Lords Sitting of 28 January 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

NHS: Lottery Proposal
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the introduction of a national lottery specifically to help finance worthy areas of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government have no plans to legislate for a national lottery to raise additional funds for the health service or indeed for any other good cause.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that the public, while they hate paying their taxes, contribute freely millions of pounds to good causes through such things as Band Aid and Telethon? They appear to enjoy doing that instead of contributing money to the pools or to bingo. While there are medical causes which are desperate for, and greatly in need of, funds in order to alleviate suffering, could not these funds very well be contributed by a national lottery?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there was a Royal Commission in 1978 which concluded that it would be inappropriate to use a national lottery to help fund services such as the National Health Service which have a statutory source of funding. Most speakers during the debate on the report were firmly against the idea of a national lottery because of the difficulties of control, bureaucracy, and especially because it would take money away from local voluntary effort.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in fact the British people love a gamble? They really love a gamble. I wonder whether any lessons have ever been learned from the Southern Irish, who run a sweepstake and, so far as I know, utterly and completely finance their entire hospital service out of the resulting funds? Could we not learn something from that? Does the noble Baroness understand that some of us are not impressed by what a Royal Commission says or does? It is usually a waste of time anyway.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should be the last person not to realise that people like gambling. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that local authorities and charitable bodies are allowed to raise funds through lotteries, and health authorities can benefit
538
from these. They have not, however, been largely successful. The take-up is low because of high administrative costs and the poor yield.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Minister aware that my old friends in Her Majesty's Treasury so passionately dislike the raising of funds by government for special purposes that they can be relied upon to crush the admirable suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's remark with interest.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in a Written Question a year ago it was made clear by my noble friend Lord Elton that some 35 countries, including many of the Commonwealth countries and almost every country in Western Europe, benefit from national lotteries, and that they particularly benefit the health services? What makes successive Governments shut their minds to channelling funds? Instead of being compulsorily taxed, we should give voluntarily to those things which we want to give to. Surely the health service is a deserving charity, and a national lottery for that purpose would be a great success in this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, different social and cultural factors come into play in other countries which have national lotteries. Other countries treat these matters differently. For instance, they do not have any pools. The Government are not persuaded that there are sufficient net benefits to be gained from introducing legislation in this country. I should also like to point out to my noble friend that it has not been established that in other countries the benefits from national lotteries are turned over to the health services.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while welcoming the answers which have been given by the noble Baroness—and I hope especially denying that the National Health Service is a charity when it is in fact a national service paid for by the people—would not the noble Baroness accept that, contrary to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, a national lottery would encourage a cost-cutting Chancellor to rely increasingly upon private funds rather than financing the National Health Service in the way in which both she and we believe?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think I prefer to ignore the latter part of the noble Lord's question. Even if the whole estimated yield from a national lottery, which is estimated at under £50 million a year, were devoted to the National Health Service it would still be less than one-half of 1 per cent. of the cost of running the service. Furthermore, there would be considerable problems in allocating what is, in this field, a comparatively small sum to provide any worthwhile addition to normal funding, and with no guarantee of a steady income.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that legislation for a national lottery could not really be confined to one for this particular limited purpose? Is she aware that, in the other

539
countries we have heard about where there are national lotteries, it is almost invariably the practice to go in for a great deal of razzmatazz to promote the lotteries? Could we not bear to be without such a prospect when we already have more opportunities for gambling than pretty well any other country in the world?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a great many questions. I would add to what I have already said that there would be a considerable problem in allocating any money to provide a worthwhile addition to normal funding and that the major difficulty would be fluctuations year by year in the amounts raised, which would cause great problems for facilities run from lottery money.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that the wastage from a national lottery was considerable in respect of the amount gained compared with the amount spent—sometimes, I have been told, not altogether honourably.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that her objections apply equally well to the system of premium bonds which has been in operation since the Macmillan Government?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Answer!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, premium bonds are premium bonds and a national lottery is a national lottery.
Lord Ennals: Absolutely right, my Lords; a fine answer!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that considerable sums of money are already being raised by voluntary effort to provide essential equipment in hospitals through the friends' organisations? The unfortunate fact is that we are losing a considerable amount of income because we are not allowed to sell tobacco. In my area we shall lose £3,000 a year and have to find other means of gambling and so on to raise the money. Is she further aware that the biggest gamble in the health service at the moment is trying to get an operation?
Baroness Trumpington: That is a joke in very poor taste, my Lords.
I agree with the facts raised by the noble Lord that voluntary agencies are raising superb sums of money and have great involvement in the National Health Service. The fear that a lottery would discourage them from doing this is one of the reasons which make the Government think the way they do. One final word on Government policy on gambling: our general line is to ensure that there is a satisfactory framework for gambling where it occurs but not otherwise to encourage it.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, my noble friend has said that premium bonds are premium bonds and a national lottery is a national lottery. What, please, is the difference?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall talk to my noble friend afterwards!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that she was quite correct when she said that there are local functions and authorities who endeavour to help their local aspect of the National Health Service? Does she agree that Britain's National Health Service is probably the most civilised piece of legislation placed on the statute book of this country, or of any other, and that we should not dream of debasing it in any way, any more than we should try to maintain the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or the British Army by forms of voluntary subscription such as that indicated in the original Question?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord. They are a little wide of the original Question.

Drugs: NHS Approved List
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the committee appointed to review the approved drug list in the National Health Service has recommended any amendments or additions to the list.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following advice from the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs, 11 drugs have been added to those available on National Health Service prescription. These and other, minor amendments were introduced in amending regulations which came into effect on 1st December 1985—and are available in the Library.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I should like to ask her two supplementary questions. Is it the Government's intention to set up long-term arrangements for the review of the drug list? Secondly, does an appeal mechanism exist?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the present committee is set up with members having two-year contracts and the chairman has an unending appointment as matters stand. It is the intention of the committee to be in existence for as long as is needed. Will the noble Lord please repeat his second question?
Lord Hunter of Newington: Does an appeal procedure exist, my Lords?
Baroness Trumpington: That was it, my Lords. The Government offered an appeal mechanism, which the BMA turned down. If the BMA changes its mind the Government will consider the situation again.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned 11 additions which have been approved. Can she say how many applications were made? Can she also tell us how the balance between generic substances and branded drugs is working out under the new system?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the latter question, but the committee has looked into and rejected the inclusion of 26 products.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what have been the savings so far to the National Health Service as a result of the limited list? Can the Minister say whether the Government have patched up their rather damaging dogfight with the pharmaceutical industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is still very early yet to establish precise figures on savings. On the information available to us at present we are on target to achieve the expected £75 million. With regard to pharmacies, many drugs on the non-prescribable list may still be sold over the counter or against private prescriptions. However, we accept that there might be a problem in dead stock and are discussing the question with the profession's negotiators.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many complaints have been received by the DHSS against the limited drugs list from patients? Would it not have been better to consult general practitioners actually in the field before the list was drawn up?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, over 2,000 complaints were received. With regard to the discussion between doctors, in hindsight it could have been better handled and it will be better handled in the future.

Transport Act 1982: Fixed Penalty Provisions
2.51 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing Section 51 of the Transport Act 1982 regarding Part III (fixed penalties) of that Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in November, it is our intention to implement Part III of the Act on 1st October 1986. Guidance to chief officers of police about its operation has been issued in Home Office circulars, with the aim, so far as possible, of working towards uniformity.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate how much I recognise what he has just said, that progress apparently has been made? Does he recall that I have raised this matter on previous
542
occasions contending that it is the Secretary of State who has to give advice to chief officers? In correspondence with the Ministers at the Home Office, I have been told that they were awaiting comments from the traffic committee of the association of chief officers. Has the noble Lord also seen the 1984 booklet on motoring offences, which shows no improvement at all? Can I have the Minister's assurance that the guidance notes which are to be issued will ensure that the shocking disparities between one area and another will be removed in future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's interest in this point. I can say that, while the guidance given should assist uniformity of application, the fixed penalty is one of several procedures available to the police to deal with relevant breaches of the law, and the decision as to which course of action to take in particular circumstances is a matter for the chief officer of police. Of course, discussions continue in various fora about this, but I note the noble Lord's concern.

Water Charges
2.53 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to link water charges to consumption rather than to the rateable value of a property.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have welcomed the report of the Joint Study Group under the chairmanship of Mr. Watts, chairman of the Thames Water Authority, which recommends extensive trials of domestic water metering. We shall legislate at the earliest suitable opportunity and take other steps needed to make progress possible.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that helpful reply, will he agree that the question of efficiency in charging for water services depends on the meter? Also, can he say whether the development and design of water meters lead the Government to believe that a new efficiency may be promoted in this field?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, for all practical purposes the answer to my noble friend's second supplementary question is, yes. It is true, however, that there is an under-registration at very low flow rates but this is of no practical significance because of the small amounts of water involved. In the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I think he presupposes that we shall end up with compulsory metering, but this is by no means certain.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most water authorities now give the option to domestic consumers to change from the rateable basis to a meter, but scarcely anyone has taken it up because it does not appear to be advantageous? Will my noble friend explain how he is going to make it attractive?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is, as is usual on this subject, absolutely right. I can confirm that since 1981, in the English water authorities' areas, only one in 1,000 customers has thought the option worthwhile. Nevertheless, it would appear at this moment, before we have any compulsory trials, to be a fair way of charging everybody for the amount of water used. The point that my noble friend makes will of course have to be included in such consultations as we conduct.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if metering becomes the norm, families with children will be the hardest hit and, if this is coupled with a poll tax, then it will be found that families with a number of children will be very hard hit indeed? Will the Government make sure that, if they do introduce compulsory metering for whatever reason, there will be some protection for families with children?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already made the point that compulsory metering, even if this statutory experiment is a success, is by no means certain. It is inevitable that it will depend on the cost-effectiveness in particular areas for particular households or groups of households and water authorities will have to decide on what arrangements are appropriate for their own consumers in their own particular areas or regions. Of course, the consumer consultative committees of water authorities will be very much involved in the discussions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information as to whether the take-up is influenced by the capital charges for putting in the meter, which some people think quite considerable, and whether any experimentation in lower capital charges would lead to much wider introduction of the metering service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I rather think it is one of the situations like that of micro-computers: at the moment there is so little take-up. The figures I gave my noble friend Lord Nugent illustrate this. The charges are on average about £100 a meter. However, the more meters are introduced, obviously the lower the individual charge will become.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am one of those who have gone over to water metering. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that when the water authorities increase the charges to those who have gone over to metering they should give a full explanation for that. So far as I am concerned, I have received no explanation at all and I feel I may not have gained anything.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very interested in the noble Lord's point. I find it difficult to imagine that the charges per se have been increased. Perhaps the old charge under the system based on the rateable value and the new charge based on the metered cost show some discrepency. However, if the noble Lord will give me details, I shall be perfectly happy to take up the matter.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement, which is to be made in another place, on paying for local government.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Salmon Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Australia Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Discharge of oil from vessels into certain United Kingdom waters]:
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("for") to ("is") in line 12 and insert ("the time being").
The noble Lord said: This is a very short and simple amendment, basically a drafting one, but I think it might be advisable to point out that it gives the additional advantage, as well as drafting clarity, of a certain amount of flexibility in the future. The new wording makes that possible and, without in any way altering the essence of the Bill, what it is intending to do and the methods that it is adopting will make it more likely that the future will present no difficulties at all. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: The Government welcome this amendment, which as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said, provides a useful clarification of the definition of "baseline" for the purposes of the Bill. If the 1964 order is altered subsequent to the Bill becoming law, it will not be clear which baseline is being referred to in the Bill: the baseline of the 1964 order, as amended in 1979, or the new baseline. The

545
better view is that it would be the old baseline. The amendment makes it clear that it will be the baselines in force at the time that are meant.
This amendment does not affect any future decision as to the possible extension of territorial waters, as the baseline is quite different from the outer boundary. The Government support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, after ("is") insert ("of a kind or is made in circumstances").
The noble Lord said: I do not think that I need detain your Lordships with any explanation of this amendment, which is a purely drafting one. I beg to move.
Viscount Davidson: I rise again briefly on behalf of the Government to welcome this amendment and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on the clarity of his exposition.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Salmon fishery districts]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("After") to ("as") and insert ("consulting such persons").
The noble Lord said: I did not propose to speak for very long on this, but I think that I had better expand quite a bit, as far as I possibly can, while the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is here, as are a few other people who no doubt could say a word or two about salmon.
I hope that we are sending out some people to look for the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who is in charge of the Bill. It may well be that he has gone up to Scotland, because I gather that we are going to have a Statement later on about (what is it?) paying for local government—a Green Paper. And that Green Paper includes Scotland as well as England and Wales, strangely enough. Indeed, it is so important that they put off a committee of the House of Commons that was due to meet this afternoon to allow the junior Minister to go away up to Scotland to deal with a press
546
conference. I am fascinated as to who is going to deal with that in this Chamber. Of course it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has gone away up to bring him back and to take over that important thing himself. This is the Burns season, or it is just over, and he may well still be recovering from toasting the immortal memory of Robbie Burns.
If I come eventually to the first amendment, it is a helpful amendment (as all my amendments usually are) and such are the complexities of Clause 1 that I was tempted to put down about six amendments, leaving out each single piece, one after the other, to allow the Government to explain to us simple people exactly what the whole thing means. He comes! I see that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is now here. Now we can get down to the amendment.
The amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("After") to ("as") and insert ("consulting such persons").
At the moment it reads:
"After such consultation as he thinks fit, the Secretary of State may …"
I suggest that it would be far better put: "After consulting such persons as he considers appropriate, the Secretary of State may". It is purely drafting, but it is in the interests of uniformity, as noble Lords will see if they will cast their eyes on to the next page and to lines 35 and 36, which read:
"The Secretary of State shall have power, after consulting such persons as he considers appropriate, to make regulations".
Why the change in the formula? There is no real point in it. So, being helpful to the Government, I thought that we should make it the same. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has been having long consultations with his officials, whoever they may be, about the merits of this particular amendment, and I am sure that he has come to the conclusion that the Government should accept it. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): I am not convinced that the proposed amendment will have any practical effect. The clause as it stands will enable my right honourable friend to consult as widely or as narrowly as he sees fit in any particular case. However, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said, and since he is so anxious to be of help to the Government and since I am always willing to reciprocate in such actions of goodwill, I am prepared to accept his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I must give fulsome thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for that. There must be something wrong with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: I have to rise to lodge an objection to this. This has caused some confusion, I gather, to my noble friends; but it does tie up with Amendment No. 1B. What I have put down is the suggestion that Clause 1 and Clause 2 should be deleted and replaced.
Amendment No. 1B, on Clause 2, reads:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall have power not later than three years after this Act has come into force and after consulting

547
such persons as he considers appropriate to review and make regulations with regard to the formation and constitution of salmon fishery districts to cover the whole of Scotland.").
I know there is a good deal of concern in Scotland that Clauses 1 and 2 are not really capable of being re-drafted or amended, and in many ways they are rather deficient. The Bill as drafted, particularly in these clauses, leaves large areas of Scotland not covered by salmon boards or districts, and the Hunter Committee, quite rightly, laid down as one of its keystones that the whole of Scotland should be covered. Even if some of us feel that the boards proposed by Lord Hunter were rather inadequate in number—we think there should be a few more—the current establishment means that the bigger and more productive areas such as the Tweed, the Tay, the Dee, the Don, the Spey and so on, can support comparatively efficient fishery protection. The smaller rivers, however, cannot do so and even large catchment areas such as the Ness district board are not efficient owing to the lack of finance in comparison to the area covered. Even the river Beauly which flows into the same firth as the river Ness has no board at all and they are benefiting from the Ness board and from other boards further down. It is really quite wrong that they should not have protection or be properly covered.
If one looks at the West Coast and the islands, there are few boards there to be found at all. It is fundamental to good fishery protection that all salmon rivers must be covered, and covered efficiently. No doubt my noble friend will reply that the Bill gives powers for amalgamation and for improvement of the present unsatisfactory position; but he will be merely perpetuating the situation where those who are fortunate enough to have efficient boards will want to retain them, and, with the proposed membership of the new districts, very few of the neighbouring rivers will want to join forces as this would deplete the membership of the river currently covered or else it would mean that the new neighbour joining would have no representation.
My amendment is intended to leave the current position in existence for up to three years, during which time an attempt can be made, it is hoped with general agreement, to reorganise fishery control in Scotland, possibly leaving some areas as they are but establishing others where currently they are either ineffective or do not exist at all.
I hope that the Government will agree to this but, if not, I must pose the following questions to my noble friend. Does he approve of and wish to perpetuate the situation where substantial salmon fisheries have no governing or controlling body of their own? Secondly, does he not consider it necessary for those fisheries which have no fishery board or fishery district to have one? Does he not consider it necessary? If he does not, why is it necessary to have them in the other areas? It is clearly necessary that the whole of Scotland should be covered.
Thirdly, as the establishment of good fishery control depends upon finance, does he approve of the current system whereby a very large proportion of the revenue from salmon fishing is siphoned off for public expenditure in the form of rates, thereby removing the money from conservation? I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am in some difficulty over this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, had indicated that he wished to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. In moving his Amendment No. 1B, is he still wishing to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill? If he is, I really feel I must reply to him setting out just why I think he is not following the best course by pursuing this matter and why I think that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Would my noble friend clarify the position for me?
Lord Burton: The position is that if my proposal were adopted that the Secretary of State should be given three years in which to set up boards for the whole area, then both Clauses 1 and 2 would not really be relevant.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend. In that case, I must confess to being disappointed, to say the least of it, at the attitude which he has taken. As I said in both my speeches on Second Reading, I am aware that the Bill does not do everything about salmon. I make no real apology for this. As I have explained, parliamentary time is a very scarce commodity and I have been under pressure for a number of years to substitute action for words as regards salmon legislation affecting Scotland. From this we concluded that the most practicable course was to produce a Bill which concentrated on the main issues, and I think that the general reception in the Chamber and outside has confirmed that this approach has been welcomed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Burton was the only Member of the House to speak who wholly condemned the Bill then; and I think that the response from others is indicative that it really has been welcomed substantially by most people.
All of this progress which we are making and hope to make would be put at real risk, and more, if Clause 1 and Schedule 1 were not approved. The clause defines fisheries districts, provides for amalgamations, and so on, and is at the very heart of the salmon management structure in Scotland. Without the clause we would lose the advantages of the new, more flexible approach in relation to districts and their amalgamation and would have to fall back on the existing 19th century arrangements which, effective though they have been, are undoubtedly inflexible and some way from being adequate for changing circumstances.
I do not think that I am exaggerating the significance of Clause 1 in relation to the rest of the Bill. From this clause we move to the district boards themselves, and the drafting of the relevant provisions flows deliberately from the approach adopted in Clause 1. One could not therefore simply delete Clause 1 and expect the rest of Part I of the Bill to stand up.
My remarks about a need for Clause 1 apply to the schedule inasmuch as the schedule provides the administrative mechanism for the clause, and both stand or fall together. The idea of the Bill being taken away and worked on, further consultations being carried out and the end result being brought back to your Lordships' House next year is, to my mind,

549
simply not a starter in practical terms. As your Lordships will know, consultation and documentation on Scottish salmon fisheries has not been lacking over the years, and I am quite sure that if we were to start on another round there would be yet a further passage of years with of course no guarantee that overall consensus would be reached on what was required, far less an assurance that there would indeed be parliamentary time for the end product. We would, in short, have lost the momentum developed over the past few months.
I hope that my regret at such a loss of momentum would be shared generally, and, for this reason, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will see fit to withdraw his objection to Clause 1 and Schedule 1 standing part of the Bill. Failing that, I must ask the Committee to support the Question.
I would finish my remarks at that point, and perhaps when we come to the next amendments, when I understand we are likely to discuss Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B together, I will then try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not entirely agree with everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Burton; but I must say that this clause is a very, very difficult one to understand. One of the difficulties is that people expected and thought that the changes in relation to the salmon industry and all the aspects of fishing merited a complete new organisation for the management of fishing (and we are still building up on the 1860 Acts and so on). This is not quite good enough. It leads us into all sorts of difficulties in trying to read and understand this matter.
What I was hoping to get for the benefit of the Committee was a simple explanation of Clause 1 telling us exactly how to work out this business. For instance, it reads:
"A salmon fishery district shall be the area",
and so on. It continues:
"but excluding any area designated as a salmon fishery district by an order".
Then you read this designation of an area as an order; you come to subsection (3), with not just salmon fishery districts but districts. There is this jumping from the word "districts" to "salmon fishery districts". So there is a lack of clarity in the whole of what the Government are proceeding to do. You will have a salmon fishery district, but within that salmon fishery district you will have the designated salmon fishery district. I do not know what it all means.
Then you come to the district within the meaning of the 1862 to 1868 Acts which shall cease to exist and so on, which could have been better done. All I ask for is an explanation of what the Government are doing and saying in Clause 1. It might have been better if I suggested leaving out subsection (1), subsection (2) and the rest of it. The noble Lord suggests that everyone is going overboard about this Bill, but outside there will be very considerable disappointment that his Government of 1970, having waited so long, produced a White Paper as to what they were going to do in 1971, yet there is nothing like it in this Bill.
The question is still begged whether this management structure which they hope to build up
550
will cover the whole of Scotland as the noble Lord wants. It will depend entirely on the Secretary of State, and to a certain extent on certain individuals with an interest as to whether they can invite the Secretary of State to produce an order. It is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with an industry that is of such importance to Scotland and has been of growing importance, certainly with little relation in its present state, to 1862 and what was thought fit then, and the tinkering that is going on with the district boards which we shall talk about when we come to them. But I should like an explanation of the whole matter.
The Earl of Perth: I very well understand the request of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I too should like to try and understand a little more of the meaning. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said you get the rivers Beauly and the Ness which are not in any board or district at the present time, as I understand it. Is it open to them to apply to the Secretary of State and say, "We want to be included"? Is it open to some smaller area of salmon fishing, a small river, a small loch, which wants to have the protection and to be a part of all this, to ask? If so, who asks?
Viscount Thurso: I think that I should be a little kinder to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, over his Bill than he was to me over my Bill. I must say at this point that I think I understand what he is doing. I think I can see why he is doing it. I do not entirely applaud what he is doing, because I would rather he was doing what I tried to do before. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggests that the modernisation of salmon districts should be compulsory. I suggested a form of halfway measure in my Bill; that there should be a moment of compulsion but that the actual weddings between rivers should take place by mutual attraction. In this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is suggesting that there should be no compulsion, but that a situation should be created where rivers can get together to their mutual advantage, should seek to form themselves into viable boards and from there should create structures which are able to administer salmon fisheries in Scotland.
I certainly would be prepared to try and make the method of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, work. I do not think that a compulsory method will work unless somebody is prepared to put up some money, and this is the missing magic ingredient. At Second Reading, I drew this to the attention of the noble Lord. Lord Gray. I suggested to him that he might go and seek some money from the EC. He did not seem to think that his was a likely source of funds for him, but without money being made available in some shape or form the idea of compulsory district boards, particularly for some of the smaller rivers, would just not be feasible, would be very unfair or would produce unworkable boards which had little or no meaning. I think there is a danger that this solution may fall between two stools but it certainly will leave us with a situation which would be easier to adjust at a later date if amalgamations, and so forth, had been made possible with legislation.
It may be a little easier to take another bite at this cherry, but unless money is to be available I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and hope for

551
a compulsory formation of district boards in areas where there is none at present.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I am one of those people who have had no experience at all of fishing salmon. The last occasion which I recall answering a question about salmon fisheries was 22 years ago, when in response, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I said that the Government of the day were giving the most urgent consideration to the Hunter Report. It has taken a certain amount of time for that consideration to mature. All I would say, as one who has admitted that he knows absolutely nothing about it, is that I suspect that one would be told that Lord Burton's amendment is defective in its drafting. I expect that that may well be so, but I profoundly wish that Clause 1 as it stands was as lucid as Lord Burton's, and I beg my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, with his usual lucidity, to tell us exactly what it means.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to clarify Clause 1 for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I equally hope—because my reading of these clauses is that they will not solve the problem of management—that they will enable the river and the district boards to improve on the present situation a good deal. In a year or two's time after experience we may be able to improve on that and I hope my noble friend will not press his Motion on this clause. I hope equally the Minister will help the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, to understand it.
The Earl of Onslow: While we are discussing this clause, perhaps we may bear in mind one extremely important fact. The catch of Atlantic salmon has fallen from 10,000 tonnes about 12 years ago to 5,000 odd tonnes now. That is a pretty catastrophic fall, considering that the catch at the turn of the century was much larger. Surely therefore we should regard the necessity of creating river boards in Scotland for the small rivers almost solely under those criteria. Salmon is such a vitally important part not only of the glories of nature, but also of the economy of Scotland and, to a lesser extent, of the tourism in some of the more underprivileged parts of England and Wales. We should look at the whole of this Bill under those lights.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for what he has said, and also to my noble friend Lord Home for his comments at this stage. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that certainly I had no intention to do other than praise him and his Bill at Second Reading. It was perhaps when he went a little beyond Second Reading that we were not thinking quite along the same lines. But I am grateful to him for his support of this clause at this stage. However, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that despite his criticism of this clause there was only one amendment tabled to it and we accepted that amendment. So I should have thought that the clause was now, with the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in a perfectly acceptable state.
552
I should also like to give some further explanation for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has asked me about the question of amalgamation with which I shall deal in explaining this clause in rather more detail. Clause 1 defines salmon fishery districts which are based on the existing districts within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1862 to 1868. Scotland is already divided into 108 salmon fishery districts, about half of which have boards in place. The districts are described by reference to points on the coast and by reference to the main river or rivers flowing into the sea between those points. However, minor rivers which also flow into the sea between those points are not statutorily within the district, with the result that, for example, regulations applying to the main river or rivers may not apply to the minor rivers which flow into the sea between the coastal limits of the district.
The difficulties which we have tried to overcome in this legislation were highlighted by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, when he recalled for the benefit of your Lordships that some 20 years ago he answered a question by saying that the Government were carefully studying the situation and hoping to take some action soon. This action which we are taking is long overdue and I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships.
Subsection (2) will enable the Secretary of State to designate any area of Scotland as a salmon fishery district in accordance with Clause 2 and with the procedures set out in Schedule 1. Any new district so designated may include all or part of a district established by subsection (1), or by an earlier designation order made after the commencement date. Subsection (3) provides that on commencement existing districts which do not include minor rivers shall cease to exist and that references to a district in earlier legislation shall be construed as a reference to the salmon fishery district established by subsection (1).
Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State, by means of an order made by statutory instrument not subject to parliamentary procedure, to effect minor changes to the boundaries of salmon fishery districts where it is not clear, or becomes unclear, whether a particular location is within a certain salmon fishery district, or where a reference describing a salmon fishery district has lessened in suitability or has ceased to be relevant.
Subsection (5) provides that the River Tweed shall not be a salmon fishery district, except as otherwise provided for particular purposes. This means, for example, that the River Tweed cannot be amalgamated with any other salmon fishery district, nor can the boundaries of its district be changed. Subsection (6) maintains the present position that in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, and in any enactment amended by that Act, references to district shall include the River Tweed. This is necessary in view of the provision in subsection (5), which would otherwise cast doubt on the status of the River Tweed in existing legislation.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the whole of the measures that we are taking here are based on the voluntary principle. To deviate from that and to create an element of compulsion, without

553
at the same time, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has rightly pointed out, providing the wherewithal in terms of financial support, would in our view be a mistake. I hope that I have been able to help by explaining some of those provisions which are contained in Clause 1, and that your Lordships might now consider including Clause 1 as part of the Bill.
Lord Burton: I should like to thank all your Lordships who have spoken and have made comments on this amendment. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who confirmed my concern for this clause and for the next one. Indeed, I think that most of your Lordships who have spoken expressed some degree of apprehension about this clause. I only wish that I had the same confidence in these clauses as has my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. I fear that little or no improvement will follow from these two clauses and from reorganisation and that we will remain with the current unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am quite certain that large areas will remain uncovered even after this legislation.
The noble Earl said that there is no board on the Ness. There is a board on the Ness and it covers most of the estuary, whereas the Beauly has no board and flows into the same estuary but pays nothing towards its conservation. Under this legislation, they certainly will not set up a board on that river either. However, the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, are the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is money, and unless we have money we shall never have satisfactory conservation of our salmon stocks in Scotland. I agree that my drafting is probably wrong, but if the Secretary of State and his advisers are unable to get this right—and a number of us are not happy that it is right—how are we to get it right? But I am happy to withdraw my objections to the clause.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful elucidation. As I understand the position now, the existing districts will remain, but they are redefined and power is given to the Secretary of State to designate—the same term, "salmon fishery districts", is used again—and within these fishery districts something will happen. The Secretary of State can only designate them, according to the schedule, if particular people ask for them to be designated. If they do not ask for designation, then they just remain as they are today, with the unsatisfactory position about which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and to a certain extent the noble Earl, Lord Perth, are concerned.
It was certainly the aim of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to bring these in by amalgamation and in other ways, so that certain potential assets in Scotland are properly managed. But that is really it. There will be the salmon fishery districts and in addition—this may or may not include some of them—there will be designated salmon fishery districts. Am I right? It would be helpful to know whether that is correct. That is my understanding of what the position will be after we get this legislation.
Lord Gray of Contin: As we proceed through the Bill, the points which the noble Lord has been raising about the Secretary of State and so on can be discussed.
Lord Ross of Marnock: With all due respect, they are in Clause 1.
Lord Gray of Contin: There are more.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, I know that there are more. There is a whole schedule in respect of Clause 2, with the designated districts. But I want to know what the whole position will be. We are getting rid of some of these ancient Acts and are retaining sections of others. I just want to know what the position will be before we start on these designated salmon fishery districts.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have already explained to the noble Lord that on the voluntary principle there will be scope for amalgamation of existing boards or the creation of new boards.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not talking about boards.
Viscount Thurso: Am I right in understanding that as a result of Clause 1 all district boards will change into the new kind of district board? Thereafter they may or may not go the next stage, but the status of a district board that does not at the outset change its nature and amalgamate is not impaired by not changing. It can at a later stage change if it so wishes. That is how I understand it.
Lord Gray of Contin: This clause deals with the areas of districts. They will be abolished when they are replaced by a district designated by the Secretary of State.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designation orders]:
(Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B not moved.)
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert ("and in relation to a district designated in accordance with section 1 of this Act, may by order vary the provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment relates to a problem which I saw after the time of Second Reading and therefore I did not have an opportunity to speak to it at Second Reading. It occurs to me that, in an area where a new board or whatever is being formed, there could well be certain large rivers with large valuations and certain small rivers with small valuations. With the structure of boards as laid down in the Bill, it seems to me that there would be a built-in near certainty that only the large rivers would get to be represented on the board. It seemed to me that it might be desirable to give to the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility to vary the structure of the new district boards in the case of amalgamations so that if he thought fit, and if he thought it was desirable or necessary, he could build into the constitution of a new board some protection for the smaller rivers.
Let me give a hypothetical example. Let us imagine that the rivers of Caithness and North Sutherland decided to amalgamate into one big district. Let us suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and I were able to get on sufficiently well to join into a large

555
district board covering the Naver round to the Helmsdale. It would then transpire that you would have three fairly large rivers—the Naver, the Thurso and the Helmsdale—which would have enough voting power between them to carve up the board. They would be able always to be represented on the board and the smaller rivers like the Halladale, the Forse, the Langwell, the Berriedale, the Wick, the Wester and so on, would be unable to get an oar in because their valuations even when added together would not be big enough to outvote the three large rivers. It might seem appropriate to the Secretary of State in such circumstances either to designate that one of the seats must represent the smaller rivers or that four would be a fairer representation of upper proprietors and lower proprietors.
All this amendment does is to enable the Secretary of State, should he so wish when he is considering the approach by a new district for a constitution under this Bill (should it become an Act), to give a slightly different shape to the board from that described in the schedule. I offer this to the noble Lord. He knows, because I put it to his department, that this worry was in my mind, and I offer this amendment to him as a possible solution. He may tell me that this is not the right way to do it but that he will have a look at it. If so, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment. I do think that the problem of safeguarding minorities within the new boards should be examined so that large rivers do not frighten off smaller rivers from joining in with them. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I should like very much to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because I think that without it, as he so clearly pointed out, there will be quite a considerable degree of unfairness. It does not apply in my own district of the Tay area, but I can see great difficulties elsewhere. I hope very much that even if the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill is not able to accept this amendment now he will give it very careful consideration.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not want to prolong this discussion but I hope indeed that the noble Lord the Minister will look at this amendment and take some time over it. I think there is some feeling, as was certainly evinced during Second Reading, that we could improve matters in this way.
The Earl of Perth: I should also like very much to support the amendment on the basis that it is, after all, giving power; is not obligatory. It should be allowed that if there is a clear unfairness the Secretary of State, as I understand the amendment, has the power to change Schedule 2 as listed here. The small river, the small man, should be given a chance if the Secretary of State thinks that is right.
Lord Burton: I too should like to support the amendment of the noble Viscount. It appears that this would remove part of the objections relating to my first amendment in Schedule 1. Clearly this is something which would, if it is not altered, be an
556
obstruction to the amalgamation of rivers. The Tweed commissioners, who are probably the most efficient organisation for the protection of rivers, have a great many more people on their board even though they cover only one river. It is vital that if a smaller river is taken in it should be allowed some representation. I can give another example. If the Nairn were taken either into the Findhorn, on one side, or into the Ness, on the other side, the Nairn would probably be left without a representative. It is vital that any river joining with another one should be represented. I would give one word of caution. One would still want to retain the balance of power between the rods and the nets.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My noble friend has caused me to rise to my feet at the mention of the River Nairn. I should like to support the principle which the noble Viscount is putting forward, whether or not this amendment is the right way of dealing with it. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill I should declare an interest as I own some modest salmon fishing, as a riparian owner, at my home in northern Scotland, though I have not myself done any fishing for either salmon or trout for more than 40 years. Noble Lords will realise that my disabilities make it too difficult for it to be worthwhile. I think that my noble friend Lord Burton has given the very example of the river in my area which might be quite unrepresented unless some part of the Bill made provision for the smaller rivers.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I could remind the Committee that the Bill already allows for an increase in the number of board members, albeit by co-option of anglers and netsmen. I understand the concern of the noble Viscount but the situation which he describes of some rivers with no direct representation on boards already occurs in some large districts without obvious difficulties. There are many ways of seeking the views of persons interested in the activities of boards, and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent a board from inviting additional representatives to sit in on board meetings—as indeed some boards do at present.
However, I sense the anxiety that exists among those who have contributed on both sides of the Committee. I suggest that I take this matter away and have another careful look at it with my advisers without making any commitment (as I am sure will be appreciated), to see whether there is some way in which we might be able to devise a solution that would be acceptable to your Lordships. I should not like to give a hasty reply and I am therefore prepared to take this question away and have another look at it.
Viscount Thurso: I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his generous response and for the way in which he has sensed the feelings of your Lordships' Committee. I would have preferred it had the Minister come forward with this amendment, and I think that he knows that. It was only because he was a little unwilling to come forward with such an amendment that I was prompted to be so bold as to put one down. Now that he has agreed to take this

557
matter away and look at it again, I am very happy to beg leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: I understand that this would be the appropriate moment to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

"Paying for Local Government": Green Paper
3.51 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, by leave of your Lordships, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. Together with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland I have today presented to Parliament a Green Paper entitled, Paying for Local Government. It makes major proposals for the future financing of local government in Great Britain.
"The central theme is the need to bolster local democratic accountability. To do so, we need a way of paying for local government which narrows the gap which exists between those who use, those who vote for and those who pay for local government services.
"The three fundamental weaknesses in our present arrangements are: the complex and uncertain effect of government grants to local authorities; the way in which businesses can be heavily taxed to pay for excessive local spending; and the unfair burden on householders of the domestic rates.
"Non-domestic rates: Business and commercial ratepayers foot 60 per cent. of the local tax bill but have no vote to influence local decisions. For businesses, rates are uncontrollable overhead costs which can and do vary from year to year very significantly. Increased business rates lead to higher costs, to lower pay or job prospects or to reduced investment. Those who are ultimately affected are quite unaware of how these extra burdens arise. For all these reasons, non-domestic rates should not be a local tax. We propose therefore that a uniform non-domestic rate poundage should be set centrally. Businesses will be protected by indexing the poundages to inflation, so that they can predict their liability with confidence.
"All of the yield of non-domestic rates will continue to support local government expenditure but it will be pooled and redistributed as an equal amount per adult in all authorities. Transitional arrangements will be required in each of the three countries to allow for an orderly move to the new
558
system. We are setting in hand a revaluation of all non-domestic properties, so that new rateable values will be available from April 1990.
"Government grants: The present grant arrangements are unstable and complex. They obscure the link between what people pay for local services and what they get for their money. But the clarity of that link is essential to local accountability. We therefore propose a new two-part grant structure; first, a needs grant to compensate authorities for their different needs; Secondly, a standard grant, to reduce local tax bills by a standard amount per adult. Both grants would be fixed in cash, in advance, for the year in question. Local authorities will know where they stand. We would remove the whole paraphernalia of schedules, tapers, multipliers and close ending.
"Taken together with our proposals on the non-domestic rate, these grant arrangements will produce the clearest possible relationship between changes in spending and changes in tax bills. Every extra pound spent will be met in full by local domestic taxpayers. Every pound saved would benefit them in full. And that would be true in every authority in the country.
"Domestic taxes: At present in England, around 35 million adults are eligible to vote in local elections. Only 18 million are directly liable as ratepayers. Of these, 3 million have their bill met in full by housing benefit. In many authorities well over 50 per cent. of the voters pay no local rates and therefore have little interest in restraining spending by the local authority; indeed, they have a clear interest that it should spend more.
"Under the new social security proposals, every ratepayer will have to pay part of their rate bill. That still leaves 17 million adults with no liability to pay for the local services they use. It still means that the single pensioner or the single parent will face the same bill for local services as the house next door with four earners.
"Rates are a tax on property. They are unpopular because the rates burden is carried on too few shoulders and needs to be spread more widely. There are broadly three alternatives: a sales tax, local income tax or a flat-rate community charge. The Green Paper sets out the many difficulties we see both in a sales tax and in local income tax, and the reasons why we prefer a community charge. It would be more closely linked to use of local services and would give all adults a stake in local spending decisions. As with rates, there would have to be assistance for those on low incomes.
"Each local authority would set its own charge and there would have to be registers of all adults. The registers would be entirely separate from the electoral register. This proposal would lead to the same local tax bill for the same standard of service in all areas. That would lead to significant changes in the distribution of local tax burdens between authorities. There would have to be transitional and safety net arrangements.
"In England and Wales the community charge would start at a low level, with a corresponding cut in rates. The whole burden of any increased spending would fall on the community charge from the start, so that a clear link would exist between

559
higher spending and higher community charges. In subsequent years there would be further transfers from rates to the community charge. In some areas rates would disappear within three years and they would be eliminated in all areas within 10 years.
"Under these proposals some people would be paying local taxes who presently pay nothing. But those living on their own who presently pay more than their fair share, including many of the poorest households, would be better off.
4 p.m.
"The Green Paper illustrates the effects of the proposals had they been in force in 1984–85. The illustrations show that the changes would be modest for most people, and that the shift to the new tax would be both gradual and manageable in terms of household incomes.
"There are also proposals in the Green Paper to reform the capital control system, on which I am inviting comments.
"Consultation: these proposals amount to the most thorough reform of local government finance this century. It is right that there should be a substantial period of consultation.
"We have asked for comments by 31st July. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a Statement tomorrow. The pace of further developments in England and Wales will depend on the outcome of the consultation process.
"Summary: the message from our studies is clear; the way we now pay for local government undermines local accountability. This is no basis on which to run democratic local government. It has drawn central government deeper into conflict with local government. The alternatives are clear. We can continue down the present path. That is, the road to closer central involvement in local affairs and increased central control. Or we can face up to the weaknesses in our present arrangements and provide local government with a financial system to bolster local democracy. The Government prefer that course and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this very important Statement. It is interesting that after seven years of Conservative Government there is no promise of legislation during this Parliament; although there was a commitment 10 years ago, and again in Tory manifestoes, to abolish domestic rates. In a letter from the Secretary of State to Conservative councillors in January, Mr. Kenneth Baker said:
"I think we are all agreed that the present Local Government Finance System is unfair, and stifles accountability, and is at the heart of many of the conflicts between Local and Central Government over the years".
I shall start with the poll tax. I believe there was a revolt in 1381 when it was tried before. No other Western democracy uses this system. Do the Government really think that it will work? Will it be means tested? If not, it will be a very regressive tax. I
560
am interested to know why the Government have changed their mind as a proposal for a poll tax was rejected in the 1983 White Paper. I quote:
"A new register would … probably be needed. But this would make the tax expensive to run and complicated; particularly if it incorporated a rebate scheme. Without a rebate scheme a poll tax would bear harshly on people with low incomes".
Therefore, I hope there will be clarification of whether or not there will be a means test with rebates.
The Government say the poll tax would be fairer because more people would be contributing. I think that we on this side of the House would have people contributing as they can afford and provided with the services they need.
As regards the uniform business rate, I should like to know whether it is expected that this will result in higher rates for businesses in low-rated Tory areas. I think that it will mean a huge centralisation and will undermine local accountability and democracy. It is taking still more powers from local authorities.
So far as distribution goes, paragraph 16 states:
"That would lead to significant changes in the distribution of local tax burdens between authorities".
I should like to know what will be the effects by area and by types of payer. Can the Minister say what data have been used and whether they can be published? A very elaborate mechanism will be set up by the new plans. Will improvements and changes have to be made because of the immediate effects and to minimise the effects for the time being?
On capital expenditure controls, Ministers will have more powers than they do now to prevent local authorities spending their own money. Again it is a case of more central control. I understand, although the Statement does not say so, that the consultation period is to be less; that it will not run until July but end in April. That is not a very long time and perhaps the Minister can answer that point.
As regards paragraph 13, which refers to social security proposals and states that every ratepayer will have to pay part of his rate bill, is it still the plan that every ratepayer should pay 20 per cent. of rates, even those receiving housing benefit? When is this to come about?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also congratulate him on at least the look of the document, which I collected only a few moments ago. It certainly looks readable and well illustrated, and I hope that it is something we can easily understand.
However, we are going only one more step along the road to rating reforms this afternoon. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, this has been in the air for some time now. The Conservative Party promised to abolish the rates in their manifestoes of 1974 and 1979. In 1981 we had the Green Paper which showed that there is no way to do away with rates. The abolition promise was not kept. Indeed, it was dropped from the 1983 manifesto.
However, everyone accepts that there are problems in local government finance. The controller of the Audit Commission himself has complained about the fundamental underlying problems, the cost of local government services and the complexity of the grant

561
system. We all know that they have become worse with every change and I sincerely hope that these proposals will turn out to be an improvement.
For the non-domestic ratepayers, how will a uniform business rate, set nationally and redistributed to the local authorities, be achieved? Will it come as, say, a part of what is now the block grant? As an alternative to the Government proposals, would it not perhaps be better to consider a national property tax to be levied on non-domestic properties which would be collected by the Government? If that were done it would leave the local authorities freedom to charge for the actual services which they give to the non-domestic ratepayer; and that might be much fairer in the long run.
The community charge, poll tax or residents' tax—by whatever name it goes—is a regressive tax in that it hits and hurts the poor and the larger familes on lower incomes much more than it does the rich. Basing it on the electoral roll, where it might be seen as a tax on voting, obviously has not found favour with the Government. However, if it is to be based on a new register of everyone in the area, how is that register to be compiled to ensure that everyone is on it? How can it be enforced? What will be the cost of running the two methods of rate and community charge during the transitional period?
Everyone accepts that there are a great many difficulties to be overcome and we all hope that there will be the widest possible consultation over as long a period as is necessary—longer than until 31st July if that is possible—since, even with a real consensus of agreement, any legislation obviously has to wait until after the next general election.
Meantime, the crisis in local government finance is growing. Does the Minister not accept that there is now a lot more concern about how the money is spent after it is raised rather than whether we should have a poll tax, community tax or property tax, and whether non-domestic rates should be assessed and collected locally or nationally? Rates as such do have something to commend them. They are visible. They are fairly cheap and easy to collect and they are difficult to evade; but it is the anomalies and the distortions which have been built into the system by successive governments—I do not blame only this Government—that have made the system unjust.
The rating system needs modernising and I welcome the announcement of the revaluation of non-domestic properties. It is long overdue. Can the Minister tell the House when ordinary domestic properties will be revalued? On these Benches we are at present inclined to favour an element of rating with an extra revenue source such as local income tax which would be progressive in its incidence, would produce a broader base and could be collected through the Pay-As-You-Earn system. But I look forward to reading the comments in the Green Paper, where the Minister says they are set out, on the lines of the various alternatives to what is now proposed.
We need to study in much more detail the proposals for changes in government funding of local councils. I welcome the removal of the schedules, the tapers and the multipliers and so on, which at least might make an explanation of government grants much more
562
intelligible to the ratepayer and indeed to the Members of this House. How will the needs element be decided between authorities? Will there be clear guidelines on how those needs are to be assessed? What will be the level of assistance for those on low incomes, and who will qualify? If the press today are right and those who are unemployed or in receipt of state benefits will only pay 20 per cent., will that include ordinary old-age pensioners if they are not on supplementary benefit, and if so, what help is likely to be given to those who have a private pension but do not have a state pension? Moreover, since the number of people of pensionable age is increasing as the years go by, what effect will that sort of arrangement have on other households?
A document of 133 pages cannot be read in a few minutes, but as I said it does look readable and well illustrated. I collected my copy of it at 3.30 p.m. and I have only glanced through it, but I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to arrange through the usual channels for a debate in this House in the coming months. I also hope that all of us who are concerned with this subject will approach the consultative document cautiously and that whatever the outcome we shall seriously try to improve democratic local government and accountability.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baronesses for the way in which they have welcomed this Statement, and I am particularly impressed by the amount of information that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, seems to have absorbed in the last 42 minutes.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am accustomed to skipping pages while taking in something.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would allow me to draw her aside later for a quick lesson, I should be most grateful.
Both the noble Baronesses referred to the length of time that it has taken to bring forward this important document and to an earlier document which was withdrawn. I make no apology for the lengthy gestation period of what is a fundamental reappraisal of local authority financing. Indeed, when the noble Baroness, Lady David, points out that the last time that anything like this was done it led to the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, she makes me feel confident that we are right to be prudent. However, unlike the noble Baroness, we believe that an arrangement along the lines that we propose will work. Before I apologise for not answering every question that I have been asked, I must point out that this is a Green Paper for discussion and it is impossible to say what will be the impact of the eventual arrangements since no doubt some of them will be adjusted as a result of the discussion.
The length of the discussion period was of interest to both the noble Baronesses. I would say that, though the discussion on the main document is scheduled to finish on 31st July, my right honourable friend is very well disposed toward an extension of time, if it appears that there are matters of substance still outstanding on which important information or views are to be gathered. As to the shorter period, which is up to 14th April, for discussion of the proposals for the capital

563
grant, the reason for the short period proposed is simply the hope—not the expectation, but the hope—that a consensus may be revealed. If there were a consensus revealed by 14th April, it would be possible to go forward to legislation rather more quickly than if we had the extended period which may be necessary if there is no consensus.
4.15 p.m.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me a number of questions, including what would be the impact of the proposals on the non-domestic rate. The largest immediate benefit would be to older industrial and warehouse properties, particularly in the North-West, the North and the Midlands, which would benefit from revaluation and reduction in rate poundage, and these are often areas of high unemployment. The noble Baroness asked about the largest increases which would take place—and let us not be misled by the word "large"—and these are likely to be in the South-East, by a combination with rateable value increases, particularly in the retail sector. I give that information with some relish, because it is exactly the opposite of what I think the noble Baroness was suggesting might be the case.
The noble Baroness asked when the 20 per cent. rule would be brought in. The answer is that it is not brought in under the Green Paper but on the passage of the Social Security Bill. It is dependent on the parliamentary timetable, and no doubt to some extent on the conduct of the noble Baroness and her friends—though I hope not too much.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was good enough to recognise something of which I think we all, over recent weeks, have become acutely aware, which is that the present system is no good; it is leading us into confrontation between central and local government, and it is exceedingly difficult to understand. The noble Baroness wants something which is more easily understood by ratepayers and members of your Lordships' House. I should be glad of something which is easier for Ministers to understand. We have a very elaborate system, and what we propose is a very considerable improvement.
The national non-domestic rate would be set first of all by a national revaluation, and that is of non-domestic property only because, if the proposals are accepted, the need for the domestic rate will disappear and therefore there will be no purpose in a national domestic revaluation. On the domestic rate, after the revaluation central government would set a total which would bear a relationship with the existing total of the non-domestic rate and divide that by the new national non-domestic rateable value total, and that will produce a national poundage. I have now exhibited how difficult it is, even in attempting to simplify things, to make things simple, but if your Lordships would wait and look at that in Hansard, or better still in the Green Paper itself, it will be easier to understand.
I detect from both the noble Baronesses a feeling that because this is a fixed charge for all ratepayers it is either unfair or regressive. The changes in the impact per household will be marginal. I have the figures here, but I recall that for over 80 per cent. of households—or
564
over 83 per cent. I think—the change in the first year will be less than £1 a week.
As to the function of protecting the poor, or alternatively of redistributing wealth—and these are the two concepts in the minds of the noble Baronesses when they talk of regression, I think—here we are firmly of the view that this is the function of central government and of the central taxation system, and, where it is a question of protecting the poor, of the social security system. It is not a function of local government and local bureaucracy.
I come back to the essential, central point of what we propose. At present there is no perceived direct link between the consumption of services and those who vote for those services when for a very large proportion of the electorate to vote for more costs no more, and they cannot see the hidden impact of rates through the non-domestic rate system. If local government is to be responsible it is essential that the local electorate shall see what it is voting for and be closely involved in it. That will enable central government to draw back from the centralist position to which divergent local authority policies otherwise will force it, whichever government is in power in Westminster.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the Green Paper Paying for Local Government and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, have just collected my copy and managed to read quickly through it. There are a number of points in this Green Paper which I think give rise to concern.
I agree with the Minister's remark that it is important to have some relationship between those who are voting and those who are using and paying for the services, because there is no doubt that if you have no obligation to meet any form of rates, then it is very easy to vote for the candidate who is suggesting the most profligate policies. So I think that there is merit in having some relationship there.
But it falls down here. The Green Paper suggests on page 27 that the community charge would improve the relationship between the use of and payment for services, but my experience as chairman of social services on Westminster council is that the use of services is not spread evenly throughout the area. Eighty per cent. of social services, for example, were used by only 10 per cent. of the residents. The balance never made any call whatsoever on them. It is difficult to relate the costs to the use of the services.
Also, there seems to be no provision for a home in foreign ownership. The nearest thing appears to be the suggestion about people owning second homes. It is suggested that overseas people will register, but it is extremely difficult to see how people will register if they do not live in the country. In the centre of London are many expensive and highly rated homes occupied for only a short time each year. Those people may not use the waste collection service when they are not resident, but the street-cleaning services and the parking regulations remain in force and cost money. To be fair to people who are permanently resident, there must be provision to deal with that type of property. The document is 130 pages long and there could be a hidden remark about that which I have not noticed.

565
It is clear that it is to be a completely new community register and the electoral register will not be used and it will not be a poll tax. But it will be difficult to ensure that every adult is on the register. The cost of compiling, checking and enforcing registration will be for the local authority, which in itself gives cause for concern. I know that the Green Paper says that the Government will take that into consideration in the grant calculations, but again my experience shows me that no local authority is ever satisfied with what the Government give them. There is regularly a lot of fuss about that.
It is important that there should be thorough consultation. I am delighted that non-domestic ratepayers will get assistance. The most important phrase in the document is that the Government will enter into detailed discussions with local government and other interested parties about the practical issues. That appears on page 108. Whether the principle is sound or not, there will be many practical issues to be discussed. The Green Paper opens up the issues for debate, and it is welcome to see something in print after the constant speculation in the newspapers. I look forward to further debate.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome of the principle of a link between the expenditure of a local authority and the votes of its electorate. She is right to say that different residents within a community consume different services at a different rate. We are not proposing that every charge should be different for each member of the community. She is right about that.
As to the foreigners who consume services, it is proposed that if they are absentee owners their houses will be treated as though they are a second home, so that there will be a charge there. If the foreigners are actually resident in an area, they will be liable for the charge in just the same way as anybody else.
As to the implementation of the register, procedures are already available for forming registers, and there will be savings with the disappearance of the old system. But it is far too early to say what the balance of cost advantage or disadvantage will be. Whatever the cost, I think that it will be welcome and worth while if it has the results that we seek. Checking the register will be easy, because qualification for services is to be on the register and the local authority has a constant stream of information across its desks about who uses its services.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is there any substantial difference in principle between the system proposed for Scotland and for England? I know that there are big differences. However the Statement says that it is on behalf of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, but at the end it says that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a Statement tomorrow. Will there be separate Bills, or is the principle the same?
We of course welcome any system which will stop the Government interfering and put real responsibility on to local government at all stages. But, for example, will the needs grant mentioned in paragraph 10 be the only subject for negotiation with the Government about which the local authority could possibily complain, with all the other grants being standard?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I may take the last point first, anybody who says that any system will provide only one thing for local authorities to complain about is either a fool or a genius; and I am neither, I hope. However, the proposal will vastly reduce the area of negotiation and therefore of difference. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that this is the Conservative Government genuinely trying to disengage themselves from directing local authorities on how to conduct their affairs and transferring that responsibility to the electors of those authorities.
As to tomorrow's Statement, I think that the noble Lord will discover a different pace of proceedings. My right honourable friend may wish to deal with the subject, which, after all, is smaller in Scotland, at a slightly different pace. I do not want to prejudice anything that he says, but the principles of what we are all driving at are identical.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask just two questions, although I have had no opportunity at all to read the Green Paper? Dealing with compensation for authorities with different needs, does that mean that the present GREA machinery, with which there is general dissatisfaction throughout local government, will still be used to determine the different needs of the various authorities? Secondly, the question of the register has been raised. What is the reasoning for a separate register of all adults, bearing in mind that the present electoral register is for all people of 18 years and above? The Home Office will agree that the present register is unsatisfactory and there are complaints all over the country that many people are left off it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first and fundamental question, we are well aware of the difficulty of assessing needs simply. The present calculations are elaborate. We shall still need calculations to assess the genuine difference in need among different areas. But it is our hope, and work will be put in hand on this, that we arrive at a much simpler formula than we now have. I cannot be more precise because the proposals were published only this afternoon.
As for the current register of electors, I am not at all certain that it includes every adult within an area. I do not believe that it includes foreigners, but I could well be mistaken. I come back to a point which my noble friend raised and which echoed what the noble Baroness said, talking about a poll tax. I think that it is important to see that the proposal is entirely different from the electoral machinery. It is not paying to vote, and that in itself requires exemplification; it is paying for the use of the services provided by a local authority. I have heard it suggested that it should be called a local service charge and not a local community charge at all.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I presume that the Green Paper deals with the question of county precepts, which are a substantial part of the burden. Can my noble friend confirm that about 70 per cent., on average, of county precepts represents the cost of education? Has consideration been given to the suggestion that teachers' salaries at least should be

567
taken out of the county precept and centralised, to be paid for directly by local government, since in the last resort very often teachers' salaries are negotiated and settled centrally?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in his estimate of 70 per cent., but the Green Paper does not extend to the question of centralising the whole of education direction or expenditure, although I would not put it past my noble friend to suggest such a matter during the consultation period.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister pointed out in the Statement that the three fundamental weaknesses in our present arrangements are distasteful in a number of ways. In view of the fact that the present arrangements are the creatures of this Government, what faith can the country have that the new arrangements will be any better, bearing in mind that the present mess results from this Government's means of tackling local rates?
Can I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 6 which points out that business ratepayers are unrepresented but that they are ultimately affected and are quite unaware of how the extra burdens arise? Can I draw the Minister's attention to the useful initiatives taken by the Government in arranging that business people should be fully consulted in advance of the present rates being created? Is the Minister really saying that the present arrangements are so unsatisfactory as to merit change? I can tell the Minister that in my area of Enfield the local business community is very well satisfied, not necessarily with the rates that are set but with the fact that they are fully consulted.
Does the Minister really believe that local industrialists are only concerned with the rate being as low as possible? Is he not aware that many local industrialists take a great interest in the quality of housing, education, leisure and libraries? If they are good industrialists, they want to provide an environment not based on the lowest rate possible but on the best rate possible. Can the Minister also state what categories of people fall within the ambit of paragraph 18 which states:
"Under these proposals some people would be paying local taxes who presently pay nothing".
Lord Elton: My Lords, the people who fall into that category are adults resident within the area of a local authority who do not at present pay rates—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have been asked a question and I have given a statement of fact in reply. If the noble Lord feels that we should have a debate on the subject—many of your Lordships may wish to do that—there could be an occasion. He can write to me, or he can put down a Question. I believe, however, that the little red book to be found somewhere on the Table before me suggests that we should not enter into a debate at this stage. If I give way it is inviting a debate.
568
There will be new people paying. They will be adults who do not pay at present but who are consuming services for which they do not pay. As to the business interest in the way in which local authorities conduct themselves and finance their activities, the noble Lord is right. They look at many other things. The rates are only a component. In the Statement, my right honourable friend made clear that the impact of the non-domestic rate is almost always concealed from the people who eventually bear it. The noble Lord is right in saying that we have introduced consultation with business. We do not think that this is anything like a close enough link between expenditure and vote. I would remind the noble Lord that we must look at this historically. It is no good attributing to this Government the whole of the mess in local authority finance. It has evolved over a long time. It was, in fact, the Socialist Government of Mr. Callaghan which abolished the business vote in 1969.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask one question? It is a question that I asked previously to which I do not think the Minister responded. It concerns paragraph 16 which states:
"This proposal would lead to the same local tax bill for the same standard of service in all areas. That would lead to significant changes in the distribution of local tax burdens between authorities".
I asked what would be the effect by area and types of payer, and what data had been used, and whether this could be published.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I attempted in a pastiche of a reply simply to tell the noble Baroness what were the principal results of what her question led me to suppose she was interested in. As to the data, I should have to get advice on that. I shall write to the noble Baroness if I can.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions as respects the making of designation orders]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 12, after ("number") insert ("of")
The noble Lord said: This amendment, to make sense, should obviously be discussed with Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 5: Page 27, line 12, leave out ("persons") and insert ("anglers").
The wording that the Secretary of State,
"may make a designation order only on the application to him"
is the voluntary principle. The Secretary of State does not act on his own; he must be prodded by a district salmon fishery board, or, where there is no such board, two proprietors of salmon fisheries in a salmon fishery district, or any number of combination of such boards or persons in the area. I want anglers to be able to

569
invite the Secretary of State to introduce a designation order. That is the purpose of the two amendments. The schedule, if amended, will refer to,
"any number of or combination of such boards or anglers in the area which would be affected by the proposed order".
This is self-explanatory. The word "persons" is removed and "anglers" inserted. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that "persons" could include anglers. I want the matter to be specific. With all the changes that are taking place in relation to the balance of fishing, the people who are unrepresented and who probably pay most in respect of angling and the management of rivers are the anglers. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I should like to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, but I feel that Amendment No. 5 is deficient. I go along with him in specifying anglers. The noble Lord knows very well that I wish anglers to get their fair share in the administration of fishing and of salmon rivers, but it is a pity that he should specify anglers and leave out tenant netsmen. The whole principle of the Bill, as I see it, is to keep the balance even, so that the two sides involved in exploiting the resource should consider the resource as paramount and not that one side or another side should have all the resource. I feel that "persons" in this instance is an adequate description because it should include tenant netsmen just as much as anglers.
The Earl of Perth: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. I am a little worried about the use of the word "persons" unless it covers various bodies as well as individuals. I am all the more worried because the Committee accepted the first amendment of the day moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, to insert the words "consulting such persons". I assumed that "persons" covered institutions as well as individuals. I should like to know that I am right about that. I want to be sure that when, under Amendment No. 1, we talk about "consulting such persons", that phrase covers a body as such which may have individuals in it but which is a representative group, and not a person as an individual. I am seeking the definition of the word "person".
Lord Gray of Contin: Without hesitation—and I hope that what I have to say will not be too much for the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—I am happy to accept the first amendment and I am grateful to noble Lords for their suggestion. With regard to the second amendment, while I agree fully with the proposition that it is not only salmon fishery proprietors and through them district salmon fishery boards who have an interest in salmon fishing, it is the proprietors who will have to meet directly the consequences of amalgamations of districts. I have not found any convincing reasons for giving anglers a right to apply for a designation order. Such a right should in my view be the prerogative of boards, or failing a board, proprietors—given the financial input of the latter.
Anglers and tenant netsmen will of course have a say in such matters through co-option to boards. Consideration of this amendment has, however, drawn my attention to the reference to "persons" in paragraph 1(c) of the schedule. There is no intention
570
that persons other than proprietors should be concerned in this procedure and I propose that this be corrected on Report.
I think that the point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has been answered by what I have said. However, perhaps I may reiterate to the noble Earl that the answer to his question is: yes, "persons" includes bodies corporate or unincorporate. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord's second amendment. However, as I indicated, I am happy to accept his first amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Lord accepts my English but not my good sense. I pondered for quite a long time over the first amendment. I am disappointed. I do not think that the noble Lord is doing justice to anglers and anglers' associations. From what the noble Lord has said, they are to be considered on the basis of co-option with all its limitations, unless certain amendments are accepted. It is disappointing that it is to be left entirely to the fishery boards or proprietors.
Having heard the noble Lord's sense, I feel that I can now proceed to put forward an amendment which would make better sense of what he intends than what we have here. He ought to have included the word "proprietors" if proprietors is what he means.
He should not leave it to the more general term "persons". However, I accept gratefully the fact that he accepts my first amendment. I shall not move the second amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 27, line 26, leave out head (d).
The noble Lord said: I should like to know the effect of leaving out this sub-paragraph. The provision refers to the people applying for a designation order. It is mandatory. It says:
"An application under paragraph 1 above shall be accompanied by the applicant's written proposals which shall state",
and there is then set out paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Paragraph (d) refers to the very important matter of annual close time and says:
"The proposed dates of the annual close time and the periods within which it shall be permitted to fish for and take salmon by rod and line in the proposed district".
If that provision is omitted, what will be the effect? We must remember of course that under Clause 2(2) it says:
"A designation order shall provide for the application to the district so designated of such regulations".
Moreover, under subsection (3) it says:
"a designation order shall specify for the district so designated the annual close time and the periods within that time when it is permitted to fish for and take salmon by rod and line; and the order may make different provision for different parts of the district".
4.45 p.m.
In other words, if he does not get this information, if this provision were not included, it would be for the Secretary of State to do it on his own. He would do it on his own on the basis of

571
consultations—consultations which I am perfectly sure would not be limited purely to proprietors and boards but which would take in all the other appropriate people as well. That is the simple reason why it is there.
The Secretary of State should know that there is considerable perturbation in certain angling and other fishery circles about the manipulation of the annual close time and the periods within which it will be permitted to fish for and take salmon by rod and line. This is a very important point and one upon which people are very touchy. People tend to rely more than ever upon the good sense of the Secretary of State. I do not want to see them pushed by certain interests.
We must remember that it may be that the only people who will be pushing this forward will be two proprietors of salmon fisheries in the area and they may be non-representative of the upper and lower tiers. I know of one river where, in the case of proprietors, there is only one on the lower side. It may well be that you will get two very unrepresentative proprietors putting forward an idea in relation to what should be the annual close time which would offend and appal other people. I want to know the merits and whether the Secretary of State, before he takes action, will further consult with other interests beyond those who have made the application. Why should it be mandatory? It gives an importance to this which creates a certain amount of suspicion in people's minds. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I was by no means clear why, of all the information to be supplied to my right honourable friend in relation to the making of a designation order, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, should feel that proposals about the annual close times are undesirable or unnecessary. The annual close time and the period within which it will be permitted to fish by rod and line will still have to be prescribed under Clause 2(3). It seems to me unreasonable to seek to so deprive him of such information, objections and representations about such important matters regarding the management of salmon fisheries. I do not think that there is anything between us here. The noble Lord has himself recognised the importance of this matter and he indicated that he was probing for information. I have tried to explain why we think it is necessary and advantageous to have the annual close times made known. It seems to me rather strange that, in view of the other information which has to be made available, this information should be excluded, which is what would happen if the amendment were carried.
Lord Ross of Marnock: They have to be made known anyway. The Secretary of State has an overall responsibility as regards all the salmon fishery districts in respect of the annual close times. He should know that. What we are asking for under this amendment is for particular people to put forward their proposals. That does not mean to say that those proposals will be the proposals eventually within the order. So far as I can see, leaving this out does not make any difference at all. The Secretary of State still has to decide what
572
will be the annual close time and the extension or otherwise in respect of rod and line fishing in the district.
I still so not know why the proposals are there. They are not the Secretary of State's proposals. They are the proposals of those who are asking for the designation order to be made. They would be consulted anyway, I presume, by the Secretary fo State before he puts this in. He has to put it in. One of the things laid down in Clause 2 is that he has to put his idea, his proposal, into the designation order for what should be the annual close time, but not necessarily those proposals which are first put forward by the two proprietors or by the district salmon fishery board.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord himself explained that the effect of this amendment would be to relieve those applying for a designation order of the need to state for the proposed district the proposed dates of the annual close time, and the period within which it would be
"permitted to fish for and take salmon by rod and line."
This would leave the Secretary of State to decide those matters under Clause 2(3) without such information as he would require being supplied by the applicants. It would leave those who might wish to object to, or make representations about, the proposed dates completely in the dark. If I may give the noble Lord one additional reason why the Secretary of State requires suggestions, it is that on amalgamations there might be two different close times in the area to be covered by the proposed new district. Therefore for that reason it would be helpful to have this information as well.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is not information. It is a proposal.
Lord Campbell of Croy: May I raise a connected point on this? I note that the part of the schedule being discussed speaks about
"proposed dates of the annual close time"
in the singular. If there is more than one river within the district, surely the rivers could have separate dates. The rivers with which I am connected in northern Scotland have separate dates. Under the present legislation, proposals are put forward which go to the Secretary of State, and he considers them. Two years ago quite a number of anglers on a river proposed that the close season should be altered. This was put forward to the Secretary of State and he considered it. If there is more than one river, I hope that there will be provision in this Bill for different close periods of the year for individual rivers, as there is now.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right. There could be different close times for two different rivers. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, perhaps I may once more try to explain why the proposals for annual close times have to be included. They are included as part of a comprehensive procedure for designating a new district, and Schedule 1 allows the opportunity for representations, and/or objections, by local interests. In view of that explanation, which I think has been fairly full, perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I hate to see the Minister so disappointed and tearful about this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Burton: In view of the discussion we have had previously I do not want to oppose the schedule, but I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, who is a proprietor? This was something raised on Second Reading on which there does not appear to have been any answer provided. Secondly, are there not single proprietor districts? In line 9, sub-paragraph 1(b), there is reference to "two proprietors". My impression was that you could have a single proprietor district. I am not sure why "two" should be in.
Lord Ross of Marnock: There is just one point. The last item, paragraph 9, says:
"The power to make a designation order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
However, if the Secretary of State wants to vary the schedule, which could include the whole matter of the designation order, he has to do it by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. Can the noble Lord justify the separate treatment of the variation of the schedule, which deals with the designation order, and the fact that the designation order itself is made by simple statutory instrument without reference to either House?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Burton for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity to clearly define "proprietor". This came up at Second Reading when we were talking about the question of time-share part-owners. "Proprietor" is defined in the Bill as meaning:
"any person, partnership, company or corporation which is the proprietor of a salmon fishery or which receives or is entitled to receive the rents of such fishery on its own account or as trustee, guardian or factor for any person, company or corporation".
I am advised that this definition is drafted in such a way as to exclude time-share owners and part-owners from its compass.
However, in the light of the interesting comments and suggestions made in your Lordships' Committee today, I shall undertake to look again at the provision. It is not our intention that the time-sharers and part-owners should participate in an individual sense in the procedures for formation of, and election to, district boards. I shall, if necessary, ensure that this intention is reflected in the drafting. With reference to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, raised about the designation order power, that power is local. Therefore it is not appropriate for this to be subject to parliamentary procedure variation order.
Lord Burton: On Second Reading I asked a question about the sub-division of fishings, such as in a large loch. Although the noble Lord answered the question of time-sharing, I do not think that that answers the question of what is to stop someone going on dividing up fishings more or less ad infinitum at somewhere like Loch Ness where there is a 25-mile length to be fished.
574
Perhaps the noble Lord does not have the answer, but it is something which, before we let the Bill go, should be looked at.
Lord Gray of Contin: I do not have at hand the necessary information for the noble Lord. I give him the undertaking that I shall have a further look at that. If there is any further amendment needed, then I can consider it for Report stage.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Regulations]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("the district salmon fishery board and").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 6B. It is consequential.
Amendment No. 6B: Page 3, line 36, after ("such") insert ("other").
The first thing I noticed when I got to this was that it was wrongly drafted. I am sorry. The principle is the same. When it refers to "the district salmon fishery board" it probably ought to refer to "the salmon fishery district committee". Anyway, the principle is that the Secretary of State should consult the bodies looking after the fishings, which I think will be the salmon fishery district committee, as well as such other "persons as he considers appropriate". I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will tell us that the district salmon fishery boards are obviously the appropriate persons whom the Secretary of State will consult. But as the Bill is intended to emphasise the importance of boards and their role in the management of salmon fisheries, I think it is important that this be emphasised at this point. Their status should be emphasised at this point, and therefore I support the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
Lord Gray of Contin: I fully understand why the noble Lord, Lord Burton has tabled these amendments but I think they are unnecessary and restrictive. Clause 3(2) gives my right honourable and learned friend discretion as to whom he should consult before making regulations. He could, I am sure, consult district salmon fishery boards on a purely local matter, but where the matter is one of general application it might be more appropriate for him to consult the Association of District Salmon Fishery Boards rather than each individual board. The noble Lord's amendments would request him to consult each board individually. I cannot accept that proposition. Therefore, in view of what I have said, I wonder whether my noble friend will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Burton: I am a little surprised at that answer, because subsection (a) reads:
"the due observance of the weekly close time".
This surely is not a matter for the association but for the individual district. However, in view of what my noble friend has said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this juncture.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6B not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 6C:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert ("and the screening of off-takes to prohibit access to smolts").
The noble Lord said: This is quite simple. If they are to be given these various powers it is obviously necessary that we should also restrict the access of smolts into offtakes of any sort. I suggest that this wording might be added to Clause 3(2)(c). I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I concede the principle of this amendment. It is indeed appropriate that smolts be protected from being drawn into water-works, fish farms etc. In the 1860s this was provided for at mills, indirectly, by requiring that the mill lades be drained periodically to let the smolts back to the river. That is obviously not sensible these days, nor is it workable in relation to other sorts of abstraction.
The amendment may, however, not fully cover what the noble Lord has in mind and I hope that, having conceded the principle and undertaken, as I do, to consider how it could be covered in the Bill, he might be prepared to withdraw and await an equivalent Government amendment at a later stage.
Lord Burton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord and with that undertaking I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 6D:
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 6E if I may speak to the two together.
Amendment No. 6E: Page 4, line 1, after ("dimensions") insert ("and methods of operation)".
Here there is a problem of how one operates nets as opposed to the type of tackle used. Clearly if a boat is sitting about in the middle of a river instead of keeping moving this would not be properly covered as the Bill is drafted. The amendment is probably quite clear, and therefore I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for his suggestion in this amendment. I have myself been concerned in relation to the lack of definition of lawful methods of operation of nets, and, indeed, this point was made by several noble Lords at Second Reading. To remedy this, I have tabled a new clause which allows my right honourable and learned friend to define permitted fishing methods by order. If acceptable to your Lordships this new power would be included, appropriately, I am advised, in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1951. The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Burton would therefore be unnecessary and could be seen as giving less comprehensive powers. Having seen the proposed Government amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Thurso: I have to support the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. I am delighted to see the new
576
clause which he is proposing, as I think it is a much more positive way of dealing with this problem than by using this amendment.
Lord Burton: On that undertaking, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6E not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("(f) the use of adequate lures or bait in rod fishing.").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to deal with a point raised on Second Reading, that is to give power to adjust from time to time the methods of fishing by rod and line as well as those by net. This merely seeks to give to the Secretary of State, and through him to the district boards, the power to adjust the times at which different kinds of lures may be used on rivers or may not be used. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Viscount to explain the word "adequate"?
Viscount Thurso: Yes, as a matter of fact I was quite surprised at the word "adequate". The word was suggested to me by the Public Bill Office. It may be that it is an inadequate word. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will tell me if he considers it inadequate. If he considers it inadequate but accepts the principle I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. What is obviously intended is "suitable for the occasion".
We are talking about the possibility that one might have fly-only at certain periods, as is done on some rivers, or that one might make it a by-law for a river that it be a fly-only river. Somebody has to have some powers to be able to do this, other than its being merely the whim of individual proprietors. I await with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, on my phraseology. No doubt he will tell me that "adequate" is inadequate and that he can do better.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Would not an appropriate word be "sporting"?
The Earl of Onslow: Does this not also come under the new clause put in later by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, on permitted fishing? Secondly, should it not be extended to English waters as well as Scottish waters? As your Lordships may or may not have noticed, I have a similar and probably much clearer, but I am sure legally less correct, amendment on the same point later in the Bill. There should be a method of catching fish which is allowed and no other method, rather than a method which is disallowed. That would be a fairer way of doing it. I should have hoped that the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, could be brought in to the later amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gray.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will agree that in answering this I deal also with Amendment No. 12 which is in his name and is directly related.
Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 20, at end insert ("and (f)").

577
I have listened very carefully to the arguments put in favour of these amendments. I must say that I have myself given some thought to this matter in the light of the comments made by your Lordships at Second Reading. I can say that, in principle, I am in favour of a power being taken to regulate the types of lure that might be used.
I have, however, some difficulty with the terms of the first part of the amendment, in that the word "adequate", which my noble friend has asked about, may not be exactly what is wanted here. I also have some hesitation about providing for different methods for different districts in the context of the procedures in Clause 3. Apart from the confusion this might cause where anglers fish in several districts, it could lead to a large number of orders having to be laid.
I should, therefore, like to give further consideration to this matter and I hope that the noble Viscount, with the permission of the House, would be prepared to withdraw on the understanding that I am sympathetic to what he has in mind and I am considering whether a Government amendment could be moved at a later stage.
Viscount Thurso: I am happy to accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I was aware that perhaps this was not the best drafted amendment that we were going to consider today. I am glad to see that he accepts in principle that there might need to be some regulation of rod fishing methods. However, I urge on him, when he is looking at this problem, to consider that this is the kind of matter which will, in its very nature, require to be varied from river to river, because there are some rivers which are appropriately dealt with in one way and some which are appropriately dealt with in another. I beg him to look at that point. With the leave of the Committee, I beg to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) the placing of cages to hold fish in any river, loch or estuary;").
The noble Viscount said: It was brought to my notice that there may be a gap in the powers which the Secretary of State has to control the placing of cages, net or fixed, containing salmon, trout, or indeed any fish, within areas of a river. It may be that there is sufficient cover to allow proper consideration of whether it is a good thing to place a cage in a loch in the upper waters of a river, by the fact that planning permission has to be sought by fish farms. However, planning permission does not extend beyond the mean high water mark or ordinary spring tides and the placing of a net cage in an estuary is clearly subject to no restriction whatever.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will be well aware that there are considerable dangers to a water that could accrue from the ill-advised siting of a cage. There are such matters as the possibility of build-up of disease and the possibility of the build-up of other pollutants and so on. If a cage is not properly sited and there is insufficient scouring below it, there can be a great build-up of a kind of midden underneath the cage. It is only comparatively recently that it has
578
become common practice to place cages in lochs for the holding of farmed fish or for other purposes.
I feel that this is a matter over which the Secretary of State at least should have powers. I do not think that river purification boards have powers; I do not think that district hoards have powers and, in certain instances, I do not think that even planning authorities have powers to control this matter.
I readily admit that this matter came to my notice only quite recently. In fact, it was brought to my attention by a river purification authority. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will wish to consider this matter further, before we take it further. If so, I shall be glad to regard this as a probing amendment and withdraw it, if necessary, so that he can consider the matter and maybe we can return to it at Report. However, I think it is an important matter. It is one which may very well have escaped the noble Lord's notice, just as it escaped my notice until quite recently.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I have to declare a slight interest here, as I have an interest in a salmon fish farm. What I want to know is whether the word "loch" means sea loch. Of course, I am all against the planting of any cages in any form of water to trap wild salmon. However, I should like to know the position.
I understood the noble Viscount to say that one can obtain planning permission if one wants to put one's cages in an estuary. I understand that the position in this fish farm in which I have an interest, which is quite a large fish farm on my estate, is that when the salmon become smolts they must then go into salt water. We put a few in the river but of course the vast majority go into cages. The problem is that one must have one's cages in extremely calm water. It depends on the legal definition of an estuary, but they have to be in very enclosed waters and perhaps quite near the mouth of a river, coming into the estuary. Thus I should like to know how one defines an estuary where one can put hand-reared salmon into cages without breaking the law.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I can help the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. First of all, I am referring not only to salmon but also to trout. People are putting trout into cages in hill lochs, or in lochs in the upper waters of rivers, where obviously there is a considerable build-up of detritus and so forth below the cages and where there could be interference with water quality. This is one of the problems which I envisage. On the question of estuaries, estuaries are all defined in the salmon Acts. If the noble Viscount wants to know where an estuary is, the estuary limits are all defined and he can look them all up.
I am concerned about sea lochs, particularly if they constitute part of an estuary, because here again without proper siting, where there would be scouring tides to keep the place clean, there could be an undesirable build-up. This, in the long run, would not be good for the fish farmer because it would spoil the water for him, but in the meantime it may have spoilt the water for other people as well. Thus I feel that this power should be available to deal with this situation.
Lord Biddulph: I think that is an important point because quite a lot of these cages are situated in estuaries in places where they are subject to storm damage. The cages may be smashed and there may be the release of salmon and rainbow trout into the estuary, which immediately head for the nearest river. These escaped fish are not indigenous to the river, particularly the rainbow trout, and I think this may cause complications. Thus I bring up this point of storm damage and the escaping of salmon from these cages.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The noble Lord says that storm damage could occur to these cages and the fish might escape. That is quite true. However, one of the reasons why they have to be in a very enclosed place is that there must not be any wave more than two feet high. However, the point is that if the cages are in the estuary into which the river flows, where the salmon are reared, and the cages are damaged, the smolts, the salmon, or grilse—I think they are nearly always grilse when they are killed—will go back to the river from which the water came that was in the tanks in which they were reared. They will go back to the river from which they came, from where the water came.
Viscount Thurso: I have to tell the noble Viscount that this is not so. We have caught fish in the Thurso River, which were farm bred, which were identified by scale reading as having come from a fish farm and the nearest fish farm was somewhere round the West coast of Scotland. Thus, storm damage does take place, fish do escape and get into other rivers.
Lord Gisborough: As this is a moderately new innovation, will the noble Lord, not now but at some stage, look into the matter to see whether under English water boards legislation they have the powers to contain and to organise these cages?
The Earl of Onslow: I believe the law on fish farming is, to put it mildly, fairly obscure. It seems to me extremely important that there should be some regulations as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. However, must it be the Secretary of State who makes the regulations, or should it not be the water authorities, or district fishery boards, or the river boards themselves? Surely they know, at their level, where something should go. The fact that regulations as to whether a net should be put here, there or anywhere, should have to go to the Scottish Secretary of State or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London seems to me to take the regulation-making power much too far back. It is really an essentially local decision which should be made by the local boards who know their local river, local tides or local lochs. That is where there should be some decision-making power.
Lord Burton: I too should like to support the noble Viscount's amendment. My noble friend who has just spoken has made a very valid point. I know that our fishery boards are particularly worried about the proliferation of fish farms. It happens to be rather a success story of the Highland Development Board, which has been developing fish farms, perhaps excessively but certainly extensively, over recent years.
580
I also know that the Highland River Purification Board is very worried about this; so I hope my noble friend will look at it very carefully.
Lord Gray of Contin: Before I answer the points that have been raised in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, perhaps I may apologise to my noble friend Lord Onslow for omitting to give him an answer to the question he asked me when we were discussing the last amendment. He asked whether Amendment No. 7 would not be covered by the new clause that I have tabled. Very briefly, the answer is, no. This is because the new clause will relate to the methods of fishing, but not rod and line.
Perhaps I may now deal with the amendment that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has tabled. Similar suggestions have been made in the past, usually to give district boards a measure of control over fish farmers' activities. This has not proved acceptable, largely because those activities are already subject to planning procedures. I do not think that it would be desirable to subject fish farmers to further control by my right honourable and learned friend.
However, a number of points have been raised, and I shall try to deal with them. With respect to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I do not propose to become involved in his arguments and exchanges with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because I think that they have finished about all square. What I should like to do is give one or two answers to the points that were raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is quite correct with regard to estuaries; but, so far as estuaries are concerned, the Crown Estate Commissioners have to give permission. I think that point is covered. The second point was raised when I was asked what "loch" means in this amendment. "Loch" is not defined or explained. If this amendment were accepted, it could be interpreted both as an inland loch and as a sea loch.
There is an element of difficulty arising from what the noble Viscount seeks to do here. I can understand what his intention was, but I do not think he has hit upon the solution. I think that we should be creating very great difficulties for the fish-farming industry if we were to go along this line. My noble friend Lord Gisborough asked me whether I could find out if the English water boards had managed to find a definition here. Of course I shall do my utmost to try to find out what method they use to overcome the problem. Having said that, I do not think that I can accept the noble Viscount's amendment for the reasons I have explained. I think that the difficulties which we would be creating here are too great. In view of what I have said, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he draw attention to the other fact that any of these regulations about these intimate things that we heard about have to come before Parliament, because the regulations are subject to the negative procedure. Much as I like waiting up at night, especially in your Lordships' Chamber (apart from my regard for it in another place) to deal with a matter of the negative procedure, I hardly think that it is the right thing. If it is necessary to give the power to someone, it should not be done under this particular clause and in this way.
Lord Burton: May I raise one point in reference to what my noble friend said? He referred to the Crown Estate Commissioners having to give permission for use; but large parts of the sea bed are not owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners, so I do not see why they have any authority in the matter.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid that I can only answer my noble friend by saying that my advisers assure me that in fact the Crown Estate Commissioners have to give permission where estuaries are concerned.
The Earl of Perth: As a sometime first Crown Estate Commissioner, perhaps I can help the Committee. The fact is that in some estuaries the Crown estate has total ownership but in others, under charters given many centuries ago, there are individuals who have the right for the sea bed in an area; so it is only partially correct to refer to the Crown estate.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I can give a little more help to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. It seems that these regulations are going to be indescribably detailed about one pool here and one pool there or one coracle doing this or one rod doing that. It seems to me that this is so detailed it should not come to Parliament. It should be delegated to somebody else. In other words, it should go down the way either to the water authorities in England or to the fisheries board or whatever it may be. Otherwise, if there is somebody whose attention to detail is as fine as that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, we shall be here for much longer than we are likely to be already.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have noted the point the noble Earl has made, and I shall think about this matter.
Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I too may ask the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, if he will think about this whole matter. I am perfectly prepared to admit that this amendment may be in the wrong place and that it may be in the wrong form. I admit that I had to put it before your Lordships rather hurriedly because the full extent of the problem came to my notice only a comparatively short time ago. After all, we have not had very long in any case since Second Reading.
The various letters of plea and entreaty to take up various amendments and so forth in this Bill are fluttering in through our mailboxes the whole time; so it has been difficult to prepare amendments and consider them as thoroughly as one would wish. But I think there is an important point here. For instance, I was aware that the Crown Estate Commissioners do not have the ownership of the estuary of the Thurso River, and I am sure that there are other such rivers. It is important that this matter be considered, and therefore I ask the noble Lord once again whether he will think about it. I am not going to press it at this point but I ask him whether he will think about it.
Lord Gray of Contin: If I may directly return to the amendment about the delegation to the fisheries boards, boards do not cover all of Scotland, so it would
582
not be appropriate to give them such power over fish-farming developments. As I indicated at the outset, this is my main concern. We have here a fish-farming industry which is very important to Scotland and in which a great deal of money has been invested, both privately and publicly. In this Bill, I should not like to see us include a provision which would make life very difficult for the fish-farming industry.
Viscount Thurso: With respect to the noble Lord, I think he has got it wrong. First of all, what I am talking about is net cages within the normal fishing areas of a river. The use of those and the placing of net cages in such places as lochs in the upper waters, deep parts of rivers and in estuaries, is a comparatively new thing. I am not talking about fish farms in the normally accepted sense or about anchorages off the coast; I am talking about people setting up trout farms in lochs where it is doubtful whether anybody will really look at it from the point of view of planning. It is not something which would move the planning authority enormously and nobody is enjoined to look at this practice, which is growing. It is not a fish farm being created in the normal sense; it is not somebody making stewponds and setting up a fish farm as we understand the term: it is a kind of semi-ranching in lochs.
5.30 p.m.
I feel that the control of this sort of thing should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. I am not asking him to give it to district boards; I am proposing that he should have it. If he thinks fit he will have the power, or somebody will, to control it. I have pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that there are areas where at the moment nobody will have the power really to control it, if somebody owns it. For instance, I could place a cage in the estuary of the Thurso, so far as I know, without let or hindrance and without asking the Crown Estate Commissioners, the planning authority, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the river purification board. I believe that could be done.
I may be wrong, but I do feel that the power should lie somewhere to prevent my doing that or to prevent me from doing it if I am doing a stupid thing. I think the power should be there to prevent anybody else doing a stupid thing, for instance, if it is going to pollute the water or endanger the fish that use the water. All I am really asking at this stage is that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, should look at this between now and Report stage. If he can say that he will do that, I will happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Viscount is asking me to do something I am not at all happy about doing, because I think sufficient laws are already available. The planning procedures are there and fish farmers are subject to the planning procedures. If I really thought I could come back with an amendment which would satisfy the noble Viscount I would willingly take this away, but I doubt very much whether that is possible. Therefore, if I were to take it away it would be purely a case of doing that and looking at it, but I could almost give a guarantee now that I would be coming back with the same answer. I do not think that is a particularly good thing to do.

583
I think it would be better if I were to say to the noble Viscount that perhaps he might care to take it away and give it further consideration. If he were to bring back another amendment at Report stage we could consider that in the light of his further researches, but at the moment I do not think I could justify taking this away and bringing it back at Report stage.
Lord Burton: I cannot understand why my noble friend is so much under the influence of the fish farming community. The same thing happened on tagging. They seem to have a very influential lobby. If, as the noble Viscount suggests, powers are given to the Secretary of State, perhaps he could use the purification boards to look at these matters. At the moment they cannot look at the disease. They have their waters polluted by a fish farm and apparently have no come-back whatsoever under the present setup. It seems totally unsatisfactory. There are large cages erected just at the top of the fish-pass at the end of the Inverness-shire Loch Garry and, so far as I know, although planning permission may have been given, the planners are not the people who know about disease or pollution. It must be either the fishery board, if there is one, or else the purification board.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend clear up one point about which I am certainly not clear? Can the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, put a large cage in the Thurso estuary without let or hindrance? If he can, with the greatest of respect to him—unless he can be paid not to do it, as was the case with all those lovely trees in Scotland—something ought to be done to stop him doing it. I say that with affection rather than with malice.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: There are extremely strict regulations to be satisfied before one is allowed to have salmon fish farms and there is really no danger of disease. For instance, the water that goes through the fish tanks where the parr and the smolts are is not allowed to be put back into the river.
The Marquess of Landsdowne: I do not want to prolong this discussion but I think the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is an important one. It would be a great pity for it to be just brushed aside. One point I should like to be a little clearer about is this. Who would complain, or who would acquaint the Secretary of State with what was going on? Somebody would have to have that responsibility. For example, if the noble Viscount planted a cage, who is going to sneak, as it were, to the Secretary of State about it?
Viscount Thurso: I should have thought the district board would be the people who would complain, or it might be the river purification board; but in either case they would have their interests interfered with if a cage were put there without their having been consulted and without having been able to make the proper representations.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is not willing to look at this himself. I would far rather he had looked at it. I am convinced there is a gap in the powers here to deal with the situation. I am also
584
perfectly prepared to admit—does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Gray of Contin: What I was going to say to the noble Viscount was that I do not want him to carry on too long because, if it is the feeling of the Committee that I am being unreasonable, of course I will take it back and look at it again. I must make is absolutely clear that I do not envisage a possibility of my being able to come forward with a suitable amendment, but I give the Committee an assurance that I will take it away, study it carefully and discuss it with my advisers to see whether I can possibly meet what the noble Viscount seeks.
Viscount Thurso: I find that immensely satisfactory and, if other noble Lords feel the same, I would be happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Perth: Clearly a new problem has arisen in connection with these cages. There is no clear authority as to who is to handle them. It may be that this Bill is not the right place for dealing with that at all, but if the noble Lord will examine the problem and advise us that this is a problem which is recognised and which has to be solved in some other way, then I would be entirely content.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I have listened to all the discussion and I would wish only to reinforce the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that whatever solution is decided upon by the Secretary of State these matters should not come to Parliament.
Viscount Thurso: As I say, with all these caveats I am perfectly content. I recognise that I may have chosen the wrong point at which to put forward the amendment, but with the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will look at this, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert ("; provided always that such regulations shall not shorten the periods specified in the said section 13.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 standing in my name and I do so, if I may borrow the wording of Amendment No. 9.
"in the interests of conserving the stock of salmon".
Section 13 of the 1951 Scotland Act says, among other things, that no person may fish on a Sunday, which I hope is a matter sacred even to this Government still. It says, secondly, that no person shall fish during the weekly close time, except by rod and line, on a Saturday or a Monday. The weekly close time is further defined in that Act quite definitely as from 12 noon on Saturday to 6 a.m. on the Monday—a period of 42 hours.
This power the Secretary of State is being granted—and he is being given a great many powers under this clause—is a very important one indeed. I think it is very valuable and entirely correct that he should have the power to alter or amend the weekly close time, because many people believe that the amount of weekly close time, which allows fish to

585
enter rivers, is a very important conservation measure which should be watched most carefully. There are those who think that 42 hours is not long enough, and there are those who think that is too short a time, but I would say that on a river like the Tay, with an estuary of 40 miles, 42 hours is very definitely not always enough. It means the fish travelling at rather more than 1 mph for 42 hours, and they do not do that. I would also tell your Lordships, without wishing to anticipate the debate that we shall have on drift netting on the English coast,that the weekly close time for drift netting is already 60 hours.
So, although it is very important that the Secretary of State should have this power to amend the close time, if his advisers and those he has consulted think it is important, because the stocks need conservation, it is equally a very damaging, dangerous and a retrograde step to give the Secretary of State—if I have read this Bill aright—the power to reduce this close time below 42 hours. The Bill would give him that power, whether or not he has agreed with those in the consultations or they have agreed with him, and that would be a dangerous mistake. For that reason, I should like to spell out quite clearly that he does not have the power to reduce the 42 hours, which I think has proved a universally accepted and satisfactory minimum close time every week since 1951. I beg to move.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: As a netsman myself, I should like wholeheartedly to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can understand the reasoning behind the amendment and I have noted that its effect on the weekly close time could be similar to that of the restriction in Clause 6(1) on the alteration of the annual close time. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment and I am advised that it is technically acceptable. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships and I am happy to accept his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I should also congratulate the noble Viscount and the Minister. I was about to rise and say that I defer to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. It is a far better amendment than mine and much more explicit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting such persons as he considers appropriate, prohibit all netting operations in a river if the flow falls below an agreed level, certified by the River Purification Board.")
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 10, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee and certainly will save time if we deal with Amendments Nos. 11, 25, 26 and 27:
Amendment No. 11: Line 4, at end insert, ("In England and Wales the Minister for Agriculture and the Secretary of State respectively may exercise the same power, if requested to do so by the appropriate water authority.")
Amendment No. 25: Clause 15, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) A district salmon fishery board may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, prohibit all netting operations in a river if the flow falls below an agreed level, certified by the River Purification Board.")
Amendment No. 26: Line 4, at end insert ("In England and Wales the Minister for Agriculture and the Secretary of State respectively may exercise the same power, if requested to do so by the appropriate water authority.")
Amendment No. 27: Page 15, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) A district salmon fishery board may restrict or prohibit all netting operations if the flow falls below a level at which salmon, grilse or sea trout will not normally run the river.")
These amendments all deal with roughly the same point, which is the question of low river flows, and I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is acceptable to him to group these five amendments in one debate.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I am very happy to take these amendments as the noble Viscount suggests.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: These amendments deal with the principle of stopping net catches in times of drought or low water, and I move Amendment No. 10 with the spirit of Amendment No. 9 behind me in the interests of conservation of salmon stocks. The problem of this matter of reducing catches in times of drought or low water was mentioned by several of your Lordships in the Second Reading debate and I believe it was said that it was something which was desirable.
I would remind your Lordships that there is very much of a precedent for this sort of legislation, in that the Secretary of State for the Environment in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland have power to stop the shooting of certain species of wild fowl in times of very cold weather. To do this, they have to consult the Nature Conservancy Council and the advice can be given quickly and effectively. I believe that it is a widely accepted power which has done a great deal to conserve those species which can suffer in very cold weather and is accepted by those who enjoy the sport of wildfowling and shooting. It is a valuable power which we now seek to extend to the field of salmon fishing.
When my noble friend Lord Gray replied to the debate on Second Reading, I am afraid that I thought his answers to this problem were, to say the least, slightly unsatisfactory. The first argument he deployed was that there was no means of defining a drought and therefore the clause could not be valid. There is more difficulty in defining a frost, but we have overcome that problem in the case of wildfowling. So I do not accept that that need necessarily be a total bar to action. There was a definition of drought up until 1976, which was that 15 consecutive days without rain constituted a drought. As your Lordships will remember, in 1976 we had about three months without rain and the definition had to be abandoned as being too narrow. It was concurrent with the appointment of a Minister for Drought, who, alas!, is not here to defend my amendment.
I do not think it is beyond the wit of man and of our legislators to define the sort of drought that we are talking about. It is obviously not possible to say that you stop all fishing after 15 consecutive days without

587
rain; it is much too narrow a definition. But I think it is possible to define it by reference to the amount of river flow. I believe, although I have no personal experience, that Scotland is covered by a series of river purification boards. These have, as a matter of statute, to define the height of a river, to measure it constantly and to monitor the flow of the river, and I think they have means of doing so. If they were approached, I am quite sure that they would be able to set some standard of river flow which was a dangerous level at which salmon were very much at risk. These purification boards do not extend to England and Wales, but amendments in the names of other noble Lords will, I think, cover that problem.
My noble friend then went on to say that there were difficulties because some areas of Scotland were not covered by fishery boards and, therefore, it was not possible to do this, because one fishery board might want this but another area could not have it because it had no board. That seems to me not only a very weak reason, but it is making the best the enemy of the good, which should never be done by us in legislation. I liken that to the argument that, because certain places do not have banks, they cannot be allowed to have bank holidays. The place from which my noble friend Lord Gray takes his title, Contin, does not, I think, have a bank. Therefore, Contin should not be allowed to have a bank holiday under that argument.
I should prefer to see that each fishery district board had this power itself. As your Lordships are well aware, it is obvious that it can be raining very hard in the west of Scotland, with the fish running, but in the east of Scotland the rivers can be at a very low level. So it seems to me quite wrong that this legislation should be in force for the whole country at any one time. Each board should have the power to trigger off an application to the Secretary of State, who acts very much as a safeguard, to ask that the restrictions on fishing should be brought into effect. In the same way, Amendment No. 19 suggests that the Secretary of State can himself do this, if he thinks fit. So there are many safeguards built into this and it is the principle which we are raising tonight.
I am aware that in some estuaries fish do not enter and are not at risk. They remain well out to sea until they smell the fresh water and then they enter the run-up. But there are other estuaries—and many people will tell your Lordships that this happens on the Tweed and the Tay—where they go up and down on the tide, hoping to find that the river has risen, and they are particularly vulnerable if they are unable to enter the river. Therefore, it is in the interests not only of the conservation of stocks but also of the people who should be profiting by making good catches of these fish, and in the interests of the whole purpose of this Bill that these powers should be taken under this opportunity, to be used in a drought or similar emergency for the benefit of all.
I would, finally, say that it is obviously not fair that this restriction should be totally forced upon the net fishing part of the industry. I have no doubt that if it is possible—we have already debated what is adequate tackle and perhaps we could tie in that previous debate—there should be some method whereby rod fishing could be curtailed in such periods. The
588
difficulty is that it is much harder to enforce this. But it is quite clear that the whole object of any such operations is to see that in times of drought the fish are protected until the river is rising again and they can enter it and fulfill their natural cycle. I beg to move.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, Amendment No. 11:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has put the case for Amendment No. 10 very cogently. But I believe that exactly the same need arises in England and Wales; droughts, sadly, are not confined to Scotland. The Welsh Water Authority, for example, have said:
"It should be possible to bring in short-term immediate restrictions on fishing during droughts when low water flow concentrates the fish in estuaries and pools without enough fresh water coming down rivers to encourage them to move upstream. This can lead to serious over-cropping with damage to future stocks".
I think it is very desirable that these provisions, if we introduce them, should be applied throughout Great Britain. As this is the first amendment I have put down designed to extend some provisions in this Bill to England and Wales—others are Amendments Nos. 26, 34 and 35—I should like to stress two points. First, that, in my view, we should never forget that we ought to try to move towards a national salmon management policy; and secondly, that salmon stocks in England and Wales are, by and large, less plentiful and more vulnerable than they are in Scotland. They are under greater pressure from water extraction, pollution and other things. Therefore, there is a need for more—not less—protection for them in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ridley, and I certainly would not oppose the extension of the principle to England and Wales, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. My noble friend has pointed out that there are periods when salmon can be taken exceedingly easily by nets at river mouths and in the firths and that there ought to be some control of that. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that there are no problems about judging a certain height of the river at a crucial point, and that it will be possible in each river to reach an agreement and to measure a point at which this provision should come into force.
He referred to the similar situation covering wildfowl. The Secretary of State for Scotland has exercised that power within the past two or three years during extremely hard winters and he has done it successfully and without opposition. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment also has exercised it in recent memory as regards England. I am not sure what the position is in regard to Wales.
I also agree with my noble friend that to consider a period of drought as the correct measure for a river does not take into account Scottish conditions, because the height of a river can very much depend upon melting snow. Certainly snow coming from heights of over 2,000 or 3,000 feet can still be affecting a river in Scotland well into the summer. So it is a much fairer measure to be able, if it is possible—and

589
I hope it is—to make a judgment in accordance with an agreed level of each river, which, of course, has to be certified by the river purification board.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, did not move his amendment to this clause on the same point. but it has been referred to and I think we all agree that, in principle, we are all aiming for what he has drafted, which is in the interests of conserving the stock of salmon. But I would go further than that. To those who are following our debates, or reading accounts of them, and look at the text of this Bill when it is enacted, I would say that in some of the rivers today it is not a question of conserving stocks of salmon; it is a question of increasing stocks of salmon, because the stocks are already much too low for various reasons, some of which I shall give.
First, disease in the past 15 or 20 years has affected the numbers of fish. Secondly, uncontrolled drift-netting at sea, to which we shall be coming later, has, I am absolutely certain, decimated stocks in various areas. Finally, and not least, there is the highly organised slaughter of fish by gangs of poachers. Here, again, the Bill is trying to put that right. I do not believe that in supporting this amendment, my noble friend and I are trying to attack the netsmen in the firth and river mouth. It is in their interest, as much as in anyone else's concerned with salmon, that the stocks should be increased and conserved. But there must be some system which will enable salmon to run up the rivers at times when they are most vulnerable and this provision would add, I think most usefully, to this conservation measure.
Lord Biddulph: Perhaps I may get on to the question of drought conditions. They vary from river to river. But might I suggest that the question of temperature and oxygen content might come into this as well. It is quite clear to me that in certain rivers salmon do not run if the water temperature rises above 70 degrees or the oxygen content has dropped. It does not matter whether there has been a month-long drought in these rivers because the salmon will still run. But if the oxygen content should drop or the water temperature should rise above a certain level, they will not. So it might help to define this question of drought if these other factors are taken into consideration.
6 p.m.
Baroness White: I rise to support Amendment No 11—admirably proposed by Lord Moran. It refers to one of three particular aspects of this Bill to which attention was drawn in the press release last week of the Welsh Water Authority. They are much concerned that the only provisions in this Bill which refer to England and Wales are included in one substantive clause, Clause 26, which, in the view of the Welsh Water Authority, as it now stands is not adequately enforceable; and the penalties clause, clause 27, which the Water Authorities Association of England and Wales has asked the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and one or two other noble Lords entirely to revamp. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that it is a very frustrating situation when one has two clauses inserted into what is a Scottish Bill. We have just as serious problems over salmon management and salmon fisheries in the Principality as there are in Scotland. I
590
am not sure whether noble Lords in all parts of the House fully realise that we have up to 50 rivers in Wales which can be fished for salmon or sea trout—we call them sewin—and that our recorded salmon catch is equal to that of England. Our unrecorded salmon catch might possibly be even greater. We feel strongly that proper provision should be made in the Principality for dealing with the serious situation of low water in drought conditions.
At Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister said that, so far as he was aware, there was no generally accepted standard for defining drought. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, have drawn attention to a comparable provision for dealing with the shooting of wildfowl. I took the trouble to look at the Drought Act 1976. Admittedly this Act does not apply to Scotland—only to England and Wales—so one can understand if the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is not entirely familiar with it. But it also indicates that our droughts are worse than yours. Section 1(1) of the Act states:
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied that, by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain, a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any area exists or is threatened then … he may by order make such provision authorised by this section as appears to him to be expedient".
Section 1(2) states that:
the power to make an order under this section … shall only be exercisable where an application is made to the Secretary of State by a water authority or statutory water company".
That of course applies to England and Wales. It admittedly leaves the matter open to a very wide discretion but at least it gets over the problem of when a drought is really threatening the fish stocks.
I would not presume to suggest that this is necessarily a better way of dealing with the matter than by having agreed levels for every river, but I am not at all sure that an agreement between the Secretary of State and the appropriate water authority, at any rate so far as Wales is concerned, would not be by far the most sensible way of dealing with the matter. Incidentally, under the Drought Act, the Secretary of State could vary or revoke any such order without having to wait for the initiative of the water authority. He has very considerable discretion under this particular enactment.
This should be considered again very seriously. It is already quite plain that many of us in the Committee are concerned that this matter should be dealt with.
Lord Chelwood: A very strong case has been made for the principle contained in these amendments. It is well known to the Committee that the balance between netsmen and rodsmen has been very heavily weighted in favour of the former for a long time—perhaps for all time. Netting in drought conditions and very low water is surely from a conservation point of view a self-defeating exercise, bearing in mind the awful hazards the salmon has to run both on the high seas and in trying to get up the rivers. It of course results in quite a substantial reduction in the breeding stock of the salmon.
I make no attack on the netsman, who do only what they are allowed to do by law but it is a fact—this may have been mentioned at Second Reading—that, over

591
the past 20 years or so, roughly six to eight times the weight or numbers of fish, whichever way one likes to put it, have been taken by netsmen compared with rodsmen in our rivers. Yet at the same time there has been a steady decline in net catches. Admittedly there have been small increases in rod catches, which some people find curious, though that of course is affected by many variable factors. But the significant thing to me and I think to your Lordships will be that netsmen have seen their catch roughly halved since 1973. If that is not proof of the fact that the number of fish trying to get up our rivers has greatly decreased, I do not know what is. I think that is a very significant fact.
I believe that the principles contained in these amendments—the amendments may not be perfectly drafted, and indeed I do not think they are—are quite excellent. If they make good sense in Scotland, surely they make equally good sense in England and Wales.
The Duke of Atholl: I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley, but before doing so perhaps I should declare an interest, in that I own some rather indifferent salmon fishing in Scotland.
I am personally convinced that it is a useful amendment because last summer, as the Committee may remember, we in Scotland suffered from almost incessant rain. There were undoubtedly many more fish in my particular part of the river and, I believe, in the whole of the rest of the Tay system than there had been in the previous year, which was the most glorious summer for the holidaymaker but not so good for the fisherman.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said that he would think of bringing in something that would stop rodsmen from fishing in really dry weather. I do not think this is necessary. You seldom have much success as a rodsman fishing in dry weather unless you use means which are already made illegal by other enactments. I cannot believe that the noble Viscount really meant to ban methods which are already banned. I think that we will spare him that chore and say that he need not try bringing in anything to stop rods from fishing away quite happily in dry weather. On the other hand, I do think that nets take an enormous number of fish when there is a real drought and that it would be very advantageous if a provision such as this could be included in the Bill.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wholeheartedly support the object of both these amendments, though I have certain reservations about them because I think this is something that should be done by the district salmon fishery boards. If the Secretary of State is to do it, or if he has to be consulted, it will take far too long—at least I think it will—because when the river falls below an agreed level you must be able to act at once. The district salmon fishery board can do this because it is local. It knows the conditions and can be flexible. I do not know how long it would take the Secretary of State to act or how long it would take to consult him but I suspect that it would be a matter of a week or a fortnight or something rather like that. Perhaps I am wrong but if not I do not think that will do a great deal of good. In that time, as I think the
592
noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, conditions may have changed, rain or melting snow in the hills may well have raised the river level considerably and so you may be in a position to allow netting again. Again in that case you would not want to waste a week or a fortnight chasing after the Secretary of State. This is very much a matter of day to day management.
Perhaps I may also say a word about the level of water at which fish run a river. It would not be difficult for district fishery boards to establish the level at which salmon will normally run a particular river, as has been shown by a study on the Aberdeenshire Dee. If catch statistics are analysed against river flows and also by checking the levels at which salmon bearing tide-lice or sea-lice are caught it is quite apparent, and this should not be a costly exercise. Sea-lice fall off a fish a maximum of 72 hours after the fish has entered fresh water, so a fish with sea-lice on it cannot have been in the river for more than 72 hours and a fish without sea-lice must have been in the river for more than 72 hours. If you examine fish you can see whether they have newly come in or have been there for some time.
Lord Kimball: I find myself in somewhat of a minority here. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ridley will not have the same success with this amendment as he had with his previous amendment. Although I sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment, I must tell your Lordships that in practical terms it simply will not work. The theory that because you have a drought in your watershed your fish will remain in your estuary, washing in and out on the tide hoping that in a couple of weeks' time they will eventually be able to run the river, just is not true. In actual fact what happens is that they try the river of their origin the first time round and if there is a drought there they push off round the coast, basically going off round to the east coast and down the east coast, turning round at Northumberland and coming round again up the coast of Scotland, hoping to get up a river.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that we undertook a practical experiment in which I stopped my own sweep net on the north coast of Scotland. I am of course only talking about a small river and not about a large one such as the Tay or the Tweed. Before we stopped the sweep net I had the salmon research people up from Faskally and we tagged the last 40 fish that we took in our sweep net. We then put our sweep net away.
Within 10 days, we had 36 of those 40 tags returned—six from the west coast and the balance from the east coast. I believe that some of them came from the river of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Those fish went on. I cannot imagine being in a worse position—not being allowed to net my river but having the noble Viscount net all my fish! I think that would be very unfair. The principle has much to commend it but I must tell your Lordships that in fact it would not achieve the object that my noble friend Lord Ridley intends.
Lord Chelwood: May I say to my noble friend in the most friendly way possible that he refers to the salmon in the Naver, which I know so well, as being his fish. Are they not our fish?
Viscount Trenchard: I must disagree with my noble friend and support the two amendments to which we have been speaking, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I know that my noble friend Lord Kimball is familiar with every inch of the Naver and the north coast of Scotland but I am interested to learn that he has swum all round the coast, following underwater the normal route of fish that have not been tagged. There is evidence that the tagging and handling of fish alters their running habits. There is also enormous evidence that the vast majority of fish almost insist on returning to their own river and to the tributary of it.
I ask my noble friend Lord Kimball to consider the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Ridley, which is that the Secretary of State in Scotland would act only
"after consulting such persons as he considers appropriate".
I cannot imagine that in the instance of the river Naver my noble friend Lord Kimball would not be consulted. I do not believe therefore that inappropriate action would be taken in his particular river.
As far as concerns a river that I know very well—and I have fished my noble friend's river but I am speaking now of the other end of the kingdom, in South-West England—the Tamar has a long estuary, and there is no doubt whatsoever that fish go up and down it. They go up it just ahead of the tide and down it again if there is an inadequate flow. They die in large numbers from pollution when the water level falls very low. They have been assessed as dead fish and have been removed by the South West Water Authority, which I believe estimated in the last drought year well over 2,000 dead fish.
In those conditions, legal netting stations up and down the estuary take the remainder of fish that have not died. I therefore say to my noble friend Lord Kimball that he will be consulted. I have absolutely no doubt that his netting will not be stopped unless he stops it himself, because he knows so much about that river. I ask him not to destroy what appears to be a totally unanimous view for Great Britain, that there should be some such power in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Gray is probably going to ask, "How is the level, in the terms of Amendment No. 11, going to be agreed?" My noble friend Lord Ridley uses the word "agreed". In England and Wales, perhaps it should be that the onus should be placed on the water authorities to recommend a level below which they will consider prohibition.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: If I may comment very briefly, without entering into the argument between the east and the west coast of Scotland, I support very much what has been said by various noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, Lady White, about Amendment No. 11. The noble Baroness speaks with a great deal of experience because of her position in the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology. That is very important.
I wish to make two points. The first is that the amendment here applies in other parts of the Bill, and I support that as well. Secondly, as I see it, the issue is that if one establishes water authorities, which were set up in 1972, then one ought to give those authorities as much reasonable responsibility as possible. I say to
594
your Lordships that the reaction of the Welsh Water Authority to this Bill is one of great disappointment.
I am very much encouraged by the fact that my noble friend Lord Belstead is sitting on the Front Bench at the moment. Indeed, that is greatly to his credit. I hope that he will convey to his right honourable friend that those of us who do not live north of the Border had hoped to have a little more in the Bill to help both English and Welsh fisheries. What has been said about conservation applies countrywide and not just to Scotland. I shall not say more because there are others wishing to speak.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on two counts. The first is that rivers are different and what obtains for the Naver does not, necessarily obtain for other rivers and certainly does not obtain for the Dee, where this practice has been tried and where the results have been helpful. Secondly, if the fish do go away—which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, observed, they do not necessarily do, because tagged fish behave in a strange way—in, say, July of one year, when there is drought in the Naver area, but possibly not in another area, then so what? The following year the position may be completely reversed.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to produce some personalised evidence of the hammering that low-water fishing can have on a river. I am very privileged to be asked to fish the Helmsdale, which I suppose is one of the greatest of all the Scottish sea rivers. In 1984, as your Lordships are well aware, there was an enormous amount of drought and no rain at all. The Helmsdale has a dam that they normally try to manage. This year there was much too much water and it could not be let out; but that is a different story.
In 1984, all the dam water was used and everybody wanted to go on the bottom beat of the private rod stretch. In August, almost from first light until eight o'clock, one could have caught one's limit on that bottom beat because all the fish were concentrated there. Consequently, that bottom beat received a hammering, which perhaps it should not have suffered. Not all those fish were necessarily taken in the mouth, because the place was so crammed with fish that one could not get up-river. Some of them had hooked not a million miles away from other parts of their body, if I may put it like that.
There is evidence to support my noble friend Lord Ridley when he says that there should be efforts made, even in rod fishing, to control the situation. We must never lose sight of the fact that the tonnage of salmon has fallen from the 10,000 tonnes caught 10 years ago to 5,000 tonnes caught last year. That is too big a fall to be anything like comfortable. Having said that once already, and again now, I come to the logic of continuing onto the English rivers and not giving my noble friend Lord Kimball the benefit of the doubt. He may be right, but the evidence is that he is wrong; and with that catastrophic fall in salmon catches we cannot afford to take the risk of not making the maximum amount of conservation effort that we can.
Viscount Thurso: I fear that the thought lying behind these amendments is totally illusory. I support

595
the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, in that, and I will produce figures. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is wrong in believing that it was a disaster that there was a hammering on the lower beat of which he spoke. In fact, it probably saved some of the fish from death by other causes.
On the Thurso—I forget exactly what year it was, but in the 1960s—we had extremely low conditions for a long period. However, there were regular little spates that raised the water level from time to time. This kept the salmon coming into the estuary, and, as a result, by mid-July the netsmen at the mouth of the river had caught very nearly a record catch. At that point I said to them, "Look, chaps, you have done very well. You are on full bonus. You have made as much as you possibly can. From now on it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who gets all the benefit. Shall we give a chance to the rod fishermen and to the river in general? Shall we take off the net from 1st August?" They agreed. They were satisfied to sit back and let the fish run the river.
There came a little rise of four inches at the marker at Halkirk and the fish ran solidly into the river. Unfortunately, that was all the rise there was. Throughout the rest of the month of August and the month of September we had to employ a man to bury the dead fish which were on the bottom three beats of the river. The fish were so crowded in those bottom three beats that they were dying of suffocation. They were so crowded together that the cocks were actually letting go their milk because they thought they were spawning. After that rise in the water the rods caught no fish until the end of the season. Therefore, in my view, it is a totally illusory amendment.
The fact is that all salmon behave more or less the same way. It does not matter whether they are east coast fish, west coast fish or Icelandic fish, as long as they are Atlantic salmon they behave in roughly the same way. When they come back to their coast they search it. They go up and down trying the rivers for taste. If they find their own river there is a tendency for them to stay off the mouth of it. They will go into it and go up with the tide to the high tide mark and back down again. At very low levels they will run the river.
I remember on one occasion there was a digger working in the mouth of the Thurso. I was standing on a rock in the middle of the Thurso talking to someone who was on a rock not far away. I heard a flapping noise at my feet. There was a fish coming up through about six inches of water. It was at my feet and running into the river—a fresh run grilse.
Viscount Trenchard: May I—
Viscount Thurso: I will give way in a moment, but please let me finish. What happens is that the fish come in and explore the estuary and go out again. If there is prolonged, definable drought the fish will go off the estuary and the netsmen at the mouth of the river will be longing for a rise of water to bring the fish back. In our case they also long for a south wind to take the taste of the fresh water out to bring the fish in. However, what they long for more than anything else is a small rise of water to define that a drought is not
596
taking place. At that moment the fish will return once more to run the river.
Therefore, the conditions in which you catch most fish with an estuary net are those conditions where, generally speaking, the levels are low so that there is not a big pool of fresh water running out into the sea to bring the fish in and where there is not continual high water to tempt them every day to run up the river. There should be a little flow the whole time, but not a drought.
Viscount Trenchard: While I—
Viscount Thurso: I do not have to give way. I am trying to give an explanation of how all fish run a river. They will come in as long as there is a pool of water. They will try to run up the river and if they do not like it they will fall back and stay around. Full drought conditions are self-limiting and the idea that letting a lot of fish into the river in semi-drought conditions will do the river good is a totally illusory one.
Viscount Trenchard: May I just say to the noble Viscount that I respect entirely his great knowledge of his particular area and of fish generally. However, some of us are talking of estuaries which are 14 miles long with brackish water and tides that move up and down where there is no question whatever but that fish stay in that 14 miles and move up and down.
I say to the noble Viscount as I said to my noble friend Lord Kimball that under the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley he will be consulted. Nobody could possibly introduce something in Thurso over the head of the proprietor and the netting organisation. If his river runs straight into the sea and the fish behave exactly as the noble Viscount describes, then he will be unaffected. However, there are a great many other rivers in Scotland and in England where the experience of the noble Viscount and my noble friend does not, with respect, hold water.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moran—or perhaps the Minister can help on this—whether, if his amendment is passed, it would mean altering the Long Title of the Bill? I think when we come to a later stage on the licensing of dealers in England it would be necessary that we should do so at the appropriate time. Indeed, he has an amendment to do this. I want to make it clear now that if it is necessary to do this we would do so in this House as I think it cannot be done in another place.
As regards the amendment, my noble friend Lord Gray will see that it is slightly more complicated than it perhaps looks from the wording. I am inclined to agree with the amendments. I think that on the whole they are desirable. However, if the Secretary of State is to have this power it must be on the recommendation of the river board. Conditions vary too much throughout the United Kingdom to give the Secretary of State this power without any local recommendations.
May I say to my noble friend Lord Ridley that, of course, this deals with nets only. He rather hinted that some comparable action might be taken in relation to rods. It would be extremely complex to design such a scheme. Riparian owners these days have to let their fishings months ahead. Not only do they let them to

597
people in this country but often to foreigners. To be suddenly faced with an order from the Secretary of State that all rod fishing should cease at a certain height of water would be difficult and extremely complicated.
Viscount Ridley: I did not say "cease".
Lord Home of the Hirsel: If we were to consider any sort of control of rod fishing at low water to compensate, so to speak, for any control put on the net fishing I would much rather see it done by regulating the lure or the bait. After all, the fellow is skilful who catches a fish at all with a fly.
Viscount Ridley: I did not say that it should cease. I said exactly what my noble friend Lord Home suggests. The Tweed is an example where the nets are all fixed fly only; and a very good rule that is.
Lord Burton: I should dearly love to support this amendment but I regret that I cannot support Amendment No. 10. I think the application is probably inoperable, certainly in most rivers. As my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said, the whole set-up is extremely complex.
As a member of a purification board may I say that, first of all, we would require an enormous increase in staff, and there is no money provision in the Bill. The Highland River Purification Board covers the whole of the North of Scotland. We have three inspectors so it would be inoperable for them to be watching the mouths of the various rivers.
How are the various netting stations to be notified quickly? If it is done by advertisements in the paper it would almost certainly have rained by the time they see it. However, even before the official finds the gauge is below the level agreed—provided there is agreement—rain may already have fallen in the hills feeding the tributaries of the rivers concerned. A few minutes after the reading of the gauge the situation could have changed completely. It is not really like a hard weather situation where the birds are suffering. The change is much quicker than that. Indeed, there only needs to be a hot day to melt the snow and it would bring extra water into a number of rivers.
Again, a good many of our highland rivers are affected by hydro schemes which put the water level up and down not once but several times a day. The operation of the Caledonian Canal affects the nets very materially; the River Oich affects them even more so. So I find that there are various factors which regrettably make this amendment inoperable.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I wonder whether my noble friend Viscount Ridley realised just how much interest he would arouse in the amendment No. 10 that he tabled. In fact, the interest is such that at this time we are dealing with Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 25, 26, 27, 34 and 35, and at some time during the last 47 minutes all those amendments have been touched upon by one or other of your Lordships.
I find myself in the difficult and perhaps somewhat unusual position of sitting on the Front Bench feeling
598
almost like an arbiter might feel in such a situation. We had a complete across-the-Floor exchange of views, with opinions not in any way being expressed along party lines but exchanged purely among Members of your Lordships' House who have a tremendous knowledge of this very important sport and, indeed, industry.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who raised a very important point, as he does so often, regarding the Long Title of the Bill. I have been advised that it would be necessary to change the Long Title of the Bill were this amendment to be accepted. I must state straightaway that it is not possible for me to accept this amendment and in due course I shall give your Lordships some reasons why I cannot. Indeed, it is not possible for me to accept any of the amendments, but I take the unusual step of giving my conclusion before I deal with the various points which have been raised.
There has been such interest taken in this amendment and so many points have been raised on it that I should prefer my advisers to have the opportunity of reading Hansard tomorrow and studying the deliberations which have taken place, so that we can come to a conclusion a little later. I do this without any commitment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, very properly pointed out, the difficulties which are involved in formulating any amendment that would cover the points which many noble Lords have raised this afternoon would be great indeed. I shall take the amendment away and, without giving any commitment, I shall study it carefully and make sure that all the points which have been raised are carefully considered.
I think we all appreciate the concern of the noble Viscount to restrict netting effort in drought conditions in order to conserve stocks. However, I need hardly remind your Lordships that drought is not a common phenomenon in Scotland. Moreover, if we take the nets off in low water conditions it might easily be argued that, in fairness, we ought to dispense with the weekly close time arrangements in high water conditions. I believe that this measure is unnecessary and that there are better and less potentially acrimonious ways of conserving stocks and maintaining a reasonable balance between rods and nets under the provisions of this Bill.
I may say that I am advised that the proposed amendment is defective in a number of respects. For example, it is not at all clear how prohibitions would be effected and enforced. It is not clear whether it is envisaged that the proposed consultation will take place initially in order to determine the agreed level or whether it will be undertaken on every occasion on which the Secretary of State intends to prohibit netting. It would be necessary to provide a method of imposition of the prohibitions and for offences and penalties, if a prohibition of this nature is to be effectively enforced. However, my objections are on the principle of what is proposed and not just on the defective drafting.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, my noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Baroness, Lady White, all spoke to Amendments Nos. 11 and 26. I should point

599
out that, following the drought of 1984, the Government are reviewing the operation of drought procedures in England and Wales and we should not anticipate the outcome of that drought review. So far as Amendments Nos. 11 and 26 are concerned, I could not accept them in any event because I feel that it would be wrong for us to pre-empt what might be revealed in the review.
Regarding Amendment No. 25—
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend Lord Gray on this point but I should like some clarification. Is he saying that during this drought review which the Government are undertaking, if they consider it necessary, and it can be shown to be necessary, to introduce regulations of this sort on English salmon waters, they will do so; or is he just saying, "We are looking at the drought review and I do not have to address myself to the problem raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard of the fish in the Tamar"?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, that is not quite what I am saying. I shall try to explain to my noble friend. What I said was that I thought it would be wrong for us at this stage and in this legislation to pre-empt the conclusions of the drought review, but of course if at some future time legislation is required then it will be up to the respective departments concerned to decide whether or not such legislation should be introduced. I am not suggesting for one moment that the conclusions of the review will necessarily have to be implemented in this way. I am merely saying that it would be wrong for us to pre-empt those conclusions.
Lord Moran: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord the Minister, but may I ask whether the officials who are conducting the drought review are under instructions to consider the fisheries aspect, and particularly the aspect of the threat to salmon and sea trout when they are entering rivers in drought conditions?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I am advised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have an input into the review and have every right to make their views known to those who are considering the matter.
I am afraid that Amendment No. 25 has similar defects to the earlier amendment. In addition to those which I have already mentioned, there is no procedure for a board to impose a ban. In any case, for the reasons I gave in regard to the earlier proposal, I consider that this would be undesirable in principle.
Regarding Amendment No. 27 which was spoken to by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I suggest that the amendment is inappropriate, since its reference to "all netting operations" is too widely drawn and consequently open to various interpretations. Furthermore, there is no indication given as to how the restriction or prohibition which is contained in the amendment would be imposed and enforced. I am afraid that in those circumstances I am not able to accept her amendment—certainly not in the form in which it has been tabled. However, it is useful to note that all the amendments aim at the same conclusion.
600
Because of the wide interest expressed, I shall look carefully at what has been said.
Let me now touch on Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. In England and Wales it is already an offence under Section 30 of the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act 1975 to introduce fish or spawn into inland waters without the consent of the relevant water authority. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would merely duplicate those powers.
A number of other points were raised. The difficulties that we face have been highlighted by the variety of ideas put forward for handling low water conditions. For example, my noble friend Lord Biddulph mentioned the question of oxygen. That is a matter which is vitally important and would have to be considered. But that suggestion and the speech of my noble friend Lord Kimball highlight the difficulties of tackling the problem.
Bird shooting restriction was mentioned, but that is not an entirely apt comparison. Bird shooting prohibitions concern recreational shooting. The salmon fishing proposal is directed at commercial netting operations. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the frost provisions relating to bird shooting (in Section 2(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act) are in marked contrast. Winters are measured by a widespread phenomenon—days of frost. River levels will differ according to the river, the time and the place, and the levels would have to be set individually for each separate river. Weighting in favour of netsmen was also suggested. I cannot agree with that. They are more severely restricted than the angler, and rightly so, because they use a much more efficient method of catching fish.
I realise that this is another area of great concern to the Committee. I do not expect that I shall be able to resolve the matter easily or at all; but I give the Committee the assurance that in view of the strong opinions expressed on both sides of the argument I shall consider the matter carefully before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Viscount Ridley: I thank my noble friend for his considered reply. I should just like to take my noble friend Lord Kimball to task—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Before we come to Amendment No. 10, we have to dispose of Amendment No. 11. Does the noble Lord wish to say anything further or to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Moran: In the light of what the Minister has said, which I understand to be an assurance that the officials considering the drought review will take account of fisheries, and specifically of salmon, problems both in England and Wales, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: I shall not press Amendment No. 10 in view of what has been said, but I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a most valuable debate. From the many speeches

601
that we have had there can be no doubt that there is a strong feeling in the Committee that something has to be done about this sooner or later. Some such powers are needed, although I am the first to admit that my drafting is far from perfect; in fact it is probably totally imperfect. But whatever we do should cover the whole of Great Britain and if possible all of the United Kingdom, and we must consider seriously how to do it.
I just wanted to take my noble friend Lord Kimball to task, as others have done. I fear that he is making the great mistake of talking about the Naver, which is one river that has almost no estuary. Will your Lordships consider this position? If, for instance, you were going upstairs to bed and half-way up the stairs you were caught by my noble friend, taken out of the water and a tag put in your ear, I think that you would try another staircase the next time that you wanted to go to bed!
As to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I have never seen the Thurso river so I make no comment, but in view of the rather nasty sexual habits of his fish I am not sure that I want to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: Subsections (6)(a) and (b) refer to districts. Perhaps I may suggest that the Minister looks to see whether the phrase should not be added, "or parts of districts". I do not want to answer now.
Earl Haig: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to raise one or two points on which I should have put down an amendment but unfortunately the amendments that I posted by express post from Scotland failed to materialise here. As I shall not be able to be here at the Report stage, I should like, if your Lordships will allow me, to raise these two points which concern the powers of the Secretary of State to control the extraction of sand and gravel and the powers of the Secretary of State to control the extraction of water.
Like pollution, sand and gravel can upset the habitat of the salmon and affect their race. Digging can also affect fishing. Fishermen may suddenly find a day's fishing completely ruined by the sudden arrival of sand and other materials in the river which put off a day's sport to which they have been looking forward. There should be an opportunity for all interested parties to consult with the Secretary of State before bulldozers begin disturbing the river bed or the land near the river. As a result of consultations, plans can be made to arrange the timing and dating of operations to minimise damage to fishing and to fish. In order to preserve fish and promote fishing there should be some control. That is a view which I think is accepted by river and fishery boards in many parts of Scotland.
With regard to the other problem of water extraction, which of course is very much linked with the subject that we have been debating for the past hour—when low water conditions prevail
602
—unnecessary and ill-timed extraction can adversely affect the river, particularly when the water is low, and warm water can promote algae and weed growth, with the maximum stress to the fish. Less water means less dilution of pollution, and water extractors may even add to the pollution by putting back water which is polluted.
The Secretary of State should, in consultation with river boards which have measuring equipment that is most efficient these days, be able to control extraction in the same way as he controls pollution. At present there are no controls in Scotland as there are in England and Wales, because the 1963 Act affected England and Wales only. It was assumed that the Scottish weather made us different. But recent summers, I believe, have destroyed that theory. In any case, the weather in Wales is very similar to that in Scotland.
Low water conditions on the Tweed in summer are presenting increasing problems. Abstraction takes place for the central belt water supply, for fish farms and for arable farming. The Tweed Purification Board minimises the problem by the introduction of fresh supplies from reservoirs. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State should have power to restrict water abstraction at certain times so that available water is wisely used for the benefit of all consumers. I ask my noble friend the Minister to think about the point that I have made. It is a matter that will possibly be raised at Report stage by someone in my name.
Lord Gray of Contin: My noble friend tabled a manuscript amendment which I have not had a great deal of time to consider. I would, however, say to him that the powers to make regulations under Clause 3 of the Bill are already extended to the whole of the river Tweed district, including that part in England, by Clause 9 as it stands. Indeed, the amendment proposed by my noble friend would restrict that application because, in describing the Tweed in the amendment, he omits to include that part which was added by by-law under the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868. Given this explanation and the fact that his amendment would not achieve what he seeks, he may perhaps consider withdrawing it.
Earl Haig: I was not actually moving any amendment. I was simply airing my views in the hope that these might be considered in St. Andrew's House before Report stage.
Lord Gray of Contin: I apologise to my noble friend. The mistake is mine. My noble friend was of course speaking on the Question that the clause stand part. I take note of what he says. We shall look forward to hearing from him at at a later stage.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Annual close time]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 29, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: The principle that I sought to debate in Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 has already

603
been covered in the debate on Amendment No. 6. That being so, I do not propose to move either this amendment or Amendment No. 14.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Estuary limits]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 9, after ("Act") insert ("or in section 36 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to exclude the provisions of Section 36 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 from Section 7(7). Section 36 provides that nothing in that Act or any by-law shall make any method of fishing legal if it would have been illegal at the passing of that Act. If the limits of the estuary of a river change by, for example, the mouth of the river moving along the coast, and this amendment was not made, the usual coastal methods of fishing could not be lawful in the area vacated by the estuary. This is not our intention in providing extra flexibility. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Application of regulations and annual close time orders to the River Tweed]:
Earl Haig Earl Haig moved manuscript Amendment No. 15A:
Page 8, line 29, leave out from ("Tweed") to end of line 32 and insert ("including so much of the River Tweed as is situated outwith Scotland and the mouth or entrance of the River Tweed as defined in section 4 of the Tweed Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1859.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment refers to the desirability of enabling netting stations at the mouth of the Tweed to operate under the terms of the Bill. My amendment, which I shall read out, is at line 29 to leave out from "Tweed" to the end of line 32 and to insert:
"including so much of the River Tweed as is situated outwith Scotland and the mouth or entrance of the River Tweed as defined in section 4 of the Tweed Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1859".
As I said in my speech at Second Reading, the Bill would not cover the netting stations at the mouth of the river which are in England. This amendment would bring those netting stations within the law. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I dealt with part of this amendment when I spoke after the noble Earl had spoken on the Question that Clause 3 stand part. I can perhaps reiterate the relevant parts, which are that the powers to make regulations under Clause 3 of the Bill are already extended to the whole of the river Tweed district, including that part in England, by Clause 9 as it stands. In view of what I have said and in view of the fact that the amendment proposed by my noble friend restricts that application, since it does not include that part which was added by by-law under the Salmon
604
Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1863, my noble friend will perhaps consider withdrawing the amendment.
Earl Haig: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Qualified proprietors and upper and lower proprietors]:
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved manuscript Amendment No. 15B:
Page 9, line 28, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 29 and insert ("the proprietors from time to time of—

(a) a salmon fishery separately entered in the valuation roll as at 31st March 1985; and

(b) a salmon fishery treated as having been separately entered in the said valuation roll under subsection (2) below.").

The noble Marquess said: I must apologise for this somewhat convoluted amendment which I have put in manuscript form. I tried to give my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin some notice of it. The object of the amendment—the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees has not read out the whole of it, for there is a great deal more—is to try to have a better definition of a qualified proprietor.
The definition in subsection (1) seems to be unsatisfactory in two respects. First, as noble Lords will be aware, it is becoming increasingly common for fisheries to be owned by a multiplicity of proprietors in pro indiviso shares, particularly in connection with time-share schemes. Each of those proprietors is entitled to be described as a person who owns a salmon fishery entered in the valuation roll, but in my opinion it is unreasonable that one fishery should support more than one voter. Secondly, there is a danger that proprietors may deliberately subdivide their fisheries into small units simply in order to create new fisheries and thus additional voters in fishery board elections. The amendments which I have tabled are designed to overcome those two possible abuses.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, touched on the question of time-share schemes earlier in the debate. When I arrived from Scotland yesterday I went through all the amendments with great care and I thought that pretty well everything had been thought of. However, it seemed to me that perhaps here there is a gap and that is why I have taken the liberty of tabling the manuscript amendment. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to give me a substantive reply, but I hope that he will consider the amendment I have put down and see whether it is helpful in overcoming the difficulties to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: As the noble Marquess explained, he tabled this amendment not very long before we started our deliberations. I have not had time to consider it and nor have my advisers had time to give me the appropriate advice. Therefore, I shall willingly take it away. I shall carefully read what my noble friend has said and I shall consider it before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I must re-emphasise that only part of my amendment has been read out, but I take it that the

605
noble Lord will consider the whole of it. With those comments, I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("person who owns") and insert ("proprietor of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
Amendment No. 17: Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("the") to end of line 33 and insert ("normal tidal limit").
Amendment No. 18: Page 10, line 39, leave out ("rolls") and insert ("a roll").
As regards Amendment No. 16, the term "proprietor" has been defined in Clause 28(1) and it is considered desirable to use this term in Clause 10(1) rather than to include a reference to "a person who owns". It is thought that the contrast with the definition might suggest that "person" could be interpreted to mean something different from "proprietor", as so defined. The amendment will ensure that only a proprietor, as defined in Clause 28(1) can be qualified for election to a district board. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16A:
Page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Without prejudice to subsections (9) and (10) below where

(a) any salmon fishery separately owned at 31st March 1985 has been inadvertently omitted from the said valuation roll, the proprietor of that salmon fishery; or

(b) the ownership of a material part of a salmon fishery separately owned at 31st March 1985 has been transferred, the transferee,

may apply to the district salmon fishery board, or where there is no district salmon fishery board to the sheriff, to be treated as if his fishery had been separately entered in the valuation roll as at 31st March 1985.
(2A) Where more than one person owns a salmon fishery the proprietors of that fishery shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a single qualified proprietor only.").
The noble Marquess said: As I understand that the noble Lord will be considering this matter, I do not wish to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 16A not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 17:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I should like to ask a question. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said earlier, papers have been dropping through our letterboxes by almost every post. It is unfortunate that the time has been so short. However, this morning I received a letter from the Law Society of Scotland and I know that there are difficulties about the question of the mean high tide water mark or any tide mark. They have suggested—and it is only a suggestion; I do not know
606
whether there is anything in it—that the wording concerning mean high tide mark should read:
"the base line referred to in Section 1(1) of the Fishery Limits Act 1976".
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps it may be easier if I actually explain the amendment so that everyone can appreciate the wording. It has been drawn to our attention by the District Boards Association that the words:
"mean high water mark of ordinary spring tides",
are not the most appropriate in this context because the high water mark in a tidal river is not a point, nor a line across the river, but two separate lines, roughly parallel to the course of the river, one on each bank. The words used by the ordnance survey to describe the up-river end of the tidal flow are "normal tidal limit", and those should be used here. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I am sure that my noble friend will look at the Law Society's definition about drawing a line. There are difficulties, as my noble friend has explained.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 18:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18ZA and 18ZB not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [District salmon fishery boards]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 12, line 42, at end insert ("in proportion to the value of their fisheries in the valuation roll").
The noble Lord said: I think that this amendment is self-explanatory. The amendment concerns the question of what happens to the assets when a district is wound up. There may be cars or even houses. It seems reasonable, therefore, that when they are divided between the proprietors concerned they should be divided in proportion to the value of the fisheries in the valuation roll. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: As my noble friend Lord Burton has pointed out, this amendment seeks to ensure that members of the association of proprietors who inherit the liabilities and assets of a defunct district board, share in such liabilities and assets in the same proportion in which they contribute to the fishery assessment. This seems in principle an attractive suggestion and I am grateful to my noble friend for moving it. I am willing to undertake to give the proposal detailed consideration and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment on that assurance.
Lord Burton: I have great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis of that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 13, leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: I hesitate to describe this as a simple amendment after the discussion which we had on what I naïvely thought was a simple amendment; namely, Amendment No. 10. On Second Reading I said that I was looking forward to the Committee stage, during which I was sure I should learn a great deal. I assure your Lordships that I have learnt a great deal, particularly about the difference between rivers which seem to me to be in the far north of Scotland and the rivers in the rest of Scotland.
The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Minister why subsection (9) is necessary at all. It seems to me to be cluttering up the legislation to have a subsection which says:
"There may be a district salmon fishery board for a district whether or not there are salmon in the waters of that district".
It seems rather superfluous to me. However, we had a little over an hour's debate on Amendment No. 10, and I should not be surprised if this one took us up to the time when we break for dinner. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: It may seem strange to some to make provision for a salmon fishery board for a district which has no salmon in its waters. This provision is simply a re-enactment of part of Section 3 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 which is being repealed by this Bill. More importantly, however, I think it would be imprudent not to allow a board to be formed in anticipation of salmon being introduced into inland waters or returning there.
It would also be imprudent for a board to have to be wound up if, following some disaster, salmon stocks in a particular district were killed off, which of course is one of the implications of the amendment. It may be in such circumstances, for example, that the proprietors would wish to retain the board to help towards regeneration of stocks. I hope in view of what I have said that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that the second point made by the Minister is quite reasonable. There had been a board; there had been fish, and the hope is that there might be fish again. But if there had never been fish how do we get the board? Remember it is only to be created on the basis of two qualified proprietors. That takes you back to the presence of fish.
There may be some who perhaps go down to wherever the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is and buy a couple of fish and put them in and say, "Here you are. I am a qualified proprietor of a salmon fishery area". But it beats me as to how you get the board. I can understand the situation where you have a board and the fish have disappeared, but where you have no fish how do you get the board? If you do not get a board, how on earth does this apply?
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend the Minister is considering an answer to that point, whatever his answer to that may be may I ask him whether the Bill will provide for a situation where there are at present no salmon in a river but where it
608
is proposed to introduce some? If the Bill is not drafted to provide this at the moment, I suggest that it should be drafted so that it would be possible to bring a board into existence on the serious proposal to introduce salmon into a river.
I know that this extends to England. About seven years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, introduced small salmon into the River Thames, and I understand that some have been caught since then. No doubt he will be able to tell us later. This particular clause deals with Scotland, but if there are no salmon and they can be introduced and the conditions are favourable for their introduction, then it would be a pity if there were no provision for a board to be set up in order to be able to cater for the situation once the salmon have been introduced.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend because he has really answered the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for me. This is a re-enactment. It would seem to us to be imprudent not to allow a board to be formed in anticipation of salmon being introduced into inland waters, or returning there. As my noble friend suggested, it could be that restocking would be going to take place, and it might be desirable that a board be created. It seems to us that it is not unreasonable to have this re-enactment for the purposes I have suggested.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Can we settle it fairly quickly? We have had it since 1868. How many times has the provision been used? If it has not been used, let us forget it. If it has been used, tell us—or write a letter to the Solicitor-General, or someone or other.
Lord Burton: If the river is stocked with little fish which it is illegal to take, they will then migrate to the sea and there will be a period before they come back again. Therefore, there may be no fish in the river at the time but there would be a strong expectancy that they will arrive within a period.
I believe that there was a good deal of difficulty over the Clyde. Perhaps noble Lords opposite will know more about it than I do. I believe that they have recently had salmon where they had not previously had them, and I believe that there were no proper controls because they did not exist. No doubt noble Lords opposite will know more about that than I do.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: It is important not to delete this. I am thinking in terms of where one is trying to create a proper structure over a length of coast. It may well be that between two district board areas as presently defined there lies an area where there has not been defined a district board simply because the burn, or river, which flows in at that point is too small to support a breeding stock of salmon.
Nevertheless, the coast there will be patrolled by fish, as we have heard described by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. I am sure that it would be valuable to be able to include this in an area provided that the people in that area—the proprietors of the banks of the burn, or indeed the foreshore, or whatever—were not against it. We should not leave it out if we are hoping to cover the whole of Scotland with a uniform structure.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think I have said all I need say. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has just said. I see no reason for deleting this. It is a provision that we should retain.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I asked the Minister whether he could produce any figures, or any information, about how often this provision had been used since 1868. The main reason he gave at first was that it had been there since 1868, and they want to carry it on.
Lord Gray of Contin: Obviously I cannot give the noble Lord the figures he requires. But, in any event, whether it has been used or not is no reason to suspect that it might not be used at some future time. It is not doing anybody any harm, and I see little point in removing it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It did not quite reach as long as the hour, but it is amazing that such an amendment should have managed to take the time it has. It is still a Catch 22 situation. As my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said, if it was salmon leaving the river obviously there would already have been boards there and they would be entitled to stay in the hope that the salmon would come back. But the problem is how you set up a board under the terms of the Bill as it stands when assessment is necessary. Who becomes the chairman, what is the proportion of voting, and all the rest of it when there is no assessment possible, because assessment is based on the fish in the river and there are none? Therefore it seems impossible to me.
However, we have had a fair discussion. It might be interesting if the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could look back through the archives and see whether anything has ever happened and whether this section has ever been used. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 13, line 14, at end insert—
("(9A) Where there is no district salmon fishery board or transitional district board for a district and application has not been made to the sheriff by qualified proprietors in the district in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act the Secretary of State may on application being made to him by the district salmon fishery board of an adjoining district by order authorise that district salmon fishery board to exercise the powers of a district salmon fishery board in such adjoining district in all respects as if such adjoining district formed part of their own district.
(9B) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of Schedule 2 to this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to an order made under subsection (9A) above.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 on the Marshalled List. The effect of this amendment is to deal with the problem that at the present time district salmon fishery boards exist for fewer than half the rivers in Scotland. If the boards are to be restructured and revitalised in accordance with the provisions made in this Bill, it is logical for the provisions to be applied to as many boards as possible.
Ideally there should be a board in each district. Although it may not be practical to achieve this ideal, this amendment seeks to provide a means whereby a
610
number of districts for which there are no boards can be controlled by the board of an adjoining district. Accordingly, where there are no district salmon fisheries boards or transitional district boards for a district and where the qualified proprietors have not applied to the sheriff for a board to be formed this amendment provides for a board to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to exercise control over that adjacent district. The Secretary of State may grant such permission by order.
I am certain that the drafting is in no way adequate and I have put the amendment down because I felt it was important to have a discussion on this point. The problem is that we are looking for a carrot to persuade people to form boards: we are looking for a carrot to persuade the 60 per cent. of the boards that exist, that are on the map of Scotland but are not active, to become active either by amalgamation or by some further provision. I have written to my noble friend Lord Gray about the possibility of some kind of guidance payment being paid to district boards where they are inactive and not operating at the moment to cover them for their first three years of operation, to pay the clerk, to go through the necessary legal formalities of making the triennial return to the sheriff. This is a probing amendment and I move it in that spirit to hear the reply of my noble friend Lord Gray.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. I understand that it is a probing amendment. The trouble is that large areas of Scotland especially on the west coast have no salmon district boards, as my noble friend says. If there are no boards one cannot have any bailiffs. As I said on Second Reading, I should like the whole of Scotland to have district salmon boards which would be a great help for preventing poaching. That would also help the tourist industry and the hotels. If this amendment were accepted how much better we could prevent poaching for the rod and line fishermen.
It might interest the Committee to know—as I am sure your Lordships who fish on the Tweed, the Tay, the Dee and the Spey already know—that I understand that in the financial year 1982–83 from those four great salmon rivers the income in rates was £293,000 to the various local authorities. That shows the great amount of money that local authorities receive from salmon. Therefore I do not see why they cannot be a little more generous with the district salmon boards especially as finance is the great barrier that holds back the formation of so many district boards.
As I said on Second Reading, the Highlands and Islands Development Board supports tourism, but it does not support it regarding salmon fishing. I think that the board ought to subscribe some financial help to the district boards, especially if that will mean more salmon district boards, as I sincerely hope one day it will.
Lord Gray of Contin: The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to authorise a district salmon fishery board to exercise the powers of a board in an adjoining district if no board has been formed for that district or no application has been made to the sheriff to form a board for that adjoining district.

611
I fully understand the motives of my noble friends in tabling this amendment. I too should like more coverage of Scotland with boards but I consider that the amendment goes too far in seeking to achieve this. It would allow a take-over and seems in effect to provide for taxation without representation. It could force proprietors to form a board if they wish to avoid that happening. This would be totally against the voluntary concept on which the procedures for forming a board are based and I am afraid that for those reasons I am not able to accept it. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Kimball would consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Kimball: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Financial powers and duties of district salmon fishery boards]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 20A:
Page 14, line 1, after ("assessment") insert ("including interest thereon").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is self-explanatory. If someone is in arrears and there are powers to collect it seems not unreasonable that we should also collect any interest due on the money as well. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: District boards will have power to impose a fishery assessment under Clause 14(3). It is therefore wholly appropriate that they should have the powers to recover arrears such as are provided in Clause 14(6). Whether the power to recover arrears of fishery assessment may be extended to include arrears of interest without boards first being given a specific power to charge interest is a question I should like to consider further. In the circumstances, I should be grateful if my noble friend would consider withdrawing his amendment so that I can give it further consideration.
Lord Burton: I am happy to do so. I very much hope, however, that they will be given these powers. But I appreciate that this amendment comes before the powers are given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 14, line 23, at beginning insert ("with the approval of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment indeed. It concerns the power of the board to borrow money. I know the facility has been there since 1832 but here it is re-stated. I do not object to the fact that a board can borrow:
"an amount not exceeding twice the amount of the fishery assessment collected within the twelve month period immediately prior to the date".
But power is also given to borrow:
"such higher sum"—
612
there is no limitation on that higher sum, anything above that:
"as is approved by the proprietors of fisheries which together amount to four fifths of the total value of fisheries in the district as entered in the valuation roll".
In other words, there could be one-fifth in valuation and in numbers of the people who do not want this amount to be borrowed. So the small man could be dictated to as to the burden of debt that he eventually takes upon himself. We dealt with the question earlier of what happens when a board disappears, has left debts and who has to pay.
Since we shall not be putting a limit on this higher sum, we could say that it was worthwhile to do this with the approval of the Secretary of State. This is simple. It is a check on some people going overboard and using the power of the majority holding in the board to do it. They might be easy on the matter, but those who constitute the one-fifth, who may have disagreed with this action, should be protected to some extent by putting in the words: "with the approval of the Secretary of State." That would do it. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: We are dealing with district salmon fishery boards, which are essentially voluntary bodies with elected members. It is right that those boards should be able to borrow for the purpose of carrying out their functions, and that the proprietors of the fishings in the district who will have to pay off those borrowings should have a decisive say when the amount of the borrowings will exceed a certain amount—namely, twice the amount of the fishing assessment collected in the previous 12 months. The Bill provides for this and I see no reason at all for superimposing my right honourable friend's consent in this day and age. I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendment in view of what I have said.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am very grateful to the Minister of State for making a speech lasting fully half a minute and not even mentioning the purpose of the amendment. He mentioned the right to borrow, with which I fully agreed—that is to say, the right to borrow an amount not exceeding twice the amount of the fishery assessment collected. That is something agreed. It is a power given by the Secretary of State in the Bill.
It is when they want to borrow more than that. It might be 10 times more than that. It might be a very considerable project upon which they were going to embark. Then the question of unanimity does not arise: it is a question of
"such higher sum as is approved by the proprietors of fisheries which together amount to four fifths of the total value".
In other words they do not need to worry about the proprietors whose valuations make up the one-fifth. So long as it is no more than that, or less, then the borrowing can go ahead on the basis of the financial power. It is to that that I refer: the use of financial muscle. I do not say that they should not do it but I say that for a certain measure of protection they could ask for the Secretary of State's approval for the higher sum. My goodness!—you do it with local authorities. Everybody in the local authority agrees with it.

613
However, here this power, which obviously may not be approved by certain people on the board, is being used.
Can the Minister of State please give me an answer to the arguments I have used and not get up and say that paragraph (a) is something with which no one would disagree? I had not disagreed with that. It is paragraph (b) that we are dealing with. Can the noble Lord either do that or tell the people who are advising him to get the matters right?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, I shall not do that. I shall give the noble Lord the answer. It is not the answer he wants. It would be most unlikely that I should be able to do that. The answer that I give him is that in our view the four-fifths arrangement should be an adequate safeguard. In any event, there is no guarantee at all that the Secretary of State would be able to safeguard the small man, which was the example that the noble Lord gave. Therefore, we consider that his amendment is unnecessary. We consider that there is adequate protection with the four-fifths arrangement. I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot be as generous to the noble Lord as I was earlier this afternoon to the noble Lord, but perhaps he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Well, at least the noble Lord mentioned the amendment this time; perhaps I read the right page. I still think it is not. The purpose of bringing in the Secretary of State is that he will see whether or not it is reasonable in the circumstances to do this. Some people may go well ahead of what is wanted to be done and entirely neglect the financial burden that they may eventually be putting on the smaller man. It may be a group of smaller men. I know at least one board where there is only one lower proprietor and about 40 upper ones. However, when it comes to financial muscle the man who has the financial muscle is the one lower proprietor and, if he wants something done, there you are, of course. It could be done in this particular way and not be desired by anyone else. I wish it worked the other way, that one could have the minority man with the good idea getting something done that he wanted done, despite the financial muscle in that way. This is one of the difficulties with the reconstitution of boards with exactly the same kind of financial powers and muscle, based upon that and nothing else. I think it is hoped that we shall get better management out of this. I doubt very much whether we shall, because I think we are still tied far too much to the past.
I think it is probably about time we went to have some salmon and chips, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 14, line 36, at end insert ("but travelling expenses and a subsistence allowance may be paid at the discretion of the board.").
The noble Viscount said: I think this can be dealt with very briefly. I think it is important that boards should be able to reimburse out of pocket expenses to members. It may be unnecessary but I thought it was as well to put down an amendment to make quite sure that this is possible. The distances in Scotland are enormous and I hope that this is an acceptable amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The unrestricted power in Clause 15(1) would not prevent a board from paying travelling expenses or a subsistence allowance where they were satisfied that they were necessarily for the purposes expressed in that clause. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
In contrast, I should draw the Committee's attention to Clause 14(10), which specifically excludes a board from paying a member a salary or a fee. Persons elected to serve on a board do so at present on an entirely voluntary basis and the Bill will retain this arrangement in future. I hope that in view of that explanation, the noble Viscount will withdraw this amendment.
Viscount Ridley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: I think this is probably a convenient moment to break for dinner and I suggest that we do not resume the Committee before 8.30. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.39 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wilson of Langside.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Incest and related offences]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—

("3. Relationships by affinity. Stepdaughter or former stepdaughter Stepmother or former stepmother

Stepson or former stepson Stepfather or former stepfather.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to retain within the category of relationship where sexual intercourse would be incest, the relationship between step-parent and stepchild. The Bill as proposed removes from the category of incest all relationships by affinity. Affinity of course covers both the relationship of an in-law, such as the mother-in-law and the son-in-law, or the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law, and the relationship of the stepchild/step-parent. I should make it clear that my amendment relates only to step-parents and stepchildren and has nothing to do with in-laws, and thus would be so restricted.
The relationship between a parent-in-law and a child-in-law is of course created only when the child marries and therefore must be of full age to consent to marriage and in many, if not in most, cases will go to live in a different household. The relationship of a stepchild to the step-parent is wholly different. The child may be of any age from a few months upwards and is most likely to live in the same household and to be treated as a child of the family, of the parent and the step-parent.
The Law Commission, in recommending that incest should apply to the relations between the adopted child and the adopting parents, argue that the bond may be indistinguishable from that of the natural child and its parents. I find it very difficult to see that this argument does not apply with even more force when one of the two parents, the step-parent and the parent, is in fact the natural parent. Therefore, I cannot see why this Bill makes incest apply to the adopted child and removes incest from applying to the step-child.
The family has been defined by Lord President Normand as a relationship in which the members associate together on a footing of mutual trust and may often share a common family life and home. He added that it was important for the moral welfare of the family that it should be regarded as excluding the possibility of marriage between the members of the family having the relationship. I would agree with that statement and would suggest that it is equally important that it should be regarded as excluding the possibility of intercourse other than between the parties who are married to each other.
When a marriage takes place which results in the step child relationship being created, it means that at the time of the marriage one or both of the parties have children. The effect of voluntarily entering into the relationship of marriage should, I would argue, involve excluding the possibility of a sexual relationship with one's partner's child. Otherwise there is always going to be a potential of temptation and of danger to the stability of the marriage relationship.
In an age when divorce is becoming more and more frequent, the state should do what it can to encourage marriage being a permanent relationship. It is part of the function of the criminal law to promote and maintain generally accepted standards of behaviour reflecting the public interest in preserving an ordered and stable society. In my view, to suggest that this Bill does so; that if a man married a woman with a teenage daughter no offence will be created at all if he has intercourse with the daughter, as long as she is over 16, would be to offend against generally accepted standards of behaviour. I hope that this amendment will be acceptable to noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I must ask your Lordships to reject this amendment. Certainly, so far as the approach of the Scottish Law Commission is concerned, their experience is not in accord with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, that this is offensive to generally accepted standards of behaviour; because the commission in their report came firmly to the conclusion that the retention of relationships by affinity within the scope of incest could no longer be justified and, in particular, that the scope of incest was
616
not the appropriate remedy to protect stepchildren whether under or over 16. Their memorandum, which was widely circulated among various interested bodies and parties, produced the finding that a considerable majority of those who responded agreed with this view, contrary to the view which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has expressed. Some of those who did not agree with that view were concerned essentially to protect the younger children who were stepchildren, which, of course, is understandable.
I do not find any of these issues, the moral issues and the other issues which arise, altogether simple. But I think the Committee has to make up its mind whether or not relationship by affinity should still fall within the scope of the criminal law of incest. I suggest to your Lordships that it should not and I would accordingly ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in opposing this amendment and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will withdraw it. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is aware that Lord Meston has a Bill going through the House at the present time. It is affecting the law of affinity in England and Wales. If this law goes through, the Scottish law—and it is not for me as an English person to interfere with Scottish law—will be strangely at variance with the position in England.
It will be such that a man can be legally married to a woman in England who, if she goes to Scotland, will be committing the offence of incest; and that seems to me to be an extremely awkward position that would arise in that case. The noble Lord shakes his head: but, if Lord Meston's Bill goes through, it will in fact legalise the marriage of step-parent and stepchild, with one exception which is very important and which might make the noble Lord, Lord Meston, feel that he could think again about this amendment.
The exception is—I, personally, do not agree with this exception, but this is the exception in Lord Meston's Bill—is that if a stepchild has been a child of the family at any time, then the marriage is not to be permitted. That would mean that the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is envisaging would be accepted; because anybody who had been a child of the family would not be permitted to marry under the proposed Bill. But if there had never been a child of the family then that marriage would be permitted. We have already in your Lordships' House on several occasions—and there are other personal and Private Bills pending—permitted the marriage of persons who have not in fact been a child of the family, stepchild and step-parent. This can happen perfectly easily where someone has been married to a woman who has a child but that child has never lived in the house with the newly-wedded couple, the parent and the man to whom she is now married: they have never lived in the same house and have only known each other as adults.
If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, persists, the position will be very anomalous if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, goes through. That Bill as it stands now has the approval of the Bishops. I can well understand that that does not recommend

617
itself to the Scots, but it does perhaps make it easier to get it through your Lordships' house.
I would also like to make another point which I think is quite important which refers to something the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said. He said that because it was not permitted to marry an adopted child, he saw no difference between that and the position of the stepchild. But there is a very important difference indeed. The whole point about adoption is that a child, once adopted, is expected and encouraged in every way to be part of the family in every conceivable sense—although perhaps "conceivable" is not the right word; but in every imaginable sense—in which it has been adopted. This would rule out any kind of subsequent sexual relationship because that child is precisely as a child that has been born in the family.
I think that I am right in saying that modern thinking about the position of stepchildren is that it is highly desirable that a stepchild should maintain contact and relationships with its own natural parents. To the extent that it maintains a relationship with its own natural parents, it is not, and never can be in the full sense, a child in the family in which it is a stepchild. It cannot have the same relationships with its own natural parents as it has with the step-father (assuming it to be a daughter) in the family into which the mother of this child has married. The position of the adopted child and the position of the stepchild are in most important particulars quite different. I very much hope that, for these reasons, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): As I explained on Second Reading, this (among other matters) is not one on which the Government would wish to express a view. As I stated then, the Government's position is one of neutrality, but there are perhaps one or two matters that have already been mentioned in the speeches of noble Lords and of the noble Baroness that I should like to emphasise and draw to your Lordship's attention.
First, the purpose of this amendment is very much at variance with the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. They of course considered the matter at length and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, indicated, consulted widely. He has pointed out the results of that consultation. It would be fair to emphasise that their proposals were to take away from the crime of incest all the relationships by affinity.
It is worth bearing in mind that the relationships covered by affinity under the existing law are those not merely of parent and child but also of grandparent and grandchild. Therefore even with the step-relationship, as the law stands at present it is incest for a step-grandparent or a step-grandchild to have a sexual relationship. That seems to me to have been based on a different principle from that which the noble Lord opposite seeks to invoke to contain within the existing crime of incest the parent-child step-relationship. I simply make that point at this juncture.
I also agree that the analogy with adoption is one which perhaps noble Lords would wish to look at carefully. It has to be borne in mind that adoption is a choice made by those who adopt—the parents—whereas the step-relationship comes into
618
being by virtue of marriage between the natural parent and another. There again it may be that that is a point which your Lordships should bear in mind.
There is also the problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has pointed out—that if the marriage Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, should become law in its present form, whether or not it extends to Scotland, there will continue to be a problem under the existing law and indeed under the present Bill, if it is amended in the sense that is proposed: that persons who will be free to marry—and I underline "free to marry"—under the law of England and Wales would, if they had intercourse in Scotland, be committing incest—not of course married persons because provision is made for that; but if they were free to marry they would be committing incest.
We are of course still considering the possible application to Scotland of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Consultations are not yet complete, but under that Bill persons over the age of 18 who stood in a step-relationship would nevertheless be tree to marry, subject only to the constraint mentioned by the noble Baroness. But such persons would, in Scotland, be within the forbidden degrees for incest in terms of this amendment, and of course the problem would be compounded should Lord Meston's Bill be extended to Scotland. While, as I say, the Government remain neutral in relation to the principle of the Bill it is only right that I should indicate to your Lordships that we foresee serious problems of a practical nature arising if this amendment is pressed.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very grateful for the interest that has been taken in this amendment. "Those English step-parents and stepchildren who, if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is passed marry in England, are protected by whatever it becomes—2A(1)(c) of this Bill if it were to be passed. I realise that if they do not bother to get married and they come to Scotland, my amendment would catch them if they committed intercourse. They might find, of course, that a reasonable Lord Advocate would not consider it appropriate to take proceedings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, dealing with the stepchild step-parent relationship, referred to the divorced and re-married situation where there is the natural parent who is the other spouse or the previous spouse of the parent of the child whom the step-parent marries. However, there are many step-relationships which appear after the first marriage is dissolved by death. In that situation, especially with young children, I find it very difficult to see that an adopted child is in a different situation from that of the stepchild in relation to the step-parent. I think it would perhaps be inappropriate for your Lordships' Committee to express a view on the appropriateness of this when the other place might be more appropriate; and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("person") to end of line 32 and insert ("whose parents are not or have not been married to one another.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The new Section 2A(2)(b) of the Bill will provide that for the purposes of the section a degree of relationship exists,
"even where traced through any person of illegitimate birth".
The simple point of this amendment is that of course there are many people whose parents have not been married who regard it as offensive that they should be labelled in this particular way—and very understandably, since the attachment of such a label is something for which they themselves can carry no conceivable responsibility. The Scottish Law Commission's Report on illegitimacy, published in 1984, recognises this and recommends that statutes should in future no longer use the word. The Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Bill is presently before another place. This amendment simply anticipates some of the provisions of that Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("doubt") to end of line 34 and insert ("sexual intercourse between persons who are not related to each other in a degree referred to in subsection (1) above is not incest.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. It was thought—I am not sure that I share the thought entirely—that the present wording might leave some question about the continued application of the common law. This particular formulation of the provision, it is thought, will remove any ambiguity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): Before calling Amendment No. 4, I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
8 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("16") and insert ("21").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 was a consequential amendment if the Committee had accepted my previous amendment. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 are intended to change the age limit in Section 2B from 16 to 21, and Amendment No. 6 inserts as one of the conditions that the person has to prove that he or she has never lived in the same household as the stepchild or former stepchild or treated the stepchild or former stepchild as a child of his or her family.
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("had never lived in the same household as the step-child or former step-child and treated the step-child or former step-child as a child of his or her family and also proves that he or she—").
Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 2, leave out ("16") and insert ("21").
It also proves I am going on to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) as they are in the section. This amendment is to add to the protection which the young person, the step-child, would have in the family. Amendment No. 6 is adapted from the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord
620
Meston. I understand that some of Members of the Committee may criticise the wording of it, but I hope the intention is clear. I hope the wording can be improved and I am open to any advice on that.
As regards the young person who even over 16 has a completely different relationship with the spouse of a parent than a young person would have with a stranger, as the section stands, the only protection open to the step-child over 16 in the household is the absence of consent. The Law Commission in their report dealt with this in paragraph 3.12 and pointed out the difficulties in words much clearer than I could achieve.
"In such circumstances if incest ceased to be a crime, the question of consent would become crucial in deciding whether or not an offence such as rape or indecent assault had been committed This would pose difficulties for, as stated in our memorandum, it is an open question whether in a family one can usefully talk in terms of a daughter's or son's consent, particularly if one takes into account the fact that the young girl in an incest situation is subject to a completely different set of conditions regarding defence, tolerance and participation from the child or maturing girl who meets a completely unrelated adult aggressor or a transient, perhaps even a known sexual partner."
The memorandum refers to the fact that
"a girl in an incest situation may become more and more acquiescent".
It also discusses how consent to intercourse can be obtained by various methods and devices.
I would urge that it is unreal in this situation to suggest that a girl or a boy of 16 who has been brought up in this situation should suddenly have a completely free and totally adult approach to somebody whom she has probably regarded, or may have regarded, as her father all the way through. In my submission, this amendment would meet the situation perhaps more happily than my previous amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I would also ask the Committee to reject Amendment No. 5. I have a little difficulty—I am sure it is my own obtuseness—in understanding why the noble Lord has presented this amendment to the Committee along with Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 5 raises different and somewhat disconnected questions. Amendment No. 5, as I understand it, seeks to raise the age at which an offence will be committed, where sexual intercourse takes place with a step-child, from 16 to 21.
When I first considered this matter I had a great deal of sympathy with that. Indeed, I drafted a number of amendments myself to that very end. Then I found that the more I thought of the situation and the more I explored it, it did not seem to me to be quite as simple as I had first regarded it as being. I consulted with the members of the Scottish Law Commission and discussed the whole issue with them in considerable depth. The considered judgment I came to was that they had examined the whole matter with the utmost care. I was quite astonishingly impressed. I have often felt critical of the Scottish Law Commission. I was immensely impressed with the careful thought that they had given to this particular matter, and I am sure to other matters. It was in consequence of my discussions with them that I reached the conclusion that they were right and that 16 was the right age to fix in this matter.
I am sorry but I shall have to go into this matter at a little length, which is a pity at this time. We are

621
dealing with consential intercourse with people who are both, in the eyes of the law, old enough to consent or to withhold consent and, indeed, old enough to marry in Scotland without anyone's consent. We should be very careful. I am often suspicious of some of these liberal approaches to these matters. This is an important point.
We should be very careful about making this conduct between two adult citizens, who are free to marry, a serious criminal offence. I think that would be wrong. If the age were raised to, say, 18, there would be a danger of making conduct criminal in cases where this would seem quite inappropriate.
We should consider the kind of circumstances in which this situation could arise. It is easy to get excited about the need to protect innocent young girls, and so on, against the malpractices of the male of the species. But consider the other side of the coin. Consider a woman in her 'thirties who marries but soon separates from a man in his early 'twenties.
The man and the woman's 17 year-old daughter fall in love. They have sexual intercourse, not thinking there is anything wrong in it. There is no blood relationship at all. They are both of marriageable age. The young woman might actually be married according to the law of Scotland without anyone's consent. It is hard to see why the man in that circumstance should be guilty of a criminal offence. I am not saying there are not matters to be guarded against. The same situation could arise the other way around. A man in his thirties could marry a young woman, of say, 18. She and the man's 17 year-old son might become attracted to each other. Why should consential intercourse between them be a criminal offence?
The danger of catching inappropriate cases would of course be greatly increased if the age were raised to, say, 21. I thought at one stage of making it 18 and, for the reasons which I have tried to explain, I have reached the conclusion, contrary to my original view, that the Law Commission were quite right. This would also pose problems if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, went through.
There is a natural tendency to think of protecting young women of 17 or 18 from predatory older males in a position of some dominance. There are however many situations of this nature such as the ones I have described which I do not think we should make criminal. Because of the hour and the fact that the House wants to get back to the more important business of salmon, and not just the relationship between young men and older women, perhaps I may pass over some considerations that I should have touched upon. In the light of these considerations—and I have no doubt there are others—I would ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think it is only proper, since the Government have adopted a position of neutrality, to advise the Committee that the Government have no strong views on these amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has made clear what is the Scottish Law Commission's present view, in addition to that which was expressed at the time when the Law
622
Commission's report was published. He has made clear that the Commission then adhered, and still adhere, to their view that 16 years is the proper age, related as it is to the permitted age for marriage in Scotland.
The only other point that I would make is that, if the Committee were minded to move away from that age and the argument which was put forward by the noble and learned Lord in support of it, there is the question of what other age would be appropriate. The consultees, as the Scottish Law Commission made clear, were divided on that matter and, for instance, we have to recognise that legislation in recent years has assumed that the age of 18 years is the point at which adult estate is achieved. I would simply say that this must be a matter for your Lordships to make up your minds upon, but no doubt you should bear in mind both the views expressed by the Scottish Law Commission in their report, and those which they have obviously expressed most recently, which we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Perhaps for the sake of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna I should say, since he referred to Amendment No. 6, that, unless I misapprehend the situation, I should have been disposed to accept it. While it might be argued that Amendment No. 6 is unnecessary, I should have been disposed to accept it just to show that I did not oppose every one of his amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I did not address myself to Amendment No. 6, but I had some discussion earlier with the noble Lord about it. It seems to me that, while there can be no objection in principle to what it seeks to do, it might be that he will wish to reconsider it because it seems to involve a slight difficulty. It suggests that you have to prove that the step-parent had never lived in the same household as the stepchild and treated the stepchild as a child of the family. If, on the other hand, he or she were to establish the first branch but not the second, then it would appear that the whole defence which is available in the section would not be open to him, and I do not think that that is what the noble Lord intended. He may wish to reconsider the form of the amendment, though not necessarily the substance.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With that invitation, as I do not think it would be appropriate to divide the Committee as at present constituted and disturb various people's digestions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps I may come back with Amendment No. 6 after consultation with the noble and learned Lords the Lord Advocate and Lord Wilson of Langside, as to the wording that would be appropriate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: I ask your Lordships to consider this amendment. It falls together with Amendments Nos. 11, 18 and 19:

623
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 6, leave out (", 2B or 2C") and insert ("or 2B").
Amendment No. 18: Schedule 1, page 5, line 23, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").
Amendment No. 19: Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
(".In section 4(1) after the word "exceeding" where it first occurs there shall be inserted ", where the conviction occurs in the High Court of Justiciary seven years, where the conviction occurs in the Sheriff Court" ").
I find the question which it raises not without some difficulty and, again, this is a matter which I discussed in some detail with the Scottish Law Commission. We all reached the conclusion provisionally that this was a proper answer to the problem which the new Section 2C presents as it is at present drafted in the Bill. In effect, what these amendments do is to take the new Section 2C out of the Bill. The reason for doing that is that, apparently, the Scottish Law Commission have always had some difficulty with this provision and the present commission and the present chairman—who was not, of course, the chairman when this report was prepared—were very unhappy with the drafting of Section 2C(c), the provision that any person of or over the age of 16 years who,
"is in a position of trust or authority in relation to that child",
shall be guilty of an offence unless various things are proved.
Having discussed it, we were all agreed that this drafting was not perhaps the happiest solution. Everyone seemed to think it might raise questions of uncertainty if and when cases were brought before the court. After full discussion, we thought the best solution to a quite difficult problem—and it is for your Lordships to consider whether it was a sensible conclusion—was that Section 2C might be scrapped.
If an offence against a girl under 16 is committed and aggravated by the circumstance that the offender is in a position of trust—a foster parent or someone of that kind—then that situation should be dealt with by providing that an offence under Section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 in such an aggravated case should be liable to be charged in the High Court of Justiciary, and to a more severe penalty than the two years' imprisonment to which a non-aggravated offence of sexual intercourse with a girl of under 16 is at present liable, and that, where there was an aggravation because the person was in some position of trust, he should be liable.
It would then be in the hands of the Lord Advocate and his deputes to decide whether, if there was a case of that kind, it should be dealt with more seriously and be taken to the High Court, and Amendment No. 19 provides for an increase in the sentence to which an offender would become liable under the Sexual Offences Act.
I am not particularly proud of the drafting, but it was the best that I could do. In any event, that was the conclusion that we reached. I could readily understand if there was some hesitation about accepting this amendment. I can think of many arguments that I could present against it. But I have tried to explain to the Committee the unease which the Law Commission at present have about the provision as presently drafted. This new provision would cover only the case of the offence against a girl. The conclusion that we reached was that an offence against a male child could be dealt with as one of our quaint old Scottish offences
624
which we call lewd, libidinous and indecent offences. So far as I recall—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong—one is liable if convicted in the High Court to a sentence of life imprisonment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I consider that Section 2C has some value and I do not see all the difficulties that appear to be in the mind of the present chairman of the Law Commission. I should have thought that it would be fairly easy either to define what is meant by "a position of trust or authority" in the Bill or to leave it as a matter for a jury to work out whether a certain person was in a position of trust or authority.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I do not want to misrepresent the position of the chairman of the Law Commission. That is the last thing I would want to do. He did not like it as it stood. He recognised that we could have a stab at redrafting it to get rid of the uncertainties. He saw that was one option. It was really my responsibility to adopt this option. If the Committee does not like it, I shall certainly take it away and look at it again.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I had virtually finished. All I was going to suggest was that I personally—and all I can do is to speak for myself—prefer Section 2C as it exists to the rather convoluted way of dealing with the problem that is otherwise suggested as the alternative.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The Government must have a responsibility to ensure so far as possible that legislation which is enacted is effective, workable and consistent. I appreciate the fact that the noble and learned Lord has obviously discussed this with the Scottish Law Commission. I can only say that in the report they made clear the fact that the consultation memorandum in which they put forward this proposal was one which provoked considerable comment, all—I underline the word "all"—of which favoured making special provision to protect children in these categories. I refer to paragraph 4.30.
I would be concerned that with the removal of Section 2C the amendments would leave a substantial gap in the Bill's provisions. It would reduce the protection available to young girls since the Bill as presently drafted provides a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for relevant offences. It would remove the protection of young males altogether, leaving this to be dealt with via the general charge of lewd and libidinous practices which I suggest the Committee may think was scarcely adequate. It is only right that I should point out that in regard to the amendment of the penalty provision, we would not normally contemplate a change in the general penalty provision of any statute simply to accommodate a particular type of offence as is really sought here without very careful consideration and wide consultation.
Perhaps I may suggest this to the noble and learned Lord. I appreciate the point he makes about trust or authority, although I have in mind what the Law Commission said in paragraph 4.34 of the report that they thought the court could decide as a matter of fact whether the relationship between the accused and the child could properly be described as being one of authority or trust. It may be proper not to proceed with this at present and see whether some drafting might bring about a better result.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("condition."") and insert—("condition.
( ) In subsection (6) above, "local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968."".)
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is simply designed to bring in the definition of "local authority" which was not there before. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 14 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 15.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 34 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.
( ) An order made under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient in connection with the coming into operation of this Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is simply to substitute an appointed day provision for the present provision bringing the Bill into force one month after the Royal Assent to make provision for transitional arrangements. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, leave out lines 3 to 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to delete provisions which are no longer necessary by reason of amendments and repeal: to recent legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, leave out lines 17 to 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is in the same position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 18, Lord Wilson of Langside.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Not moved—I am sorry. I dealt with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 when dealing with Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Since I withdrew them, I do not move these, so they are not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 4, column 3, leave out ("Section 13.") and insert ("The whole Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment also. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
8.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 15 [General powers and duties of district salmon fishery boards]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): In calling Amendment No. 23, I should point out that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. This amendment should be shown to be in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 14, line 40, after ("of") insert ("all").
The noble Viscount said: I am sorry that during the passage of the incest Bill I seem to have changed my name! I hope that this very short amendment will be taken in the spirit that is intended. The amendment is very simple. Clause 15(1) states that:
"A district salmon fishery board may do such acts… for—
(a) the protection or improvement or
and the amendment would add the word "all"—
"the fisheries within their district".
It is simply a statement of intent: that a fishery board should not be seen to do anything for one conflicting interest or another. It is a small drafting amendment. I hope that it is self-explanatory and acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal also with Amendments Nos. 25, 29 and 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley.
Amendment No. 25:
[Printed earlier: col. 586]
Amendment No. 29: Page 15, line 12, leave out ("by agreement").
Amendment No. 32: Page 15, line 19, leave out from first ("or) to end of line 21 and insert ("the Secretary of State").
I am unable to accept any of these amendments but I shall deal with each in turn. It has been suggested that acceptance of Amendment No. 23 could prevent a board from using its powers for the protection or improvement of individual fisheries rather than for the benefit of the whole district. Inclusion of the word "all" could, on the other hand, restrict substantially the operations of district boards, in that it could require them to demonstrate in the event of challenge that any action they took to protect or improve fisheries applied to all the fisheries in their district. That is simply not a reasonable requirement for a district board.
With regard to Amendment No. 25—
Viscount Ridley: If my noble friend will forgive me, I thought that we had dealt with Amendment No. 25 on the matter of drought.
Lord Gray of Contin: We have in fact spoken to Amendment No. 25 already. Perhaps I may deal briefly with Amendment No. 29. As I explained on Second Reading, this wording is in the same form as a similar provision in the 1868 Act. The words "by
628
agreement" are included now to underline the fact that boards do not have compulsory purchase powers. The removal of those words could have little effect on the interpretation of the clause since boards would not be enabled to carry out compulsory purchase without specific powers to do so.
Amendment No. 32 comes into the same category as Amendment No. 25, and I believe that we dealt with that amendment at an earlier stage.
Viscount Ridley: I am sorry to intervene again but I do not think that Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 have anything to do with Amendment No. 23. I accept that Amendment No. 25 has been dealt with, and I was not going to move it. However, Amendment No. 29 deals with a quite different point, on which I have a long speech to make, and Amendment No. 32 is also different and has to do with Amendment No. 31, in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, and indeed with my noble friend's Amendment No. 24. I am very sorry if I am wrong but I believe that Amendment No. 23 stands on its own according to the list of groupings that I was given. Having moved Amendment No. 23, I shall be very happy to withdraw it to save time, but I do not believe that Amendment No. 23 is related to the other amendments.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am of course prepared to accept my noble friend's wishes on this matter. Obviously he and I have been given a different form of groupings. I understand that my noble friend wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 25 has been dealt with, and when we reach Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 we can of course deal with them separately.
Viscount Ridley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 15, line 2, at end insert ("but heritable property shall not be acquired for the purpose of the board except with the consent of proprietors of fisheries which together amount to four fifths of the total value of fisheries in the district as entered in the valuation roll.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small, essentially technical amendment to make clear that the qualification regarding the acquisition by a board of heritable property relates to the general powers of the board as set out in subsection (1) and is not linked to the specific provisions in subsection (4), which give powers to boards to purchase individual structures for the purpose of removal only or to remove obstructions. I understand that some salmon interests felt that the Bill as drafted was not clear on that aspect, and I am happy to put this amendment forward to clarify the position. I beg to move.
The Duke of Atholl: I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 31: Page 15, line 19, leave out from ("board") to first ("or) in line 20 and insert ("if objections to the acquisition are lodged with the clerk to the district salmon fishery board by proprietors of fisheries which together amount to one-fifth").

629
If Amendment No. 24 is carried then presumably my noble friend's Amendment No. 30 will also be carried, because it is consequential. That would mean that I should not be able to move Amendment No. 31. I believe it would be extremely difficult for any fishery board to secure an 80 per cent. majority. I am sure that most of your Lordships well know the difficulty of getting people to answer letters. To ensure that four-fifths of the electorate, or whatever one likes to call them, would reply could be extremely difficult. I therefore suggest that the whole clause should be cast the other way around and that the board should be able to purchase heritable property if it wants, unless one-fifth of the proprietors object.
Viscount Ridley: Perhaps I may speak against Amendment No. 24, because my Amendment No. 32 would go a good deal further than the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl but would have much the same effect. The drafting that we have makes it almost impossible for the board to take the action that it might think necessary. This clause gives the hoard lots of powers, but then we restrict it by the criterion of four-fifths of the total value of fisheries. The possibility of four-fifths of the people ever getting together and agreeing on something like this—including, for instance, the purchase of a cottage for a bailiff or of a small piece of land for a hatchery, or anything of that kind—would be so drastically to restrict the board's activities as to make a nonsense of it. I therefore believe that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl is absolutely right and that the board should be allowed to go ahead and acquire property unless one-fifth of the proprietors object. The board cannot do its job without acquiring a certain amount of property.
I know that this raises the question of whether or not a board should be enabled to buy out the netting operation, which it might want to do, and that that could be a very valuable conservation measure in certain circumstances. However, to impose the restriction that the proprietors of four-fifths of the value of fisheries must agree seems to totally nullify the whole object of the Bill to give powers to boards to take action in the interests of salmon conservation. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 32 but I strongly support Amendment No. 31 in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I believe that my noble friend Lord Gray managed to dodge the issue by moving Amendment No. 24 in a different place from where it was to be moved, and that may have caught some of us on the hop. However, if I am right in thinking what I do think, it is the same amendment. It is the same clause of the Bill shifted around and we still wish to amend it. I should therefore like to support Amendment No. 31, which is in effect an amendment to Amendment No. 24.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: May I raise with the Minister a point that is not connected with the substance of the amendments but merely relates to their order? I do not blame anyone because it is a complicated Bill with a very large number of amendments, some of which were tabled very late, but the selection list was late in coming through today. I was told, even when I received it a few minutes before
630
half past two, that it had not been finally agreed with the department. The reason I raise this matter is that the Minister suggested that his list is different from the list that the rest of us have. Is that so? It is obviously leading to some confusion. I heard the Minister read out a list of amendments to which he wished to speak and it is certainly not on my selection list. Perhaps for Thursday the Minister will make a point of getting the list out in good time.
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall certainly try to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The plain fact is that a great many of the amendments were tabled so late that my department had the greatest difficulty in being able to prepare for the debate this afternoon. The noble Lord was not guilty in that respect, but a great many amendments were tabled late and we also had manuscript amendments which were tabled at a late stage. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for my advisers always to be able to get matters co-ordinated as they would wish.
As regards the points made by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, I am perfectly happy to answer Amendment No. 31 now. Although we have not yet dealt with Amendment No. 24, I can see the difficulty which exists. If it is in order I will answer Amendment No. 31, to which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has already spoken.
The amendment, although apparently of little consequence, could have a very significant effect if carried. It would give a board the power to purchase heritable property if proprietors owning 20 per cent. of the total valuation of the fisheries in a district do not actively object. The noble Duke's amendment makes no provision for the publication of proposals to purchase heritable property and some of those who do not object may be unaware of the proposal to buy. They may still have to make a financial contribution to a purchase of which they had no prior knowledge.
Given the possible legal and financial implications of the purchase of property, I think that the positive approach prescribed in the Bill is to be preferred and that the four-fifths formula should not be removed. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Duke will now feel able not to move his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: If that is the only objection to the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl it seems to me that it can be sorted out by putting in, at Report stage, provisions for information and advice, and so on. I think there is a great deal to be said for not just having the dead hand of getting consent, as opposed to making sure people actively do not want something to be done provided, as the noble Lord rightly says, there is provision for making certain that people are properly informed and advised of what is likely to happen.
Lord Burton: May I add to that? It is important that one should be able to acquire a house for, say, a superintendent or some of one's bailiffs. It would possibly be extremely difficult to get the four-fifths. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have any experience of trying to circulate people but an awful

631
lot of these letters probably would not be answered. It would be extremely difficult in an important matter like buying a house to get the four-fifths majority. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I think that it is very important that even if we do not go to the extreme of one-fifth then there is at least a change.
8.45 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl: Although I have not moved the amendment, I felt, because I shall have the opportunity so to do, that it was worth raising the issue at this particular moment. I feel that my noble friend can have no idea of the difficulty of getting people to answer letters. My noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, as chairman of our local fisheries board, sent out a circular not long ago and he was delighted because he received about a 60 per cent. Response; but it was a fairly easy form to be completed and a stamped and addressed envelope was provided for its return. Therefore I think the chances of anyone actually getting four-fifths are remote.
It will mean, of course, that the fishery boards will not be able to provide cottages for any of their bailiffs. They will not be able to buy a small piece of land for a hatchery, or anything like that. I ask my noble friend to look at this again. I am sure we can reach a satisfactory way of publicising the fact that the board proposes to do something and that one-fifth of the people, if they object, must reply fairly quickly. That seems to me to be much the best way to do it. It would be much better to get the people who object, who usually are the people who feel strongly and, therefore, might be prepared to put pen to paper, than to get those who approve, but who probably do not feel particularly strongly, to send a letter of approval.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely support the noble Duke on this. He is perfectly right. I have had this experience myself and I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: As the noble Duke mentioned my name, I can assure your Lordships that this is an experience which I have often suffered. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord Gray will give it his very careful attention.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am sure that the pressure being placed on the Minister must put him into some difficulty, bearing in mind the support which the same members of the Committee gave him on another matter.
In this case they refer to the purchase of a piece of property. It is suggested that a formula of one-fifth objecting should be applied, simply because it would be very difficult to get four-fifths to agree. Let us suppose that a board does decide to buy the property on the basis of one-fifth. I hope that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, realises that the chances are, depending on the property, that they will require to borrow money. The power to borrow money comes under the previous clause. When we argued about that and I suggested that it was unfair to the one-fifth for
632
that to be done, we were told, no. Not one noble Lord proclaimed the virtues of the one-fifth and how easy it would be to get four-fifths.
I withdrew my amendment because no one supported me. My amendment suggested that the Secretary of State should be brought in to give his consent. Therefore, whether we like it or not the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, if he wants to borrow money for property—and it will depend on the amount—will have to rely on getting the approval of the four-fifths. No one can deny it. It is on page 14, line 23:
"such higher sum as is approved by the proprietors of fisheries which together amount to four-fifths".
They have to get the four-fifths together to borrow the money.
Lord Burton: May I interrupt the noble Lord?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Gladly.
Lord Burton: Surely he must read subsection (8)(a) with this:
"an amount not exceeding twice the amount of the fishery assessment".
There cannot be very many boards which do not have half the value of a house.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Well, I must get into the Burton area of Scotland and find out that houses are very much cheaper there than in any other part of Scotland. Perhaps the situation may vary from one place to another in relation to the cost of buying a house or a small property. There is no limit to this. I could more readily understand this being done if there were a limit put to the amount of money which was to be spent on this heritable property, but there is no limit. The chances are that those concerned may have to borrow money whether they like it or not. Suppose the Government accepted the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, willy-nilly because of what has already been done—unless he puts down another amendment at the next stage to correct his omission in this case. They still have to rely on obtaining their four-fifths to agree to the borrowing of a sum of money if it is over twice the amount of the fishery assessment collected in the year. I shall now gladly give way to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl.
The Duke of Atholl: First, perhaps I could point out that there are many fishery boards where undoubtedly one can buy several houses for twice the amount of the assessment collected by that particular board each year. Secondly, if one is buying heritable property, on the whole one has security for it, whereas borrowing under the previous section, Clause 14(8)(a), one might be borrowing for other purposes and there would be no security for one's borrowing.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am beginning to get rather confused about the financial position of these fishery districts now. The whole basis of the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is the poverty of these areas. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, is saying that there is no finance in this, and they cannot do this or they cannot do that because they do not have the

633
money. Now the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, belatedly comes along and says that they can buy several houses if they want to; they have the money.
Let them appreciate that there are clauses coming along in which money is mentioned. I am not the kind of fellow who forgets arguments which are used which conflict with arguments that were going to be brought out at a later stage. No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is smiling, because he knows quite well that he has already used this financial argument today. I am on the side of the angels on this occasion. It might lend some weight to the chances of victory for the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, that I will support the Minister of State on this occasion simply because of what was already done in respect of the previous clause that mentioned the one-fifth.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: If I may perhaps intervene, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may be a little confused here. The question of finance was about finance lacking in those areas where there are no district boards.
Viscount Thurso: I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has his finger on a sore point. I think it might be wise for the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, to give another thought to this particular amendment. Heritable property could be a garage in which to keep one's waders. Will you tell me that you cannot buy a garage in which to keep your waders unless four-fifths of the heritable proprietors in the Tay district agree? It really is a bit silly.
I think that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has put his finger on is that it really all depends on how much heritable property you are buying. There is a tremendous difference between a potting shed or a garage and, say, a row of council houses. If one is intending to house all one's bailiffs it could amount to thousands of pounds, but if all that is wanted is somewhere to garage a jeep and keep waders and night glasses and so forth, then it should be possible to do it without asking four-fifths of the heritable proprietors. I think a little thinking again all round would be rather a good idea at this point.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think that it is a very good idea and I do not see any reason at all why we should not have another think all round. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl has not moved his amendment so there is ample scope for a little bit of thought. I have listened very carefully to what has been said during the debate and of course I shall bear in mind all the points that have been made, but since my noble friend has not moved his amendment there is no need to deliberate further upon it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: But surely it would not be fair if the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, is precluded from moving his amendment because it might cause some difficulty?
Are we not pre judging the matter by accepting the Government's amendment, which is the very opposite? I think we should ask the Minister to say that, in view of the fact that there is this divergence of opinion and feeling, we should benefit from a think all
634
round and, meantime, he will not move his amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: I already have, in effect, moved Amendment No. 30.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have been moving amendments all afternoon. He can withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
As many as are of that opinion, will say, "Content"? … To the contrary, "Not-Content … Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Accordingly, Amendment No. 26 does not arise.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("co-opt") and insert ("appoint")
The noble Viscount said: It may be as well if with this I speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 40 to 45. 49 to 54 and 56 to 59.
Amendment No. 37: Clause 16, page 16, line 2, leave out from first ("vote") to end of line 6.
Amendment No. 40: Schedule 2, page 30, line 17, leave out subparagraph (1).
Amendment No. 41: Page 31, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Amendment No. 42: Page 31, line 13, leave out ("co-opting") and insert ("appointing").
Amendment No. 43: Page 31, line 15, after ("exceed") insert ("one fewer than").
Amendment No. 44: Page 31, line 17, after ("exceed") insert ("one fewer than").
Amendment No. 45: Page 31, line 18, at end insert ("and the number of representatives of salmon anglers so appointed shall not exceed the number of tenant netsmen so appointed.").
Amendment No. 49: Page 31, line 44, leave out from ("of ') to ("not") in line I on page 32.
Amendment No. 50: Page 32, line 7, leave out ("the chairman and").
Amendment No. 51: Page 32, line 9, leave out ("co-opt") and insert ("appoint").
Amendment No. 52: Page 32, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) The chairman and elected representatives of qualified proprietors shall give notice at least once in each of two successive weeks by advertisements in a newspaper circulating in the district

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

(b) indicating arrangements for the nomination of candidates;

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

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

Amendment No. 53: Page 32, line 13, leave out ("three co-opted") and insert ("two appointed").
Amendment No. 54: Page 32, line 15, leave out ("three co-opted") and insert ("two appointed").

635
Amendment No. 56: Page 32, line 19, leave out ("co-opted") and insert ("appointed").
Amendment No. 57: Page 32, line 20, leave out ("co-opt such persons") and insert ("hold elections").
Amendment No. 58: Page 32, line 21, leave out ("co-opted") and insert ("appointed")
Amendment No. 59: Page 32, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The members of a district salmon fishery board shall elect from amongst their number a person to be chairman of the said board.").
Amendment No. 28 opens up a subject which is covered by the amendments grouped with it and they all deal with the same concept. What I am trying to suggest to the Committee is that the elective principle should be used for the appointment of the angling and tenant netsmen members of district boards. In the Bill as drafted by the Government the suggestion is that they should just be co-opted—in other words, that the nomination, election and appointment of people to represent anglers and tenant netsmen should be carried out by the elected upper and lower proprietors. But I feel strongly—and in this I know that I am supported by many organisations, including the Association of District Salmon Fishery Boards—that the elective principle which decides who shall represent the upper and lower proprietors should also decide who shall represent the anglers and tenant netsmen.
I have never felt that there was a real difficulty about setting up a method of electing such people, deciding how elections shall be carried out or anything of that sort. In fact, I am certain that on most rivers it can easily be done. In this series of amendments I have tried to suggest at least one way in which that can be done. At the end of the day the amendments would place upon the members elected to the new district boards, committees or whatever else they are called as representatives of the upper and lower proprietors, an obligation to set out the method of election which they will offer the anglers and tenant netsmen. They would be asked to set out to the Secretary of State how they propose to conduct elections of anglers and netsmen.
Those representatives of anglers and tenant netsmen, having been elected by their peers, would then be appointed to the board. They would be appointed by the board that has been elected in the normal course of events rather than merely co-opted to that board. In so far as they are thereby being given full membership of the board, it is suggested that the number might be two of each category instead of three. In many cases that would be easier to handle, because in some districts it may indeed be hard to find the three tenant netsmen to appoint, co-opt, elect or whatever to the board.
One principle which I think that all of us would agree is vitally important is to keep that even balance between the upper and lower interests. It is important not to let anybody feel that one interest in the exploitation of the salmon is having the whiphand over all others.
In moving the amendment, I invite the Committee to look at the whole series of amendments which are all designed to do the same thing. Amendment No. 28 says:
"leave out ('co-opt') and insert ('appoint')".
636
It is put that way because at the end of the day the people to be appointed are the people who will be elected. It would pave the way for the elections. I hope that we shall insert that principle into the Bill to make the anglers and tenant netsmen fully elected and fully enfranchised. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I am afraid that I am not, as previously today, in wholehearted agreement with the noble Viscount. There is a difficulty with this proposal. There may well be three netsman tenants, but at least one may not be a suitable person to serve on a fishery board. He may be of doubtful character. Regrettably, the Crown Commissioners are inclined to let to the highest bidder when letting their nets. They are not terribly particular as to whom they appoint as their tenants. In many areas, the people who have to be watched—the fisheries board are watching them—are some of the netsmen who fish illegally. It would be extremely difficult if they were members of the board. Much of this problem could be solved—I not not know whether the noble Viscount agrees—if we changed the words "shall co-opt" to "may co-opt" members. I am all for having the tenants, rodsmen and netsmen, but where there is difficulty, with a small board, in finding the right people, it is not advisable that we should be made to co-opt them automatically.
Viscount Thurso: With respect, may I make this point? We are not discussing the word "shall" at all. We are discussing the word "co-opt". I am not changing the word "shall". I am changing the word "co-opt" to "appoint".
Lord Burton: The noble Viscount did suggest that the numbers were reduced to two. I am suggesting that they remain at three but with an option open to the remaining members of the board.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. One of the difficulties, as I saw it, of co-opting was that the co-opted people would be the creatures of the elected members of the board. This is a perpetuation of rotten boroughs. Those worked very well once upon a time but it would not be a good plan to have them again. I hope very much that the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will be accepted. It is a little confusing. The tenant netsmen and the anglers elect themselves. They are then accepted by the board. They become fully enfranchised. This is a very important point which I mentioned at Second Reading.
I dislike very much the idea of having second class membership. That would be a great mistake. I endorse the idea of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that the number should be two rather than three. There is something to be said for the riparian owners, who have a lasting interest in the river, having a slight advantage over those who are only tenants. Having said that, I want the tenant netsmen and the tenant anglers to have full voting rights and to elect themselves. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will feel able to accept the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whether Amendment No. 55 is swept up in this. The list of groupings that we received on arrival today has omitted Amendment No. 55. That is either a compliment or an insult to me. I am not sure which.
Amendment No. 55: Schedule 2, page 32, line 16, at end insert ("(provided that the co-opted representatives of salmon anglers and tenant netsmen shall be equal in number)").
Viscount Thurso: I did not feel that I ought to sweep up the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in my series but, if he so wishes, it would obviously be possible to discuss Amendment No. 55 along with all the others. I should be delighted were we to do so.
Viscount Ridley: If so, I should like, speaking to Amendment No. 55, to endorse a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that co-opted representatives or appointed representatives, as the case may be, of netsmen should be equal in number. It is crucial to the working of the Bill that there should not be a majority of one interest or another. If you appoint two or three, there should be two or three different interests. That is the only point that I want to make. I hope that I shall save time by making it now.
Viscount Thurso: I should like to point out one matter to the noble Viscount. I have already provided for this in Amendment No. 45, which states:
"and the number of representatives of salmon anglers so appointed shall not exceed the number of tenant netsmen so appointed"
But his wording may be preferable to mine.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We have been at a disadvantage throughout the progress of this Bill. We took the Second Reading the day after we came back from a Recess. Most of us were not inclined to spend all Christmas and New Year looking over it. And today we are faced with the Committee stage. We were unable to get in touch with all the people concerned. Like others, I have received a daily welter of paper that could not be sorted out and put in the right order. Now, very belatedly, today, we are faced with a grouping of amendments. I do not know whether it is good or bad. I want to know whether my Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are included, because they contain the very same words. Of course they fall under Schedule 2 to the Bill and should really come under our discussions of the schedule, which lays out all that one has to do. Therefore, we are discussing it in a very disjointed way. I suppose that the Government are a lot to blame for that as regards the way in which they have drafted the Bill.
I wish to speak on the first amendment, which concerns the co-option nominations. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, was quite wrong. There is no change. The Government have included the word "shall", but if the noble Lord cares to change that to "may" we shall look forward to seeing it at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, the important principle—and it was dealt with during Second Reading—is the question of whether or not we should have co-opted members of the board from among the anglers and the tenant netsmen. I think it came down to the phrase used by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne: we do
638
not want second-class members in the sense that, once they are there, there are only certain things which they can talk about.
I do not know to what extent we are going over the whole matter, but I wish purely to concentrate on the business of co-option. What was said was quite right. If they are co-opted by elected members then they will be the creatures of the people who elect them. If their face fits they will be co-opted and then, of course, there will be further restrictions placed on them. It may be said, "We cannot have officials of angling associations" or something like that. It is quite wrong. I do not think that the Government have properly thought it through from the point of view of the feelings of the people in the areas and the people in the business whether they be netsmen or whether they be rod and line men, upper or lower proprietors. I certainly hope that the first amendment will be accepted and that we can go on from there to see about the other matters.
I do not want to discuss Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and the other amendments in relation to other aspects of the matter. I do not think that they are even grouped. I do not know why they should not be so grouped, because one of them is virtually the same as that of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, which shows how badly the grouping has been done and how confusing it is from the point of view of anyone who tried to make sense of it. However, I certainly support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as regards this particular amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: In answering this short debate, I should like to make sure that I am answering all the amendments which we are including. Perhaps I may just read them out: Amendment No. 28 is the amendment which has been moved, together with which we are considering Amendment No. 55 (Viscount Ridley's amendment), Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 49, 50 and 59 (in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso) and also Lord Thurso's Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 51. 52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 58.
Viscount Thurso: Also Amendment No. 37.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, Amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 28 appears on the surface to be of little apparent consequence as there is unlikely to be much, if any, difference in practice between co-option by the board and appointment to a board. The amendment, however, is one of several tabled by the noble Viscount with the intention of altering the whole way in which representatives of anglers and tenant netsmen will obtain membership of a board. As I have explained already, the arrangement proposed in the Bill—co-option by the Board—is the best approach and I regret that I am unable to accept Amendment No. 28.
As regards Amendment No. 55, it is our intention that boards should co-opt an equal number of representatives of salmon anglers and tenant netsmen, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is suggesting in the amendment. I am advised the sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 does not achieve this and that further consideration is needed. For example, if

639
the tenant netsmen were entitled to have three representatives but were only offered two, the anglers would not be prevented from having three co-optees, thus giving rise to a difference in numbers between the two categories of co-optees.
If I give the noble Viscount an assurance that I accept in principle what his amendment seeks to achieve and will myself consider how an appropriate amendment may be introduced at a later stage in the proceedings, I hope that he may feel able in due course to withdraw his amendment.
As regards the larger grouping of amendments to Schedule 2—Amendments 40, 41, 49, 50 and 59 in the name of the noble Viscount—I point out that the Bill as drafted provides for the chairman to be elected by the votes of all the proprietors who attend the meeting, with multiple voting according to rateable value as specified in paragraph 3(1) and 3(3) of Schedule 2. If we accepted the noble Viscount's amendment we should be creating a situation in which it would be almost inevitable that the chairman would be chosen virtually on the toss of a coin or a draw of cards given that boards normally will consist of equal numbers of upper and lower proprietors. The existing position, which is continued in terms of the Bill, is that including the chairman there will normally be seven representatives of proprietors. I cannot accept the arrangement proposed by the noble Viscount, and I note that there was support for the system as proposed in the Bill at Second Reading. It is a democratic arrangement which I commend to your Lordships. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount might consider withdrawing this particular amendment.
On the large grouping of amendments, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 58, the noble Viscount is to be congratulated on the thought he has clearly devoted to the question of co-option, and for the alternative procedure of nomination, election and appointment that he has presented for recruiting representatives of salmon anglers and tenant netsmen to district salmon fishery boards. My congratulations, however, are tempered by my clear conclusion that this is an over-complicated solution.
It will not surprise your Lordships when I say that I much prefer the arrangements for which the Bill provides. These are less complicated and provide for, so far as possible, equality between elected members and co-opted members. The noble Viscount's proposals provide for a built-in majority for proprietorial interests. I am not clear as to how this will work when a board consists of only one upper and one lower proprietor. Presumably there would in these circumstances be no possibility of appointing a representative of anglers.
I agree with the principle of the noble Viscount's amendment, which is apparently aimed at achieving balance on boards between salmon anglers and netsmen, but I do not think that he has quite achieved that. It appears that it would be possible for the number of representatives of salmon anglers to be fewer than it might be if the full quota of tenant netsmen was not in fact co-opted or appointed.
I shall be looking closely at Schedule 2 to ensure that the quality we are seeking will be achieved, and, as necessary, bring forward an amendment at a later
640
stage. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Viscount will be prepared to withdraw his amendments.
Viscount Thurso: My heart is softened by the kind reply of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. If he really has taken aboard the idea that we should in some way try to achieve some sort of an election, some sort of way in which it is not a rotten borough, then I should be happy to go along with him. We are now talking about an amendment which simply leads us into a whole series of amendments, and I accept that it is a complicated area. I accept that it has not been easy to draft it out and that it is not easy to accept it in a lump, as it were, and that we want to think about this. However, if we can discuss the principle of it at this stage, what I feel is important is that we should not give built-in majorities to any section in the district boards.
In some rivers, as things are, there may well be built-in majorities to the nets; in other rivers there may well be built-in majorities to the anglers if we decide everything at the stage when people are present with their valuation-weighted voting power. If we simply ask, as happens now, the upper proprietors to elect their representatives and the lower proprietors to elect their representatives, and then the six representatives so elected meet as a board to decide among them who of their number shall be the chairman, I am not fearful of that. I do not think that when six reasonable, chosen people meet who have to decide among themselves who is to be chairman there will be all that much difficulty in finding a chairman. There may be some difficulty in certain instances, but eventually I am sure a chairman will be found.
With these six people one has an equally balanced board with the chosen one able to exercise the casting vote. One then could run elections to find the chosen ones of the angling nominees and the chosen ones of the tenant netsmen nominees and one stands a chance of having a board truly representing all the interests, where everybody has a fair, democratic say in how people have got on to the board and where reasonable people working together have a chance of producing a reasonable job of work. I am confident that this can be done.
I recognise that this is difficult to do in drafting at this stage. Having set out the aim with which I started to draft these amendments, if the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will give me an assurance that we can have a discussion about this, I should be happy to withdraw the whole lot.
Lord Gray of Contin: I must make the point clear to the noble Viscount. I have not conceded the point about election rather than co-option. I made that clear when I said that I could not accept Amendment No. 28. I am absolutely prepared to consider the balance between co-optees, anglers and netsmen. I am also prepared to have discussions, or to arrange for my advisers to have discussions, with the noble Viscount on any of the other points which he wishes to discuss. I explained earlier on Amendment No. 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley that I was prepared to consider it again if my noble friend would withdraw his amendment. I make that quite clear. I am not

641
prepared to concede on the principle of election rather than co-option which we discussed earlier. But on the other points I am happy to negotiate with the noble Viscount.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord, Lord Gray, will realise that I am not conceding anything either. I am merely agreeing to talk to him. I am agreeing, at this stage, to withdraw my amendments, then to talk, and we shall see what will come out of it. If that is the basis on which we are agreed, I am happy to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 29:
[Printed earlier: col. 627.]
The noble Viscount said: This is a totally different point. My noble friend has already let the cat out of the bag in saying that he could not accept it when he was speaking to something else. I shall have to redouble my efforts to persuade him otherwise.
This amendment quite simply provides that a fishery board—I remind your Lordships that we are trying to give powers to fishery boards for the conservation of salmon—may remove obstacles to the passage of salmon up to spawn. There are two points to be made. First, it is obvious that we wish to increase the stock of salmon and that every obstacle in their progress should be removed. Secondly, riparian owners who possess water just below an obstacle have a different interest because the fish are held up by the obstacle and thus more are available to be caught on rod and line. There is a conflict of interests, but the balance is that no one riparian owner who refuses the agreement—the word I wish to delete—should be able to stop the removal of natural or artificial obstacles to the passage of fish.
This must be in the interests of all in the long run. I do not know it myself, but I am informed that there is a river in County Rossshire—or what used to be called that—where some 14 miles of absolutely splendid spawning water is totally forbidden to salmon because of a natural waterfall and someone would not allow this to be removed, which would not be difficult to do. Of course, there are other precedents for doing this.
The Committee is no doubt intimately aware of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1857, which gave the Tweed commissioners total power to remove all obstacles to salmon passage throughout the length of the Tweed River and its tributaries. I think that is an example of what should be followed throughout the rest of the British Isles. If the Tweed commissioners have such power to remove obstacles, I can see no reason why other fishery boards in Scotland, in the interests of conservation and the increase of salmon stocks, should not also have such powers.
9.30 p.m.
I readily admit that in 1857 the hydro-electric board did not exist and perhaps its presence in other rivers in Scotland may alter the situation. However, I believe it is protected from the undoubted obstacles it has placed in the path of ascending salmon by special Acts. Even so, it should be possible by agreement, or, if necessary,
642
without agreement, to put in proper fish passes to any hydro-electic waterfall or obstacle; there are many waterfalls, many clams constructed by the hydroelectric boards, which do not allow the fish to pass above them.
In this instance, all I am trying to do is to see that the fishery boards, where necessary, can proceed without agreement. We have already discussed the fact that they should have powers to acquire, for this purpose, land and so forth. They should have powers to remove obstacles to the passage of fish and, if necessary, they should be able to do this without the agreement of everybody concerned. I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
The Duke of Atholl: I am afraid that I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Ridley on this subject. The Committee may not be aware but there is a very nice river called the Inver, which flows into the Tay opposite Dunkeld Cathedral, and about a quarter of a mile up the Inver is a lovely beauty spot which belongs to the National Trust for Scotland called the Hermitage or Ossian's Hall. From the Hermitage, one views the most magnificent waterfall and, if one is really lucky, one can see a whole lot of salmon trying to jump up it and always failing.
The Tay board came to the National Trust for Scotland about two or three years ago and asked if it would not be a good idea if they constructed a way round so that the salmon could get up this waterfall. Incidentally, there is another waterfall higher up the river which it is thought may also stop salmon ascending, but after that there is some quite good spawning ground. The National Trust for Scotland said no; that they thought it was a rotten idea; that the Hermitage, Ossian's Hall, had been given to them to protect and to keep as a beautiful waterfall, a beautiful monument, and they felt they really could not agree as it was inalienable land.
I think it would be disastrous if the words "by agreement" were taken out of this Bill, although I agree that in that case it would still require an Act of Parliament to get agreement from the National Trust for Scotland. I think that in most cases reasonable landlords would agree if the fishery board came to them and said they thought it would be a good idea if an obstacle was removed. However, I think there certainly must be other cases in Scotland where it would not be a good idea and where the words "by agreement" are very important. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist this amendment.
Lord Gisborough: Can my noble friend the Minister say whether he would give the fishery board permission to blow up a hydro-electric dam?
Lord Gray of Contin: As I explained at Second Reading, this wording is in the same form as a similar provision in the 1868 Act. The words "by agreement" are included now to underline the fact that boards do not have compulsory purchase powers. The removal of these words would have little effect on the interpretation of this clause, since boards would not be enabled to carry out compulsory purchases without specific powers to do so.

643
I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Ridley has said. I have also listened to what my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has said and I find myself in agreement with the noble Duke. I am afraid that I simply cannot accept this amendment. I hope that in view of what I have said my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw it.
Viscount Ridley: Now I know why the noble Duke's ancestor built a fishing lodge on the Inver at that very point. Of course I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 30, I should tell the Committee that if this amendment is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 15, leave out lines 18 to 21.
The noble Lord said: This is a small, essentially technical amendment. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 24 earlier in the proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I cannot call Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 15, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Where a bailiff of a district salmon fishery board finds salmon dead or abandoned in or adjoining any water within his district and which are not likely to be the subject of a prosecution under the Salmon Fishery Act such salmon shall be deemed to be the property of that district salmon fishery board which may then sell or otherwise dispose of them").
The noble Lord said: The situation here is that much of the poaching is done at night. Very often, if the poachers are alarmed, they will take off and next morning when you come down you may well find hidden nearby a bag or quantity of fish. And this is not necessarily so only at night. If fish are found—and they are found—the problem then arises: to whom do these fish belong? At the moment there appears to be no ownership. The suggestion here is that if they are found by a bailiff they should belong to the fishery district. I see in the amendment the words:
"the property of that district salmon fishery board".
I think it ought to be "salmon fishery committee", but the principle is the same.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can fully understand the thoughts and the intention behind this amendment. There is, however, already an efficient mechanism for dealing with salmon found in the circumstances that the noble Lord describes. It is provided under Part IV of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and allows for the finding of such property to be reported to one of a number of persons, including the police, and permits the chief constable to make such arrangements as he sees fit for disposal of the fish.
644
There is nothing in the Act to prevent a chief constable arranging that abandoned salmon go to a district fishery board if it is found by a water bailiff. Indeed, I think the usual procedure is that the property if not claimed is passed to the finder. I know that in some districts the police have come to arrangements with the district fishery boards about disposal of found salmon. The amendment is, anyway, defective. There is no salmon fishery Act. I hope that with these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: As far as the drafting is concerned, I am very happy to ask leave to withdraw it. But I think this is not altogether satisfactory. The finder could well be an employee of the fishery district, and when it is handed to the chief constable to decide who should have it, if he hands it back to the finder then it goes back to that individual. Clearly it does not belong to the individual because he is merely an employee of the board or committee concerned. I would ask my noble friend to have a further look at this because I know that problems have arisen and it is something which needs to be cleared up. With that, I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that is fairly good advice to give to the Minister, bearing in mind all the complications that are going to come in relation to fish that are found, because the question then arises: were they legally fished? Also, is the person who receives them from the police (because he is the finder) then in legal possession or is he in legal possession of illegally-fished salmon? I hope the Minister appreciates that he will need to look at this again from the point of view of what we are going to do about the licensing of salmon in relation to the police taking control of these things that are lost.
If I remember rightly, there is no mention in the civic government Act of salmon, fish or anything else: it is just things that are lost. I think this is something which is very, very specialised now. In fact, remembering the arguments that we had over that civic government Act and the time the police would keep lost goods before they handed them over to the finder or to somebody else, they gave rise to rather fantastic thoughts in my mind about policemen insisting that they have cold stores attached to their police stations for the keeping of salmon that had been found—it does not say where.
Poor salmon! They have an awful time of it. They can be wild and they can swim as much as they like. They do not belong to anybody until they are caught, and then when this person catches them and puts them down on a bank somwhere, they still do not belong to anyone, because there is no guarantee, although I suppose the riparian owner has a bigger claim on them than anyone else and he would have an absolute claim if it were in England.
I was fascinated by the reference that was made to the civic government Act and to the police keeping salmon and then deciding what they would do with them and to whom they would give them back. I think we have to look at this question again. We shall have to look at it anyway in respect of what we are going to do later on about salmon owned in suspicious

645
circumstances and illegally caught. It is going to be very difficult in this situation, where the police are themselves dealing with illegally-caught salmon and handing them over to somebody. They could hand the salmon to a person and then arrest him for having them, judging from some of the interpretations I have already seen of this particular Bill.
I do not know what we are going to do about this one. I think it would be far better if the Government would say they were going to look at the implications of the matter that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, in terms, first, of the actual problem and, secondly, of the greater problems there will be when we come on to the actual licensing of salmon.
Lord Burton: With the leave of the Committee I beg leave at this juncture to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 15, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Any person intending to release into waters (not being a fish farm) within the area of a district salmon fishery board any fish or live eggs of salmon or non-indigenous salmonids or other fresh water fishes shall first obtain the consent of the said board. Failure to obtain such consent shall constitute an offence under this Act and any person guilty of such an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
( ) Reference in the above subsection to a district salmon fishery board shall include reference to the Secretary of State in any district where no district salmon fishery board is in existence.")
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will no doubt remember that some years ago, when Unilever imported Cohoe salmon into Scotland, it was found that there were no powers under which the Secretary of State could in any way prevent those fish being released into Scottish waters on grounds of race or species. It was found necessary then to introduce a Bill which eventually got through your Lordships' House, through another place and finally became an Act. There is now an Act which prevents imported fish from being implanted in the waters of Scotland. This was then followed by a similar Bill for England. It is really following along these lines that this amendment is drafted.
I think we can now recognise that there are dangers in releasing even indigenous fish into waters which previously did not carry them. One could, for instance, take pike from Perthshire and introduce them into the waters of north-west Sutherland and have disastrous effects upon the native stocks of salmon and trout and so forth.
Indeed, nowadays there is even a fair amount of consensus that the race of salmon within rivers has been adjusted by nature to suit the rivers concerned, and that the careless introduction of salmon, although of the same species but from rivers of a totally different sort, could have a harmful effect on the race which inhabits the rivers in question.
Then there is the possibility that enthusiastic people, thinking to increase the amount of fish they can catch, and the value of the fish they can catch, would introduce non-native salmon; in other words, fish like
646
the rainbow trout, which would come out of Scottish waters, out of Scottish fish farms perhaps. They might introduce them into waters where they would damage the native fish by competition, predation and disease. I feel that it is necessary, while we are examining the protection of the species and the conservation of salmon, to give the Secretary of State powers to deal with this sort of thing. This amendment is designed to make it an offence to put into waters species of fish which are not native to those waters, without permission from the district board or, in the absence of a district board, the Secretary of State for Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Moran Lord Moran had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 as amendments to Amendment No. 33:
Line 2, after ("board") insert (", or in the case of England and Wales a water authority,")
Line 4, after ("board") insert ("or authority")
The noble Lord said: The Minister was good enough to explain earlier on that the water authorities in England and Wales already have powers to prevent introductions. I apologise for not having been aware of this when I put down these amendments. I warmly support the amendment put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The Atlantic Salmon Trust recently distributed a booklet written by a distinguished scientist, Professor Wilkins, who said that,
"salmon stocks of different rivers are genetically distinct and therefore, each stock should be treated as a separate unit for management purposes. The introduction of salmon from other rivers may alter genetic compositions of stock and reduce homing precision".
It was because, in the first place, I thought it was important that this provision should apply throughout Great Britain that I put down this amendment. But also I knew that the owners' association on the Wye were introducing ova from the Shin in Scotland, which seemed to be ill-advised in the light of Professor Wilkins' view. But I am very glad to know that the water authorities have power to control this; I only hope they will exercise it. Because the matter is already covered, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
The Earl of Onslow: It seems to me there is a perfect example of the damage that can be done by importing a species. That is the importation of the American crayfish into English waters, which has absolutely slaughtered the English and European crayfish. So I hope that there is the maximum amount of support for the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
Lord Burton: I also should like to support the noble Viscount. At Second Reading, I referred to pike being introduced into the headwater of the Inverness-shire Garry, which was a ridiculous state of affairs. There are also a certain amount of rainbow trout put into Loch Ness every year by one of the Sunday papers—I think the Sunday Post. They are tagged and there is a reward if you catch one of them. Things of this sort ought to come under the control of the local committees and I very much hope that my noble friend will support this amendment.
Lord Tryon: While I too support this amendment, I should not like the impression to go out that the introduction of salmon into rivers which are very short of them is necessarily a bad thing. There are not great numbers of salmon in the Thames but there are some, and if this were carried to too great an extreme, and if it was generally appreciated that salmon should not be moved from one river to another, there would be no salmon in the Thames. There are a lot of rivers that will have to be stocked from other rivers because they are very short of fish at the moment.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have great sympathy with what the noble Viscount is seeking to achieve and I can see that unregulated stocking could do considerable harm. However, I believe that this amendment goes too far. For example, it seems to me to be unreasonable to require angling clubs which regularly stock with brown trout or rainbow trout to seek the consent of a salmon board, and I am not attracted to the idea of the Secretary of State's role where no board exists. If the noble Viscount will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I am prepared to look further into this and to bring forward an amendment at a later stage which I think will go a long way towards meeting the objectives mentioned by noble Lords this evening.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Viscount replies to my noble friend, I wonder whether my noble friend can answer my point about no boards. To take the case of the American crayfish, appalling damage has been done to crayfish in other waters because of a disease whose Latin name I cannot remember. How will it be controlled in the non-boarded rivers?
Lord Gray of Contin: I simply cannot answer my noble friend on that point. Of course, we will take everything into account when we are considering the matter and I am offering to take it back and look at it. Surely that is reasonable.
Lord Burton: I was rather concerned about the reference to the stocking of waters by angling clubs. This could well be very damaging to the salmon industry. If you put a lot of trout where salmon fry are hatching out, the trout can be gobbling them up as quickly as they are hatching. It is a case where salmon boards must take priority over trout fishing.
Viscount Thurso: I feel very inclined to accept the kind offer of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to discuss this matter. I understand all the points which have been raised. It was not easy to draft this amendment. I do not share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, about difficulties arising from genuine efforts to stock waters with fish in a traditional manner, and I shall put that point to him when we discuss. But I think at this stage it would be best if I were to withdraw this amendment, on the promise of discussions and an amendment to deal with the matter later on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Proceedings of district salmon fishery boards]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("deliberate") and insert ("deliberative").
The noble Lord said: This is a very minor amendment to correct an error in the Bill. No issue of substance is involved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Election and co-option of members of district salmon fishery boards]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 45 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46:
Page 31, line 20, leave out from ("person") to ("persons") in line 21 and insert ("nominated by").
The noble Lord said: These amendments, again, were overtaken by that long list of co-option and nomination, and so Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 will not be moved.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
The Duke of Atholl The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 31, line 29, leave out first ("an") and insert ("a paid").
The noble Duke said: This is very much a probing amendment. My object in putting it down is to find out exactly what is meant by "an official of an angling association" which is itself an upper proprietor in that district. I imagine that an official is probably the chairman, the deputy chairman, the treasurer or the secretary. I entirely agree with the Bill as drafted that if these people are paid they should not be eligible for co-option as representatives of salmon anglers. But in very many cases these officials—if I have the meaning of the word "official" right I shall be more than pleased—will be the keenest and most enthusiastic members of the angling association. It would seem a pity that such people could not be co-opted as representatives of salmon anglers in that particular district.
Therefore I should like to ask my noble friend whether I am right in thinking that an official is usually one of those four people, and if so whether I am right in thinking that they ought only to be disqualified if they are paid. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The amendment would provide that only a paid official of such an association would be barred. I concede the principle of this amendment but in fact I have decided to go further. I intend to table at a later stage an amendment which will wholly remove the bar on officials of angling associations, whether paid or not. This picks up a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, at

649
Second Reading. In view of this assurance, I hope that the noble Duke will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Atholl: On the strength of that assurance, I am very pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 59 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be agreed to?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think it would be a good thing to look at this important schedule. I want to ask the Minister of State which matters within this schedule he has promised to look at, so that when I am looking at it from the point of view of the next stage of the Bill I shall know where I can expect government amendments and be able to anticipate them. There is now a question mark over promises that have been given by the Government that they are going to look at it again.
10.p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can answer the noble Lord immediately so far as that point is concerned. I have given a number of undertakings and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the noble Lord if I were to write to him tomorrow and set out the points that I have undertaken to look at again.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am grateful for that but I believe that the noble Lord's letter should go beyond myself, because there are others interested in this important schedule. The noble Lord's reply rather inhibits me because I intended to ask a number of questions about the schedule, as to what could be and should be done. So I am left rather without a speech.
For instance, there is the matter of Schedule 2 where it states in paragraph 3(4):
"A proprietor of a salmon fishery in the district which has been neither entered nor entered separately in the valuation roll shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, have one vote at the meeting and shall be eligible for election".
But the whole qualification is that one has to be a qualified proprietor based on entry in the valuation roll. That is just one point that the Minister has not so far promised to look at. I should like to be clear about it before we go much farther.
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall cover that point when I write to the noble Lord. I have given an assurance that I will outline the points that I intend to consider again, and I shall include that one.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely that is a simple point. I do not want to rush through the Bill in any way. This is the point at which one asks for information, and one expects the Government to be briefed to give such information. This is an important paragraph relating to the election of members. We have heard all sorts of talk about co-option and nomination in relation to anglers and to tenant netsmen. Here is a provision about the proprietors that seems to run counter to
650
everything that has been said before about how a proprietor becomes qualified. I just want to know how that can be achieved.
Schedule 2 states in paragraph 3(4):
"A proprietor of a salmon fishery in the district which has been neither entered nor entered separately in the valuation roll shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, have one vote at the meeting and shall be eligible for election".
He could even become the chairman. That seems to run counter to the obligations and qualifications of a proprietor.
That is only one point. Am Ito be told that if I raise any other points in relation to this important schedule then they will all be dealt with in writing in a letter to me? That is not fair. It will become a Cabinet secret and I shall not be able to divulge it to the noble Lord, Lord Home. Think of the penalties that might be involved for myself, not to mention what might happen to the Minister. That is not the way to conduct legislation. The Government must surely be in a position to give answers to all those points.
That is why I wanted the Government to clear up now that, where there are matters the Minister has already dealt with, we do not need to discuss them in respect of the schedule. It is a very important schedule. It runs to nearly four pages. There must be many Members who have questions in respect of Schedule 2. They may not be extremely important questions but the Government should be prepared to answer them and not race the Bill through. I do not know who is handling this Bill for the Government, from the point of timing and all the rest of it, but I can assure him that he is not being helpful to the Bill by adopting such a procedure.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think I have already indicated to the noble Lord and to the Committee, but I shall confirm it by letter to the noble Lord, that I shall be looking carefully at the question of equal co-option of numbers of anglers and tenant netsmen. I shall be looking at the question of officials of angling associations not being barred from co-option.
The noble Lord referred to paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2. This is covered by the definition of "proprietor". A person can still be a proprietor for the purposes of entry in the valuation roll, even though he is not permanently in that area.
There are various other points on which I have given assurances and, as I said to the noble Lord, of course it is not essential that all these be spelt out in a letter. However, the noble Lord is anxious to know and he always meticulously looks at points raised so that he can table amendments at the next stage of the Bill. I merely thought that it would be helpful to the noble Lord if I did him the courtesy of writing and setting out these matters for him. I know just how finicky he is. After all, he has never lost his schoolmaster tendencies. I am sure that he goes over my letters with a red pencil and marks them with ticks and crosses here and there where he agrees or does not agree. I am sure there are more crosses than ticks. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall write to him and spell out the various points on which I have given assurances.
Viscount Thurso: If the Minister is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will he kindly send a copy to those of us who have taken part, at least on the debate on this schedule, so that we are all informed?
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall do better than that. I shall put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I ask the Minister not to rest there. After writing to me he can put a copy in the Library. I am getting to be an old man now. I cannot trot up and down to the Library and then get someone to make a copy. He must be careful in this spot of seeming generosity that he is not doing us any good at all. I look forward to receiving that letter. Incidentally, I do not use a red pencil—usually it is a blue pencil that I use for his letters. The simple fact is that we all want to know. There are many important parts where there is no point in going over it because the Government have said that they will make a change and we do not know to what extent.
The Minister is doing his best. He is trying to catch up on the time he lost at the start and is doing not too badly. Certainly with the number of matters he said he will consider on this Bill so far—and we have not progressed all that far—he is going to have a very busy time with that particular department in the Scottish Office before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Additional powers in respect of licensing and regulation of salmon dealing]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lady said: Some Ministers appear to hold that "shall" is stronger than "may" and others that "may" is stronger than "shall". This is our old friend "may" and "shall" again. In my understanding of the English language "shall" is mandatory but "may" is merely permissive. As this very welcome clause is extremely important it seems to me that "shall" would possibly be more appropriate than "may". I should be very interested to hear the noble Lord's views on this. Can he tell us whether he would be prepared to change the wording to "shall"; and if not, what his reasons are? I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation of this amendment, but I hope that I can convince her that it is not necessary. I consider that the use of the word "may" in this clause is preferable and necessary, since it allows a necessary flexibility in the order and it may not in practice be felt necessary or desirable to provide for all elements set out in the clause. Despite what the noble Lady has said, I see no advantage in her pressing this amendment and I hope that she will be prepared to withdraw it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 18, line 20, after ("and") insert ("other").
The noble Lord said: I thought when I put this amendment down that it would carry on the argument which I was trying to make on Second Reading about the power of bailiffs, when I asked that the Secretary of State be given control over the appointment of bailiffs. Saying "water bailiffs and other persons" may not be the most felicitous way to do it, but I was trying to include the powers of the Secretary of State in those of the water bailiffs and other persons who are appointed by the Secretary of State.
I raised this point at the Second Reading debate, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, very correctly explained to me that a great deal of time and money was spent on the training and selection of water bailiffs. I have no doubt at all that, owing to his interests and knowledge of salmon and fishing generally, the noble Marquess is correct in this, but I still believe that giving power of such a nature to people who, after all, are civilians is really asking too much. They are given, for example, power of entry.
I made a reference during the Second Reading of this Bill to a story I had heard about someone who had appointed a totally unsuitable person as a bailiff. I have since had correspondence giving the facts of the case. I am sure that those people who are interested in fishing, and much more involved in it than I am, will know of the case in the island of Lewis in which two estates quarrelled, and whether it was from pique or to show how wrong was the existing legislation, one of the estates nominated an unsuitable person and sent his name to the clerk to the river board. The name was accepted solely on the strength of having been sent by the estate. It was discovered later that it was a spoof and that the man was quite unsuitable; in actual fact he was an inmate of a prison in Inverness.
I was worried about the whole question of a civilian being given such great power. If such a thing can happen in even one case it is doubly worrying that such power should be given. Although this particular amendment may be the wrong place to raise the matter, I hope that the Minister will accept the fact that I feel very deeply about it, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate must be worried that power such as this should be given so lightly to someone merely on the word of an estate.
Perhaps I may make one slight correction here. In trying to find an amendment suitable for putting this point across, when reading what I said on the 14th January at the Second Reading, I discovered in the fourth paragraph of col. 998 of the Official Report that the transcript reads "the state" instead of "the estate". That is quite different. The estate, and not "the state", sent someone's name to the board, and that name was accepted.
The amendment covers an important point. If this is not the right place in the Bill to raise it, perhaps the

653
Minister will say how he feels about this. I shall be happy to put it at a more suitable point at the Report stage. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: This amendment appears to start from a false premise; namely, that the Secretary of State appoints all water bailiffs. In fact water bailiffs are appointed by district boards, although under Section 10(5) of the 1951 Act the Secretary of State has powers to appoint persons for enforcement purposes to cover areas where there are no boards in existence.
I am satisfied that it is for boards, where they exist, to appoint their own bailiffs, as that is a function best carried out at local level where local knowledge exists. The Bill is therefore correctly drafted as it stands, and the amendment is not, I am advised, sufficient to give the Secretary of State powers to appoint bailiffs even if it was thought appropriate that he should do so.
I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, but I am afraid that I simply cannot accept it, even if he is not.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his reply but I think that he is reading the amendment wrongly. I do not blame him. When I looked at it I was conscious of the fact that it should have come earlier in the Bill and in another form. I was endeavouring to include water bailiffs among the people whom the Secretary of State appointed. It is probably a clumsy way to do that.
I realised that the Minister would not expect the argument that I put, and his reply was to a quite different matter altogether. I hope that he will at least consider my simple point. I disagree that the boards are the best organisations to appoint water bailiffs. I gave at least one instance of the appointment of someone totally unsuitable. I do not know how many more there are. In this case it was a non-existent appointment, because the person was unable to get out of prison to take it up.
The Minister says that the boards are the best people to make the appointments, but in this case there was no check at all. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who is a responsible and thorough individual, would take such appointments seriously, as would many others, but it is too great a power to give to other people when they can go so far wrong.
I hope the Minister will consider this again before he turns it down.
Lord Gray of Contin: Persuasive as the noble Lord is, the Secretary of State simply does not have the necessary local knowledge to appoint bailiffs. It is much better to leave it to the boards which possess the necessary local knowledge and know the people who might be suitable. I am afraid that what the noble Lord says does not convince me, and I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely, the Minister of State can accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. We are not suggesting that it is the
654
responsibility of the Secretary of State. I do not know that he would even go so far as to say now that it should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. But it should be someone's responsibility to ensure that the right people are selected and appointed and paid as water bailiffs. It may well be that the local police could be contacted. If that had been done in this case, I do not doubt at all that they would have been able to check that the person being put forward was in prison for a very serious offence and that there was no question of the police not knowing that this was the case. If it happens in one case, it could happen in many others. The more rural the situation, and the further removed it is from the urban gangs of poachers that we have heard about, the more can considerable animosity be built up around the figure of the water bailiff. If the wrong one, for one reason or another, is selected, it cannot be to the benefit of the fishery board itself.
Something should be said and some attention paid to the quality of water bailiffs from the point of view of the job they are doing and the powers they are given. One should remember that it is easy to send someone to prison in respect of poaching in Scotland nowadays. I am talking of the person caught in Scotland rather than the person caught down in Kent, as a few people were the other week. The evidence that is expected in other cases in Scotland of collaboration—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Corroboration.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am sorry. Corroboration is not now required. It has not been required since 1951. It is a very serious matter. It was a Labour Government, by the way, that introduced that. I remember the difficulty that arose—it has been referred to by lawyers since—of this breach with Scottish tradition of the absence of corroboration. I believe that in civil cases it was breached again in relation to compensation by judges. The judge was given the discretion to dispense with the need for corroboration. What a row that caused, particularly with a certain Scottish nationalist lawyer whose name I forget at the moment!
This is important. If the Government cannot handle it in this way, cannot they give some advice to those who appoint them and to those whom they think should be appointed? It might be a letter to them to bear in mind the importance of the character of the water bailiffs appointed, in view of the important duties they have to carry out and the effect they can have on local people.
Lord Gray of Contin: I do not think that anyone who has sat through our discussions today could say that I have been anything other than sympathetic towards the amendments that have been moved. I have taken a good many back to look at again. I have accepted a good many. I am bound to say to the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael, that this is one which I cannot take back because I do not see myself being able to come forward with what they seek. There is, of course, no reason why they cannot withdraw the amendment, think about it a little longer, and perhaps come forward with something themselves that might be worthy of consideration at a later stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In view of the point that the Minister has made I think that perhaps we could dig back in the Acts a wee bit more and perhaps get a few more examples that will help the Minister to support anything we are able to bring forward at Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: Before we agree this clause I should like to put a question to the Minister. If there is to be licensing and if records are to be kept, who will be empowered to inspect the books and the records? Under the Deer (Scotland) Act the police can do so and also the Red Deer Commission can do so. However, the Red Deer Commission is only allowed to take statistics out and it cannot give you any facts and details.
If this licensing power is to be of any use we should allow fishery boards or fishery committees through their officials to look at the books to see where the fish are going. There may be complications, but there is no point in asking the fishmongers to keep a lot of records if they are never going to be looked at.
Lord Gray of Contin: In answer to my noble friend let me say that officials of local authorities, the police and the water bailiffs all have the power to examine the books.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill and it is quite disgraceful that we have reached it at this time of night. If anyone should have been quicker earlier on, it is the Minister of State. The Committee will remember that we started our discussions on the Bill without him because he could not get here on time. I do not know about the languid Lord who has arrived to complain about speeches being made at the early hour of 26 minutes past 10! I do not know how his interest arises in respect of this matter.
However, we are dealing with the new power in respect of poaching and in respect of conservation. It is the Government's idea of a new, helpful provision. The only way in which we can get information about it is through a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, apart from the drafting of amendments—one from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and another one.
This duty is to be placed upon the local authority. First, which local authority will have the licensing power? Will it be the district authority or will it be the regional authority? Can we have any indication of how many there will be in any particular local authority area? Will they be virtually existing dealers in fish? Nowadays there is a very considerable variety. We must bear in mind the multi-purpose shops which we have nowadays and not the specialised fish shops. In fact, there are very few fishmonger shops left in many areas. Who will hold the licence? That matter will be very important from the point of view of the person who gets the licence. That person will probably be the only person in a small town who will be licensed to deal in this particular way.
656
The question arises as to whether the hotels will get their fish from the retailer, or will people who themselves own facilities as upper proprietors, lower proprietors or netsmen hold licences and deal directly with the public? This is the only time that we shall be able to get this information.
There is the question which I mentioned earlier about what the police will do with the lost fish. They have to give it to somebody who is licensed. Or are the police themselves going to have a licence to be able to deal with fish in this connection? I do not think that this is quite as simple as we have been told so far. I expected that at this stage quite a number of noble Lords would draw out all the difficulties that will arise in relation to licensing.
10.30 p.m.
Then there is the question of whether the act is committed by taking, killing or landing that salmon either in Scotland or in England and Wales. Yet the actual dealing in salmon by licence is only going to apply in Scotland and not in England and Wales. That is a point we shall come to later. First we should know what the power is, and who is going to enforce it? If it involves the local authority and the dealers, then obviously enforcement is going to rest with the local police. But that will depend entirely on where the dealers are. Are the dealers going to be in urban areas or are they going to be people who catch the fish? It is a difficult business.
Then there is all the trouble about having fish caught and getting them transported to the dealer. Until they get to the dealer they are not legally-handled fish. He is the person who is legally empowered to handle fish. There is a great deal in this and we should not just let it go through to suit the Government's convenience because it is late at night and they think they have been clever in respect of what they have done hitherto. I am not prepared to let a Government get away with an important power like this unexamined. The people in Scotland would object strongly if we did. They want to know what the new power is; how it is going to be dealt with; how it is going to be enforced; what the penalties are.
Then there is the provision:
"as to the exercise of powers of entry and search by water bailiffs and persons appointed by the Secretary of State".
How does this come into this new licensing power? Can we have a clear explanation by the Minister of State? Please do not suggest that he should write me a letter. I came here hoping to get information today about this. I deliberately did not put down amendments to leave out subsection (1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c)—to have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate deigning to give the Minister a little help in explaining all these things. It should not be necessary. If we are going to have a proper examination of the position on clause stand part, he can tell us now exactly how it is going to be introduced, who is going to get the licences, which local authorities are concerned, and how they can justify the summary,
"imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both".
Then,
"conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".

657
We cannot let this go by without a word. There are many people concerned that this only applies to Scotland, and they had better know what is being applied in Scotland before they accept the desirability of its being applied in other parts of the country. I should be grateful if we could get some information about this from the Minister of State in respect of this new offence.
Lord Burton: May I say how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has raised this matter. It is one that has exercised my mind considerably. On Second Reading it was said that the licensing offence was singularly ineffective. In this case a lot of the poached salmon goes through hotels. A hotel has only to buy one or two fish legally through a fishmonger and no one could ever check up how many illegal fish were going through and then being sold and cooked. There is no check at all. It would be difficult to follow this up. I think I said on Second Reading that, although this licensing was better than nothing, it would be very ineffective.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think that I can deal fairly briefly and fairly fully with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who made rather a meal of it as usual. I shall try to answer his questions. We are talking about enabling powers. The whole clause extends existing powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act to licensing of salmon dealing and gives additional powers. There will be full consultation on the exercise of the power including discussions with COSLA, chief constables and others. A further safeguard is the fact that the order will be subject to parliamentary procedure.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Negative procedure, which means that we shall never see it again.
Lord Gray of Contin: Whether we see it here or not is a matter for the usual channels to decide. The negative procedure is the normal way of proceeding and that is what is selected for the Bill.
Clause 19 makes supplementary provision where dealing in salmon is designated as an additional activity subject to licensing and regulation by an order made under Section 44 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. It provides for heavier penalties for doing anything for which a licence is required without having one that is generally available under Section 7(1) of the 1982 Act and permits the Secretary of State to regulate the fees imposed by local authorities which would otherwise be at the discretion of the local authorities themselves in terms of paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1 to the 1982 Act.
Subsection (1) provides that an order designating dealing in salmon may define that activity to include specified acts preparatory to or connected with the activity (for example, before money changes hands) or to exclude a specific class or classes of salmon. This will enable a dealer licensing scheme to be introduced excluding sea trout.
It provides that the offence in dealing with salmon without a licence shall be punishable either on summary conviction or indictment; the maximum
658
penalties on summary conviction being imprisonment for a maximum of three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (£2,000) or both and on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a maximum of two years or an unlimited fine or both. Otherwise, the maximum penalty under Section 7(1) of the 1982 Act would be a fine of £1,000 on summary conviction only. It will create an offence where a person who is not a licensed salmon dealer buys salmon from or sells salmon to anyone other than a licensed salmon dealer.
The subsection will except certain acts or omissions from being offences under Section 7(1) of the 1982 Act or under the last paragraph where the possessor of salmon caught the fish lawfully or where farmed salmon were grown by him at his farm.
It will provide that certain classes of dealing in salmon should not need to be licensed. The power could be used to except, for instance, very small businesses. It would also be possible to provide that a licence should not be required for certain classes of salmon, as defined in the Bill; for example, sea trout.
Subsection (1) will provide powers of entry or search for water bailiffs appointed by district salmon fishery boards or by the Secretary of State. Any such powers will be exercisable in addition to the powers in Section 5 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Subsection (2) excludes from any dealer licensing scheme, live salmon or prepared or processed salmon. Tinned and smoked salmon will be covered, but no salmon which has had anything done to it other than freezing may be included in a dealer licensing scheme.
Subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State power to fix the fees or maximum fees which local authorities may charge for operating the salmon dealer licensing scheme. Subsection (4) requires that any order under subsection (3) fixing fees for a dealer licensing scheme shall be made by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution by either House of Parliament.
I think that covers fairly broadly the points the noble Lord raised. The licensing power, about which the noble Lord specifically asked me, is in district or islands councils. I should reiterate to him that these enabling powers about which we are talking will all be subject to considerable discussion and consultation before an actual dealer licensing scheme is presented.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am grateful to the Minister for that. He has told me it will be done by districts. He has not given me any indication as to how many there will be in a district. Will it be existing shops, or will it not be shops at all? Will it be some middleman somewhere who will be the actual dealer and if one gets it from that particular person then all is well? I hope he appreciates it will create very considerable problems. The suggestion is that if you go into a hotel and order salmon you want to know whether or not it is legally caught; otherwise you are in trouble—the person who actually eats it. It is not usually the manager who acquires the stock; it is usually the chef and he has his own way of doing it.
Thus we want to know exactly who the dealers are. Cannot he get it direct from someone who actually

659
took the fish out of the water, someone in charge of a fishery? Are the fisheries themselves going to be dealers, be they netsmen or be they rod and line men? Having caught the fish, he has to take it to a dealer. To what kind of dealer will he take it? Or is it some new person who is to be created as a dealer and everyone must go to him? It may well be a fine position. It is going to create new jobs and new positions. Some person we have never heard of before is now going to be a salmon licensed dealer.
I do not think we have any indication yet as to what is to happen, because the Government honestly do not know.
Lord Gray of Contin: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Of course.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we are talking about enabling powers. We are not talking about the actual dealer licensing scheme. The dealer licensing scheme is still being worked out and of course nobody can tell him at this precise moment the answers to all these nitty points that he is raising. The noble Lord himself knows that he is the prize nit-picker of all time. He is asking lots of little questions to which he knows perfectly well he cannot be given the answer just now, because what we are talking about is the enabling power within this Bill to introduce a dealer licensing scheme at a future date. A dealer licensing scheme is not yet completed so I cannot possibly give him the answers for which he is asking. He knows that as well as I do.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I did an injustice to the Government. I thought that perhaps they would have a fairly general idea of what this scheme was going to be, but now we are told they have no idea of what this scheme will be—none whatever. I do not blame them. When will we see it? It will come in by way of an order. That is not an affirmative order that both Houses have to deal with: it is a negative order. How many times have we dealt with a negative order in this Chamber? This is our only chance to say anything at all about it. No wonder the Government are smiling. If they get this through, it does not matter: they can do whatever they like so far as this Chamber is concerned. In fact, a very good amendment would be to make this by affirmative procedure. Then quite honestly we could rest content with everything the Government say, because it would need to come back to us. Then, we would see it at the end. So we have learned that the Government do not have a clue as to what they are doing. All they know is that they are going to have a scheme. They do not know what the scheme is. They have not yet discussed it with anybody but they are going to discuss it. And, eventually, we will know. But please do not ask us any questions about it!
They know one thing. It is going to be operated by the district. That is all. Beyond that, they know nothing at all and I presume that, so far as we are concerned, if we want to say anything about this scheme we had better say it tonight or say it by means of amendment on Report stage or at some other stage; because otherwise we are going to have no influence at all in the nature of that particular scheme. So, I am
660
sorry if I have got to nitpick; but it becomes rather frustrating with this particular Government.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps the—
10.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No. I have given way enough. I do not care to receive anything flattering from the Minister of State. I remember him. I have seen him grow up. I remember when he first came in. I remember when he was a Whip, when he was limited in the Scottish Grand Committees to saying, "I beg to move that the Question be now put". He was very good at that. I do not know whether he remembers it, but I have a very good caricature—well, a reasonable caricature of him—and four lines of poetry on the subject of Hamish Gray. But I am not going to give him that just now.
Please credit us with some concern and interest. We should like some general information about how this scheme is going to work and who is going to work it. Now we know that it is the district. But, thereafter, what? We know not. I think it is very disappointing indeed for the Government to have this great new power on which they have been telling everyone in Scotland, "Here is the way we are going to solve all the problems of poaching in Scotland". And they cannot give us a single clue as to what they are going to do. I am sorry for those Members who feel that this is so good that it should apply to England, as well.
Quite honestly, all that I can say to them is that I do not know how it is going to apply in Scotland. How can we judge something as to whether it is going to be effective, when we do not know anything very much about it? That is exactly what the Minister has said: we do not know, but we are going to introduce a scheme. They are getting better and better!
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is being fairly unreasonable. There are strong indications in Clause 19 as to what kind of measures will be taken. My noble friend cannot say exactly what they will be at this moment, but the indications are pretty well there. I would ask the noble Lord not to debunk this clause; because if he is going to move a clause tomorrow, as he has just indicated, that this should apply to England and Wales, he had better be a little bit careful before he devalues it too far.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Do not worry. I have already worked that one out. I have not moved it yet, have I? The noble Lord is the last one who should anticipate what anyone is going to do on his own side, far less on the Opposition side, judging by the kind of things that have been happening in the past few days. I shall be glad to give way.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I am trying to help the noble Lord tomorrow. He is making it more difficult for me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Lord wants to help me tomorrow. Well, we shall see. If his initial response is to help me, then he should not be put off by anything that is really by the way. He should stick to

661
his principles. I want to help more than myself tomorrow in respect of what I want to move. I am sorry if the Government representative is getting a bit restive. He is too late in getting restive. What I am concerned about is to find out as much as possible about this so that I shall be able to answer all those questions of people who say, "It's not worth having", because that is what people will say. They will say it is impossible to implement. I have not had the help I expected from the noble Lord. Perhaps he has deliberately gone out of his way to make it appear this way so that it will be much more difficult when I move another clause later in respect of England and Wales. I am sorry for the Government in respect of this. I thought they really had some better idea as to how they were going to see this thing through. I am sorry they have not.
The Earl of Perth: I wonder if it might help if, in connection with the first time this order is made—so that we all have the opportunity to know what it is about—it was made the subject of an affirmative resolution. In that way we would have a chance from the very start to comment on it, whereas otherwise it may, as it were, slip through without our knowing. While in no way wishing to try to press the exact detail of it, I am sure it would help the Committee very much if we knew we would have another chance to comment on this at the time when the Government have made up their minds and are preparing to make the order.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his intervention. Indeed, to some extent he has stolen my thunder because I was about to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that I had been misinformed. I have since been corrected; and indeed it is subject to affirmative resolution. It is nice at least to conclude a hard day's work by giving a happy piece of news to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I am sure this will help him to sleep very much better after his long day.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It means, of course, that we really ought not to take "Clause stand part" because we do not want subsection (4) to be there. It definitely says:
"an order made under subsection (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument"—
that only relates to subsection (3), which is concerned with penalties. But we are now told that the whole thing will be subject to affirmative resolution when it comes back here. It makes a very big difference indeed.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: This appears to be a convenient point for adjourning the Committee for this evening. I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.