again because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to say—although I am not quite certain whether I heard him aright, as I am rather deaf—that it might be quite a good thing if the drift netters off Northumbria and the coast of Yorkshire could have their catches scaled down to something near their 1950 level. As I reminded your Lordships, the 1950 level was in the neighbourhood of 2,500 fish. In 1983 declared catch was 77,279 fish. In 1984 declared catch was 59,290 fish. I took the liberty of mentioning in passing that some people had wondered whether the declared catches were always accurate. I said for my part that I was not concerned with that. However, on reflection, I thought perhaps I ought to be concerned with that and I have therefore been making inquiries to ascertain a little about the arrival of boxes from the North East fisheries at Billingsgate market.
I have done a small calculation which is on the generous side in favour of the drift netters. I have taken the average contents of a fish box at eight fish. It is quite often more. Let us for my purpose take the average contents of a fish box at eight fish. I have worked out that the boxes which arrived in Billingsgate Market in the season 1984 probably contained 51,344 fish. The declared catch for the year was 59,290 fish.
I should like your Lordships for a moment to memorise those two figures. From the experience of my company, the Tay Salmon Fishery Company, we catch two grilse to every one salmon. It is unlikely that that figure is very different on the North East drift net fisheries. If that figure is acceptable it means something rather frightening, because hardly any of the 51,344 salmon in boxes in Billingsgate Market were grilse. Of course the grilse are sold somewhere, but hardly any of these were grilse.
Supposing that 51,344 salmon were delivered in Billingsgate Market, it is safe to assume that 102, 688 salmon is the total catch. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to compare that with the figure of 2,500. The extraordinary observation I thought I heard him make was that these netsmen had been hardly done by. My goodness me, I would not mind being hardly done by if I could raise my income by the level they have been able to raise theirs. It is remarkable.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for giving way. I was saying that I thought that fishermen in general in Great Britain had been hardly done by, and it was against that background that I was considering their problem.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I apologise. I think they have been doing very well lately. One thing that is clear—and I have said this before—is that nobody in their senses would want to take the livelihood away from one group of people to give it to another, even if by so doing the people to whom they were giving it were much more numerous than the people from whom they were taking it away.
I have had all sorts of warnings given to me about the strong line that I have been taking all along about drift netting. I have been told that it would be totally unacceptable to the Opposition. I question this, because we are talking about a national asset. If I were sitting on those Benches opposite I would make exactly the same speech as I make now. I cannot see how the Opposition could possibly wish to oppose something which was in the national interest. Of course there are occasions when numbers of people have to suffer for the national interest, but is it necessary for the drift netters to suffer?
There is a perfectly good provision whereby they could be compensated. I refer to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, Schedule 3, which reads:
"An order may contain any incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions, including provisions for payment of compensation to persons injuriously affected by the order, which may appear to be necessary or proper for the purposes of the order."
There are means of dealing with this situation if Her Majesty's Government really believe in the importance of the conservation of the salmon and the enhancement of the salmon fishing industry, not only in Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom
Jokingly, no doubt, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to the netsmen having to stop catching their fish so that I could catch more. With great respect to the noble Earl, that observation is not worthy of him. In the netting industry in Scotland, with which I am closely in touch, we know that we are all involved in this. It is not just a question of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel catching more fish on his beat of the Tweed or me catching more fish on my beat of the Tay. It is not just a question of the netsmen on the Tweed not having their figures reduced by 59 per cent. There is a 59 per cent. drop there. We must surely be aware that we are over-fishing. One of the principal areas of over-fishing is the north-east drift netting fishery.
NASCO was mentioned. Not very much has been said about NASCO, but it is an important organisation and we are signatories to the convention by being members of the European Community. In June this year another big meeting of NASCO will take place. The eyes of the members of NASCO are very much on the British Parliament, what happens here tonight and subsequently in another place. A degree of self control has been exercised by other countries, but none by ourselves. We shall not cut a very good figure, and what inevitably will happen is that a demand will be made for the quotas to be increased. We shall have no
380
argument. The irony is that the headquarters of NASCO is in Edinburgh, right in our midst. Here we are arguing the finer points but not getting down to the vital questions of reduction of fisheries.
I do not think it will stop with just the North-East drift netting fisheries perhaps being phased out. Phasing out will be much too slow. Ideas have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Belstead; although helpful, I cannot see that they will bite quickly enough to stop the rot. All kinds of procedures have to be gone through. I do not know how long my noble friend Lord Belstead thinks it will take before the various measures he has suggested can bite. I should be grateful if he can tell us more about that. There seem to be all kinds of obstacles to be overcome before an order can be made:
"Before making an order the Minister shall consider any objections which may be duly made to the draft order",
and so on. There are all sorts of difficulties in the way of getting these orders through. I wonder how long all that will take.
We have been told that we may have three years, and that at the end of three years there will be a review. How many effective changes will be made in those three years? Perhaps your Lordships might be told that this evening. I should very much like to hear what effective measures my noble friend Lord Belstead can guarantee will be taken during this three-year period.
I should like to draw another important point to your Lordships' attention. There are available well compiled statistics about what goes on in the various fisheries. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produces a document called Fisheries Research Data Report. I have two with me. In my opinion, what is sad about them, and unsatisfactory, is that the 1983 figures only appeared in 1985. I do not think we can afford not to know what is going on for quite such a long period. All the information is there but it comes in too late. The 1984 report was also published in 1985. I wonder when we shall get the 1985 report. I hope we shall receive it very soon. Perhaps I may urge on the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's statistical department should give us this information as soon as it possibly can.
There is also the statistical bulletin which deals with fisheries in Scotland. The same applies there. The sooner we receive the information the better, because during these three years we shall all want to watch very closely the developments in the various fisheries.
10 p.m.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for too long, but in conclusion I remind you that a remark made earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was that we must think about the fishing industry in quite a different way. My great regret is that somehow or other I feel that Her Majesty's Government have been unimaginative and have not thought about the fishing industry in the United Kingdom as a whole in an imaginative way. It is a great national industry which could very easily be squandered, partly through lack of imagination, partly through lack of courage, and partly through meanness.

381
Really and truly, if we care so much about the wellbeing of the 600 or 700 netsmen—and we should care about their wellbeing, although if we think that they are overcropping we must deal with it, and deal with it soon—I see no reason under the sun why Her Majesty's Government should not make a trifling investment, trifling in comparison with the value of the whole, in paying compensation. My own company would net less. I have not the slightest doubt that anglers would agree to netting less.
Almost certainly there must be a general scaling down all over. Unless this is done we shall waste something very wonderful. The Americans are doing it and the Canadians are doing it. I put it to your Lordships that we cannot afford to dilly-dally. We must act quickly. I do not want to have to press my amendment, but I shall listen with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says. If I find it unsatisfactory, I shall feel obliged to press my amendment for immediate banning.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I rise at this late hour for the simple reason that I want briefly, quickly and sincerely to support in principle the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I do not want to appear discourteous but the night sleepers will not wait for half an hour. We have spent 29 minutes on this particular amendment. I give due notice that I have a date with a lady to take her to the station. We will catch the train, leaving here at twenty-minutes past ten.
Without any disrespect at all, I think feelings about this and the references to the Opposition in respect of this were quite haywire because we have supported generally the whole principle of a conservation policy for the whole country. I am quite sure we shall receive a good answer from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments, or whichever one is decided upon, or, if none is, whatever the Government produce as an alternative. I should also like to point out that the number of salmon injured by these drift-nets in Northumberland is very considerable. The figures that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has produced obviously take no account of the number which are injured and die on their way to their final destination, or reach it and die very soon afterwards and are no use either for angling or for breeding.
Secondly, I hope your Lordships will bear in mind that any fish caught on a rod and line is worth eight to 10 times as much, possibly rather more, than a fish caught in a net.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, my name is down to support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Perhaps I ought to declare an indirect interest in that these amendments, if accepted, will benefit the rod fishermen. I have an indirect interest in a boat on the Tay, so to that extent I am an interested party. We have heard the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, speaking and I go along with part of what he said; namely, the importance of information. The publication of information is of the greatest importance and it should come quickly whether it be
382
for the nets or whether it be for the rods. At the present time, there is too much secrecy and it is all delayed too long. To that extent I go along with him.
I am afraid that that is as far as I go with him because if your Lordships look at what is proposed in this amendment you will see that the outward aim is that there should be sufficient reduction in the net fishing in the waters of Northumbria and North Yorkshire so that the level will not be injurious to salmon in Scottish and English rivers. That is quite clear. Exactly what that figure may be depends upon what else is published, but I feel that what we have tried to do here is to give effect to what was greatly talked about in Committee. I have it in mind that the noble Lord Lord Belstead, said that there would be a review; but we could not, as it were, tie him down as to what would happen after the review.
We have had the advantage of conversations with him since then and we now try to explain the criteria on which we want the review to be judged. I think that this is the important thing. This, plus the fact that we want information about what is happening. Lastly, I would say that it is the third part of our amendment which is of the greatest importance: namely, that we are not asking for sacrifice or cutting down on the part of the drift netting just for the benefit of our nets in the estuaries, and so forth. We must somehow ensure that the people who benefit are the rods. That is the great thing, but, above all, let us see that we conserve our salmon.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend in his reply to this amendment which I support, to answer three questions? The first is this. Do the Government have the power, if necessary, to ban for periods of 10 years even totally drift netting without a further Act of Parliament? Secondly, will he confirm that I am correct in saying that they and the district salmon boards combined and the water authorities have the power already to increase the weekly closed time, to increase the slack period, which might be a way of dealing with subsection (3) of Amendment No. 80; namely, to make sure that the fish that are spared by the drift netters are not all caught by the estuary netters? Thirdly, while the review is to take place in three years—and I believe that he would probably accept that the machinery to take any action after the review might take a year or more; for there have to be inquiries and the like—can he confirm that if the situation warranted it, the Government together with the water authorities could act earlier than the three-year review if that proved absolutely necessary?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Lords whose names are to this particular amendment, to have the report of a review of the North East English Drift Net Fishery reported to Parliament; although I noticed from the amendment that the outcome of the review would, if noble Lords will forgive me for saying so, be prejudged before the review had started. Nonetheless, I appreciate the reasons, both national and international, which have prompted the desire to move this amendment. I also appreciate the reasons which prompted the desire of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne to speak to Amendment No. 125, an

383
amendment which in its turn would, of course, by making the drift net an illegal instrument, in fact end the drift net fishery immediately.
For their part, the Government, having listened to this debate and having listened to the very lengthy debate which your Lordships had on the Committee stage of the Bill, now wish to come forward with a proposal to proceed as follows. I am ready to repeat the commitment to undertake the review of the fishery in three years' time, but on this occasion I give your Lordships an offer that the review should be enshrined in the Bill—be put on the face of the Bill. Secondly, the Government propose that the Bill would also provide for the report of the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament—a move which, as I understood my noble friend, appealed to the noble Lord, Lord Home.
Several of your Lordships, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, amongst them, have referred to the need to have some criteria in the review. May I just say this in reply? Given that, for conservation reasons, it is necessary to ensure a sufficient escape of stock to spawn in the rivers of origin to which the salmon taken in the drift-net fishery are heading, and that there is a need also for proper management of all the salmon net fisheries which take these fish, the Government now propose that the review will also cover the operation of Scottish net fisheries in the districts from the River Tweed to the River Ugie. I believe from the speeches which have been made this evening that that is a proposal which your Lordships will welcome; and, as I have said, I hope that the commitment to report the results to Parliament will be welcomed also.
It would be the Government's intention to table an amendment to give effect to these decisions at Third Reading, and bearing in mind very much the desire to have the criterion of a conservation objective in the minds of those undertaking the review. Certainly we are looking very closely at the advice which my noble friend Lord Home gave and seeing whether we can include some words to that effect in the amendment which I am, on behalf of the Government, saying we intend to bring forward at Third Reading.
During the three-year period, if I may just say this to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, the stricter rules which I have spoken about, as did my noble friend Lord Gray at Second Reading, will also apply. It will be our hope that the measures for requiring the licensed fisherman to be present whenever his net is fished, to ban night fishing and to standardise the weekend close times, can be brought into effect before the very height of the 1986 fishing season, although that cannot be absolutely definite because there is always the question of the right of people to present memorials against these proposals. However, that would be our intention.
10.15 p.m.
I would add, if I may, that we intend also to bring in orders as soon as possible which will make it a requirement for licensed net fishermen in the Northumbrian and Yorkshire water authority areas to be present where their nets are fished, except, as your Lordships know, in cases of illness or injury. However, having considered this matter with the water authorities, at
384
their request we have also decided to extend this rule to all areas of England and Wales where there are in operation, as there are in Northumbria and Yorkshire, orders made under Section 26 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act limiting the number of licences for fishing with nets. It is our intention to table a necessary amendment to give effect to that at Third Reading.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Trenchard asked me three specific questions. The first was: do the Government have powers to ban totally for a ten-year period at a time the drift net fishery without an Act of Parliament? The 1975 Act provides certain safeguards for fishermen who are dependent on fishing for their livelihood and who hold a particular kind of commercial fishing licence when it is decided to reduce the total number of those fishing licences available or to phase out that kind of licence. If it were decided to phase out a particular form of fishing in accordance with those safeguards, which are set out quite clearly in Section 26(4) and (5) of the 1975 Act, then secondary legislation would suffice. Primary legislation would not be needed. Perhaps I may just remind your Lordships that the effect of Amendment No. 80 is for a phasing out with an ultimate objective and not an immediate ending. However, I must say absolutely openly to my noble friend in answer to his question, that if the safeguards in Section 26 were to be discarded immediately in a particular case—in other words, the North-East drift net fishery—then primary legislation would be required.
Secondly, my noble friend asked whether the water authorities have power for the weekly close times to be extended. I think the answer to that is definitely yes, because it would be done by by-laws. If by any chance I am wrong in saying that, I will write to my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked whether I would confirm that it would be possible for the Government to take action before the three-year review is over. I must come straight with that one. I have, not entirely to the taste of your Lordships, made it clear again and again that we really believe that in fairness to men who are fishing for their livelihoods—and not only for salmon—in an area of the United Kingdom which is of the highest unemployment, if there were to be any change in their fishery it should be done as a result of a full and fair review. That is what I am proposing to bring forward by an amendment on Third Reading, if your Lordships agree with my proposal this evening.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, decides what he wishes to do on his amendment, may I ask whether I heard my noble friend aright? Did he say that he was going to look for words to express the objective of a conservation policy for the United Kingdom eventually?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I did not say that. I must be careful that I say exactly what I intended to say. I said that in seeking for the right words for an amendment to fulfil the assurance I am giving now, it is the Government's intention to table an amendment to give effect to the setting out of a review of the kind that I have described, which would be reported to both

385
Houses of Parliament, and we believe it is highly desirable to have in that amendment a reference to the conservation objective. I am not sure whether we can achieve it by the words in the amendment we shall bring forward, but at any rate we will try.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, decides what he wants to do about this amendment, and with the leave of the House, may I say that I find what my noble friend said in relation to the powers of the Government to act at the end of the three-year review—and I will not go into the acting earlier question—to be a bit at variance with the consultation he so kindly gave us in this respect, where I think I had understood that it was possible, indeed, if the conservation really required it. Going through the steps, including the necessity for inquiries and the like, I understood that it was possible to agree on a ten-year ban, should the situation—and many of us have talked of the situation of salmon—prove that necessary. So I find his answer a bit at variance with what I thought we had been informed.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am very disappointed with this evening's debate because at the Committee stage I asked, if there was to be a review in three years' time, what would one ever expect to get out of it? After all, the life cycle of a salmon is seven years. Does one have to wait until there has been very material damage done to salmon stock before one does anything about it?
Here we are told that we are going to have a review in three years. We have got no further forward, the fisheries will continue for three years and at the end of that time I cannot see how we can have any further information than we have at the moment. We know already that there is some slight drop in the numbers, but that may be seasonal; it may just be from year to year; it may be due to many other causes. But the fact is that nearly 60,000 fish were caught last year and 77,000 in 1983. This cannot go on; it is not satisfactory from the conservation point of view.
In Scotland, recently my noble friend—and I thank him very much indeed for it—has introduced Statutory Instruments Nos. 59 and 60 which have completely banned drift netting. Here in England, you are licensing it. It seems to me absolutely incredible, with all this story about men's livelihoods. Their livelihood used to be based, as it was in Scotland, on traditional methods, not on drift netting; not on this lethal method of fishing, and not only killing them but, as my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said, maiming a large number of them. I suppose at least you are providing food for the enormous numbers of seals you are conserving off the Northumberland coast.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to speak just once more, and no more on this amendment, there are two things I think I ought to say. In reply to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I am afraid I could have given a better answer than I did. I now give it: the Government would have power to ban drift nets, using powers in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. I omitted to say that to my noble friend, and I think it is important that it should go on the record as a matter of fact.
386
May I just say to my noble friend Lord Burton that, although I admit I am no expert on the subject, I genuinely, on behalf of the Ministry in which I work, understand the conservation reasons which lead my noble friend and other noble Lords to feel very deeply about this set of amendments. But when my noble friend said that the proposals which I have brought forward this evening represent no advance, I would, with respect, differ from him.
The point surely is that salmon legislation comes about very rarely. At the previous stage of the Bill, on behalf of the Government I set out the tighter rules which the Government will have: the banning of night fishing, the standardising and lengthening of the weekend periods and the requirement for the licensee to be on board at all times when the net is fished, except for injury or illness; and also some reduction in the number of drift nets, but also an increase in the inshore nets. I said that this had been worked out with the fishing interests, that we had already received some quite robust replies from the fishing interests, that this would make a very great difference to their prospects for fishing and that we believed that these rules were tight and were strict.
As I understood it, your Lordships did not respond particularly generously to what the Government were saying, because your Lordships said to yourselves, "Yes, but if these rules do not have the effect which the Government believe they are going to have, what happens then? Salmon legislation only comes once in every several years". The advance which we are making this evening, if your Lordships will accept the offer I am making, is that at the end of the three-year period something will happen. There will be a review which will be put on the face of the Bill and, as a result of the review, a report will have to be given to both Houses of Parliament. It will then be for both Houses of Parliament, in the light of the needs of conservation, to decide what they do in their attitude to the Government of the day, so far as net fishing on the North-East coast is concerned, both in Scotland and in England.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before I decide what to do, may I ask the Minister one or two questions? First, I think if I heard him aright, he said that this amendment would lead to a phase-out of the North-East drift net fishery. That is not my understanding, unless the review and the scientific advice was to the effect that the level which was not injurious to salmon in Scottish and English rivers was zero. Otherwise it would not and it is deliberately worded not to require anything as drastic as that.
As I understand it, the Government are, in effect, prepared to accept the first subsection of our amendment, but with a rather vague commitment on conservation in some form of words which we have not yet seen. They are prepared, in effect, to accept the third subsection and I welcome that very much. I also must say that I thank the Minister for what he said and I welcome the other measures he has announced, such as the extension of the review to cover the nets off the Scottish rivers. I think it also ought to apply to nets off rivers in North-East England, because those are also fish which are going through that fishery.

387
But the Minister made no mention of NASCO and I should like to ask him: what about the part of our amendment which says that the Minister should take into account the views of NASCO in conducting a review? There is also no recognition, so far as I can see, that the fishery is currently taking far too much and therefore nothing is said about a reduction. This leads me to ask: what is the review for? What are the terms of reference going to be? What is its objective? This is what we tried to spell out—perhaps we worded it badly—in this amendment. If the Minister could very kindly comment on that, it would help me very much in making up my mind.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this moment. My noble friend has already spoken three times and this is the Report stage of the Bill. The noble Lord who moved his amendment, and then in winding up asked a great many further questions of my noble friend, simply cannot expect an answer tonight. There is a further stage of the Bill in this House when we have the Third Reading, and it would be an abuse of the House if my noble friend were to participate again. I hope that the noble Lord will understand the situation.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in the circumstances I think what I should ask is that the Government should perhaps write to me and to the other sponsors of this amendment and answer the questions that I have put, which are, with respect, fundamental to this question. Then, subject to the replies I get, I propose to move an amendment at Third Reading if I judge it necessary. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Removal of differential penalties under Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 25, line 28, leave out ("(a) Summarily … Three months or the") and insert—
("(a) If the instrument in question, Level4 on the standard or each of the instruments in scale. question, is a rod and line, summarily
(b) In any other case—
(i) summarily … … … three months or the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment restores the position under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 whereby persons charged with the simple offence of angling without a licence may only be tried summarily. While the Government believe it is right to remove the present distinction under the 1975 Act between offenders acting together and those acting alone, which is the purpose of Clause 28, we accepted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, at Committee stage, that it is highly desirable not to make simple angling offences indictable. I fully accept the inconvenience which that would cause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 28, page 25, line 34, insert the following new Clause—
("Drought
. Where a water authority make an application pursuant to section 1 or 2 of the Drought Act 1976 relating to a river then that authority may apply to the Minister for an order temporarily to prohibit or limit fishing by net for salmon in the river or estuary of the river to which the Drought Act relates:
Provided that no order under this Act shall come into operation until the coming into operation of an order pursuant to the Drought Act 1976.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in briefly moving and being prepared to withdraw this amendment, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to write to me in relation to a new suggestion here which comes from water authority sources. Water authorities in the South West of England and in Wales still feel very strongly that they should have powers to ban netting in very low water. At the moment they apply from time to time under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Drought Act 1976 for authority for a drought to be declared and for permission for them to extract water usually in excess of that which they are normally able to extract, or to stop giving compenstion water or other features of that kind. So there is a definition of drought—admittedly fairly extreme—which already exists.
They suggest that this should be used with a view to bringing in the limitation or banning of netting and the limitation of fishing by rod and line, which I omitted in tabling this amendment. The reason I did that is, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said at the Committee stage, that rod fishing in very low water is not easy at all; banning certain methods of it may be a conservation measure but very few fish are caught; and this would mean people who had gone on their holiday for a week's fishing suddenly finding that they were not allowed to fish even in hopeless conditions when they would not catch anything, which is not perhaps a very realistic situation. Nevertheless I ask my noble friend to consider this as a fallback. I shall not press it tonight because it is a new line on a subject which we have debated many times, but perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall indeed write to my noble friend. I think I ought just to say ahead of a letter that, following the very exceptional drought of 1976 and indeed the dry summer of 1984, officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asked water authorities for evidence of damage to stocks of fish. I have to say that the generally given scientific assessment was that the 1976 drought did no long-term damage to stocks. I shall certainly write to my noble friend. I am concerned that the amendment refers only to nets; but, on the other hand, I have heard the reservations which were voiced by my noble friend Lord Home about any restrictions which would be placed on rods.
The review of drought legislation is being conducted in full consultation with the water authorities and the comments of other interested parties would be welcome. Any clear evidence of drought conditions affecting fish stocks on any river would contribute to the consideration of the problem. But I will go along the line that my noble friend has suggested and will put this on paper in a letter.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 84:
[Printed earlier: col. 301.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 84):
Page 26, line 17, at end insert—
(""inland waters" has the same meaning as in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951;").
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 26, line 18, after ("means") insert (", subject to subsection (3) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 87.
Amendment No. 87: Page 26, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In this Act, "proprietor" includes not more than one person authorised by—

(a) in the case of a fishery in which more than one person has a pro indiviso share, all such persons; or

(b) in the case of a fishery in which the rights to that fishery are shared by more than one person in any other way, all such persons

but in neither case does it include, except by virtue of this subsection, a person whose right to that fishery is so shared.").
In replying at Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, about the question of whether time-sharers and part-owners of salmon fisheries are proprietors in an individual sense so far as the procedures for formation of and election to district boards are concerned, I said that it was not the intention that they should he. I said also that I thought that the definition of proprietor in the Bill would exclude them.
I remain of the opinion that the various relevant provisions have that effect, but the position is complex and I have decided to put the matter beyond doubt by moving the amendments. They make it clear that time-sharers and part-owners are precluded from acting in the same way as individual proprietors to set up district boards or vote in district board elections. They will nevertheless be able to participate in those matters by authorising a representative to act for all of them.
An impossibly unwieldy situation would be created if a large number of, for example, time-sharing proprietors could claim individual participation in board activities. The amendments make it clear that they cannot, although group representation is provided for. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 26, line 34, leave out ("and") and insert—
(" "tenant netsman" means a person in possession of a right, under a lease or sub-lease, of fishing for salmon with nets; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a consequence of Amendment No. 99, which changes
390
the provision regarding co-option of representatives of tenant netsmen to district boards. It inserts in the interpretation clause of the Bill the same description of tenant netsmen as that which is contained in paragraph 4(5)(b) of Schedule 2 but as a description of the representative of tenant netsmen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 87:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions as respects the making of designation orders]:
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("persons") and insert ("such proprietors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to put it beyond doubt that the only persons who may apply for designation orders are a district board or, if there is no board, two proprietors of salmon fishing in the district, or any combination of such boards or sets of proprietors.
The ambiguity arising from the use of the word "person" in the present paragraph 1(c) was highlighted by the amendment tabled for Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who sought to have the persons limited to anglers. I explained in Committee that the intention was that "persons" in this context meant proprietors only and that I would move an appropriate amendment at Report stage. This is that amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Election and co-option of members of district salmon fishery boards]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 32, line 3, leave out ("one") and insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss Amendments Nos. 94, 99, 102 and 110 at the same time.
Amendment No. 94: Page 32, leave out lines 13 to 36.
Amendment No. 99: Page 32, line 40, at end insert—
("CO-OPTEES
.—(1) In the co-opting of representatives of salmon anglers and of tenant netsmen under Part II below, the number of representatives of salmon anglers shall equal the number of representatives of tenant netsmen but that number shall be no more than three and shall not exceed—

(a) the number of proprietors in the district qualified as upper proprietors; or

(b) the number of proprietors in the district qualified as lower proprietors,

whichever is the smaller number of qualified proprietors.
(2) A person who is both an upper and a lower proprietor by virtue of section 10(5) of this Act shall be counted in each capacity for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.
(3) A representative of salmon anglers shall be a person whom the board consider to be representative of persons angling for salmon in the district but who is not himself an upper proprietor in that district.
(4) Before co-opting a person as a representative of salmon anglers, the board shall consult such organisations representing

391
salmon anglers in the district as they think fit; but this requirement shall not apply to the filling of a vacancy in accordance with section 17(5) of this Act.
(5) A representative of tenant netsmen shall be—

(a) a tenant netsman in the district who is not a lower proprietor in that district;

(b) a tenant netsman in the district who is a lower proprietor in that district if—

(i) there are insufficient tenant netsmen who are qualified or willing to be co-opted and who are not also lower proprietors in that district; and

(ii) he has not been elected to the board of that district as a representative of lower proprietors or as chairman; or

(c) a lower proprietor in the district who is not a tenant netsman in that district if—

(i) there are insufficient tenant netsmen qualified or willing to be co-opted, whether or not they are also lower proprietors in that district; and

(ii) he has not been elected to the board of that district as a representative of lower proprietors or as chairman.

but a person shall not be disqualified under this sub-paragraph solely because he is an upper proprietor in that district or has been elected to the board of that district as a representative of upper proprietors.").
Amendment No. 102: Page 33, line 9, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Schedule").
Amendment No. 110: Page 33, line 21, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("willing").
I have, as I said I would at Committee, looked carefully at Schedule 2 with a view to ensuring that we provide so far as possible for boards which have proper regard for the interests of upper and lower proprietors and anglers and tenant netsmen. This has proved to be difficult but I hope that the amendments now under discussion have achieved the right balance. It may help if I explain the intention with regard to balance which these amendments to Schedule 2 seek to achieve.
We are providing for boards which will normally consist of an elected chairman, three elected representatives of upper proprietors, three of lower proprietors, three co-opted representatives of anglers and three of tenant netsmen; 13 in all. We must, however, take account of the situation where there are not enough people in any of these categories available or willing to participate in the board. This could have a disastrous effect on the balance of the board as a whole and result in unfair advantages to one or other group.
The intention of paragraph 4(2) as it stands is to provide that where there are not enough proprietors in either category eligible for election there should still be a balance. I am proposing a minor drafting amendment in this paragraph which I think is of assistance in clarifying this intention.
To maintain an optimum balance in all circumstances in each category is a somewhat more complex matter. If a district consists of two lower proprietors, three upper proprietors, two tenant netsmen and many anglers. It might be possible to co-opt only one tenant netsman and one angler. If the chairman elected was a lower proprietor, without paragraph 4(3), the elected members of the board would consist of the chairman, one upper proprietor and one lower proprietor. Paragraph 4(3), however, allows the lower proprietor who is elected as chairman also to be elected as a member. This in turn means that two upper proprietors may also be elected and two anglers and two tenant netsmen may be co-opted.
Another district might contain many upper proprietors, many anglers, five lower proprietors, who are not also tenant netsmen, one lower proprietor who
392
is also a tenant netsman and one tenant netsman who is not also a lower proprietor. The arrangements which are being made will enable a full board to be constituted by allowing for the co-option of a lower proprietor as the third representative of tenant netsmen.
I am conscious that, especially to an outsider, the co-option proposals may appear complex. They are, however, an integral part of the arrangements we are introducing to make the composition of district boards more democratic. I think that the amendments I am now moving will together represent a major improvement in the provisions of the Bill relating to co-opted members. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the discussions at Committee from which they have evolved. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, Amendment No. 94 also having been spoken to, I have to say that if Amendment No. 94 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos.95, 96, 97 or 98.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 94:
[Printed above].
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I cannot now call Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97 and 98.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 99:
[Printed above].
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved].
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 102:
[Printed above].
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 109 not moved].
10.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 110:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved].
Schedule 3 [Transitional district boards]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 33, leave out ("this") and insert ("section 13 of this").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I can perhaps take with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118.
Amendment No. 114: Page 34, line 3, leave out ("this") and insert ("section 13 of this").
Amendment No. 115: Page 34, line 8, leave out ("this") and insert ("section 13 of this").
Amendment No. 116: Page 34, line 13, leave out ("this") and insert ("section 13 of this").
Amendment No. 117: Page 34, line 15, leave out ("this") and insert ("section 13 of this").

393
Amendment No. 118: Page 34, line 24, leave out ("this") and insert ("section 13 of this").
These amendments are all consequential on the change in the commencement provisions made at Committee stage. They should perhaps have been discussed together with the group of amendments to which I spoke on Amendment No. 3. They are made on exactly the same basis. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 114 to 118 en bloc.
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 35, line 16, at end insert (", and the word "wilfully" wherever it occurs,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite a simple amendment. In Section 19 of the 1868 Act the word "wilfully" was inserted before various heinous crimes. This has apparently enabled a number of people to get off that crime by saying that they were not doing it wilfully. The amendment suggests that the word "wilfully" should be removed where necessary. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I have had personal experience of the need of it.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it would be wrong to suggest that this amendment is acceptable. If it were made, a person who unintentionally committed any of the offences created in Section 19 of the 1868 Act could be found guilty by the court and convicted. He might simply be wading through a river disturbing spawning beds in the process without any intention of doing so, and he would still he guilty. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this would be quite wrong. In any event, the amendment is technically defective since it is drafted so as to affect Section 18 of the 1868 Act rather than Section 19. I am afraid therefore that I cannot accept it.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I suppose that I must withdraw the amendment. I would, however, ask my noble friend to see whether we cannot substitute something else because people do escape when they are clearly committing a crime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 35, line 19, after ("purpose"") insert "in the second place where they occur").
The noble Lord says: My Lords, this is a simple drafting amendment. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it. The words "for the purpose" occur twice in Section 19 of the Act. To make sense of paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 it is necessary to stipulate
394
that it is the words from "for the purpose" where secondly occurring to the words "purpose, or" that should be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, at this late hour I shall bring joy to my noble friend's heart. This amendment corrects a mistake in the drafting of paragraph 3 of the schedule, and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 35, line 28, at beginning insert—
("( ) In Section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) Scotland Act 1951 (prohibition of poaching) for the words "one mile" there shall be substituted the words "three miles" and for the words "low water mark" there shall be substituted the words "the base line referred to in section 1(1) of the Fishery Limits Act 1976.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment should probably have been moved as two separate amendments. What is suggested in the first part is that the limit in Section 1 of the 1951 Act should coincide with the limit of jurisdiction of a district salmon fishery board in this Bill. That seems to be sensible.
The second half concerns "the base line referred to" which we discussed under Amendment 1. I think therefore that, as it stands at the moment, the amendment would not be sound. However, if we substituted the last part about "the base line"; for "mean low water springs" at Third Reading, I hope that the amendment might then be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, on the face of it, this is a reasonable and apparently straightforward amendment. It does, however, raise some interesting points. First, the two distances—three miles for the district boundary, one mile for the offence of fishing for salmon without permission—are set out for quite different purposes. There is no underlying reason why they should be the same. Secondly, the "one mile" of Section 1 of the 1951 Act derives from a provision made in the 1840s when fishing for salmon beyond one mile was not envisaged or thought possible. We now know differently. But provision has been made to prohibit the use in Scotland of those methods which could be used in the area not covered by the 1951 Act prohibition.
There is therefore no special need for creating a fishing without permission offence between the one-mile and three-mile limits. All fishing there is covered by existing prohibitions. Indeed, it could be argued that extending the fishing without permission offence implied that there was a means of exercising a private right of salmon fishing beyond one mile. This would not be a desirable implication without at the very least a great deal of further discussion. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend on this explanation will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert—
(" . In section 19(1) of that act after the words "expressly made" there shall be added the words "or of an offence against Section 15 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868".
. In Section 19(2) of that act after the words "of this Act" there shall be added "or of an offence under Section 15 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late stage I beg leave formally to move the amendment. I hope that my noble friend can tell me what he thinks of it.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for these suggestions although I should like to consider further what is proposed and to look carefully at the drafting of the necessary amendments. I can assure the noble Lord that I am sympathetic to the purpose of these proposals. On that assurance perhaps the noble Lord would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I thought my noble friend might be sympathetic. I have much pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved Amendment No. 125:
[Printed earlier: col. 377.]
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said I appreciate that the noble Lord certainly is doing his best, but I find his best disappointing. I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me over these points. Could he arrange for the salmon fishery research data report to be published in the following year? The next three years will be important, so we shall need to know what is going on in each year. I should like to have an undertaking from the noble Lord about that. I consider that the same thing should apply to the statistical bulletin for Scotland.
As regards the review, I am not clear—I may have missed the point—whether it is the intention that the review should cover the whole of the United Kingdom. This is what is required. If we are to have a national policy—and this matter has been raised several times by many noble Lords—I cannot see that a review that is not a review of the whole of the national fishery would be much good. Is there any hope that the noble Lord can give me an affirmative answer to that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I realise that the research data during the review will be of considerable importance, and I certainly will draw to the attention of both my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of getting the data out as quickly as possible during the period of the review. I do not think I can go further than that, but I assure my noble friend that I will use my best endeavours in that way.
So far as the whole of the United Kingdom is concerned, in explaining the scope of the review I explained exactly the areas of the North East where we felt we could do the review. So far as England and
396
Wales as a whole are concerned, I made clear that we are extending orders for requiring the licensees to be on board in other parts around the coast, but when I come forward with an amendment at Third Reading on behalf of the Government the proposal for the review in the amendment will be for the North East coast, on both sides of the Border, in the way I have proposed.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the noble Lord to give serious consideration to whether this review should not cover the whole of the United Kingdom? We cannot pay lip service to a national policy if we are not going to review the whole problem.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government have had put to them in strong terms, to which we are now responding, the need to protect the fish stocks which would be swimming into the great rivers of the East coast of Scotland as they pass through the area fished by the North East drift net fishery. We have not had similar complaints about other parts around the country. It is for that reason that the proposal that I make to the House for an amendment at Third Reading would be confined to the North East coast.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find this unsatisfactory and disappointing. I hoped that Her Majesty's Government would try to look at the salmon fishing industry in the round. This does not appear to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government. At this late hour I do not think that I can subject your Lordships to a Division, but I should like to put on record my grave disappointment and anxiety that Her Majesty's Government have not considered the fishery industry as a whole for the whole of the United Kingdom. Having said that, reluctantly I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 36, line 21, at end insert—
("Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
In Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
in column 1, "The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868"
in column 1, "The Salmon & Fresh Water Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951";
in column 2, "Two analysts authorised by the Secretary of State";
in column 3. "The type and classification of any fish or part thereof identified in the certificate by reference to a label or otherwise and, if it can be determined its age, manner of death (including name of poison if applicable) and whether it was a wild or farmed fish".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in various cases now the courts accept a written statement of evidence. In this case, where there is not likely to be any controversy, it seems a great waste of time for an analyst, who could be doing more important work, to be sitting for not only hours but maybe for days in a court waiting to be called. The suggestion here is that, provided two analysts sign the statement—and they are analysts who should be authorised by the Secretary of State—this evidence should be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should certainly not wish to rule out the inclusion of a provison to this effect in the Bill, but I am concerned that the noble Lord's amendment may not be the right way to go about it. The best I can say is that I assure the noble Lord that I am entirely in sympathy with what he proposes. It is obviously desirable if scientific matters which are not in dispute can be dealt with in this way and could be advantageous in terms of time and costs to both scientists and the courts. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment to allow time to consider how the intention can best be achieved and to look carefully at the provisons to which this proposal should be applied. Perhaps my noble friend will withdraw his amendment on that assurance.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I raised this subject in Committee. This Bill has been rushed through this House and it has given us very little time—
Viscount Davidson: Rushed, my Lords?
Lord Burton: My Lords, we have had a bare minimum of a fortnight between each stage which has given very little time to have discussions on technical matters.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Burton: Indeed, my Lords, now on the last amendment the Minister has not had time himself to look at a method which might save expenditure. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.