Salmon Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 13 February 1986 vol 471 cc353-97

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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: "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 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 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 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 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 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 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) . 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) in the case of a fishery in which more than one person has a pro indiviso share, all such persons; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the number of proprietors in the district qualified as upper proprietors; or
2. (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 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—

1. (a) a tenant netsman in the district who is not a lower proprietor in that district;
2. (b) a tenant netsman in the district who is a lower proprietor in that district if—
1. (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
2. (ii) he has not been elected to the board of that district as a representative of lower proprietors or as chairman; or
3. (c) a lower proprietor in the district who is not a tenant netsman in that district if—
1. (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
2. (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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 99: [Printed above].

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved].

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 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 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"). 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.