HL Deb 30 January 1986 vol 470 cc799-883

3.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 62: After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:

("Permitted methods of fishing for salmon.)

. In section 2 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 (methods of fishing)—

(a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (1A) No person shall fish for or take salmon in any waters in a salmon fishery district other than inland waters, except by rod and line, net and coble or bag net, fly net or other stake net.";

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections— (2A) After consulting such persons as he considers appropriate, the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of this section, by regulations define fishing for or taking salmon by—

  1. (a) net and coble;
  2. (b) bag net, fly net or other stake net,
whether by reference to anything used for the purpose, or to the circumstances in which or method by which it is so used, or to any combination thereof; and, in relation to net and coble, may make different provision as respects inland waters from that made as respects other waters.

(2B) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to amend or repeal section 62 of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1857 and sections 12 and 13 of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859.

(2C) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if along with Amendment No. 62 we consider Amendments Nos. 68, 82, 83, 87, 88 and 91.

Amendment No. 68: After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:

("Prohibition of use of gill nets.

. If any person—

  1. (a) fishes for or takes salmon by means of a gill net; or
  2. (b) uses a gill net as a leader net in the course of fishing for or taking salmon;
he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine and, in either case, to the forfeiture of any fish illegally taken by him or in his possession at the time of the offence and of any net by which the offence is committed.").

Amendment No. 82: Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

("Lawful means of fishing for salmon.

. It shall be the duty of every district fishery board in relation to their board and every water authority in relation to their area to specify the instruments and methods which may lawfully be used in their districts and areas respectively in fishing for salmon.").

Amendment No. 83: Clause 28, page 25, line 24, at end insert—

Amendment No. 87: Clause 31, page 26, line 29, after ("shall") insert (", with the exception of the provision mentioned in subsection (1A) below).

Amendment No. 88: Clause 31, page 26, line 30, at end insert— ("(1A) Section [Permitted methods of fishing for salmon] of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and such an order may include such transitional or saving provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provision brought into force by the order.").

Amendment No. 91: Clause 31, page 26, line 40, after ("sections") insert ("(Prohibition of use of gill nets)").

This amendment makes additional provision for the listing of the present lawful methods of salmon fishing in Scottish waters and allows the Secretary of State to define these methods by order. Under existing legislation the methods allowed in inland waters are net and coble and rod and line and are specified in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, but the term "net and coble" is not defined except by judicial decision.

The methods that are lawful in the sea are not specified at all and are not defined except where specific prohibitions have been enacted. The amendment does not change the methods of fishing presently lawful in practice, but it would enable detailed definition of these methods and thus create in the legislation a clear statement of the established policy of successive Governments that new methods of fishing for salmon should not be allowed to develop in the seas around Scotland.

The drift net ban of the early 1960s, with which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was concerned when Secretary of State for Scotland, and its extension to other methods in 1972 and 1975 were expressions of that policy. Specifying the methods and defining them would also have a significant effect in making enforcement easier and letting fishermen know more clearly what was allowed.

At Second Reading several noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, argued strongly for the precise listing of the permitted methods. In the context of this and other points I suggested that if amendments were put down I might be persuaded. In this case, given that I am already persuaded of the merit of the proposal, I am glad to offer this amendment myself. I think that it will have widespread support and I should perhaps not take up time by saying very much more. There are however one or two important details which I would mention.

No doubt it will be pointed out that the regulation-making power would offer scope for changing the way in which the nets were operated. This is entirely as it should be as in this field detailed definitions should not be fixed in primary legislation. The power could, for example, be used to regulate the use of adjacent nets so they would not entirely block a river in the way described by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne at Second Reading. It should be noted that the relevant orders could be made only after consultation with appropriate interests and would be subject to parliamentary procedure. Those are necessary and adequate safeguards.

The amendment is achieved by inserting new subsections in Section 2 of the 1951 Act and I should perhaps explain the provision at (2B) of the proposed insertion. This is an example of interaction with other statutes and is merely to allow the Secretary of State to amend or repeal those parts of the Tweed Acts which already regulate the use of the method and which could be inconsistent with regulations made under the new power. The new provisions would of course automatically apply to the whole of the Tweed because the 1951 Act applies to that river.

I believe that this amendment provides what your Lordships and many others outside this place have carefully argued for and strikes the right balance—a statement of the principle in the primary legislation and an enabling power for detailed regulation by order subject of course to parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for having anticipated some of the information that was wanted in the primary legislation. I have no objection to this being done. It may well be that others wanted other aspects of fishing included which they want properly defined and declared illegal. While that may be helpful in relation to some of the other amendments, I do not believe that it will satisfy everyone. From my point of view, and as a way of handling the matter, I think that the clause is admirable. Certainly I have no objection to it.

The Earl of Perth

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, can help the Committee. I was not able to make a note of the other amendments that are being considered at the same time as Amendment No. 62. I now realise that there is a list of the groupings, and so I no longer need to bother the Committee.

Lord Campbell of Croy

Nonetheless, arising from that point, I made a note of the amendments that are now being discussed, and I want to make sure that my noble friend does not propose that Amendment No. 81, dealing with the prohibition of drift nets, should be discussed now. I believe I am correct in thinking that.

Lord Gray of Contin

My noble friend is absolutely correct. It may be helpful to the Committee if I read out again the amendments to be considered with Amendment No. 62. They are Amendments Nos. 68, 82, 83, 87, 88 and 91.

Lord Campbell of Croy

Having clarified that point, does my noble friend intend that discussion of all those amendments will embrace consideration of the type of nets that are to be used, but not in the open sea? I am sure that my noble friend, like me, would prefer to have one discussion and not have to enter further debate when we reach those other amendments. Am I right in thinking that the amendments to be discussed now cover forms of nets—besides the rod and line provisions in my noble friend's own amendment—to be used in the firths and the mouths of rivers but not at open sea, in salt water? If so, that would be a convenient way of governing our debate. I just wanted to make sure that that is what my noble friend intends.

Lord Gray of Contin

I can help my noble friend. If he looks at the amendments that have been grouped with Amendment No. 62, he will find that they all relate to the new clause that has been tabled. That is why they have been grouped in that way.

Lord Grimond

I should like on behalf of my noble friend Lord Thurso and these Benches to thank the Minister very much for this new clause, which my noble friend Lord Thurso suggested in his Second Reading speech. My noble friend is very sorry not to be here today but he has been called away to the north. We all sympathise; no doubt it is to attend to his salmon.

I have two elementary questions to ask. First, may I take it that the new clause will apply to the whole coast of Scotland, including the islands? Secondly, may I assume that this amendment will apply to sea trout as well as to salmon?

Lord Gray of Contin

The noble Lord is correct in thinking that such is the case. I may add that his noble friend Lord Thurso has apologised to me for not being present today, and I quite understand the reasons for his absence.

The Earl of Onslow

I thank my noble friend Lord Gray very much indeed for this amendment. It may be less clear than my amendment but that is because I am not a lawyer. I am sure that it is much more effective than mine, so I thank my noble friend for that. I have only one caveat. I hope that many of the decision-making powers can be put away from the Minister; in other words, down the line to the river boards and water authorities concerned. I hope also that we may extend the provisions of this Bill to England and Wales.

I should not like this Committee or another place to be involved in questions of where somebody's stake should be or what type of net can be used. Such matters are surely for local decision by local boards and authorities who know what are the local needs, bearing in mind all the conservation and fisheries considerations that exist. Certainly I shall not be moving my Amendment No. 82. I would not have put it down had I realised that Amendment No. 62 was being tabled. Everything happened in a rush. Nevertheless, I congratulate my noble friend on his amendment.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

As the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill has mentioned my name, I must add my thanks to him. This is an immensely helpful amendment and I am very glad that he has put it forward. In saying that, I wish to make it clear that I shall not be able to go on thanking the noble Lord for the rest of the afternoon for what he suggests.

Lord Kimball

As I should not want to move Amendment No. 68, I seek confirmation from my noble friend that he will, as a result of Amendment No. 62, be making regulations to deal with the problem of the leader of the stake net being set as a gill net, and a gill net being set from the shore. Those are two major problems but I hope that Amendment No. 62 will allow my noble friend to deal with them.

Baroness White

I am sorry to intervene in this debate, especially as the expressions of satisfaction must be particularly gratifying to the Minister. Such expressions make it all the more distressing to those of us who are concerned with the comparable problems in Wales—and no doubt the same applies to anyone from England concerned with the English estuaries—that we are not being dealt with under this legislation. We shall have to wait until some unspecified time in the future, presumably, before the very serious problems that exist in the Welsh estuaries can be dealt with.

For some 20 years in another place I was the Member for East Flintshire, now subsumed in the county of Clwyd, and was concerned with the problems of the Welsh river Dee. I know that there is a river Dee in Scotland as well. That is one of our major salmon rivers. Similar problems arise in other estuaries particularly in South Wales, in the estuary of the Usk. We are not to be given any help in a situation that has been serious for a number of years and has been growing more serious in recent times.

I shall not weary the Committee with too many details, but I have consulted officers and certain very experienced members of the Welsh Water Authority about this matter and have received, for example, a letter from the principal fishing officer in which he states: The quantities of salmon taken illegally in some of our Welsh estuaries make a mockery of any inriver improvements that a water authority can deploy". In other words, in an estuary such as the Dee it is impossible to distinguish between those people who are fishing for white fish such as bass, pollocks and the like, and those who are taking salmon, whether or not they are authorised to do so.

There are two ways of trying to deal with the extremely serious problem in the estuaries. One is to regulate the method by which fish are taken. The other is to regulate the location or area in which fishing is permitted. We in Wales are not included in the Bill except in two rather irritating clauses, Clauses 26 and 27, as I mentioned the other day. Yet our needs are every bit as great. It is greatly to be regretted that in promoting this legislation for Scotland, which in that respect at least is causing general satisfaction, there has been no consultation with the Welsh Water Authority and very little consultation, if any, with the Water Authorities Association of England. It is only right that I should express to the Committee the situation as it seems to us in Wales. We are happy if the Scots are happy, but we feel distinctly aggrieved.

Lord Moran

I heartily agree with everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I have tried to address one of the problems that she mentioned—the question of the estuaries—in Amendment No. 71, which we shall be debating later.

Lord Burton

I wish to put three questions to my noble friend. First, his amendment refers to a "salmon fishery district". I wonder what will happen in the very large part of Scotland that is not covered by a salmon fishery district and whether restrictions on the methods of fishing will apply there also.

Secondly, I have a point concerning fishing for white fish, which was raised for Wales by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Nets which would be illegal for salmon can be set round Scottish waters allegedly for catching white fish. Is there any method by which that can be restricted? My third point is a very minor one. New subsection (2A) states that, the Secretary of State may … by regulations define". As it is most essential to have "net and coble" defined as well as "bag net", should this not be changed from "may" to "shall"?

4 p.m.

Lord Gray of Contin

Perhaps I may first deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Of course I have sympathy with her in the problem she outlined, but this is not a Scottish Office matter. However, I have no doubt that my noble friends will have taken note of the point she made. I think it is significant, although she is not entirely happy with the wording of Clause 26, that the new offence will apply in England and Wales as well as in Scotland. On her second point, I think her noble friend Lord Moran has dealt with that. There will be an opportunity to discuss it a little later in the Bill.

I was asked about the regulation-making power, and I can confirm that the new clause I have tabled will cover the leaders to bag nets. It is our firm intention that the leaders should not be used as gill nets. That was the point raised by my noble friend. As to the gill nets themselves, set from the shore, I am in full agreement with the aims of my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Margadale. I have today laid orders before both Houses banning the use of gill nets, however set, to fish for salmon within half a mile of the low water mark and banning the carriage of monofilament gill nets in British fishing boats while in Scottish inshore waters. I believe that those orders, with the existing ban on the use of drift or other gill nets from a boat, will achieve what the amendment seeks to achieve.

As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow a little earlier, I should explain that on consultation this is in itself an enabling power. The Secretary of State will in due course lay orders. Before such orders are laid we will ensure that as much consultation takes place as is possible.

My noble friend Lord Burton asked about areas not being covered by fishery districts. Not all districts have a district board but the clause relates to the districts and the whole of Scotland; and in that sense that is what is intended. To change "may" to "shall" is not necessary as this is a discretionary power. With those comments, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to agree to this amendment.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

Before my noble friend sits down, may I put one point to him? He referred to monofilament nets. I am very nervous about this expression because so far as I know monofilament nets have not been made for a long time. The trade does not deal in monofilament nets. It deals in multifilament fine-ply nets. If we use the expression "monofilament nets" there is a very grave risk that what my noble friend is trying to achieve will be got round. I should like the order to be changed to refer to "monofilament and multifilament fine-ply nets". I am advised that monofilament nets are hardly used and that nets are now multifilament.

Lord Gray of Contin

I should not like to argue too much with my noble friend on the technicalities of this point. The order has been laid as "monofilament net". My information is that despite what my noble friend says a considerable quantity of monofilament net is still used, and we are trying to ensure that it is not used for the catching of salmon: indeed, that it is not even carried by boats in Scottish waters.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

What happens when the multifilament nets are used?

Viscount Trenchard

Before my noble friend answers that point, may I observe that in so far as there may be an advantage in using only one transparent filament the advantage is almost the same as if one is using two. That would be the easiest thing in the world to construct. Therefore I suggest that the point raised by my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne should be taken on board and a more comprehensive definition used.

Lord Grimond

I am most grateful to the Minister, as I understand he is giving way. I should like to confirm what he kindly said in answer to my question arising from the further question of the noble Lord. Lord Burton. It is quite clear that this new clause will apply to the whole coast of Scotland—to sea trout, salmon, and every other form of fishing in the islands and whether or not there is a board.

Lord Burton

I asked about the setting of nets for white fish. I am sorry to ask awkward questions when we all welcome this amendment, but I should like an answer.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I thank the Minister of State for the information on what he has done. We should be grateful for that and not cloud the issue with what we should have done. The Government are using powers under, I believe, the 1984 Act. That is a Scottish Act. If English lairds with interests in Scotland had come to this Chamber and to debates on Scottish Bills the point now raised could have been mentioned. If they had, the regulation might well have covered it. However, it is a regulation and I am perfectly sure that the Minister of State will have listened with interest and will discuss that point. If the order requires amending it does not take much parliamentary time and it will be done.

I thank the Minister of State for having listened to what we said in 1984 as to the desirability of taking that power to deal with nets. It may well cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as to the power already available in respect of other matters, which may not be, as I read the new clause, just what he would like.

The Earl of Onslow

I am sorry to sound a tiny bit ungracious, because we are grateful for what my noble friend has done, but I do not think that he has answered the noble Baroness, Lady White. If these powers are necessary in Scotland—and we all say that they are—they must therefore be twice as necessary in Wales where there is much less salmon fishing. I believe one noble Lord said that the Welsh Water Authority estimates that half the salmon caught in Welsh rivers are not recorded. It certainly must apply to English waters as well. It seems to me odd that we can take this enormous amount of care and time, which is absolutely justified and right, as to what happens to a salmon with a tartan on it, but ignore the salmon with a leek or a rose on it. We should regard them all as salmon with nothing on them at all and in need of protection.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

We had this discussion on Tuesday during a long debate. It was I who pointed out that the Welsh Water Authority said that half the salmon caught in Welsh rivers were illegally caught. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for what he has told us. However, while we are on this subject of nets we have not heard anything about trammel nets. Locally I have seen a few trammel nets which had been tied to the shore at right angles, which I understand is illegal. A trammel net is a deadly thing because it has nets of various meshes to catch salmon, sea trout, lobsters, cod, or anything you like. I do not really know what is the legal position. I do not want my noble friend to answer me now because he has not had notice of this question, but perhaps this matter ought to be looked into.

Lord Gray of Contin

Yes, I take the point from my noble friend Lord Massereene and I shall certainly find out the position for him and write to him in due course, because I do not have the information myself.

The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about sea trout and salmon and I can confirm that both are included in the order.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, for his generous remarks. Of course, he is absolutely right that if there were the necessity to have an amendment made to an order, then it would be possible to do this. I am advised that there are certain difficulties so far as sea fishing is concerned and multifilament nets, which was a point raised by my noble friend. I have taken note of the point which he has made and I shall look into it. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and his concern about white fish, that is something that I shall also have to look into further and perhaps I may communicate with him in due course.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 63: After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:

("Power to license and regulate salmon dealing in England and Wales

. In England and Wales the Secretary of State shall draw up a scheme for licensing and regulating of salmon-dealing and the scheme shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: May I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss Amendments Nos. 72, 74, 77, 80, 81 and 90C, which all deal with the same point and indeed demonstrate the interest there is in it because these amendments come from every part of the Committee. I am not one who usually does good by stealth but I can assure—

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

Perhaps the noble Lord will give way for one moment. The list of groupings which I have for this amendment covers Amendments Nos. 63, 63A, 72, 74, 80, First 81—because there are two amendments down numbered 81–85, 90C and 92.

Lord Ross of Marnock

That may well be. I was reading from the list which I have. I know that there must be a more up-to-date list because there are single amendments which probably are not included in this list.

As an amendment to Amendment No. 63, Amendment No. 63A: Line 2, after ("Wales") insert (", in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man").

Amendment No. 72: Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause:

("Granting of licences for dealing in game, to include salmon

. For the purposes of the provisions of the Game Act 1831 and statutory modifications thereof, insofar as any such provisions apply or relate to the requirement and granting of licences to persons to deal in game, the expression 'game' shall be deemed to include salmon; and insofar as any such provisions require a game certificate for the sale of game to any person, the expression 'game certificate' shall in relation to the sale of salmon mean a 'fishing licence' as defined in section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975; and the provisions of the Acts listed in Schedule (Acts governing game in England and Wales) to this Act shall have effect accordingly.").

Amendment No. 74: Clause 26, page 23, line 6, after ("if") insert ("he is in possession of any salmon, without a record of the name and address of the person from whom he received it, as shown on his fishing licence issued under section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, and the provisions of the Acts listed in Schedule (Acts governing game in England and Wales) to this Act; or if").

Amendment No. 80: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:

("Sale and purchase etc. of salmon

.—(1) If any person not being a licensed game dealer at any time sells or offers or exposes for sale any salmon otherwise than to a licensed game dealer, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

(2) If any person sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale, or purchases or offers to purchase or receives, any salmon—

  1. (a) which has been taken or killed in circumstances which constitute an offence; and
  2. (b) which he knows or has reason to believe to have been so taken or killed,
he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

(3) In this section and section (Licensed game dealers to keep records) below— licensed game dealer" means a person licensed to deal in game under the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860, and includes a servant of such a person; sale" includes barter and exchange and "sell" and "purchase" shall be construed accordingly.").

Amendment First 81: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:

("Licensed game dealers to keep records

.—(1) Every licensed game dealer who sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale any salmon shall keep or cause to be kept a book containing records in such form as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe and shall enter or cause to be entered in that book forthwith full particulars of all his purchases and receipts of salmon.

(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) Where a licensed game dealer has purchased or received salmon from another licensed game dealer he shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of this section if he has recorded in his record book—

  1. (a) that the salmon was so purchased or received;
  2. (b) the name and address of the other licensed game dealer; and
  3. (c) the date when the salmon was so purchased or received.

(4) Any authorised officer, on producing, if so required, his written authority, and any constable, may inspect—

  1. (a) the record book of a licensed game dealer;
  2. (b) any salmon in the licensed game dealer's possession or under his control, or on premises or in vehicles under his control; and
    3. 809
  3. (c) any invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents which relate to entries in the record book (including copies where the originals are not available);
and may take copies of, or extracts from, the record book and any such documents.

(5) A record book shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the last entry was made in the book and any such documents as are mentioned in subsection (4)(c) above shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the entry to which they relate.

(6) If any licensed game dealer without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) If any person wilfully obstructs any authorised officer or constable making an inspection under this section, or knowingly or recklessly makes or causes to be made in a record book any entry which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

(9) In this section— authorised officer" means any officer of the council of a district or London borough, or of the Common Council of the City of London, who is authorised by them in writing to exercise the powers conferred by this section; record book" means a book kept in pursuance of subsection (1) above.").

Amendment No. 85: After Schedule 4. Insert the following new Schedule—

("ACTS GOVERNING GAME IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Clause 31,

Amendment No. 90 C: Page 26, line 37, after second ("27") insert ("Sale and purchase etc. of salmon) and (Licensed game dealers to keep records)")

Amendment No. 92: In the Title, line 3, leave out ("Scotland") and insert ("Great Britain').

I was saying that this goes way beyond what we have been dealing with hitherto where we have been limited entirely to Scotland. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said about Wales, because thanks to her I had the opportunity of reading a very valuable report by the Welsh Water Authority about salmon fishing interests in Wales. It may be a pity, but this is not a Scottish Bill. If this had been a Scottish Bill the word "Scotland" would have been in the title. So it is open to those who are interested to use what legislative ingenuity they possess to get their points across, and some of your Lordships have already done so.

The last thing we did on Tuesday night was to pass, without amendment, and probably with too little discussion, what may be the most important new venture in coping with the problem of salmon poaching. That was in Clause 19 where we introduced powers for the Secretary of State under the Civic Government Act to make it necessary for those dealing in salmon to have a licence. I suggest in this clause that the same powers should be given to the Minister in England to introduce licensing of salmon in England and Wales. I am not doing this as a dog in the manger, saying "If you are doing this in Scotland, you can do it in England and Wales as well". It is not that at all. The provision was welcomed by everybody here, but if that provision is to be effective then one cannot stop at the border.

4.15 p.m.

Today poachers are very professional indeed and they are mobile. We heard the noble Lord the Minister, in reply to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, telling us how good the roads were between Inverness and Aberdeen and how Edinburgh was not remote from the Highlands. I can assure you that the salmon rivers of the Tweed are not all that far away from England. The roads are better than ever now and they are being used. I read of a case where three people were stopped by the police in relation to the possession of illegal salmon somewhere in Kent and I understand that the 29 salmon which they had came from Wales.

If we are to make desirable anti-poaching laws for Scotland, then we must be realistic about it. All the salmon that are poached in Scotland are not delivered in Scotland to those who want to buy. They may well be delivered to people in London. We shall have to widen very considerably the licensing in relation to dealing in salmon. I have just made a simple suggestion. I have taken the principle and said "Let this be done also in England and Wales".

I have looked at the suggestions of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who are both much more knowledgeable than I am about the laws of England. I think it is very clever to hang this point on the Game Acts of 1831 and to redefine "salmon" as "game" or to include salmon with the definition of game. If it comes to that, when I hear the arguments I may be prepared to defer my suggested new clause to one of those.

I think that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has gone beyond what I have done in defining the requirements. She has put a lot of work into this—more than I have done; it took me just five minutes to write out this simple principle. But that is the purpose of this amendment. If we think it desirable to have this law in Scotland, then in order to make it effective in Scotland we must apply something which is equally necessary in England and we should have this new clause. I beg to move.

Lord Gisborough

May I at this stage say first of all that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who has just spoken. Much of the poaching, particularly in the Outer Hebrides, is done by very seaworthy ships which sweep up large quantities of salmon in the night. They may be the same ships which are used to go inland and shoot deer at night and have them sold as well. But having taken their salmon, if Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man are open to them where England and perhaps Scotland are not, then it is a very short distance for them to go over there to sell their fish. Even if Ireland and the Isle of Man are included in some way in this provision, probably the Scots would still go over and sell the fish. I believe that it would be at least a deterrent because most people do not wish to break the law if they can avoid doing so.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

I shall not repeat the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, with all of which I agree, and I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to this amendment or something very like it. The Government can have no objection in principle after all because they have proposed licensing in Scotland.

I was told at one time that there were difficulties concerning the practicality of operating a scheme in England as opposed to operating one in Scotland. I would agree with that if it was proposed that the English water boards should invent a new system of licensing and administer it, too. That would be to put an impossible burden upon them; but that, I think, is not proposed. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Trenchard has got round that difficulty. It uses the local authority system of licensing—the Game Acts—and applies it to salmon, as I understand it. No doubt he will tell us later.

I say to the Minister that if he adopts those proposals, or if he will look at them seriously, salmon licensing in England and Wales can, so to speak, be had without tears. I hope that he will examine all the amendments, be sympathetic to them and produce something at Report stage to meet the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has in mind.

Lord Grimond

I rise briefly simply to support the principle behind the amendment. Whether it is preferable to have further amendments, I do not know. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said. It is the principle in which he is interested and it may be more convenient in England to deal with it through the Game Acts. But if we are to stop organised poaching—and it is organised poaching that we are worried about—it is surely sensible to prevent the poachers driving over the border to Carlisle, York or wherever else to sell their ill-gotten gains. If it is good for Scotland, it must be good for England.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Home, I have heard that there may be difficulties in England, but I cannot believe that. The Game Acts are enforced in England. If it is possible to enforce the legislation in Scotland, it must be possible in England to prevent dealing in poached salmon.

I hope that the Government will accept the principle of one of the amendments. It would at any rate do something to meet the troubles of Wales. The proposal no doubt would not meet them entirely but, as has already been mentioned, we have all, I think, read of the huge amount of Welsh salmon apparently consigned to London and found in the boot of a car or in a lorry; so the idea that all poached salmon is sold locally is clearly untrue. By extending the provision to England, we should not only make it effective in Scotland but do something to meet the needs of Wales, and indeed of England itself.

Viscount Trenchard

I wonder whether I could speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 74 which are in my name and to Amendment No. 85 which follows on Amendment No. 72. I fully supported at Second Reading the unanimous view that licensing should apply to England and Wales. Because of the in-position water authorities, it would be slightly easier in England and Wales, and individual fishing licences are already issued.

I thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for allowing me the benefit of consultation with his officials to try to get my head a little bit clearer and to cut out wrong paths to a degree. He will later tell me whether I have cut out enough wrong paths. I am sure that the amendment is still deficient or defective in more ways than one. But the point of it is as follows.

If one looks at the exact position in which I have put the amendment (immediately before Clause 26 on page 23 under the heading: "Provisions relating to England and Wales"), one sees that it does two things. It suggests that the definition of game under the 1831 Act and about eight or nine other Acts listed in the appendix (which is called Amendment No. 85) which derive from it shall include salmon. I am afraid that here I must apologise for a technical typing error which occurred, but the other thing that the amendment is intended to say is that where the term "game licence" rather than "game certificate" appears in the Game Acts the term "fishing licence" shall be substituted or added to it.

Many noble Lords know that a game licence is required by anyone who goes out to kill game. Similarly, in England and Wales a water authority fishing licence is required. That is important, because the Game Acts, if I may turn to them for a moment and try perhaps to over-simply them—I do so with trepidation in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—set up a chain of licences. The individual has to have a game licence to shoot game, the retailer or the like has to have a local authority licence, and the game dealer has to have both a local licence and an excise licence. That sets up a chain so that anybody handling game has to be licensed. By covering salmon in the legislation and substituting "fishing licence" for "game licence", we set up a similar chain in relation to salmon.

That will make very much more easy the onus clauses which we need to discuss either in the grouping of clauses that we have now or in the next grouping. If the possession of a salmon or the offering of it for sale may be done only by someone who is licensed, who must have obtained it from someone who is licensed, we are three parts down the way of saying that anybody who has bought a salmon has to know that he has bought it from an authorised source. He has to inspect the licence. In Amendment No. 74 I take that a stage further and suggest that the name and address of the person on the licence should be recorded by the purchaser. I shall leave Amendment No. 75 for a moment, if I may.

Your Lordships may wonder how it has happened that England and Wales have so little in the Bill and almost nothing on conservation. I suggest that the story has been as follows. The Englishmen and the Welshmen thought that they were to get tagging through the years 1984 to 1985. The Scotsmen resisted that because they did not want individual or net licences, both of which we have in England under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Scotsmen got their licensing and the Englishmen and Welshmen have realised too late that that has left them with nothing. I have to accept, whatever its merits, that the tagging scheme is, for the time being anyway, dead. It must be that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we have gone licensing and rejected tagging, the very minimum that we must have in England and Wales is a good licensing scheme as a basis for the onus-of-proof clause.

We shall come later to Amendment No. 74 and the onus question. It was said by my noble friend Lord Gray at Second Reading that we had an onus-of-proof clause anyway, so licensing did not matter. I shall not go through the motion of saying, if that is so, why have it in Scotland; but for the reasons that I have given, a chain of licences can make the situation very much easier.

I understand that the onus clauses in the Bill have been based (though altered) on the Theft Act, and that Act deals with any property that one may own; one's handkerchief, tie, shoes, car, radio and so on. Obviously in this country it would be quite offensive for the possessor of a handkerchief or a tie to have to prove where he got it from; it would be utterly ridiculous. But when one moves from that to a situation where one is dealing with a commodity in which there is a lot of poaching and the stock is severely threatened, and one which can be handled only by certain licensed people, without being offensive one can be a lot more specific. Indeed the Government have been much more specific in Section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 which controls the question of any person who buys, sells or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale any salmon between 31st August and the following 1st February". That is the close season for nets although not of course for rods. Throughout the whole of September, and in the case of many rivers for longer than that, it is still the fishing season. In that period, the present law, contained in Section 22(4) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, says: The burden of proving that any salmon or trout bought, sold, exposed for sale or in the possession of any person — shall lie on the person buying, selling or exposing it for sale, or having it in his possession for sale". 4.30 p.m.

So a specific onus of proof about possession is written into our existing salmon fisheries legislation for what it called the off season but which actually overlaps with the fishing season to quite a high degree. I would suggest strongly that my Amendments Nos. 74 and 75, which are based very much on Amendment No. 72, would become perfectly easy to administer, and easier if the chain of licensing that I have suggested was to be adopted.

My noble friend Lord Home says that he would have been against licensing in England and Wales if the overpressed water authorities had had to administer the scheme. I understand that very well. The purpose of my route is not to add any further administration to the water authorities, who already have to issue the licences for the individual rodsmen and, I believe, for the netsmen. So that is done in any event. Just as in Scotland, although the Scottish route must be a different one under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, so in England, the route for licences under the Game Act is by application either to the Post Office or to local authorities. You fill in a form, giving your name and address. If you are a reputable dealer, a reputable retailer or a fisherman, you get a licence without trouble. But your name and address is recorded upon it, and the place where you bought the licence is recorded.

As to checking by local authorities—and indeed any degree of extra work—note should be taken that in a great many cases salmon follow the same routes of distribution as do game. Both modern retailers and more old fashioned retailers in other parts of the country are already licensed in many cases under the Game Act. They would already have proved their bona fide trading situation in relation to game. I believe that the overlap could be as high as 90 per cent. So there would not only be little or no administration for the water authorities but I cannot see that there would be any excess administration for anyone else either. The only effect upon the water authorities would be to make the catching of poachers and the proving of their guilt that much easier.

Most water authorities have far too few bailiffs. On the River Tamar, as I have mentioned previously, there is only one working full-time in the main poaching area. And even he is not in fact full-time. One of the greatest frustrations for him and for the private bailiffs has been the inability to bring poachers successfully to court when it is actually known who has been poaching and where the salmon have gone. I should like to say that the poachers in our part of the world do not sell at half-price. Nor do they travel furtively at night and wear gum boots. They drive up in Jaguar motorcars and stay at hotels. They might give a 10 per cent. cheaper deal on the grounds of having had a good fortnight's fishing. But they look highly respectable. The onus clause in the Bill would not catch them for one moment because the hotelier would say that they had been very nice gentlemen.

I fear that I have spoken for a slightly long time but three of my amendments effectively come under this grouping. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that if the amendment is not yet right, he will at least offer detailed discussions on how to get a specific licensing scheme into this Bill for England and Wales where salmon stocks are depleted by far more than the 50 per cent. that has been mentioned in respect of catches for all the reasons that I gave on Second Reading. The matter is extremely urgent. I hope therefore that the Minister can give an assurance that he will set about producing something to bring in this kind of proposal by the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Denning

As a lawyer, I should like to see the law of England, Scotland and Wales uniform on this matter. If licensing, with penalties for unlawful dealing and the like, is desirable for Scotland, then the same should apply in England and Wales. The problem is the same. The rivers and estuaries are the same in all respects that matter. The poachers take masses of salmon and bring them to Glasgow or London. The problem is the same; therefore the law should be the same for dealing with it. The only question that arises is whether we should follow the system already proposed in Clause 19, already passed, or pursue the ingenious suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that we should adopt the game laws for England. It seems to me that this proposal would work very well. It works with the game laws. You need a licence to sell or to buy the game. You should have your certificate and the like. Why should not those laws equally apply to salmon? That is the ingenious suggestion made by the noble Viscount.

The overriding argument, I suggest, is that whatever system is adopted, it should be the same for Scotland, England and Wales. The water bailiffs, the police, or whoever is investigating, have to take the offenders before the courts—the magistrates' court, the sheriff court or whatever it may be—and those courts should apply the same principles in each case. There should be the same burden of proof, and so on. So, while heartily supporting licensing, I should like to see the law the same in England, Scotland and Wales in this important matter.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

It might be appropriate if I were to say a word or two about Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 90C. This is another offering somewhat similar to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I must in all honesty entirely disclaim the credit for having designed this amendment. It was not designed by me but by a very experienced parliamentary agent. It is to him that the credit goes. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has explained his amendments at some length and, thanks to that, I shall be able to speak to these amendments very briefly.

The principal difference between these amendments and those of the noble Viscount is that in these we are seeking to do the same thing in exactly the same manner as for deer under the 1980 Deer Act. That Act extended and expanded the licensing system for game dealers in England under the Game Act of 1831 to cover venison too.

Amendment No. 80 relates to the sale and purchase of salmon. Amendment No. 81 lays down the requirements for a licensed game dealer to keep full records of his salmon and dealing transactions. The two amendments follow almost word for word Sections 2 and 3 respectively of the Deer Act 1980 with the obvious substitution of salmon for venison. The new clauses thus have an admirable parliamentary precedent and can readily be adapted to meet the needs to license salmon dealers in England and Wales.

I realise that a deficiency of this amendment is that, as licensed salmon dealers in Scotland under clause 19 will not in all cases be licensed game dealers, some additional wording will be required to enable the salmon dealers in England and Wales to do business with their counterparts in Scotland.

As I say, this is just another kind of pudding I am offering. I do not care which pudding we have, whether it is my pudding, or that of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, or whether we have a completely different pudding belonging to the Government. But I heartily endorse everything that has been said so far about these related amendments. I hope that the Minister will give us some kind of undertaking that we shall achieve something today.

Viscount Ridley

May I add my support to the theory behind these amendments. As I said at Second Reading, I think it is a nonsense if we have licensed dealers in Scotland but not in England. I would bring forward an argument not so far deployed. That is, I believe that the English dealers would themselves welcome a licence for the obvious reason that that puts them in the clear.

If my noble friend cannot agree to this series of amendments, whichever one he chooses, would he not agree with me that in future we shall have to paraphrase Dr. Johnson and say that the noblest prospect a salmon poacher ever sees is the high road leading from Scotland into England.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

Soon after the noble Lord, Lord Ross, moved Amendment No. 63 my noble friend Lord Home asked that the Government should give very serious consideration either to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, or to something like it. I should like first to say, having listened to this short debate, that I shall certainly agree that the Government need to do that. In a moment perhaps I could add a word or two to that assurance.

Second, may I say to your Lordships that I think it is fair for the Government to claim, having considered dealer licensing carefully in the past, because we did, and having consulted the water authorities on it, which we also did, that we concluded that the burden on traders and on licensing authorities would not be justified in England and Wales. That is the reason why we did not come forward with an amendment similar to Clause 19, which is in the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Home for recognising that there are quite serious implications for the water authorities who would be the natural licensing authorities because they are statutorily responsible, as your Lordships know, for the management of salmon fisheries in England and Wales if there were to be a full blown licensing system. By "full blown" I refer to arguments in favour of licensing salmon dealers resting on the assumption that everyone concerned throughout the whole of Great Britain from the rod fishermen to the fishmonger would be required to have a licence. I think that that would be quite a massive administrative exercise so far as enforcement is concerned. Even then, as my noble friend Lord Kimball pointed out in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, illegally caught fish pass through netting stations now and so many illegally caught fish could still find their way into the trade by that route.

Having said that, of course it would be possible to operate a more limited licensing system embracing those firms who buy direct from netsmen and anglers, importers and wholesalers. This would make it possible to require the takers of salmon to sell to licensed dealers only. I recognise that such a scheme would require enforcement officers to inspect the records of dealers. However, I am simply saying that these advantages—as I think your Lordships would see them—have to be weighed against the extra effort and cost imposed on the trade, and indeed on the licensing authorities, when considering a scheme of licensing.

May I, in literally a couple of sentences or so, refer to the remarks made by some of your Lordships (the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was one) about the cross border trade. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the dangers of cross border trade. I recognise that both noble Lords have a point here—of course I do. But do not let us overplay it. I noticed that, except for my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who does not believe that Clauses 20 and 26 go far enough, none of your Lordships talked very much about the onus of proof. The big difference between the situation when this Bill reaches the statute book and the present time is that the new offences in Clauses 20 and 26 will be in force. That will make it harder for the poacher to hawk his salmon around and find a buyer in England, Wales or Scotland. The longer he is on the road the more exposed he will be to detection and prosecution for possessing or handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. I do not make too much of that; nonetheless, I do make that point.

May I therefore say in reply to the main amendment we are dealing with—Amendment No. 63—that I am going to repeat the assurance which I gave at the very beginning and see how your Lordships take that assurance. But in looking at this amendment I do not think—if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will forgive my saying so—that as worded this would quite do. The noble Lord expressed quite a lot of concern the other evening that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin did not have enough information packed into Clause 19 for dealer licensing in Scotland. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, himself would probably have wanted to see his Amendment No. 63 become slightly more detailed if it was to be accepted by the Committee.

The second amendment to which we are talking is Amendment No. 63A. My noble friend Lord Gisborough I am sure, will forgive me if I say that I do not think this is a road we need to do down in one case, or ought to go down in the other. The reason for my first assertion is that I understand that salmon dealers are already licensed by the Northern Ireland Fisheries Conservancy Board. So far as the Isle of Man is concerned, that is an island which has its own government and own administration and it has to fall outside the scope of the Bill.

I now come to Amendment No. 72, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, together with the related Amendment No. 74 which attracted a great deal of interest from your Lordships and from the Government when my noble friend came and talked about it informally before debating it here today. Despite my noble friend's ingenuity, the amendment raises the question of whether you can apply lock, stock and barrel a scheme which is designed for one purpose—namely, game licensing—to another purpose which in this case is the licensing of salmon. I know that my noble friend knows very well that the approach to salmon dealer-licensing in Scotland is somewhat different. I think that my noble friend is also very much aware that when the extension of licensing arrangements to dealers in venison came about, new powers were taken.

I should like to raise one difficulty as regards my noble friend's amendment although I think that when we come to look at it in detail there will perhaps be some others. The difficulty which I wish to raise is this. My noble friend Lord Trenchard has made clear that he does not intend to apply the game Acts through his amendments to salmon in Scotland, because if he did so it would mean removing Clause 19 of the Bill. However, in the absence of the provision for licensing the takers of salmon in Scotland—whether they be anglers, netsmen or fish farmers—the effect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 72 would be to make it impossible for dealers in England and Wales to buy direct from Scottish netsmen and fish farmers. Down this side of the Border we would have to buy from Scottish licensed dealers who themselves, as I understand it, would be free to buy where they chose. I only set that out as being a problem, and it is a problem which we would have to overcome if we went down my noble friend's road of applying the game law, and not down one of the other roads.

However, there is another road which has been offered, and I am referring now to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 and the related amendments moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and also my noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Onslow. Under those amendments it would be an offence for someone not licensed to deal in game to sell any salmon other than to a licensed game dealer. Licensed game dealers would need to keep records of their purchases of salmon. The amendments also empower district council officers and officers of the London boroughs to inspect those records, but they do not offer those powers to water authority officers. The line of thought is very similar to that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, but it is that hit different; it is also an interesting way forward.

I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am nit-picking, but the amendments suffer from the fact that the noble Lady and my noble friends have chosen the local authorities to have the statutory responsibiliity for licensing, whereas, as I made clear earlier, the water authorities have the statutory responsibility for managing salmon fisheries in England and Wales and preventing illegal fishing. This is a matter that we would have to face up to very seriously indeed if we are to go down that particular route.

I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having deployed some of the problems which I see as regards the three amendments. I have done so deliberately because, if the Committee agree that we ought to consult, I think it would be wrong for me not to have at least set out some of the problems as I see them because in my view some of them are very formidable. As I said, if they had not been formidable we would have endeavoured to have tried to have put something into the Bill because we are all on the same side in this matter; we all want in one way or another to prevent poaching.

The one conclusion that I reach on behalf of the Government is that the arguments which have been put forward on these amendments must be carefully considered. As a result of this debate, I shall undertake that the Government will re-examine the case as a matter of urgency. I would be ready on behalf of the Government to do that in consultation with those who have spoken today and I would be ready to try to report the Government's conclusions at the next stage of the Bill. I ask the Committee to consider seriously the problems which I have attempted to deploy. However, if Members of the Committee are prepared to withdraw the amendments on the undertaking which I have given to reconsider and to consult, we would be able to go through both the problems and the possibilities together. I very much hope that that is what the Committee will agree to do.

Baroness White

I should like to suggest to the Minister that Amendment No. 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock may perhaps be amended at the next stage to be permissive. In other words, it can be amended to contain "may" and not "shall". It seems to me that so far as England and Wales are concerned the deliberations may take quite a considerable time and we would not wish in any way to hold up this desirable legislation for Scotland. If by making such an alteration we could give a permissible power to the English and Welsh authorities, whichever they may be, that would allow adequate consultation to take place. It would not be mandatory, but if we found a suitable way of doing it in England and Wales, then at least the enabling power to bring forward the appropriate orders would be in the Bill. I suggest that as a possible way of dealing with the strictly England and Wales aspect.

I am not making any comment on the method as regards Scotland or what might turn out to be appropriate. My own view is that the English and Welsh water authorities have not addressed their minds in sufficient detail to this matter partly because they were in favour originally of tagging and have only relatively recently become conscious of these other possible means of dealing with the matter.

The Earl of Perth

Before the movers of the amendments give their replies to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I should like to point out that I noticed that he said that various matters would take a great deal of extra effort and cost. I only hope that extra effort and cost will not stand in the way of achieving something. There may be many technical difficulties; however, I have no doubt that, not only for Scotland but also for England and Wales, the desire is to stop salmon poaching and, if necessary, in some way or another money should be forthcoming. However, the excuse of extra effort and cost should not be allowed to be one of the factors which are taken into account.

Lord Moran

I notice that in the grouping of amendments which we have been given there is included Amendment No. 92 which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady White. That amendment is to the Title of the Bill and it proposes that in line 3 we should leave out "Scotland" and insert the words "Great Britain". That amendment reflects what I considered was the overwhelming view of noble Lords at Second Reading; namely, that any arrangements which are brought in to deal with the sale and distribution of salmon should extend throughout Great Britain, and that view has been reaffirmed from all quarters of the Committee today. Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will be prepared to accept that amendment.

I shall say only a very few words on the substance of what we have been discussing. I want to point out that the water authorities' association say that they are anxious that the Government should not now be pushed hastily into a dealer-licensing arrangement without detailed consideration of the alternatives.

I was very grateful for the assurance from the Minister that this matter would be carefully considered; but I wonder whether it may be a solution for the Government to bring forward at the Report stage an enabling clause allowing them to bring forward later (subject to an affirmative resolution) a considered plan for the control of salmon sales and distribution throughout Great Britain. Officials of the three departments involved, working closely with the water authorities and others concerned, could then go into the matter thoroughly and decide what would be the most effective mechanism—tagging or dealer licensing, or both, or something else. That might be a useful way forward and it would save further discussion.

5 p.m.

Viscount Ridley

Before my noble friend Lord Belstead replies, I wonder whether he would consider whether it is possible in the consultations, which are most welcome, to include discussions with the district councils? They issue licences for game, and I should have thought that they would not be against helping in this matter. It might be better that they should be involved rather than water authorities. I put it forward because I believe it to be helpful, and I hope that my noble friend will not ignore it.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

May I say a word in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said about the increased cost of doing this? A licensed game dealer requires two licences, each of which needs to be applied for annually and is valid for a period of 12 months. The first licence costs only 25p and is issued by the local district council. The second, issued by the Post Office, costs only £4. In these days, 25p and £4 are peanuts. Surely it should be possible to increase the cost of the licences to cover the cost of implementing the scheme.

Viscount Trenchard

Before any amendment is pressed or withdrawn let me say that I shall be happy, when it comes to my turn, to withdraw my amendments in view of what my noble friend has said. Let me say two things. First, I share the view of the noble learned Lord, Lord Denning, that it would be nice if the laws of England and Scotland were the same, but he must know considerably better than I do that they are not. The proposal in the Bill follows the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. There are differences even within the fishery field in that individual netsmen and rodsmen in Scotland do not have licences and in England they do. We are not going to put that right in this Bill.

We have to live in the confederate world in which we live, or whatever one likes to call it. As has been said several times today, if there are certain advantages in Scotland which enable them to do one thing, and if there are certain advantages in English law and in the position of water authorities (because they are all there and licences exist) in doing another, let them do it. But, yes, there has obviously got to be consultation between the two departments.

To my noble friend I would say one thing, and I shall argue the toss at the consultations he so kindly promised on all other points. I believe that I can argue the toss on the other points. The one thing I want to say is that the water authorities rooted for tagging. They were all for tagging. Without any doubt whatever the burden that they would have taken on, if tagging had been agreed, would have been enormously greater than the route I propose.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

I, too, shall not move Amendments No. 80, 81 and 90C in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said and again in anticipation of our consultations.

Lord Burton

I am sure we all welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, certainly that part at the end of what he has just told us. There was one point which concerned me. He said that anyone sending fish from Scotland to England would have to be a licensed dealer. This would mean that a great many netting stations in Scotland would have to be licensed because a lot of fish goes straight to Billingsgate and probably to other dealers in England. Anyone who had any quantity of fish and wanted to sell it south of the border would then have to get a licence.

Viscount Trenchard

I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to intervene on this? I deliberately did not answer the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on this question, but in fact a legal Scottish netsman has a title to be netting. It is the easiest thing in the world to amend my amendment, if it comes forward at Report stage, to say that a legal Scottish netsman, who can prove his legality, can sell to a dealer in Billingsgate.

Lord Burton

I was not questioning the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I was questioning what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had said, that any salmon going south of the border would have to come from a licensed dealer. It would markedly reduce the number of outlets for Scottish salmon fishermen if this were the case. This should not be the case. A venison dealer's licence at the present time, certainly from our district council, costs £50 and not the 25p which some of the other licences apparently cost. It is quite a substantial amount for a venison dealer's licence. Consequently, we would not want every salmon fisherman who wanted to sell salmon south of the border to have to pay a £50 licence.

Lord Belstead

Before my noble friend Lord Onslow deals with Amendment No. 80, to which he also has his name, and before your Lordships decide, perhaps I ought to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The question of administration and cost, in my own words, was linked to the concern that you have the situation in England Wales—particularly in England—where the water authorities, particularly so far as enforcement would be concerned, would be operating in the great conurbations of Greater London, Manchester, Birmingham and so on.

It was not altogether a surprise to the Government when we found that they were reluctant to face up to that sort of thing when we discussed the possibilities of dealer licensing with them, although I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said so far as their expectations over dealer licensing were concerned. That really was my point. It would of course be necessary, if there was to be any question of a change of tack, to look towards the local authorities, and of course I have taken on board the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ridley.

Then again, there would be the whole question of exactly the cost of administration and the feasibility of administration. We would have to face head on the fact that it is the water authorities in England and Wales who are the responsible statutory authorities. I thought that I ought to say that to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, although I think he knows the points as well as I do.

The only other point I ought to make, before we end this debate and your Lordships decide what to do, is to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who said much the same thing, on the question of putting in an enabling power, because it would enable the Government then to see how to go. I think that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, however, would be the first to say to me that if the Government were to come back at a subsequent stage of the Bill and say that they were prepared to put some form of dealer licensing into the Bill, the Government would have to be genuine in that.

Indeed, Clause 19 is in a permissive form at the present time. It says "may" rather than "shall" because it is an enabling clause, but nonetheless the Government would have to come back at a subsequent stage of the Bill, not using enabling powers just to drag their feet. I know that the noble Baroness would expect us to come back with a genuine answer to the question which is being put to us from all sides of the Committee. In a way, I am digging a hole for myself in saying that, but I felt I had to face that point head on and reply to the noble Baroness in the way that I have just done.

Baroness White

I was delighted to hear the noble Lord say that I was offering him an insurance policy.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like to raise one point. We have heard a lot about the amount of poaching which goes on and the amount of illegal salmon trading that goes on. We have heard no hard evidence of how much there really is. If we address our minds to that particular problem we then get back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said. If we can definitely show that there is a major amount of illegal salmon fishing, then it is obviously essential that dealer licensing should happen in Scotland.

If we do not have it in England, it weakens it in Scotland; it ruins it in Scotland, and it does not work. I realise that I am being slightly a devil's advocate here, but I have not heard how great is the evidence of illegal fishing. It really ought to be proved that there is a major amount of it before we introduce dealer licensing in Scotland at all. That is arguing it totally the other way round, but I do not think the two questions are anything other than totally linked.

Lord Kimball

May I suggest that the noble Earl who has just sat down goes to Billingsgate Market in July. He is quite likely to find there, on any one morning about 3 a.m., when the fish boxes are opened, that two-thirds of the fish in the market have been illegally caught.

The Earl of Onslow

I am sorry to come back to my noble friend Lord Kimball. I do not doubt him. However, how does he know that two-thirds of the salmon in Billingsgate Market have been illegally caught? That seems to me a very odd statement to make. Somebody must be committing a crime if that is the case. If two-thirds of the fish have been poached, somebody has committed a crime.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I must intervene here. I am speaking now as a past prime warden of the Fishmongers' Company. As Members of the Committee know, the Fishmongers' Company has a fish meter operating in Billingsgate Market, a superintendent of fishery. He is a man of great experience and he inspects the boxes of fish. He knows an enormous amount about fish, and I can assure the noble Lord that the statement he has made is very far from the truth. I hope he will withdraw it.

Lord Kimball

I am sorry. May I make it absolutely clear that two-thirds of the fish in the market were hung fish? The inspector was there on the morning I went. We went round, we saw the boxes open and they were fish that had been caught in gill nets. It was proved because of the marks at the back of the head and around the gills. Two-thirds of the fish in the market in salmon boxes were hung fish.

Viscount Trenchard

My noble friend should read a report which has been mentioned many times in this debate—the report of the Welsh Water Authority on illegal fishing in Wales.

Lord Ross of Marnock

What has gone before has been fascinating, especially the latter part where we were being re-educated. I am only sorry that we stopped so early on Tuesday evening, because we were dealing with the actual clause that is based upon poaching. The noble Earl was there and he never said a word when we were discussing the Question that the clause stand part. That is the clause which deals with licensing and regulation of salmon dealing in Scotland, to catch the poachers. If he felt there was no need at all for the Bill he should have voted against that. When my helpful, rather harmless amendment is brought up he delays us with the belated suggestion that there is little or no poaching to worry about.

The Earl of Onslow

I did not.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I do not want to do the noble Earl an injustice.

The Earl of Onslow

Will the noble Lord give way for one tiny moment? I love the sound of my own voice but it must be rationed. I did not say that I did not think there was poaching. I just said that I have heard a great many assertions that there is poaching and vast quantities of illegally caught fish, but no evidence that that is the case. All I am suggesting is that we might have a little evidence before we make sure that something is right for England, is right for Scotland, and before we enact it in legislation. That is all I am suggesting. If the noble Lord wants me to speak to every clause, I shall change my name to Lord Ross of Marnock.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I am afraid the noble Earl would be quite out of order. He would not be allowed to do that. He has no idea of the difficulties I had in getting "Lord Ross of Marnock". We will leave that medieval roundabout alone for the moment and come back to this suggested new clause.

We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his appreciation of the importance of the subject. He began by saying that the reason there is nothing about this in the Bill is that the hope was to get tagging. However, after much argument, much discussion, tagging is out. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggest that we have something or other to enable us to re-start discussions about tagging, I am afraid I thought that really that was an invitation to delay and do nothing at all. I am sorry to have to say it, but I think it is implicit. It is implicit in what the Minister himself said about the hope to introduce tagging in England, and that that is what the water authorities and everybody else want, but it could not be done.

Lord Moran

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am in no sense suggesting that there should be an unnecessary delay. I am simply reflecting what I believe to be the view of the water authorities in England and Wales, which is that they should have more time to consider what is really the best method of achieving what we all want.

Lord Ross of Marnock

That may be so, but I thought that they had had consultation over a period of years and had come to the conclusion that they could not have what was wanted, which was tagging itself.

I am very grateful indeed for the debate we have had because it must surely have impressed the Minister that practically everyone who spoke said that it must be done in some way or another. He suggested to me that my new clause was rather bare. He chided me because I had suggested that we could have a little more information and discussion on the enabling clause of the Government, Clause 19, which was the one part of the debate he heard yesterday. I ask Members of the Committee to consider the discussion we have had today and the quality of it. I want to say this. That clause on Scotland went through with about 20 minutes' discussion, and if the Chief Whip had had his way it would have gone through on the nod. That is not and never has been my way of getting good legislation. I have always felt that if the Minister does not know a Bill when it starts, by the time it has been through Committee stage and Report stage then he should know it by virtue of the kind of debates and discussions that take place.

5.15 p.m.

The noble Lord also talked about the differences between Scotland and England. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I was greatly pleased with his clause, but he showed a woeful ignorance of the law of Scotland. He said, "Let us have the same law". Does he want a revolution? The Act of Union laid it down that the law of Scotland should remain. The mere question of definition very often means that in respect of the same problems we have a different Bill—not necessarily a different solution but a different Bill. The ends of the law are the same. The law itself is not the same but the aims and ends are. However, I think I got the drift of what the noble and learned Lord meant. He was supporting the suggestions that were made, not necessarily any individual one but suggesting that one of them or something like them should be introduced.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, should appreciate that in Scotland the power to license is based upon the Civic Government (Scotland) Act which the House passed. I am sure all noble Lords will remember it. There were long discussions between myself and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I believe it was, on the subject. There was nobody else present. It was not a debate; it was a dialogue. The local authorities license all kinds of things. I think we actually decided that they would not license chimney-sweeps any longer, but just in case we missed something we put in that they would have powers to add to those things that perhaps they should license.

Indeed, on a Private Member's Bill on salmon fishing from that side of the Committee the question of licensing arose and I put forward the suggestion to him personally that we could use the Civic Government (Scotland) Act to do it. Members of the Committee have no idea how delighted and bucked I was when I read Clause 19 and discovered that we were actually using the Civic Government (Scotland) Act to do it. I should not presume, in respect of England and Wales, to lay down the law as to how it should be done. Thus I just put it into a principle: let us have a scheme, let the Government draw up that scheme and let them come with it.

I take the point make by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I put in the word "shall", and it may well be that I should have put in the word "may", especially because after what we heard last night it really means "shall". We could argue for a few hours on that point, but that is the answer that was given to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, last night.

I am quite prepared to come back to this at another time if the Government do not find suitable words. I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said. However, when one bears in mind the problem, irrespective of what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says, as to his not being satisfied that it is at all needed for Scotland, he wants the figures. He wants the facts; he wants the figures. He would like to hear the facts; he would like to hear the figures. Well, I can assure him that I have had to act as Secretary of State for Scotland when we could not get the exact figures about drift netting off the East Coast of Scotland. But I can assure him that it had to be done, and that it was to the benefit of the salmon fishing industry in Scotland when it was done.

But if I had waited until we had had a long commission on the exact number of fish that had been caught, I do not know what destruction would have been caused or what apoplexy there would have been among noble Lords in your Lordships' House that no action had been taken. Let us not ride away on the business of difficulties. If the Government want to do a thing, they will find a way to do it. Let us not ride away on the subject of expense. I do not think that there is any expense. The figures quoted by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in respect of two particular licences bears that out.

On the question of enforcement, does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, think that all the poached salmon in Scotland are sold in Achiltibuie rather than in Aberdeen, or in some isolated village in the North of Scotland rather than Glasgow or Edinburgh? Let me tell him that more of the salmon that is poached finds its way to this city, probably, than is sold in Scotland—to the back door of some wee hotel. Let him face the facts about that. And who does the enforcement of anything now? It is the police You are putting in new clauses and telling us that these are wonderful new clauses. Who has to enforce them? It is the police. I suggest that the licensing can be done quite well by the local authorities and that the enforcement can be done by the usual enforcement authorities when we leave the actual water areas.

The noble Lord has given us a serious offer, I think, in that he is going to look at it carefully. I made that kind of offer in my days when speaking from the Front Bench. Sometimes I meant it, sometimes I hoped I would get a solution. Sometimes I knew that I would not get a solution. I trust that he is not going to go hack and give us the indication that he knows he will not get a solution. If he wants difficulties, if he wants objections, he will get them. He will get them by the dozen from his department. What he will do, I hope, is to take the sense of the Committee today: and the Committee want something done. What he brings forward may be imperfect, but I think that we would be grateful for that, that he has made the effort. He asked to be allowed to consider it carefully. I am not going to deny him that opportunity, and I shall certainly withdraw Amendment No. 63.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone)

Amendment No. 63A, in the name of Lord Gisborough, as an amendment to Amendment No. 63, is before the Committee. I do not know what course the noble Lord wishes to take. It is not moved.

[Amendment No. 63A not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 63 should be withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Offence of possessing salmon which have been illegally taken, killed or landed]:

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 64: Page 19, line 7, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 10, and insert (", in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully, has in his possession any salmon, or receives, or undertakes or assists in the retention, removal or disposal of any salmon, for or on behalf of himself or another, or arranges to do so, where the salmon has been or is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully").

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I speak also to Amendment No. 67 and to Amendments Nos. 73 and 76.

Amendment No. 67: Page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) It shall be a defence to a charge under subsection (1) above to show that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully; the onus of showing that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully shall be on the defendant.").

Amendment No. 73: Clause 26, page 23, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence, in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully, if he has in his possession any salmon, or receives, or undertakes or assists in the retention, removal or disposal of any salmon, for or on behalf of himself or another, or arranges to do so, where the salmon has been or is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully. (1A) It shall be a defence to a charge under subsection (1) above to show that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully; the onus of showing that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully shall be on the defendant.").

Amendment No. 76: Page 23, line 19, leave out subsection (3).

These amendments are designed to clarify Parliament's intentions to provide the enforcement agencies with what they need, which has been defined by the Water Authorities Association as "robust and effective legal powers to pursue organised poaching". I recognise and applaud the Government's objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, kindly wrote a letter to me in which he said that Clauses 20 and 26 provide for a shift in the burden of proof in a way which should improve the prospects of convicting those in possession of illegally-caught salmon. I said at Second Reading that some of the water authorities doubted whether Clause 26, as at present drafted, would help them. The water authorities are the bodies which would have to enforce this provision in England and Wales. I am a little surprised that they do not appear to have been consulted by the Government over the wording of Clause 26.

Since Second Reading I have talked to representatives of the Water Authorities Association and of the Welsh Water Authority. As a result, I am convinced that these clauses are of crucial importance. The water authorities often know who are the poaching gangs, and how they operate. What they need is a better weapon to enable them to prosecute the gangs and get them convicted. The water authorities say: The Association, acting on behalf of the water authorities in England and Wales, has been advised by its National Fisheries Committee that the clauses in the Salmon Bill in respect of England and Wales (26 and 27) are seriously deficient and that the objectives of the Bill are unlikely to be met without substantial changes". They go on: The consensus of opinion is that Clause 26 does not provide an adequate basis to prosecute persons handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. Despite the intricate wording, the onus of proof of intent will fall on the prosecution, as now. Our view is that persons handling salmon in these circumstances must be obliged to explain themselves to the satisfaction of the courts". They say: Furthermore, Clause 26 is deficient as presently drafted in so far as it does not extend to the poacher himself in 'possession'. The Welsh Water Authority says: The proposed new offence of handling of salmon in suspicious circumstances will not be enforceable in practice unless the person apprehended is required to demonstrate the source of the fish.

That is what is said by the authorities who will actually have to operate these provisions. So I think that something needs to be done. The trouble with the present wording is, firstly, that it is not clear. On the contrary, it seems to me obscure and confusing. It has been interpreted in different ways. Some think the onus of proof has been reversed: others are sure that it has not. If it is not clear to us, it will not be clear to magistrates and the poaching gangs will not be convicted. Secondly, the present wording seems to be weak and to require, as I understand it, the prosecution first to understand and then to prove what the defendant believes. I personally do not see how you can do that.

I said at Second Reading that the wording ought to be clear and unambiguous. These four amendments suggest some wording which I hope is abundantly clear but also fair. The amendments would require the prosecution to have reasonable cause to suspect an offence—for example, if they found men loading salmon into a van near a river at 2 o'clock in the morning, or something of that sort. But, thereafter, the onus would be squarely on the defendant to show that he had come by the fish legally. I believe that these amendments would work, and I am very glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has given me his support. I am very grateful for that. He will explain to your Lordships far more lucidly and authoritatively than I could begin to do why we need this revised wording. I beg to move.

Lord Denning

Clauses 20 and 26 introduce new offences into the law of England and Scotland. May I say that I am glad to see that they are there in exactly the same terms. As I said a little while ago, it is very desirable that the law of Scotland and that of England should be uniform in these matters, especially when you are creating new offences. These clauses are of special importance in view of the discussion we have had about licensing, and the uncertainties of its scope and the like. If these clauses were properly drafted so as to put the burden on the person who is in possession of the illegally-caught salmon, they would do a great deal to remedy the whole position. But at the moment, as I read them, they do not put the burden on the person who has the illegally-caught salmon.

5.30 p.m.

Let me tell your Lordships first that salmon and other fish are not within the Theft Act. If you take a salmon you are not guilty of theft. It is not stolen goods. If you hand it on or it is handled you cannot be charged with handling stolen goods dishonestly, because it is not stolen goods. It is outside our law of theft and receiving. Therefore it seems to me that these clauses are intended to catch what I may call the receiver, the knowing receiver or handler of illegally-taken fish.

The law of Scotland—and this is supposed to be an amendment of it—is contained in Section 7 of the Salmon Act 1951. That starts off quite well: If any person is found in possession of any salmon or trout … in circumstances which afford reasonable ground for suspecting that he had obtained possession of such salmon or trout … as a result or for the purpose of his committing [the offence of taking it] … that persons may be charged with unlawful possession". So if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting him he can be charged. But the next subsection says that when he is so charged and if it is proved that it was as a result of his committing an offence or the like, then he can be convicted. So that puts the burden on the prosecution of proving the illegal taking.

Equally, so far as England is concerned, the Theft Act 1968 deals with it in Schedule 1: a person who unlawfully takes or destroys … any fish in water which is private property", and so on, is guilty of an offence. Those provisions do not deal with the handler, and the objective of Clauses 20 and 26 is to deal with the handler of fish which was illegally taken.

In framing this new offence, it is quite plain that the draftsman has followed the provisions of our Theft Act as to handling; and the Theft Act says as to handling that if a person handles stolen goods, knowing or believing that they are stolen, then he can be convicted. It has to be proved that they are stolen goods and that he handled them knowing or believing they were stolen. That has been interpreted recently in your Lordships' House in the case of Anderton v. Ryan, which is in the Weekly Law Reports, 1985, page 968.

Let me tell your Lordships that a lady was charged with handling property—a recorder, I think—knowing or believing it to have been stolen. What happened was that in her house was found a video recorder. The detective asked, "Where did you get this and how much did you pay for it?" She said, "I paid £100". She went on to say, "I might as well be honest: it was stolen when I bought it". She was held not to be convicted because there was no proof that it was stolen at all and there was only her own statement, which was not sufficient. She had not confirmed it herself: she had not said who told her. The House of Lords held that her acquittal was right, and that shows the extent to which the law goes in cases such as this. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Let me take this Clause 20 that we are dealing with now, as it reads at the moment. I will read Clause 20, but both clauses are in the same form. It says: A person who is in possession of salmon and believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to the salmon shall be guilty of an offence and liable", and so on. The important words are those which refer to a person who believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting. You have to prove that that person believed or had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the salmon had been illegally taken.

An officer may go up to a person, as in the case of a man who was stopped in Trafalgar Square. He asked the way to Billingsgate. The car was heavily loaded and right down on its wheels. The man asked the way to Billingsgate and the policeman asked him, "What have you got in there?" "I've got a lot of salmon here and I am taking it to Billingsgate". Is there any proof in such a case that he believed the salmon was stolen?

Suppose a man in a Jaguar goes with a load of fish to a hotel in Gloucester, or wherever it may be, and a police officer asks him, "Where did you get these?" He says, "I'm not going to tell you: you prove against me what I know". In other words, in many of these cases you will not be able to prove the state of mind of the man who is handling the goods, and under this clause as it is at present drafted you have to show that he believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting; but you have to prove his state of mind, and you will not be able to prove it. That is the burden on the prosecution, whereas by the amendment the burden is the other way. According to Amendment No. 64, if the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting they were unlawfully taken, then it is up to him to explain it.

In the case I illustrated of the man who stopped in Trafalgar Square and who had masses of salmon in the boot of his car there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they had been unlawfully obtained. In the case of the Jaguar car which was being driven to the hotel, you do not have to look at the man's state of mind. But under the amendment you have to look to see whether there are reasonable grounds in the circumstances for suspecting that they have been illegally taken. You do not have to prove a person's state of mind; you have to prove that the circumstances themselves in which they were found or discovered give reasonable cause for suspecting that they have been illegally obtained. Once you have done that, of course, you can charge him and then it is up to him. He can say, "They were not illegally obtained at all; they were bought from people up in Scotland". In other words, the amendment clearly puts the burden of proof on the accused, whereas, as at present drafted as I read it, the burden of proof here is on the prosecution.

It seems to me to be the objective of the Government that, in order to stop this massive illegal traffic in salmon, once you find suspicious circumstances the burden of proof should be on the defendant that he came by them lawfully and that they were not unlawfully taken. As I read the clause as at present drafted, it still puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. But the amendment which we put forward puts the burden, as it ought to be, on the defence when there are circumstances that give reasonable cause for suspicion. So I support the amendment.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)

I understood it was intended that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would move only the amendment which relates to Clause 20 and that he would deal with Clause 26 later. I make it clear that in what I say in reply I deal only with the Scottish provision, although it may contain some general remarks which assist so far as Clause 26 is concerned. But I make clear at the outset that, while the two clauses are intended to produce a similar effect, they proceed with regard to different systems of law and different statutes.

However, I express my thanks at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for having tabled the amendment, to allow an opportunity to make clear the line of reasoning behind these two clauses and in particular Clause 20. I should say, however, that I cannot accept this amendment in so far as it relates to Clause 20, and I know that my noble friend Lord Belstead cannot do so regarding Amendment No. 26. I hope that I can at least attempt a brief explanation of the thinking behind Clause 20.

We appreciate the difficulties that are involved in obtaining sufficient direct evidence to satisfy a court that salmon has been caught, killed or landed illegally, unless the perpetrator is caught in the illegal act. It is no easy task for enforcement officers to apprehend a person when he is actually fishing and it was a concession to this difficulty that brought about the creation of a limited offence of unlawful possession where there are suspicious circumstances, which is to be found in Section 7 of the Scottish Act of 1951.

The offence of unlawful possession created in that section—and it is an Act which applies only to Scotland and, I understand, does not have any similar statutory analogy in English legislation—is limited, in that it operates only where the person accused of illegal possession caught the salmon himself. An accused could therefore escape conviction, if he put it forward that he had not himself caught the fish and if that was enough to convince the court that there was reasonable doubt: or it may be that it was able to accept his own evidence. The result was that there could be a trade in illegally caught salmon which was able to continue as a legal activity, and it is clear from the discussion that has already taken place in Committee that your Lordships are opposed to this trade continuing, however great or small it may be.

We have in Scotland sought to build on what has already been achieved in Section 7, by creating in the 1951 Act an additional possession offence which is not limited to the situation where the accused is also the person by whom the fish was caught. Recognising that difficulties similar to those I have already mentioned would exist, if it were necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the fish in the accused's possession had been illegally taken, we have worded the clause so that such proof is not required. Instead, the prosecution would have to show, first, that the accused was in possession of salmon: and, secondly, that he believed, or had reasonable grounds for suspecting, that that salmon had been illegally taken, killed or landed.

5.45 p.m.

That bears a similarity to the position that arises out of Section 7(1) as it presently stands in Scotland. Your Lordships will remember from the description of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that there are two relevant sections; the first which gives rise to the charge, and the second which gives rise to a conviction when an accused is found in possession of salmon in circumstances such as to afford reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had obtained such possession by poaching, by illegal methods of fishing and the like.

What the judge said in the case of Aitchison v. Bartlett was: The charge proceeds upon suspicious circumstances. The conviction follows if the suspicion is not explained away but is confirmed by the evidence. The Committee will note that that indicates quite clearly that, if the Crown establishes in evidence a suspicion, it is for the defence to clear the suspicion away. So there is an onus that passes to the accused once the Crown has established a suspicion. That is precisely the kind of basis upon which, in the case where it is not the accused himself who has taken the fish, we wish to proceed.

The situation that we have in mind is where, for instance, the fish show marks of a gill net; where they are delivered surreptitiously to the back door of a hotel late at night, or—taking up something that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock said—a carrier is intending to take a substantial load of fish south of the border. Obviously, in those cases there will be ground for suspicion that the fish had been illegally taken. Of course, every case will require to be judged on its own facts and merits.

It is appreciated that it would be unreasonable to allow the possibility of a conviction where an individual accused could not, for example, through lack of knowledge of fish and fishing, have had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the salmon in his possession had been illegally taken. But if it was reasonable for the individual accused to have suspected that the salmon had been illegally taken, there seems to be no reason why he should escape conviction. The clause has therefore been carefully drafted with the intention of allowing an objective interpretation of the words "reasonable grounds for suspecting", and the corresponding English clause proceeds on the same basis.

Unlike the formula proposed in the amendment tabled by noble Lords, it does not seek to put the innocent at risk. For example, it is not intended that a court should be capable of convicting an ordinary housewife in possession of salmon showing gill marks, since it would be unreasonable to expect her to suspect on that basis that the salmon had been illegally taken. But if your Lordships consider the terms of the amendment, you will see that that is precisely the kind of situation which could arise. On the other hand, if one found a hotelier who had taken in something like 14 or 15 salmon through the back door for a nominal cost, and had been told "Don't ask where they came from", that could give rise to a conviction.

It is also necessary to include the reference to belief in order to allow evidence of admissions by an accused in relation to his or her knowledge of where the fish came from. I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the case of Anderton v. Ryan was known and is taken account of in the formulation for both Clause 26 and Clause 20. It will of course be a defence if the accused can show that the salmon had not in fact been illegally taken, killed or landed. The onus of proof to establish this defence will, however, be on the accused. In my submission, the terms of 7A(2) are sufficient for that purpose. Accordingly, the second amendment which has been tabled is unnecessary.

With regard to Scotland there are of course other difficulties in the wording of these amendments. The first amendment seeks to import the wording of the English Theft Act into Scotland. This wording is clearly appropriate for the corresponding English Clause 26 but it is not right that it should be included in the Scottish part; nor that the Scottish courts should be constrained in their interpretation of the new offence by English case law on the Theft Act provisions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will know more about this than I do but I understand that that Act has given cause for difficulty.

For Scotland "possession" is all that is needed. That word is already used in the existing provisions of the 1951 Act. It is familiar to Scottish courts and they are well able to deal with it. I should also say that within the amendment there is a reference, as I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to the words, is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully", which, as I understand it, is intended to deal with the case where a person is found in suspicious circumstances which give rise to the suspicion that he himself has been party to the unlawful taking, killing or landing. As I have explained to the Committee, that is taken account of already in Scottish legislation.

I should perhaps also say as a matter of comment that I find it difficult to understand how these words appear in the amendment. They do not sit easily with the opening words of the amendment which are, in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully". It also seems to me—but perhaps I am misreading the amendment—that it casts upon the prosecution the requirement to do something which we have tried to avoid—namely, to prove that the salmon has been or is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully. That is precisely what we seek to avoid doing in regard to Clauses 20 and 26 for the very reason that it is impossible to do and that has been recognised before.

For all these reasons I cannot suggest to the Committee that the amendments to Clause 20 can be accepted. I would also suggest with a certain degree of hesitation that the noble Lords might wish to reconsider their position even as regards Clause 26, although as I hope I made clear I am really not in a position to deal with that matter because it is one for which my noble friend Lord Belstead takes responsibility.

Viscount Trenchard

While noble Lords are thinking of their response to that suggestion, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether this new clause will overrule Clause 22(4) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act? This effectively says in regard to any salmon, including in the season—that is after 31st August—but also out of season: The burden of proving that any salmon or trout bought, sold, exposed for sale or in the possession of any person for sale between the dates mentioned … shall lie on the person buying, selling or exposing it for sale, having it in his possession for sale". If the new clause is going to weaken that it could do us harm from 31st August onwards every year.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

No, my understanding is quite clear. I can assure my noble friend that it is not intended that this clause should in any way bear upon the section to which he refers. That will remain untouched.

Viscount Trenchard

In which case I must ask my noble and learned friend why at some stage we cannot have something similar to the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for the whole season rather than for part of it.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

All I can say is that we are seeking perhaps to deal with a slightly different matter in Clauses 20 and 26—namely, not the question of selling or buying but the question of possession.

Viscount Trenchard

With respect, the words "in possession" I read out and they are in that provision.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

I am not quite sure if I have understood what my noble and learned friend has said. Has he in effect said that salmon in the back of a car is a sufficient reason for suspicion; that on that suspicion a prosecution can be brought but from that moment the onus of proof is on the defendant? I have no doubt that I have over-simplified everything, but is that roughly so?

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

What I tried to say—I obviously did not put it clearly and for that I apologise to noble Lords—is, first, that the Crown would have to prove that the accused was in possession of the salmon; and secondly, that the surrounding circumstances were such that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the fish were illegally taken. That could come from a whole variety of circumstances. I have made reference to one or two of them already. From that point, if that evidence is led it throws upon the accused the onus of establishing that the fish were not illegally taken—he has to overcome suspicion. That is why I thought it might be helpful to noble Lords to have the particular passage in the judgment because that puts it in a way which I think makes very much clearer the effect of suspicion. Obviously at the end of the day it must be for the court to be satisfied that there is ground for suspicion. That is the way in which we have framed this clause and that in the same way is the basis upon which the English clause proceeds, albeit it has taken its derivation from the English Theft Act.

Lord Moran

Perhaps I may ask whether the Government would be prepared at this stage to give their views on Amendments Nos. 73 and 76? It might be convenient to the Committee if they would do so while we are discussing this question because they are very similar.

In preparing these amendments I must confess that I concentrated on Clause 26 which deals with England and Wales. I live South of the Border and I was conscious, as I explained in my opening remarks on these amendments, that the water authorities in England and Wales were very far from satisfied with the wording of the clauses proposed by the Government and thought they would not work and would not help to put down illegal fishing. I attempted therefore to make the wording of Clause 20 similar to that of Clause 26. But I am very conscious, first, that I am not a lawyer and, secondly, that I am not a Scottish attorney. I realise that as I know nothing of Scottish law the amendment to Clause 20 may well be very defective.

I am very grateful for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but I am disappointed that on the main principle he is not prepared to move at all. The object of my amendments is to cover exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Home. His question really paraphrased the substance of my amendments. I shall be grateful if the Government will give their view on the clauses relating to England and Wales.

6 p.m.

Lord Denning

I really spoke on both Clauses 20 and 26, which are in precisely the same words. It is wrong to suggest that the law of Scotland and the law of England should be different in interpreting the selfsame words. Therefore I suggest that I was right in dealing with them together. We are dealing with the interpretation of a few English words—not Scottish words—in both clauses. I can understand the background of the Scottish law that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned. On the other hand, the clause does not make mention of reasonable grounds for suspecting. One has to prove that the person in possession has acted unlawfully. That is where the burden of proof lies, and that is the burden of my argument. I can understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate but it does not convince me. Still, we shall return to Clause 26 later.

Lord Belstead

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, makes my task a little easier in trying to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in respect of Amendments Nos. 73 and 76. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, while the wording of Clause 26 differs in some respects from that of Clause 20, any differences merely reflect the differing legal frameworks in Scotland and England. The effects of the two clauses are supposed to be, and indeed are, essentially the same.

With respect to the noble and learned Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the arguments against the amendments proposed are also essentially the same. If I may briefly follow my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, I feel from the point of view of the English and Welsh clauses that the changes proposed in Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 would not strengthen the effectiveness of the provision in Clause 26. I submit to the Committee that there would be a less satisfactory criterion for judging guilt in the phrase chosen for the amendment, in circumstances where it could reasonably be expected". rather than suspecting or believing that the salmon has been legally taken.

Indeed, I am at something of a loss as to why the element of belief has been removed from the provision in the amendments that have been put forward. The Government feel that the burden of proof on the prosecution would be greatly increased by making it necessary to prove that the salmon held by the defendant had in fact been illegally taken. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, may point out to me that the onus of proof is reversed in the amendments. I am not a lawyer, but, as I understood my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to say, nonetheless there is still the element in the amendments that the taking, killing or unlawful landing of salmon must be part of the finding of guilt.

I am also mystified about the proposal to remove the present subsection (3), which is only to be found in Clause 26. If that were to come about then we would lose a valuable provision in making it plain that grounds for suspicion do not have to relate to any particular offence. That would simply be ripped out of the text by the amendments. It is on those grounds, and on English and Welsh grounds, that I must resist the amendments.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

If a licensed salmon dealer receives some salmon from a poacher and he then sells those salmon to a third party, will his licence protect him from his criminal act? I imagine that such an offence would be very difficult to prove. A well-known licensed salmon dealer might sometimes kick over the traces for a friend and take a few of his salmon. I presume that the dealer would get away with that.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

I recognise that there are difficulties in bringing to book a person who apparently has a bona fide reason for having possession of salmon when in fact they are stolen. I would not shrink from that. It would depend very much on the circumstances. I can envisage circumstances in which even a person in possession of a dealer's licence may act in such a way that a transaction reeks of suspicion, and that one could at the end of the day convict him under the new Clause 20. As I said earlier, it is all a matter of individual facts and circumstances, and they are infinitely variable. I cannot give a better answer than that to my noble friend.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

I do not want to get involved in a detailed argument about English law, but what worries me about this particular clause is the strong new powers that are being given. I accept that there is only one law, but nevertheless there is a suspicion that this particular power would have been looked at much more closely, and been the subject of more resistance in Scotland generally, had the Bill not been pushed forward on the basis of the large-scale, damaging, gang-type poaching that is in progress.

A number of people have spoken about enormous amounts of illegal fishing and about a massive illegal traffic in salmon, and have used other such phrases. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked for the figures. We all accept that it is largely hearsay and suspicion. However, it is on that basis that this very large-scale power has been given in the Bill. As I have said, there is only one law, but when we started on this Bill many people—particularly those people who own or are familiar with salmon rivers—said with a nudge and a wink, "Of course, we are not really talking about Sandy, who takes one salmon for the pot". I have never believed in that philosophy. I have always believed that one should be just as tough on old Sandy as on anyone else—except that this new menace is much more material than the menace of the individual who takes one for the pot.

It is important to realise that powers such as this have only been given because of what might end up as hysteria. I myself do not know the figures. I suppose that the figures of massive illegal poaching that people have told me about are true. I suppose too that such poaching is dangerous. I am not so worried about the illegality of the poaching as I am about the danger it poses to conservation and to people who come across poachers. It is important to remember that that is the reason for this Bill going through; it is not because more people have been picking off a few extra salmon in the Highlands.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

In fairness to the noble Lord opposite, I accept that the reason for advancing provisions of the kind that one finds in Clauses 20 and 26 is not to deal with the individual poacher who takes one salmon on the odd occasion; indeed, I believe that such an offender is impossible to catch. The provisions are meant instead to catch those who embark upon poaching very much more as a trade and those who assist them in that trade by continuing to accept salmon that they know to have been illegally taken.

Lord Moran

I am in some difficulty about this because, as I have said, I know nothing about Scottish law and I would not want to press the matter on the Scottish amendments. However, I mind very much about the ones in England and Wales. It has always seemed to me, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning very eloquently pointed out, that we ought to have the same provisions throughout Great Britain.

In their replies the Government have not said anything about two of the points I raised. The first concerns the obscurity of the wording of the present clauses; the fact that it has been interpreted by knowledgeable people in a number of different ways. This seems to me to defeat the purpose of the Government's objectives. I do not see how the clause will work if it is not understood. The second point is that, as I said in England and Wales. the water authorities who have a statutory obligation to enforce this type of measure do not believe that it will work.

These are technical legal questions which it is difficult to discuss on the Floor of the Committee. Would it be possible, therefore, for us to have a discussion with the Government before Report stage and with representatives from the water authorities? We could then see whether the objectives could be met which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and I have described. If that were possible, it would be a very great help.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am perfectly happy on behalf of my noble friend and myself to say that we are prepared to meet the noble Lord to discuss this matter. I accept that it is a technical matter which is perhaps not easy to explain fully in Committee, although I have endeavoured to put the Scottish situation, as has my noble friend so far as Clause 26 is concerned for England and Wales. Certainly we shall be happy to meet with the noble Lord and others who wish to join with him.

Lord Moran

In the light of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 19, line 16, at end insert— ("(i) in the case of a person licensed to deal in salmon under section 19 above, the loss of that licence;").

The noble Lady said: The object of this amendment is to add to the penalty in Clause 20(1), on conviction on indictment, the penalty of loss of licence in the case of a dealer who buys illegally-caught fish. I believe that the threat of the loss of a licence to deal in salmon would, to a dealer, be almost as powerful a deterrent as the threat of a prison sentence. In some cases it might be a more powerful threat. Much would depend on how much of the dealer's business rested upon dealing in game and game fish.

I think it would also be a penalty that is more likely to be imposed by the courts. Courts might take the view that a prison sentence is going too far but that the taking away of a dealer's licence is a punishment fitting the crime. It has the additional merit of not increasing the overcrowding in our prisons. I beg to move.

Lord Burton

I congratulate the noble Lady on bringing forward this amendment. There is one slight point arising from it which I think should be considered. Licences issued by the district council will be confiscated by the court, but I believe that on past occasions there has been a slip up between the courts and the district council. I do not know whether there is a requirement upon the courts to inform the district councils, but apparently licences have continued to be issued. I merely ask that this matter be considered; otherwise, I wholly support the noble Lady.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

I thank the noble Lady for her explanation but I must tell your Lordships that the Government cannot consider it appropriate to include provision for the removal of a licence as an additional penalty on conviction for the offence of illegal possession.

Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 already makes provision for a licence to be suspended by the licensing authority. The circumstances which are relevant to their consideration of suspension include any misconduct by the licence holder which has a bearing on his fitness to hold a licence. The licence may also be revoked under Section 7(6)(a) on conviction for an offence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act.

The powers under that Act for the regulation of dealing in salmon are wide enough to allow application of these provisions in the case of salmon dealing. Therefore, it would not be appropriate or necessary to give additional powers to the courts.

There are certain technical defects in the amendment, but I do not think it is suitable to raise them at this stage because I take issue on the matter of principle, as I have set out. I regret, therefore, that I cannot invite the Committee to accept this amendment. I hope that with the explanation I have given the noble Lady will be prepared to withdraw it.

I should like to say in response to my noble friend Lord Burton that I have taken note of what he said, and if he will speak to me about this matter at another time I shall endeavour to see whether there is anything that can be done, and will consider any particular instance he has in mind.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

As I understand from what the noble and learned Lord has said that my amendment is totally unnecessary, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 19, line 16, at end insert— ("(ii) in the case of a holder of a licence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, the loss of that licence.").

The noble Lady said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendment No. 77 at the same time.

Amendment No. 77: Clause 26, page 23, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) in the case of a person licensed under the Licensing Act 1964, the loss of that licence.").

Amendment No. 77 seeks to do for England, in Clause 26, what Amendment No. 66 seeks to do in Scotland, under Clause 20.

The main buyers of salmon which has been poached, apart from fishmongers, are hoteliers, who can often buy cheaply from poachers and so make bigger profits. I believe that the threat of the loss of their licences would be a greater deterrent than most, and possibly, in their cases, greater than a prison sentence, since one might be able to continue in business despite being in prison, but the loss of a licence would put most hoteliers who buy salmon and serve it to their customers out of business.

While the loss of a licence to sell liquor may seem inappropriate as a penalty for the crime of buying poached salmon, it is, as far as I have been able to discover, the ultimate sanction against an hotelier who is found by the environmental health inspector to have cockroaches in the kitchen and fails to do anything about it. Perhaps, therefore, it is not as inappropriate as it may seem on the face of it. I beg to move.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

In a sense my response to these two amendments must be along the lines similar to that which I have already given in answer to the noble Lady's previous amendment. The licensing boards in Scotland have similar powers under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to those of licensing authorities under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act; that is to say, they can suspend liquor licences for misconduct on the part of the holder of the licence. Therefore, again I suggest that it might be inappropriate to give the courts additional powers in this respect. I think it may be said also that the connection between liquor licensing and illegal possession of salmon is perhaps less than immediately direct and that any penalty of this nature therefore would be more appropriate in the licensing legislation.

So far as the English provisions are concerned, as I understand the situation it is very similar under the 1964 licensing Act so far as it relates to licensing the sale of alcohol. With that explanation perhaps the noble Lady might be prepared to withdraw these two amendments.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Burton

May I raise just one question. At the end of the clause there is the reference to Section 11(4) of the 1951 Act which gives a water bailiff powers to search a vehicle on any private land adjoining any water. With the current mobility of poachers, one gets into difficulty about what is private and what is public, and it seems to me that, if the vehicle is sitting on a public road, then the water bailiff has no power to search that vehicle and would have to wait until a policeman turned up. Accordingly I suggest that what might be considered is that the wording "on any private land" be changed to "in the vicinity of any water".

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

I am very grateful to my noble friend for making that point. I shall look at it, and if it appears that perhaps the words which he suggested would be better, then obviously we can consider it at Report stage.

Earl Haig

Before the question is put, may I put my Amendment No. 68A?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter)

We shall be coming to that very soon.

Clause 20 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]

Earl Haig moved Amendment No. 68A: After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:

("Further amendment of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.

. In section 19(2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, after the words "on indictment" the words "or summarily" shall be inserted.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment concerns stronger penalties for poachers. As many of your Lordships know, there have been frequent occasions when steps could have been taken by sheriffs to punish poachers by stronger penalties had they been given powers to confiscate boats and vehicles. Because the word "indictment" is used in the 1951 Act, the power to confiscate is denied to sheriffs. A charge of salmon poaching is unlikely to lead to an indictment case in a jury court, so the possibility of confiscating cars and boats is virtually ruled out.

I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister is aware of the problem and I believe that he or my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom will be moving amendments to deal with it. Their solution appears to be slightly different from what had been suggested to the Tweed commissioners by their lawyers.

Perhaps I may explain that my proposal is that we add the words "or summarily" to Section 19(2) of the 1951 Act. This would give to sheriffs the necessary powers to confiscate while retaining powers concern- ing jury courts. As things stand, there are enormous advantages to a poacher if he can return to the water fairly quickly after a court case. This opportunity would be denied if a man had lost his boat, or his vehicle. It is for that purpose that I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Burton

This amendment has the same effect as my Amendment No. 84B except that it is in reverse, but I am pleased to say that my noble friend on the Front Bench has improved on my amendment because he has added the word "on", without which I think my amendment would have been wrong. I shall not attempt to move my amendment because my noble friend is right, and what is more he has managed to be right in two places where I, like my noble friend Lord Haig, only managed to deal with one place.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I should very much like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Haig. What he has said about a poacher being able to get going immediately after having committed an offence is something of which I have experience as chairman of the Tay River Fishery Board. If a poacher's gear is confiscated, of course, his wings are clipped, but very often his gear is not confiscated, so off he goes and commits another crime.

I hope very much that "summarily" will be accepted, because if the word "indictment" is retained, as I understand it the case would have to be tried by jury, so there would be much delay and meanwhile our poacher would retain his gear and commit another crime. I have had experience of this very thing. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Haig.

Lord Gray of Contin

I accept the principle of the issues raised by amendments Nos. 68A and 84B in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, respectively, that forfeiture of vehicles and boats under Part I or Section 13 of the 1951 Act could take place at the discretion of the court, whether cases are taken on indictment or by summary procedure. This would remove the present limitation to cases on indictment in the 1951 Act and would bring that Act into line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 where the general power of forfeiture is not restricted to solemn procedure. The amendments tabled by the noble Lords are not entirely appropriate in drafting terms and I therefore felt it better to bring forward my own amendment to cover the point. In view of that, perhaps noble Lords would agree to withdraw their amendments.

Earl Haig

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 [Power of court in trial of one offence to convict of another]:

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 69: Page 20, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")

The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that the intention of the clause is met fully by providing that its provisions should operate in a trial for any one of the five offences specified. The use of "and" did not achieve this. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 21, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Grimond

Before we part from this clause I should like briefly to raise a doubt about it. It seems to me to be a simpler clause than many we have had to deal with in recent Bills, and I hope I have understood it rightly. If I have, what it says is that someone may be charged under these Acts or a general rule of law and may be acquitted under the Act on which he is tried; nevertheless, in spite of being acquitted, he may then be found guilty under one of the other Acts specified in the clause. There are, of course, many examples in law of somebody being charged with an offence who may be found guilty of a lesser offence on the same evidence. In Scottish law, if a person is charged with stealing he may on the same evidence be convicted of reset, which for the benefit of those who know even less Scottish law than I do (which is saying something!) is receiving stolen goods—is it not? The Lord advocate nods his head, so I take it that that is good enough. Even if there are numerous precedents, as I have no doubt there are, I feel that that is something which the Committee should examine with extreme care.

6.30 p.m.

In the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said that it was a very convenient clause. My goodness, it is an exceedingly convenient, catch-all clause for the prosecution. It seems to me that if a man is charged specifically under Section 10 of the Tweed Fisheries (Amendment) Act, if he produces, for instance, an alibi and he is acquitted, it is a little hard that without any chance, as I see it, to call fresh evidence or to rebut further charges he may be convicted under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of Clause 21.

Therefore, even if there are precedents, I do not think that we should encourage that method of carrying on our legal affairs. I am slightly encouraged in that by consulting an ex-Lord Advocate who admitted that it appeared to him to be of a slightly doubtful nature. There must be some right for a defendant to call evidence or to deal with the other Acts. It is somewhat different from murder and manslaughter or stealing and reset. I wait with great interest to hear the numerous precedents that no doubt will be called and the powerful arguments that no doubt will be advanced but I must confess that it appears to me not only doubtful legally but certainly illiberal.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

I understand the concept that the noble Lord has expressed. Perhaps I should make clear that the main purpose of this clause is to cover persons who are charged under Section 7A which it is proposed will come into the 1951 Act—for instance, with reset—who might escape conviction by explaining away the suspicious circumstances by attributing them to a different unlawful act. I think, as I explained, that one of the problems in regard to Section 7(1) of the 1951 Act is that a person may say that he knew perfectly well that the salmon were taken unlawfully but, as he had not himself taken part in the poaching expedition, he would be free from this offence if that explanation was believed. Accordingly, the intention of this clause is to prevent an escape by founding upon a different unlawful act. The references to Section 10 of the Tweed Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1859 and to Section 21 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 are included for completeness as they are other possession offences.

Perhaps I may just explain how this would work, because I think that an example might be helpful. I hasten to add that it is one which is conjured from nowhere and is not a natural example. But let us say that a person is charged under new Section 7A mentioned in Clause 20, the circumstances being that he was found in possession of salmon and was trying to sell them at a very cheap price at the back door of a hotel in, shall we say, Achiltibuie late at night. In court he comes forward and shows that the fish had in fact been stolen from a fish farm. That would mean that the fish had not been unlawfully taken within the terms of Section 7A; they would not have been taken by way of a relevant offence.

That being so, on the other hand, what he would have admitted to would be that they had been taken from the possession of another; that they were stolen goods because they had been taken from the possession of the fish farm. If that be so, the court, if it was satisfied that all the necessary elements to allow it to convict of a charge of reset were present, and that of course there was corroborated evidence (because that would be a common law offence) on the basis of Clause 21 could convict of reset and punish accordingly.

I should have thought that it would be singularly inappropriate that a person could found upon what was an unlawful act in order to excuse himself from a charge under Section 7A and not at the same time at least give the court the basis for convicting him of that other offence.

Lord Grimond

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but surely the example that he quotes is one on which the charged person virtually pleads guilty to another offence. Had the clause said that or anything equivalent to it, I should certainly not have raised the question; but it simply says that if the court is satisfied, whatever the accused says, that he is guilty of another offence, it is entitled to convict him. That seems to me to be a very different thing.

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

I think it is right to say that that is something which is to be found in other legislation. I think there is statutory provision for it. Where a person is charged with theft, if at the end of the day it turns out that the lesser offence of reset is made out the court may convict of reset, although the original charge against him is that of theft. This is in a sense analogous to that.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Exemption from certain offences in respect of certain acts]:

The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 70: Page 21, line 11, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

The noble Duke said: So far as I can make out (and I may well be in error) the object of this clause is to enable the Secretary of State to make legal certain events which would otherwise be illegal under this Bill, and it is likely that that will apply particularly to salmon farming and that sort of thing. That seems to me to be eminently fair, and in order to do that the person concerned has to get an exemption from the Secretary of State in writing; but before the Secretary of State can exempt any act or omission under this clause, he has to be satisfied that the proprietor of every affected salmon fishery in the salmon fishery district in which the act or omission is to take place has previously consented to it.

It would appear to me that the Secretary of State will have a very difficult job in satisfying himself that 100 per cent. of the proprietors in that district are quite happy with the act or omission that he is going to make legal. Therefore I am moving that subsections (2) and (3) of this clause should be left out. That would mean that the Secretary of State would not have to satisfy himself that anyone agrees. I think that this has probably gone too far and that some compromise or in-between solution might be the right answer. I beg to move.

Lord Gray of Contin

I accept fully that the burden of satisfying my right honourable friend that the consent has been obtained of all proprietors of salmon fisheries likely to be affected in a district might, and probably will, be an onerous one. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that any act or omission in contravention of any enactment should be exempted only if such consent is demonstrated. It would not be right to exempt unlawful acts or omissions without such consent if individual proprietors' fisheries were likely to be adversely affected. This, if a quantifiable loss could be shown to have resulted, might give rise to claims for damages or for compensation. I can understand what my noble friend seeks to do, but I cannot accept his amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. I wonder whether he will consider withdrawing it.

The Duke of Atholl

I have indicated that I am not entirely happy with my amendment. I believe that it goes too far the opposite way. I shall be delighted to withdraw it, but I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister of State that if we can come to some halfway arrangement this might be a good idea. I believe that in the larger fishery board districts like the Tay the Secretary of State will have an impossible job in satisfying himself that every proprietor is in favour of what act he is going to exempt.

Lord Gray of Contin

I cannot give my noble friend an assurance that I shall be able to bring back something which will wholly satisfy him. I am however, prepared to take this matter away and to have another look at it without commitment if my noble friend would consider withdrawing the amendment.

The Duke of Atholl

With that, I am more than pleased to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 71: After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:

("Estuaries and tidal waters

. Sea fishery committees, as established by the Sea Fisheries Regulations Act 1966, in consultation with the appropriate district salmon fishery board or water authority, may make orders to prohibit fishing in specified areas, in order to prevent illicit fishing for salmon in estuaries and other tidal waters.").

The noble Lord said: The objective of this amendment is to deal with the serious, continuing problem of illegal fishing for salmon in estuaries and tidal waters under the pretence of fishing for white fish to which I referred in my speech on Second Reading and which was mentioned earlier this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady White. If you take, for example, the Usk estuary in Wales, there are eight licensed salmon nets but 30 to 50 unlicensed "sea fishing" nets. However, the Usk estuary contains, I understand, negligible stocks of sea fish.

The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has kindly informed me that a good deal of progress has been made in the control of fixed nets by agreement between the water authorities and the sea fishery committees. But these arrangements do not I think include nets which are not fixed. My amendment is designed to cover these. The amendment would give powers to create protected boxes in areas used by migrating salmon in estuaries but where there are negligible commercially exploitable stocks of white fish. There are various ways in which this problem can be tackled. It can be tackled by controlling and regulating methods of fishing. Or it can be tackled by controlling areas in which fishing is allowed. I have suggested that the latter method might be used, although I am not absolutely wedded to it.

It is important to have a provision of this sort. At present, large numbers of salmon—in Wales, at any rate—are being caught illegally in coastal waters and in estuaries by persons pretending to fish for sea fish. At present, this cannot, as I explained on Second Reading, be effectively controlled. I beg to move.

Viscount Trenchard

I should like strongly to support the amendment. The Tamar estuary, which flows out through Plymouth Sound, is a case in point. There are virtually no white fish in the estuary, but there are large numbers of theoretically sea-fishing nets working regularly. The South West Water Authority has, by agreement, managed to effect a degree of control. I am absolutely sure, however, that legal backing for its efforts to cover all forms of nets, in the kind of conditions that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggests, would be very much welcomed by the authority and would reduce what has been a major source of illegal taking of salmon.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like very much to support the amendment. All of us, I hope, bear in mind the worldwide fall in the amount of Atlantic salmon caught. This is such a valuable crop, not only from a nutritional point of view, but also from an employment and sporting point of view, that it must be carefully controlled. If we allow large amounts of illegal and unlicensed taking in the estuaries of England, it is pretty pointless going on and trying to regulate it elsewhere. We must do it properly. I strongly recommend the amendment to your Lordships.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Belstead

Despite the three speeches that have been made on this amendment, I must say that the Government are not persuaded. In our 1981 consultation paper on the review of inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales, we considered whether the arrangements for the control of salmon fisheries in tidal waters should be changed to include the sea fisheries committee—in other words, exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is raising on Amendment No. 71.

On 1st March 1984, the Government announced that they had concluded that no change should be made to the existing arrangements. In case I seem to be simply standing pat on something that we have said, may I expand on this a little. There has been a substantial improvement in co-operation between the sea fisheries committees and water authorities over the last two or three years. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has, I think, recognised this, to judge by the words that he used in moving the amendment.

For example, a number of sea fisheries committees' officers have been appointed honorary water bailiffs by water authorities. Agreements have been reached on areas where fixed nets should not be set to catch sea fish. I realise that the noble Lord, as he made clear in moving the amendment, and both my noble friends, are talking about more than fixed nets. I come, however, to what I consider the essence of the amendment. It is the question of enforcement. The noble Lord's amendment talks about illicit fishing for salmon. All concerned, in Government, in the water authorities and in the sea fisheries committees, are well aware of the need for a common approach.

I honestly do not believe that dividing responsibility would help, bearing in mind that the water authorities are the responsible statutory authorities for the management of salmon. Certain authorities—indeed, maybe all—have means of doing this at sea as well as in the rivers. For those reasons, I would be very reluctant to give any commitment on this amendment.

Baroness White

Naturally, we listen with great respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says. But some of us have made inquiries about the extent and, if one might say, the quality of the co-operation in certain areas. I do not say that this applies everywhere, but such inquiries as I have been able to make convince me that there is a significant proportion of illegal fishing going on in areas where agreement has been reached between the sea fisheries committees and the water authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, says, these agreements apply only to fixed nets and there is no adequate control by means of the method of fishing.

We have discussed this matter on an earlier amendment. The alternative, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, of some method—not necessarily the box method—of control by area or by zone, taking into account the degree of risk to the salmon, should at least be considered. There was a certain complacency, if I might suggest this, in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. What he says is not borne out in all areas.

The difficulty is that one has two autonomous authorities side by side in these estuaries and tidal waters with different functions. In some places they may be able to reach satisfactory and effective (I stress the word "effective") methods of co-operation, but it is by no means universally true.

Lord Moran

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his explanation. I may say that I was very well aware of the consultation paper of 1981. Indeed, I referred to it explicitly in my speech at Second Reading. What I said then was that there appeared to be a loophole in the present legislation in that the sea fishery committees appeared to find themselves unable, under present legislation, to deal with salmon and sea trout, whereas the water authorities were unable to operate in the reverse direction.

I quoted the very powerful passage in the report of the special committee of the Welsh water authority which explained that there was this loophole, that they were very worried about it, and that it was causing great damage to salmon stocks. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to have a look at what I said on Second Reading, and specifically at that section dealing with the problem in the Welsh water authority's report, and then to discuss it both with the Welsh Office and with the Welsh water authority, to see whether anything can be done to close that loophole. That is all I am asking.

Lord Belstead

I am certainly prepared to look again at what the noble Lord said on Second Reading in the way that he has suggested.

Lord Moran

In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]

Clause 26 [Handling salmon in suspicious circumstances]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

There is an Amendment No. 73, and I am informed that if this is agreed to we cannot call Amendment No. 74.

[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]

Viscount Trenchard moved amendment No. 75:

Page 23, line 11, at end insert— ("( ) The burden of proving that any salmon in his possession was not acquired from a person who was unauthorised to fish for salmon shall rest on the person having possession of a salmon.")

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this amendment briefly before withdrawing it. I have asked two or three times why we cannot be simple, as the Government have previously been in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act. I have quoted Section 22(4) of that Act on numerous occasions.

My noble and learned friend, when referring earlier to my remarks on this provision in Amendment No. 75, read this and noticed that it was a short and probably incomplete requirement. In all probability, in the second line I should have taken more words out of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, and it should read: … from a person who was unauthorised to fish for or have in his possession salmon shall rest on the person having possession of a salmon. But I am sure that it is technically wrong. I read the major part of the the provision earlier.

I am not a lawyer, and I have listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on this question of burden of proof. I wondered how many enforcement officers up and down the country would be able to follow the detailed argument between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble and learned friend. It seems to me as a layman (may I humbly say) that perhaps the lawyers are thinking of the general provisions about possession covering all manner of personal possessions whereas the authors of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 were thinking of the specific problem of people having salmon in their possession out of the normal season. However, they covered, as I mentioned before, a large period of the fishing season as well. If we are dealing with one commodity which certain people only are authorised to kill, sell or possess, surely we can be simpler in reversing this burden of proof along the lines of the section I have mentioned in the 1975 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act.

If I could have an answer of some kind, if not now then in writing within a few days, so that one knows the position before the next stage of this Bill, I should be very happy. But I should like an answer as to why we cannot approach this in a simpler way and be less concerned with all the provisions and safeguards about the laws of possession covering all the goods that every citizen is permitted to have.

Lord Denning

I would support the suggestion that we have simple words which everyone can understand, and the burden of proof clearly expressed, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard has said. But in view of the discussions which we are to have before long it would be helpful to consider the wording of this clause to make sure that we have the burden of proof properly placed upon the defence. However, that can be dealt with, I hope, in the discussions which we are due to have on the earlier part of the clause.

Lord Belstead

I think that we are almost bound to get into the question of onus of proof in talking about the earlier part of the clause. But I have taken on board the fact that my noble friend Lord Trenchard is expecting a letter in answer to his question as to why my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has said that it would not be possible to go down the same road that legislation has gone down in that part of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 which my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate deployed some of the reasons in reply. But I think it would be for the convenience of my noble friend if a letter came either from my noble and learned friend or myself setting out on paper why we are resistant to that. If I may, I shall leave that point there.

There is one point I should like to put to your Lordships before we part company with this amendment. I speak entirely as a layman, but on the other hand I speak from this Box, and in both capacities I am worried about the effect of this amendment as it stands.

As I understand it, this amendment would make the mere act of possessing salmon an offence unless there was evidence that it had come from a legitimate source. On the face if it, that seems to me a pretty drastic attack on the liberty of the ordinary citizen. My noble friend will correct me if I have put this incorrectly but, as I understand it, this would mean that a housewife buying a piece of salmon from her local fishmonger would have to keep evidence of the purchase. For anyone buying salmon in a supermarket that, I should have thought, would be almost impossibly difficult. If I have understood that incorrectly, or if I am twisting it in any way, I hope that my noble friend will put me right. But if that is the way that this amendment is moving then it does not have my support.

Viscount Trenchard

I am sure that my noble friend would never twist anything. He is probably absolutely correct technically. However, I hope that he has taken on board that for certain purposes with certain exceptions, including the kind of situation he mentioned—that of housewives buying salmon—this provision, rather more draconian than the one I have suggested, is in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. There are exceptions to it, and I am quite sure that my amendment as put forward would not be technically sound without listing all the amendments made by this Bill.

However, would the noble Lord please look at the clause I have mentioned in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act? The noble Lord will find that these words exist with certain reasonable limitations which cover the possession of salmon from 31st August of each year until February the following year. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at that and write to me.

7 p.m.

Lord Moran

Perhaps I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said. I entirely accept and agree with him that clearly we must not have a clause that puts the onus of proof on housewives. It was precisely for that reason that we inserted in our own Amendment No. 73 the words: in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully". We included those words to indicate that the prosecution would have to have reason to believe or to suspect that a salmon was taken unlawfully. Therefore, they could not proceed against a housewife or someone of that nature.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

I should like to reinforce that point and to ask my noble friend the Minister to look at the words of the existing Act which has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. That might influence his point of view when he comes to consider the matter.

Lord Belstead

It is on that point that I have undertaken that either my noble and learned friend or I shall write to my noble friend Lord Trenchard. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make sure that copies of that letter go to noble Lords who have spoken on this particular subject.

Viscount Trenchard

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Moran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 76:

[Printed earlier: col. 827.]

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 76 has already been discussed and, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, I do not propose to move it.

[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 76A: Page 23, line 33, at beginning insert ("if not acting with another,").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 76A and Amendment No. 76B were put down at the request of the Water Authorities Association.

Amendment No. 76B: Page 23, line 35, at end insert— ("(b) if acting with another

  1. (i) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
  2. (ii)").
I express my surprise that these authorities do not appear to have been fully consulted by the Government on the provisions of the Bill. If they had been so consulted I think that some time would have been saved. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. With his long experience of water problems he carries great authority on these matters.

In the case of unlicensed fishing, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 carefully distinguishes between individual poaching and persons acting together to take salmon illegally. This is, I understand, a useful distinction which the courts understand and which enables large numbers of individuals to be processed by magistrates' courts under the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Effectively, they can plead guilty by post and the conviction and fine are dealt with by correspondence.

The Bill as drafted seeks to do away with that distinction and the prosecution would require the attendance of every individual, as well as members of groups, at the magistrates' court for a hearing to decide upon the mode of prosecution. I am advised that this is an extraordinarily tedious procedure to the bulk of offenders who are individuals caught without a licence, and would divert scarce legal and bailiff resources away from the real task of detecting and prosecuting gangs. Therefore, I think that it is important that we should keep the distinction, and that is the objective of these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

I think that Amendments Nos. 76A and 76B should really be dealt with together with Amendment No. 77F.

Lord Moran

Amendment No. 77F simply seeks to define in the Bill the notion of acting together.

Lord Belstead

May we take that amendment with Amendments Nos. 76A and 76B?

Lord Moran

Yes.

Amendment No. 77F: Page 24, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) A person shall be treated as acting together with another for the purposes of this section if both are engaged in committing an offence under it or one is aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence by the other.").

Lord Belstead

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As the noble Lord says, the amendments would create a distinction between a person acting alone and a person acting with another in relation to the new handling offence. The noble Lord, together with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, is proposing that someone charged with a handling offence when acting alone could only be tried summarily, and someone acting with another could be tried either way.

I do not believe that when it comes to the serious offence of receiving illegally taken salmon it makes any difference whether the person is acting alone or with another. The Government feel that the distinction does not have a bearing on the seriousness of the offence and should not therefore be used as the basis of determining the method of trial. I recognise that in respect of certain offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 there is a distinction between the person acting alone and the person acting with another. However, Clause 27 seeks to remove that distinction and to leave it to the discretion of the courts to consider the seriousness of the offence.

Having said all that, I realise that the noble Lord is in the process of putting his finger on a problem and I think that when we come to Amendment No. 78B I shall be able to be more helpful to the noble Lord's case, which is that the situation—to put it in the noble Lord's words—could give rise to a problem in relation to simple angling offences. As I have said, I shall be offering an alternative solution to that particular problem when we come to Amendment No. 78B.

However, the amendments which are proposed could leave us with a situation where two wholesalers, both receiving illegally taken salmon under identical circumstances, may have to be dealt with differently if one was a partnership and the other was a one-man band. On that particular point, with which these amendments are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I say that I have to resist. I hope that I shall be able to be more helpful when we come to Amendment No. 78B.

Lord Moran

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 76B not moved.]

[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 77A: Page 23, line 40, after ("(c)") insert ("and (d)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 77A and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 77B, 77C, 77D and 77E.

Amendment No. 77B: Page 23, line 40, after ("search") insert ("and seizure").

Amendment No. 77C: Page 24, line 1, after ("sections") insert ("32 (power to enter lands)").

Amendment No. 77D: Page 24, line 1, leave out ("(2)").

Amendment No. 77E: Page 24, line 1, after ("premises),") insert ("34 (power to apprehend persons fishing illegally at night)").

All of these amendments have been put down at the request of the Water Authorities Association. Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B introduce the power to, seize any fish and any instrument, vessel, vehicle or other thing liable to be forfeited in pursuance of this Act". That provision has been taken from the 1975 Act.

As many noble Lords have mentioned this evening, organised poaching is big business and the water authorities consider that powers of seizure would be a genuine deterrent to gangs freighting—for example, by container lorry—salmon taken illegally. I therefore think that it would be important and useful to have this provision.

As regards Amendments No. 77C, 77D and 77E, I point out that at present the Bill limits the scope of bailiffs compared with the provisions of the 1975 Act. These amendments re-establish the powers of bailiffs in the Bill and specifically include the power to enter lands and, to avoid any doubt, continue the power to apprehend persons fishing illegally at night. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord that the effect of these amendments is covered in legislation and for that reason the amendments are not necessary. Clause 26(6) attracts to the enforcement of the new offence the relevant powers that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 gives to water authority bailiffs. We believe we have included all the powers necessary and relevant to the new offence.

First, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord on Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B. I assure the noble Lord that we have already attracted the seizure and forfeiture powers in the 1975 Act. We have done it in this rather complicated way. Subsection (6)(b) of Clause 26 amends Part II of Schedule 4 to the 1975 Act so that any references to that Act are to be read as if they included references to this clause. This means that the new offence is one for which the courts may order forfeiture of articles seized under paragraph 5 of that schedule. Therefore, the existing power of water bailiffs to seize fish, vehicles, etc., is applied to the new offence automatically, and I therefore suggest that Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B are unnecessary.

The other amendments, Nos. 77C, 77D and 77E, refer to powers which do not so much concern the new offence created by Clause 26 of handling illegally taken fish but relate really to illegal fishing itself. However, I assure the noble Lord that water bailiffs wishing to enter land or premises, or apprehend people at night, already have the powers in the 1975 Act, and those powers are not weakened by this Bill.

However, noble Lords will appreciate that powers relating directly to the prevention of illegal fishing are not needed to enforce the new offence which is concerned with dealing in fish after they have been illegally caught. Nonetheless, I emphasise that those powers of entering and apprehending people are not in any way weakened because they remain in the 1975 Act. I hope that I may have assured the noble Lord that the effect of each of these amendments, 77A to E, is in fact still covered in existing legislation.

Lord Moran

In the light of that explanation from the Minister, for which I am most grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 77B to 77F not moved.]

Clause 26 agreed to.

Viscount Davidson

This seems a convenient moment for the Committee to take a break, and I suggest that we resume our discussions at 8 o'clock.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 until 8 p.m.]

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 78: After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:

("Prohibition of drift-netting.

.—(1) During a transitional period of five years from the date of passing of this Act no new licence shall be issued, and no existing licence renewed, for fishing for salmon by drift-net within six miles of the coasts of England and Wales.

(2) After the transitional period referred to in subsection (1) above it shall be an offence to fish for salmon by drift-net within six miles of the coasts of England and Wales.

(3) Any person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above shall be liable—

  1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of £400 or £40 for each day thereafter on which the offences continues;
  2. (b) on indictment, to 2 years imprisonment or a fine or to both.").

The noble Lord said: I recognise that this is a difficult and controversial question and that we are dealing with people's livelihoods. Nevertheless, I think that this question is of key importance in the international effort to conserve Atlantic salmon, which has led to the establishment in Edinburgh of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, or NASCO.

Drift netting was banned in Scotland 23 years ago. That action was taken only in Scotland and is I think another example of our lack of a national salmon policy, which I deplore. Drift netting still continues off English and Welsh coasts. Of course, much the most important drift net fishery is that in the North-east, off the Northumberland and Yorkshire coasts. I believe that it has been a traditional fishery that has existed for many years, but for most of those years it was conducted with hemp and cotton nets and relatively limited numbers of salmon were caught—I believe something of the order of 2,000 fish a year. However, there was then an explosion in numbers after the introduction of monofilament nets in 1967 and it now takes vastly greater numbers.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Home, was right when he said at Second Reading that it was taking entirely too many fish, perhaps 30 or 40 times what it used to take in the old days. The real trouble with this fishery is the use of monofilament nets, or perhaps I should say in deference to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, multifilament fine ply nets. Monofilament nets are banned for salmon netting in Wales and it would greatly help if the Government would now ban them in England, as suggested in the excellent leading article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

My real concern is with the international aspect. There is a widespread impression, both in this country and among our friends in North America, that departments in Whitehall have not grasped the significance of the new international dimension of Atlantic salmon conservation. Maybe this is because there is no British representative on NASCO. It is another field in which we seem to have handed matters over to the EC and tended to opt out ourselves. The EC represents us on NASCO and it represents not only ourselves and the Irish, who have large quantities of fish, but also Denmark, which is like asking a buzzard to help conserve rabbits.

I should be grateful for an assurance from the Government that from now on the three departments concerned will give real attention to this international aspect of the salmon problem and that they will keep in touch with the Atlantic Salmon Trust and other bodies who are concerned with the international aspects, and ensure that our domestic policies take full account of this aspect.

As I explained on Second Reading, what we urgently need to do is to restrict the intercepting fisheries off Greenland and the Faroes, which have devastated our runs of large spring salmon. However, it became clear at the meeting of NASCO last June, that Denmark and Greenland will not consider a reduction of the Greenland quota so long as we and the Irish permit substantial drift netting for salmon at sea. So if we are to make progress, I think that we must phase out drift netting in England and Wales. I am not too much concerned about exactly how we do it. I do not think that we can ban it immediately without causing real hardship, but it would make all the difference in the world if the Government would commit themselves now to phasing out drift netting in England and Wales, so that other countries would see that in the fullness of time it was going to end. I very much hope that they will do that. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Croy

This is a new clause affecting England and Wales. I had understood that it had been intended that some other amendments, including the second Amendment 81, in the name of my noble friend Lord Burton (there being two amendments numbered 81 as a result of an error on the Marshalled List) would be considered with this amendment. If that is so, it is important because it is a question of whether we have a debate on all these amendments involving Scotland together. I should like to speak on this in any case but perhaps we could have this clarified first.

Lord Belstead

If noble Lords would not object, the Government suggested that with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 78, we might take Amendment No. 79, the second amendment marked 81, Amendments Nos. 82A, 84C, 89, 90A, 90B, 93 and 94. In other words, we would be having a debate on these amendments, although of course only Amendment No. 78 is being moved. However, if any of your Lordships wish to diverge from that, it is up to any noble Lord.

Lord Burton

With all these other excellent amendments which have been put down on the Marshalled List, I had not intended to move the second Amendment No. 81. However, while I am on my feet I should merely like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Moran, why he has "six miles" in his amendment. I should have thought we might have gone to the full sea limit, but there may be some very good reason for it.

Lord Campbell of Croy

Perhaps I may continue with my speech on that and these points will no doubt be answered in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. What I am proposing to do, and I think this is appropriate, is to go back to the very first drift netting which occurred round the British Isles, which was in Scotland, as I was a junior member of the Government at the time in the early 1960s. It is very relevant to the whole question of banning drift netting round our shores, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is suggesting.

When that began in the early 1960s, it was clear that enormous quantities of salmon were being taken, and the Hunter Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, was considering the whole question of salmon and brought out an interim report in, if my memory is right, 1962, to deal with this point because it was so urgent.

I shall just remind those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the method then used, that what had happened was this. Manmade fibre was being produced. In those days, it was simply a form of nylon. It was so strong and yet so fine that the salmon were caught, whereas before that, with the kind of drift net which had been used for herring, but with large mesh, the salmon could see the net and avoided it. But with this new substance, it was possible to catch enormous quantities of salmon. Again, a drift net could be used by one single fishing boat to extend over several miles. As the salmon at that point would be swimming near the surface, in theory one could have several fishing boats pretty well covering a huge area at the entrance to an estuary or a river mouth. That was the sudden danger which appeared really as a result of new manmade fibres.

As a result of the interim report by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and his Committee, the Government, of which as I say I was a junior member at that time, brought orders before Parliament for completely banning drift netting round the coast of Scotland. If I remember rightly, those orders had to be renewed every two years, and they have been.

When the main Hunter Report came out later, I think from memory in 1965, when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland, as he mentioned in our Second Reading debate, he then made sure that this ban was continued. It has continued ever since so far as the waters around Scotland are concerned. It was disappointing to some of the fishermen in Scotland because it was the seine net boats which mainly had been involved in turning to this new form of fishery, particularly from the coastal areas of Angus and Kincardine. Of course, they had bought quite a lot of equipment and then they had to go out of business. But on the whole it was a good thing and it was widely approved from the point of view of the conservation of salmon that it should be banned as quickly as possible.

The position in England and Wales has been different. So far as England is concerned, I think I must say that it is off the coast of Northumberland that a great many of the salmon are caught, because it has always (or anyway within living memory) been legal to use drift nets and for fishing boats to use drift nets off the coast of England by a system of licensing. It was control by licensing rather than it being completely banned. That has caused—and I do not need to remind a number of noble Lords of this—a good deal of controversy because of the fish which are thought to be going to run the Tweed and other Scottish rivers and which are thought to be caught in large numbers off the coast of Northumberland.

I am not going to pursue that because it is a matter of controversy and in the debates today and last Tuesday we have already discovered that noble Lords have different ideas of how salmon travel round our coasts. But I think that it was a reasonable deduction that some of the large numbers of salmon being caught by drift nets off the coast of Northumberland were salmon which would go up Scottish rivers.

I remind Members of the Committee of the main report, the final Hunter Report in 1965, which had as its main recommendation the one that would have been the most drastic of all: that all coastal net fishing should be abolished; that is to say, that all the nets that we have been discussing earlier in our debates in the firths and up the river mouths of various kinds should be abolished, phased out. That would have been Scotland, of course, because that is what the Hunter Report was dealing with.

The positive proposal of the Hunter Committee was that every single salmon river should have one trap; that the alternative to coastal netting would be one trap in each river, which was the device that would then control the amount of salmon being taken and in that way it would be systematic and selective. So it is worth remembering that that was the main point in the final Hunter Report. But it was a recommendation that successive governments have not followed. Quite apart from anything else, there were 3,000 or 4,000 men involved in coastal fishing and it looked as though their employment might disappear. But I think is is worth remembering that the Hunter Committee felt so strongly about the use of nets, that that was its main recommendation.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has also spoken about the fisheries off Greenland, in the oceans, in the Atlantic, and has pointed out that although international agreements have been reached with Denmark and others on the amount of salmon to be taken off Greenland and in other parts of the Atlantic, it is dependent upon what we are doing ourselves; and that other countries are less likely to agree to proposals which seem eminently suitable to us from the point of view of conservation unless we are clearly also taking action round our own coasts.

I have tried to set the scene of what has happened in Scotland since 1962. I am certain that in Scotland it has been accepted that there should be no drift netting at all in the seas round our coasts. In an earlier amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin today, drift netting was again to be banned. But that was in coastal waters and it was not clear how far it would extend. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is for a period of five years, quite clearly a probationary period, and also only for six miles. Like my noble friend Lord Burton, I should like to know from the noble Lord why six miles has been chosen. I can only say that from the point of view of the Scottish experience it would be excellent if drift netting could be banned entirely round the coast of Britain.

I recognise that there has been this traditional fishing by licence off the coast of Northumberland and that, if that is to be changed, it would have to be phased out gradually. In November, the Government answered a Written Question of mine and made a statement that it had been decided not to bring an end to drift netting off the coasts of England and Wales but to make further restrictions in the licensing. I am not sure that that is really good enough and I hope that tonight it will be possible for the Government to give a further explanation of what they have in mind. But in principle I am sure that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is right.

8.15 p.m.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I am afraid that I am not quite clear how far we have got in the list of amendments. I have amendments down, No. 82A, and No. 84C which is on the subject of drift netting. Are we taking all these together? I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the suggestion was that we should do so. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may speak to my Amendments Nos. 82A and 84C, both of which deal with the question of drift netting.

Amendment No. 82A: Clause 28, page 25, line 17, at end insert (" "drift-net" means any length of net allowed to float or drift being either attached to or released from a fishing boat and not being a length of net attached to or held on the shore;").

Amendment No. 84C: Schedule 4, page 35, line 3, at end insert—

("Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c. 51).

6A. In section 1(1)(a) there shall be inserted the sub-paragraph— (vi) a drift net.".").

I understand from my advisers that this relatively simple-appearing amendment, if accepted, would ban drift netting altogether, which is what I believe is necessary. I warned the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, that although I was able to thank him for something earlier on today, now at eighteeen minutes past eight I am going to find it very difficult to thank him (or perhaps it is my noble friend Lord Belstead) because of the most serious omission of all. I described this Bill as a wee timorous beastie. I still consider it to be a wee timorous beastie. It is a pusillanimous little Bill. We have spent hours and hours of time tinkering about with the minutiae of really a very small Bill.

The main problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said that we should address ourselves has almost been ignored. There will not be any salmon to protect unless we take very strong steps to protect them. In regard to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—and I was a little surprised by his intervention—I am convinced in my own mind that the business of poaching is secondary. It is important but it is secondary.

The really important things are involved in the over-fishing of salmon, legally. As noble Lords know, I am an angler, I am a netsman and I make money out of people who are wise enough or unwise enough to want to stay in my fishing hotel to take fishes. So I am in the thing right up to the neck. But I look upon salmon as a very important economic asset, in the first place of Scotland and in the second place of the whole of the United Kingdom. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I have bitterly regretted that Her Majesty's Government have not seen fit to have a national policy for salmon. There is no suggestion in anything that has taken place in this Chamber that Her Majesty's Government have any policy at all for salmon. That is very sad. I think that perhaps Her Majesty's Government have not taken on board the valuable asset that we have and that we are in danger of squandering and eventually destroying altogether.

There is an immensely boring book called The Atlantic Salmon by Professor Netboy which many of your Lordships may have either read or glanced at. The professor took the trouble to trace the history of the Atlantic salmon and, believe it or not, one of the greatest salmon-producing countries of Europe was France. There are now virtually no salmon at all to be caught in France, simply through lack of interest or mismanagement. There were salmon in Spain; now there are very few. There were many salmon in England; now there are very few. Mercifully, there are still salmon in Scotland but our stocks are being rapidly depleted. I do beg Her Majesty's Government to take a rather bigger view than has been taken so far, and to consider salmon fishing as an asset of the British people.

I am not just talking about noble Lords who can afford to fish for salmon: that is a thing of the past. What is happening now is what is happening in other forms of the fishing world. Fishing, I believe, is the greatest participatory sport in the United Kingdom—people fishing for pike, people fishing for perch, people fishing for trout and so on. The canals of the United Kingdom are being stocked by angling associations. The great reservoirs are being fished. It is a great national sport in which people of widely different incomes are participating. I am not just speaking for a small group and I am not just speaking because I am involved in netting or because I enjoy salmon fishing.

I believe that the salmon is an important economic asset of the United Kingdom and I believe also that fishing is a noble sport. There is plenty of room for many, many more fish than there are at present. There are thousands of miles of river in Scotland which could be developed, could be used and could be enjoyed. I should like to see that very much; but if we do not take some steps there are not going to be any fish to fish for. So all this fussing about small details really indicates to me that we seem to be missing the point. The real point is that we have to protect the salmon.

I cannot help speaking about this with quite a degree of emotion. On the one hand you have anglers and on the other hand you have estuarial netsmen: then you have the high sea fishermen. They all take their toll. In time, I am convinced that it will be necessary to think in terms of sharing this limited availability of fish so that everybody can have a go.

I am also equally convinced that the salmon, as an article of food, is going to be provided by the fish farms. They are being very successful; they are very well run and are developing fast. So the tonnage of fish produced by the fish farms will rapidly increase and I think you will have the wild salmon becoming of importance largely as a "sport" fish—a sport fish that could be enjoyed by people from all over the world and from all classes and all types in this country. It is to that that I personally am applying my mind in this debate.

I am bound to say that it seems to me that the most serious threat at the moment over which Her Majesty's Government have some control is the drift netting off Northumbria and the North of Yorkshire. I think the figures speak for themselves and I do not apologise for repeating them at this late hour. In parenthesis, I remember when I had the honour of being a member of Her Majesty's Government we used to talk about "this late hour" when it was about half-past six—and now it is nearly half-past eight.

I will just remind your Lordships of the figures. You have had them all before but I make no apology for giving them to you again. The average declared catch of the drift nets between 1950 and 1959 was 2,162 fish. Between 1970 and 1979 the average catch was 48,140. I will just repeat those figures: 2,162 between 1950 and 1959 and 48,140 between 1970 and 1979. In 1984 the figure was 77,220. Those are the declared figures. There are people who suggest that they may not be correct. About that, I cannot judge; but those are the declared figures.

To get the business into proportion, one has to relate this to the catches viewed against the total catches. For England and Wales, from 1970 to 1979 the figure was 110,600 fish. In the same period in Scotland the figure was 407,500 fish. In 1985 the figure was 100,200—it went down. In Scotland the figure was 286,000 fish. It may interest your Lordships to know that out of the 100,200 fish that were accounted for in England and Wales in 1984, no less than 77,200 were caught by the drift nets. I know that, at this time of the day, to be confronted with a whole mass of figures may be very irritating, but perhaps your Lordships will read the account in Hansard tomorrow and check the figures for yourselves. I would just repeat: 100,200 fish, out of which 77,200 fish were caught by the drift nets.

Obviously no one in his senses wants to advocate any policy which is going to increase unemployment or harm the livelihood of honest, decent people plying their trade, but, with great respect to many observations I have received, I must say I feel that some of the remarks have been sentimental and really not backed up by any sort of logical thinking or indeed by any real facts. At the most, the number of people engaged in drift netting in the North-East fisheries is—I cannot say exactly but I doubt whether it exceeds 700. These people, who engage in a perfectly legitimate and perfectly proper exercise, claim that what they are doing is something which is traditional. We have heard all along about tradition, tradition, tradition. I do not know how long it takes to make a tradition, but it seems to me that, from the figures I have given you, the "tradition" in 1950 to 1959 was to catch 2,000 fish; the "tradition" in 1984 was to catch 77,000 fish. Really, can we accept this rather sentimental argument of tradition? It is rubbish.

We know perfectly well how it was possible for these figures to have been so rapidly increased. They were increased by the introduction of the monofilament or, as I rather tiresomely suggested to your Lordships, the multifilament nylon net. That is what has made it possible. I got a delightful letter from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, quite rightly, putting their case. Among other things, they said: Fishing families on the North East coast have depended for generations upon the catching of salmon, using traditional methods.

The "traditional methods" were the hemp net, and these figures tell the whole story. The letter continues: The original nets made from hemp and cotton, suffered from mildew and rot: the slime and weed collected necessitating an inordinate amount of laborious cleaning. The much maligned monfilament nets have proved lighter, easier to handle, less susceptible to the retention of slime and weed and thankfully much safer to use"— and, of course, thankfully, much more profitable.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

May I clarify a point? My noble friend has just mentioned the national federation. I have objected to them about their name, because they represent a certain number of fishing organisations in England and Wales, but none in Scotland.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I did not wish to give the impression that they had anything to do with Scotland. They are entirely to do with England, because there is no drift netting in Scotland. This refers only to drift netting where it is legal, off the north-east coast of England.

Can we seriously believe this idea about phasing-out? That is what will be suggested this evening. Let us suppose that we were concerned with a figure of 2,162 fish. Do your Lordships think that you would be considering phasing that out? Is it not because the figure has leapt to this enormous amount that your Lordships are rather frightened about bringing in a ban? And what is it that noble Lords are frightened of? I suggest that humanitarian principles have come in and that your Lordships do not like the idea of what has been described as depriving somebody of his livelihood.

I must tell your Lordships—and if noble Lords have thought about it they will know already—that the people engaged in this drift netting are only part-time. Drift netting for salmon is only part of what they do. The average season for drift netting—it is not throughout the year but, heaven knows!, it is long enough—is this. In Northumbria, it runs from 26th March to 31st August; in North Yorkshire it runs from 1st February to 31st August; and in Scotland it runs from 11th February to 26th August. Your Lordships will see that in Scotland it is shorter than the netting season off the coast of Northumbria and North Yorkshire. It might interest some of your Lordships to know that the Tay netting season is from 5th February to 20th August.

As to the damage (if one can call it that) that is being done, perhaps your Lordships would consider these figures for a moment. Scotland East is a term of art. I have here the statistical bulletin, which is rather discreet in the way it presents the figures, so it describes the Rivers Tweed, Forth and Tay as Scotland East. The average annual catch on those rivers from 1980 to 1984 was 55,611 fish. The average annual catch from the Northumbria and North Yorkshire drift netting was 60,330. So the Northumbria and North Yorkshire drift netting fisheries accounted for more fish than the three rivers of Scotland which I have just mentioned.

There is every evidence to suggest that this interceptive fishing is catching the fish which are destined for the Scottish rivers. I do not think there has been very much argument about that. A lot of serious scientific research has been put into it, and the inference—but one must always be very careful about the movement of salmon—is that approximately 95 per cent. of the fish caught are destined for Scottish rivers. I find that unacceptable.

An organisation called NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—with which your Lordships are all familiar, is in despair about the inactivity of Her Majesty's Government. We go on complaining, but what do we do about it ourselves? Nothing. Quotas are being imposed on other countries and accepted, but what do we do? Nothing. What will certainly happen is that, being so distressed by our inactivity—they know well all the figures I have given—they will not play. The Norwegian Government were prepared to take further steps to limit the fisheries, but if we do nothing they will not take those steps and the next thing that will happen is that the quotas will be increased. What I am trying to convey to your Lordships is that there is not a great deal of time, and I doubt very much whether this phasing-out idea is wise. I do not think there is time for phasing-out.

It has occurred to me that, if Her Majesty's Government are so concerned with the livelihood of these honest men who are doing drift netting, we might consider some means whereby they could be recompensed and bought out. I am not a very good mathematician, but I have done some calculations and it looks to me as though, if you bought them out at five years' purchase of the known catches, it would not cost much more than about £2 million. When we are talking about a great national industry, £2 million is not a great deal of money.

I look upon this very seriously, and I feel that there is a terrible danger. We have gone on and on about the minutiae of a very pusillanimous little Bill, and we are overlooking the main issue, which is an attempt to conserve a very valuable and continuing asset.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

If the noble Marquess were to press his amendments I should have to find myself in the opposite Lobby, and for that I shall give reasons in a moment. There are two reasons why drift netting should be brought to an end. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has told us the history of the Hunter Report, and that was one of their recommendations. The first reason is that the modern gear of the present drift netter is such that the nets are intercepting far too many salmon which would otherwise breed in Scottish rivers. I do not differ at all from my noble friend in that assessment. Drift netting on the north-east coast of England employs some families, and they can justly claim it to be traditional. It is their gear which is not traditional. That has changed out of all knowledge.

The second reason, as my noble friend Lord Moran has said, is that if the Atlantic salmon is to be preserved other countries will have to accept restrictions. It is becoming clear, for example, that Greenland, the Faroes and Denmark, in particular, Greenland and the Faroes, are becoming restive because we in this country have not so far done anything about it. They have their ceilings. They are beginning to question their ceilings and will do so increasingly if we do not act in our own home waters. Having said that, because of the rather special history of drift netting in North-East England, I do not believe that it would be either fair or practical to apply an abrupt cut-off. I am sure of that.

It is simply not practical politics now. It is not that a great number are involved. I would accept my noble friend's estimate of about 700 being involved in this business. But when unemployment is such a sensitive matter, I do not believe that a cut-off at this time is an option. Politics is the art of the possible; as we know, so is legislation. Therefore I feel that we should not go for the cut-off but for the phase-out with, I hope, a pledge by the Government that in future they will take further action about the phase-out.

With respect, I would differ from my noble friend about the actions that the Government propose. My noble friend described them, I think, as little details. The eight hour reduction in the netting at night will be very valuable. The provision that the owner of the boat has to be on it when it goes to sea and that he cannot just send off somebody else in it will be another effective action. The fixed week-end closure is another. These three provisions are a valuable start to what I hope will be an increasingly rapid phase-out.

I should like the Government to make a positive statement that after three years, when they have had time to assess the results of the initial phase-out, they will make proposals to carry this on further, particularly by not renewing licences when anybody retires. When a licence holder retires or dies, that licence could not be renewed. It would not take very long, with those measures, to phase-out drift netting altogether within, let us say, possibly five or 10 years.

Those are the considerations that I have in mind. Though I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansdowne in his assessment of the gravity of the situation in relation to the Atlantic salmon, I would not have a cut-off now.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Ross of Mamock

I do not want to delay the Committee to any great extent; but on Second Reading I gave voice to my own personal feeling that we had to tackle the question of drift netting sooner or later. Whether it should be done, as we did it in Scotland, almost instantaneously, or whether it should be phased out is a matter of judgment. It was easy for us to do it because it was new in Scotland, but I accept the point from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that it is all very well to talk about a traditional form of fishing when it is traditional with very modern tackle. The difficulty is the actual take. The noble Marquess mentioned the figure of 77,000 against 2,000 over the same relative periods.

I am concerned about how this will be felt internationally by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Suppose we did stop it right away: what will happen to those 77,000 salmon? Will it assist in any way with conservation if we leave as it is the ability to catch by the netsman at the estuary? I can see the advantages for them right away. It is a pure commercial advantage if the salmon are going into the Scottish rivers. I think the suggestion was that about 97 per cent. of them (I have seen that figure) or 95 per cent. would if not drift netted successfully have gone into them. But what percentage of those that get in to the estuary actually get to the upper streams where they breed? It would be a very considerable increase and bonus—indeed a bonanza—for the netsman if we leave it there.

I am concerned—and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, proclaimed his concern—for the aspects of conservation. If we are going to conserve, and if we are going to do the kind of things we expect the Greenlanders, the people in the Faroes, the Norwegians and everybody else to do, we have to go easy ourselves and make our contribution. I shall be the first to agree fully to the cut-offs and to the stopping of the drift netting if we can ensure that we do not then proceed to accept that the netsmen can have their 90 per cent. share of what is left, with very little going upstream.

That is the challenge. Is it a challenge of quotas or something else? The Government have to make up their mind to look at this from the point of view of salmon conservation, not just from the point of view of drift netting but what follows if you stop drift netting. Will you get the aspect of conservation that you need? I leave it to the Government to try to sort it out for us. The noble Lord the Minister will be a better man than I am or anybody else if he succeeds in satisfying everyone, but we must make a start on that.

Viscount Trenchard

I should like to add a brief word. We have conflicting problems here. The urgency which my noble friend Lord Lansdowne stressed is very great indeed. At Second Reading I pointed out that the statistics are not necessarily related to the size of the stock, and that there is a very strong thesis which suggests that if the catch now, with all these modern nets about which we have been talking, which my noble friend uses as well as the driftnetsman, is down by half, the stock is down a great deal further.

The other urgency, which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned, is that internationally we shall not keep the agreements if we do not do a little more a little more quickly. Contributions large and small are important. Drift netting has to make a large contribution because of the proportion of catch, which the noble Marquess has stressed. The nets also have to make a contribution. I make no apology for putting down the next amendment, Amendment No. 78ZA, with that in mind. It involves a contribution from anglers as well. Small contributions are important psychologically, if we are to ask people to deal with an urgent problem faster than their self-interest would like them to do.

I want to stress one other point in case it is in the Government's mind. There is still loose talk to the effect that salmon farming will so bring down the price of salmon that this will save the wild salmon and make it uneconomic for the driftnetters and others to go after them. Anybody who has looked at salmon farming margins at the moment will realise that that is not so. Such is the ease of handling these very light nets and the driftnets that the catching of wild salmon will continue to be profitable using the kind of modern gear that is available. Like my noble friend Lord Home, and notwithstanding the fact that I am a phase-out man, I think we have to phase-out faster even than he thinks. My noble friend mentioned five or 10 years. I cannot see much hope of that happening unless we push it and unless we take the suggestion of the noble Marquess that we consider compensation together with a phase-out so that the phase-out can be fairly fast.

I have one final point. There has been a great deal of stress upon the traditional aspect of the north-east fishery. Obviously that is correct. Drift nets of hemp on cork have been there for a long while. But the drift netting that is going on around the south-west coast of Britain is, so far as I am aware, new—or if there was any drift netting, it was so insignificant that it is not true. Thus in terms of a ban that affects England and Wales, the traditional problem of the livelihood of the father and son, and all the rest, is in the north-east. A little compensation could lead to an ability to phase out drift netting fast enough to save the salmon. I say that that really must be done in five years.

Lord Tryon

I have probably attacked drift netting as often as anybody over the past three or four years—on at least every opportunity that the subject has been raised in your Lordships' House. Certainly I had plenty to say about the matter when we were debating the Second Reading. I shall try not to repeat what I said on that occasion. I have also crossed out the vast majority of the points that I had intended to make tonight because the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, has made them all.

I have just one or two points left to make. To pick up on the question of tradition, that is almost the only argument that the drift netters are using, although I will deal with one or two others in a moment. I agree with the noble Marquess that that argument is complete nonsense. As I said on Second Reading, the difference between the almost accidental catch of 2,000 fish in the 1950s is not something that anyone would begrudge. I cannot believe that people were even fishing for them because a mere 2,000 salmon does not give any number of people a living. But the 70,000-odd fish that are caught now is 35 times that number. That is a staggering increase. It is traditional for this House to have about 1,300 Members. If our membership suddenly increased to 40,000 we would find life here rather different.

The difference between a drift net and the old-fashioned heavy net is like that between an old bicycle and Concorde. They need totally different rules and regulations. The drift netters claim in the letter that I, too, have received that they are helping to stop poaching. They argue that there is a mass of illegal fishing off the coast of Scotland but that the situation is better off the north-east coast of England because the drift netters are helping to police the area. They may have a small point, but it is a pretty poor country that cannot enforce its own laws. I hope that we are not reaching the stage where we are expecting volunteer vigilantes in the form of licensed drift netters to police our laws. We still seem to have a navy and an air force, and the river boards have boats that can undertake some patrolling. Those fish are enormously valuable.

The most difficult aspect of this whole question is that of employment. There is no doubt that there are 500 or 600 people—a figure of 700 was mentioned—who derive part of their income from drift netting for salmon. I understand that most of them catch other fish as well. I simply do not know what the effect on employment would be of a ban today, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell the Committee.

I am sure there was some unemployment when drift nets were phased out off the coast of Scotland. Unemployment has been created in the fishing industry for a variety of other reasons from time to time. I have no axe to grind other than that of somebody who likes salmon fishing on holidays. I am even sensible or silly enough to take salmon fishing from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, from time to time. But that is my only interest in salmon fishing, even though the National Federation of Fishermen accuse some of us of having other reasons for taking the line that we do.

My strong feeling is that with proper conservation more jobs will be created in the valleys of Scotland over the years than will ever be lost in this little north-east drift net fishery. I am sure that that is the case. One cannot prove it. One hears that some 35,000 people are involved in the rod-fishing industry in one way or another. That totally dwarfs anything that we are talking about in the way of drift netters. One has only to drive up to the Spey valley in the spring, in March, to see that there are no tourists there. It is as cold as can be. Apart from a few people heading up to the ski slopes beyond, the hotels are full of fishermen. There is almost nobody else there apart from the peope who work in the distilleries and what-have-you. The tourist industry in all those valleys is totally dependent on fishermen staying at those hotels. I am sure that, with proper conservation, salmon will provide more employment than will ever be lost from a more or less immediate ban.

I am a naive—politically—Cross-Bencher. We have heard about the art of the possible from the noble Lord, Lord Home, and I listened carefully to what he said. My strong feeling is that we should at least seek from the Government an assurance that drift net fishing will be very heavily reduced over the next five years, as an absolute maximum. It may be impossible to achieve that which the noble Marquess wants to achieve. If he pressed his point of view I would probably go with him, but I believe it might be wiser to try to phase out drift netting over a short period of time. I hope that we shall receive some encouragement on that front.

The Earl of Perth

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home, that this must be undertaken on the basis of phasing out the practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, has just said, it is important that the Government should say, "We're going to do it, but we'll do it over a period of time". The noble Lord, Lord Ross, rightly asked about the netsmen and commented that they are going to do very much better.

At some time or another in this debate the word "compensation" has been used. I would not have thought that it was beyond the skill of the Government to talk with the National Federation of Fishermen and say, "We must do a deal. Over the next few years, your federation must recognise that this practice will have to be totally phased out. But we don't want hardship and we acknowledge that netsmen and so forth may do very much better. So we'll impose a quota on netsmen and for a period of time, anything over and above that quota will be to your advantage and to your credit".

I do not have the scheme exactly right but if the Government will only say that they will work on such a scheme, and will make a commitment to allowing a period of time, at the end of which the nets will go, then I for one would feel satisfied. The idea of saying that it must finish today is just not on, politically or in any other way.

The Earl of Dundee

I should like very briefly to add my support to those noble Lords who are in favour of phasing our English drift nets, as distinct from abolishing them straight away and in favour of compensating the fishermen who have been phased out. Clearly there is a very strong case for doing that, although on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Gray said that there was insufficient evidence for going beyond the various restrictive measures affecting drift nets recently announced by the Government.

Admittedly the connection cannot be precisely demonstrated between increasing drift net catches and depleted numbers in Scottish rivers and estuaries. However, as my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has already remarked, annual drift net salmon catches are now up to 77,000. Thirty years ago the comparable figure was about 2,000, and it is estimated that more than 94 per cent. of those fish then and now are of Scottish origin. Therefore, if drift nets were to be discontinued there are good grounds for believing that a significant and even dramatic improvement would result in Scottish waters.

9 p.m.

Then there is the effect internationally which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. If we are seen to phase out our own interceptory fisheries there is a far greater chance that our voice will be heeded when we argue in favour of conservation through the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the EC; while conversely, it is now all the more difficult to achieve proper quotas and control of salmon catches in other areas where these fish are intercepted such as off Greenland and the Faroes.

Regarding fair treatment for English drift net fishermen, a five-year period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, during which fishing continues but no new licences are issued is surely a reasonable timetable. Equally, in the context of our present discussions and the main purpose of this Bill, a Government scheme of financial compensation to the relatively few fishermen involved, if implemented, would surely be a very small price to pay.

Lord Burton

Several noble Lords have referred to our international reputation. Important as this is, I think that what is really important is that these fisheries are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. This fishing will not continue at the present rate of 77,000, or whatever it is, because there is a seven-year cycle of fish coming back; and there has already been a few years of it. I have little doubt at all that in a very few years the numbers of fish they are catching will drop materially.

A noble Lord

It has already started.

Lord Burton

It has already started. That is very possible.

The so-called National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—several noble Lords have had a letter from it—referred to the north-east. I immediately thought that it was talking about Aberdeen and then discovered it was Northumberland. The letter talks about conservation but what has not been mentioned tonight, and certainly was not mentioned by the organisation, is that these drift nets let go an enormous number of fish which are damaged. These go into our rivers and cause disease and that is the very worst possible thing for conservation.

There is the employment problem, as several noble Lords have said, and clearly we must phase out; but we must phase out rapidly—certainly after five or six years. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard. That is the absolute maximum. It must run down very quickly or there will be very serious damage to our national interests.

Lord Biddulph

I must stress again the international implications. For 1984 the total Tweed salmon catch was reduced by 59 per cent. while other eastern coastal rivers increased their catches slightly. I am sure this is to be attributed to the Northumbria fishery. I cannot think it could be anything else.

As to the international aspects which I consider to be so important, although this Bill obviously is extremely welcome it does little to conserve salmon. A total ban on drift-netting will, I am sure, achieve this over a phase-out period. I would think that is probably the best idea. Internationally this Bill cuts no ice. I know that several noble Lords have mentioned that NASCO is under strong pressure from Greenland and the Faroes for salmon producing countries to put their own house in order before agreeing to further quotas and, it is to be hoped, reductions in those quotas.

I repeat what I said in my maiden speech on Second Reading. I referred to NASCO, which is the operating mechanism of the new international treaty. Its principal objective is the reduction of interceptions by one nation of salmon originating in another nation's river. The difficulty is to persuade the signatory nations that to begin to undertake these interceptions, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, conservation begins at home. But who starts the process, thereby setting an example?

Last year's deliberations of the West Greenlands Commission underline the problem. Denmark, in respect of Greenland, said that before there can be consideration of a further reduction in the already reduced 870 tonne quota for Greenland the commission would need to reach an understanding and define a fair sharing of the burden of conservation. There cannot really be anything wrong in that. I repeat what I said on Second Reading: I said that Article 9 of the Treaty provides, in part, that, A Commission shall take into account the efforts of states of origin to implement and enforce measures for the conservation, restoration and enhancement and rational management of salmon stocks in their rivers and areas of fisheries jurisdiction.". Denmark requests that other members, consistent with the provisions of the treaty, make specific unilateral commitments for conservation measures similar to her own. Canada has taken drastic reductions in angling limits and commercial netting; and drift netting is banned. The United States of America prohibits the taking of fish by all means other than angling. They have also taken measures to prohibit the sale of salmon. They have spent 160 million dollars over a period of 10 years on their fisheries and the enhancement of their salmon rivers and stocks. We cannot claim anything like that in this country. I am not sure that we spend anything.

However, drift-netting is banned in Iceland and there is very little river-netting there. It would seem to me that surely now it is the EC's turn to satisfy Denmark that member states producing Atlantic salmon in large numbers are undertaking measures to comply with Article 9 and such measures as the elimination of, or substantial reductions in, drift-netting and netting by fixed engine, and so on. The EC is not forthcoming with assurances and it is quite easy to see why. How could it be, when the United Kingdom and Ireland are still uncommitted to reducing these abuses?

The United Kingdom has always been in the forefront of salmon conservation and legislation. Latterly, the Government have been dragging their feet. Now we have a great opportunity to put this right. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said in his speech that we should grasp the nettle firmly. I feel that the introduction of this clause will enable us to do just that, and I support it.

Lord Belstead

I have listened carefully to the speeches which noble Lords have made this evening and have learned a good deal from them. One word of caution was uttered by my noble friend Lord Home, and it was repeated by several of your Lordships, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, among them. It was a word of caution which touches upon the effect of this amendment, for though it is the case that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, speaks of a transitional period of five years, of course as salmon drift net fishing licences are valid for one season only, under this amendment the drift net fisheries would in fact all be closed by the end of the first year.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I make the familiar point—and I shall not make it again—that the right to fish for salmon and sea trout around our coastal waters goes back to the days of Magna Carta. However, nowadays it is a right which is much restricted. All forms of netting for salmon and sea trout are licensed by water authorities and are strictly controlled by them as regards the number of people who may fish, the dimensions and construction of the nets which they may use—I know that your Lordships feel deeply about that, and I understand why—and the times when they may fish. It is a fact that, where there has been evidence that drift netting is posing an obvious threat to stocks, water authorities have proposed restrictions. It is not the case that nothing has been done. For instance, while there was certainly some increase in drift net licensing in Northumbria in the 1960s, since 1971 the number of licences has been halved from 242 to 121 licences; and in Yorkshire the number of licences has dropped from 38 to 29 over the last seven years.

Regarding the English north east coast fishery, as your Lordships will know, the Government have only recently completed a very lengthy review of that fishery, and we concluded that we did not believe there was a case on conservation grounds for terminating the fishery. However, we decided that it should be further restricted. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Home for mentioning some of the restrictions; and though my noble friend made it quite clear that he wished to see the phasing-out of the fishery, he was generous in what he said about believing that these restrictions would have an effect.

Very briefly, I ask your Lordships to consider the following measures: that the licensed fisherman must be present when his net is fished except when the water authority is satisfied that he is physically unable to be there owing to illness or injury (I shall not conceal from your Lordships that this requirement has already drawn from fishermen some reaction about the effect that it will have); that the drift-net fishery should be closed for eight hours at night (at the moment the fisheries are not closed at night at all); that the week-end closed periods for salmon and sea trout should be standardised on the longest period now in force (this means that they will be closed from six o'clock in the evening on Friday until six o'clock in the morning on the following Monday); and that steps should be taken to change the balance of fishing effort from drift nets to the inshore fixed nets known as T or J nets—and I am advised that proposals for this have come forward from both the Northumbria authority and the Yorkshire authority.

The preparatory work for these measures is in hand, and it is our intention to bring these measures into effect as soon as the statutory procedures can be completed. I very much hope that in most of those cases this will mean during 1986. I repeat that these measures are expected to have a significant effect on the level of the fishery. We have received representations from local fishermen who believe that their catches will be seriously affected.

This perhaps allows me to mention two other aspects underlying the Government's attitude to the fishery. First—and your Lordships have been very open and, I think, very thoughtful in putting this point—there is the fact that it is of economic importance to an area which is going through a very difficult time. I realise that the entire income of those who are fishing does not come from salmon, but as I understand it we are talking about a general mixed fishery and we are talking about it in an area in the United Kingdom with one of the highest rates of unemployment. We feel strongly that it would be wrong utterly to deny that source of livelihood to the fishing community at the present time unless there were no other way to conserve stocks.

Moreover—and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, will forgive me; I know that he does not want me to say this—the existence of a legally controlled fishery has been of help to the water authorities in combating illegal netting. That has been shown in case after case where prosecutions have followed information supplied by licensed fishermen.

After the most careful consideration the Government have concluded that the right approach to that fishery is not to ban it but to tighten the controls in the ways that I have described. Those controls must be given a chance to work. From an international point of view other countries must give them a chance to work. Members of the Committee have asked me for an assurance as to how the Government see the future. We have previously given an assurance, and I repeat it now, that we shall review the position after three years' experience. We shall clearly have to take into account all the aspects put forward this evening. I ask your Lordships' Committee to accept that way forward, and I hope that after my reply the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Moran

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I think that in one respect he has misunderstood the wording of my amendment. It reads: no new licence shall be issued, and no existing licence renewed. But what I meant to say, and I probably drafted it clumsily, was that no new licence should be issued to any new fisherman and no new licence to any existing fisherman. I did not mean simply the annual licence. I was thinking not in terms of phasing out in one year but in five.

I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Burton and Lord Campbell of Croy, why I said six miles. There is no significance in that. I simply attempted to define English and Welsh coastal waters, but probably there are good reasons why there should be another figure. I must confess that I rather agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. If there is ultimately to be a phasing out of that fishery, there should be some cutting down by everyone else. For example, in 1983 other forms of net in Scotland took a total of some 189,000 salmon. I think that it would be reasonable in the interests of conservation for everyone to cut down a bit.

I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. I should be happy to have any form of phasing out as long as ultimately the end result was that the intercepting fishery should cease. In terms of his reply I do not see how we shall be able to exercise our influence internationally to get Greenland and Faroese fisheries reduced, which is what I want to do. The Minister did not respond to my point about the need for Whitehall to take on board the international aspects of the problem and discuss them with all concerned. Perhaps he would care to say a word about that.

Lord Belstead

I was asking your Lordships to give the new rules a chance to work, but in what was perhaps too brief an aside I said that other countries ought to give the new rules a chance to work also. Let us not forget that there is a substantial drift net fishery off the coast of Ireland, and, as I understand it, another off the coast of Newfoundland. We are not alone.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and many other noble Lords, made a point which I take on board: we need to show internationally that we are moving in the right direction. There has been a reduction in the number of licences in past years, and I gave the figures. Among the tighter controls which I sought to describe there is a move off the Northumbrian and Yorkshire coasts for a further reduction in drift net fishing and a substitution of T and J nets. There are also the effects of the other controls, not least the very draconian effects of closure of the fisheries at night and for the whole of weekends. I hope that the message of what we are doing in that way will be put forward in the international forum—I am sure that it will be—by the British representatives in NASCO.

Viscount Trenchard

Before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, makes clear what he wants to do, I would ask my noble friend to consider before the next stage of the Bill whether he cannot give any statement along the lines of that requested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth—that it is the intention to phase out ultimately. I feel that unless we do that our chances of bringing the Irish under control—my noble friend mentioned the Irish problems—let alone continuing to make progress on high seas netting overall, will be very small. I wonder whether my noble friend is prepared to consider the possibility of the Government saying something further at Report stage. If he is not able to do so and if the noble Lord, Lord Moran, were to get his wording correct on licences and re-table his amendment, I would support it.

Lord Belstead

I do not believe that your Lordships wish this to go on much longer. I have given an assurance that we shall review the position after three years' experience. I indicated to the Committee that I had listened to the argument, meaning that I had listened to what had been said about it on all sides, that one would need, in reviewing the matter after three years' experience, to look at it in the round from every point of view. The message coming from your Lordships is clear. I am afraid, however, that this evening I cannot go further on behalf of the Government than I have gone.

The Earl of Perth

Before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, decides what to do, I hope that at the end of the three years, if it is to be a three-year period, the Government will not simply say that the catch has gone down from, say, 77,000 to 70,000. It must go relatively considerably further. How to decide that is a question of judgment. The fact is that the catch is going down already due to over-fishing. So it has to be something more. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, used the words "in the round". That means, if I understand it correctly, that the reduction will be taken in relation to the overall position on salmon and that it will not simply be claimed that the amount has gone down a little. That may mean nothing.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I do not know whether my amendment still stands. I presume that it does. I should like to make one or two observations about what my noble friend Lord Belstead has said. Of course I welcome the idea that the licensee is obliged to be on board when his net is working. We have heard nothing about how the Government propose to enforce this regulation. It requires thinking about. I wonder whether I can attract the attention of my noble friend Lord Belstead. It is a point to which he may wish to reply. I was referring to the licensee being obliged to be on board while his net is working. That has to be enforced. Is it going to be enforced by the other licensees?

Apparently Her Majesty's Government are not capable of enforcing difficult laws and have to leave it to members of the profession to police the coast. That was a dreadful admission, I thought. I was horrified by the reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon. It seems quite extraordinary. We have the fishery protection squadron that has been plying up and down the coast of Scotland with great success. There has been a very considerable reduction. The drift netters were going out of their own area and up off the coast of Scotland. That has been brought completely to a stop. The fishery protection squadron is perfectly capable of also policing the Northumbrian and the North Yorkshire coast. This argument therefore that Her Majesty's Government are incapable of enforcing a law seems to me absolutely dreadful.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made great play with the week-end closed period. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I do not know whether he knows all about this. The week-end closed period is not something new; it has been going on all the time. All that has been brought in now is uniformity. Only very small areas of the coastline with which we are concerned were different from the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. period. That is a sop and nothing more. I am not in the least impressed by that.

I am asking the noble Lord to tell me how he proposes to enforce this regulation that the captain—licensee—is always on board. Will he have a great army of people there to ensure the moment they touch down that the licensee is there? How will he do it? Do not let us be in the least impressed by this closed period. It existed before; and a tiny alteration has been made.

Very little has been said about the other arrange-ments which apparently will happen. We shall take away one thing and put in another.

The Northumbrian Water Authority has sought an order permitting the use … of 'T' nets in the Southern area, where they are currently banned, and their request has been accepted". That is another form of netting which will take place.

The Authority is to study the structure of its licence duties with a view to offering financial inducement to fishermen who may be prepared to use only these fixed nets". That is quite important, but I do not see why all this should be a question for the water authority. Why cannot Her Majesty's Government do something about it? This is a national matter. It is not a matter for local water authorities. I am horrified that that is the way in which it is being treated.

The only satisfaction which I have from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is that he is undertaking to review the effects of the new arrangements after they have been in operation for three years. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in asking what will a review mean? We have to have some kind of satisfaction. We have to have more than an undertaking from her Majesty's Government that they will review something. What we want to know is that something important will happen; that the decimation of salmon stocks will be reduced.

If I may speak for one moment longer, I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—of course I do. In the end, what will happen? Inevitably, there will have to be a system of quotas. There are too many people chasing too few fish. In the end the commercial netsmen—of whom I am one—will have to accept quotas; and anglers—of whom I am also one—will have to accept quotas. One already has this in the United States of America. If one fishes in the Yukon in Alaska one will find that one is allowed to kill only three fish. People go so far as to fish with barbless hooks so that they can easily disengage the fish and put it back in the river without hurting it. The quota system is almost inevitably bound to come. But what I am concerned with—and I wish that the Government were as concerned as I am—is the preservation of a great national asset and something which is of vital economic importance to my country, Scotland.

I am unable to withdraw my amendment unless I can have a rather more serious assurance than I have had so far from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.

Lord Belstead

Very briefly, the water authorities do enforce these rules. I was simply reminding the Committee that it had been to the advantage of conservation generally that there were people in the licensed fishery who, in case after case, had brought to the attention of the authorities that illegal fishing had been taking place. So far as coastal protection is concerned, the Northumbrian Authority has its own protection vessel; and the authorities all have in-shore protection vessels. The reason why this is a matter for water authorities is that Parliament in the 1975 Act placed the responsibility on the water authorities for conserving and regulating salmon and fresh water fisheries. So far as an undertaking from me is concerned, I am afraid that I can say no more.

9.30 p.m.

Viscount Ridley

I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Lansdowne—whose speech we all admired—whether he can tell us what is the weekly close time on the River Tay and now does it compare with the drift netting fishery that we have been discussing?

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I think that I can answer that question because I wrote it down this morning. The Tay slaps at 12 noon on Saturday until 6 a.m. on Monday. In the case of my own company, one boat crew fishes for 40 hours per week; one shift does eight hours a day. That is what happens on my own river. I think you will find that it will be possible for the drift netters to fish for very much longer hours; I think that they will manager 60 hours. Does that answer the noble Viscount's question?

Viscount Ridley

The point is that the weekly close time in the sea is 60 hours, and not 42.

The Earl of Perth

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said that he cannot go any further in his undertaking. I find that a rather unhappy situation because he merely says that the Government will review it at the end of three years. Review it to what end? If the noble Lord were to say, "We shall review it and if there is not a substantial reduction by the various methods that we are going to introduce, we undertake then to take further measures," I would go along with him. However, just to say that they will take certain measures and will then review the situation, is to give no undertaking at all.

Lord Belstead

We are going over the same ground again and again. I said that we would review it taking the matter in the round. Obviously—probably first and foremost—we would have to review it from the conservation point of view. We would have to look surely to see whether the effects of the drift netting fishery were affecting conservation. I do not think that I can go further than that this evening. An assurance of a three-year review is something which the Government have already given. I am only repeating it this evening. I am sorry, but I cannot go further than that.

Lord Burton

Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask him how he intends to assess what effect it is having on conservation.

Lord Belstead

I think that perhaps for the last time I shall say that I have said all that I can say.

Lord Moran

So far as my own amendment is concerned, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have supported me. I find myself in complete agreement with all that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said this evening. I have listened with very great care to what the Minister has said and I understand very well the drift of his argument.

However, I have not failed to notice tonight that the view of the Committee seems to be almost unanimous that his fishery should end in due course. There is obviously a difference of opinion between those of us who think that it should be phased out over a period and those who think that it should be stopped at once. However, I do not think that a single noble Lord has taken the line that it should continue.

I have agreed that my amendment is defective in parts and so I am prepared to withdraw it. However, I propose to re-introduce it at the Report stage. I hope very much that before then the Government will agree to go some way to meet the strong views which have been expressed in all parts of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 78ZA: After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:

("Prohibition of netting.

.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales may, if requested to do so by the appropriate water authority, temporarily prohibit all netting operations, when either the flow of a particular river has dropped below the prescribed flow for seven consecutive days or more, or when such a river has run below one-seventh of its annual average flow for seven consecutive days.

(2) For such application to succeed the Ministers must be assured that in the opinion of the appropriate water authority there is risk of an undue further diminution of the stock of salmon in such river if netting were to contimue.

(3) The ban shall be lifted not later than 48 hours after the river concerned rises above the levels mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(4) The Ministers may also, in the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above and when such netting ban is in force, ban worm-fishing and/or prawn-fishing and/or spinning by anglers with rod and line. Fishing by artificial fly shall not be affected. Such a ban may only be made on the recommendation of the appropriate water authority.").

The noble Viscount said: I shall not keep your Lordships, and I shall withdraw this amendment at this late hour because I do not think your Lordships have a stomach for much more. We had a long discussion on this issue in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, and we had a unanimous view from those who spoke except for two noble Lords on the extreme north coast of Scotland who have rivers which run straight into the sea. As a result of that discussion I thought that we still need an amendment, not least to show that both the legal estuary nets are prepared to make a contribution towards conservation and also that the anglers are prepared to do so.

There is no doubt in any knowledgeable person, as we found when we discussed this before, that those rivers with long estuaries, and often with three or four individual rivers running into the same estuary, collect salmon which go up and down, and an overcropping situation takes place in drought. In England and Wales we are fortunate in that in most of the cases involving these rivers the water authorities have fixed prescribed flow levels (I am not sure whether "prescribed" is right or whether it is "proscribed") which are used often to control the degree of extraction, or compensation water, when the river goes down to a certain level and no net abstraction can take place.

In the rivers where these may not yet have been fixed—and I believe they are required to be fixed—I have suggested that one-seventh of the annual average flow be the level to trigger consideration by the water authority. The consideration would only be given, and a recommendation to the Minister would only take place, if the water authority—the most knowledgeable body that there is; much more knowledgeable than the drought review which my noble friend mentioned last time—believe that a further undue diminution of the stock of salmon in such a river was likely if netting continued.

I have to use those words because in so many of them the stock has been going down anyway, and we ought to be doing much more than this. The ban would last only while the river was flowing at those low conditions if the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Wales agreed.

During those bans it would be within the water authority's power to prevent certain methods of fishing when the water has gone down extremely low, Putting a worm in front of the nose of the fish can be a good way of removing him. You can see them all, and it is done. I know it was done in Wales when I used to fish in Lord Moran's river. Prawn fishing can get them so frightened that they take a snatch in the end, and even spinning can produce foul hookery. What I have suggested here is that this kind of provision would not run any of the risks that the two noble Lords who have North Scotland rivers foresaw. It would only be applied when the most knowledgeable people in the game recommended it.

The drought review officials—for whom I confess I still have not seen the terms of reference—I imagine will be taking evidence from the water authorities. We already know what the water authorities think about this situation in many cases, and what we suggest here is that we short circuit things and do not wait another two years while the stock dwindles, and we make a contribution towards salmon conservation, set an example, and make it easier for the Government to take a few more steps in the kind of direction we have been discussing for the last two hours before dealing with this amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Ridley

As I spoke at length on Tuesday night on this matter, I will not say any more except to congratulate my noble friend Lord Trenchard on not being defeated and returning to the charge. It is an important issue. It must apply to the whole kingdom, and I hope and believe that at the next stage of this Bill we shall be able to produce an amendment which enables the Government to take time to think how they can get round this and achieve some kind of legislative position which enables the authorities in each river area to do something about low water flows. I believe this House has demonstrated, beyond any further need for proof, that something must be done in this respect. I beg to support this amendment.

Lord Belstead

I have listened with care to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and indeed I also congratulate him not only on not being defeated but also on bringing a new element into the discussion in subsection (1) of this new clause. On the other hand, my noble friend will forgive me if I remind him that this was a matter which was discussed over a period of very nearly an hour two days ago. The Committee did not agree on it. The Government, in the person of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, were as helpful as they could be; he said that he would take it away and, without commitment, would look at it carefully and come back at the next stage.

I hope my noble friend Lord Trenchard will not think I am being unhelpful when I say that I really do not think I can go very much further than that, except that in the consideration of the matter by the Scottish Office I shall ask my noble friend Lord Gray if he will consult with me or whether I may consult with him, so that we can look at it from both points of view, from each side of the Border. I hope my noble friend Lord Trenchard will feel that that is a fair reply to an interesting amendment, which, however, I do not think we can take very much further this evening.

Baroness White

No doubt the Minister will consult with the Welsh Office and the Welsh Water Authority.

Viscount Trenchard

I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming that coming back at the next stage is a definite commitment and is not overtaken by the commitment that his noble friend and mine gave on the last occasion in relation to the drought review. I was not in my own mind clear as to whether the drought review was to be the be-all and end-all, with nothing before that, or whether the Minister's preparedness to take away the view of the Committee and consider it for the next stage was equally important. On the grounds that it is equally important, which my noble friend has just mentioned, I agree to withdraw the amendment tonight—with the one remark. I do not think either of my noble friends should put too much emphasis on two speeches, out of I think probably about 20 the last time we discussed this, in relation to this matter. There was utter unanimity except for two proprietors who own netting rights as well as fishing rights.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 [Removal of differential penalties under Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975]:

[Amendment No. 78A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 78B: Page 24, leave out columns (3) and (4) in lines 29 to 38 and insert—

("(a) If not acting with another, summarily Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
(b) If acting with another,
(i) Summarily Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
(ii) On indictment Two years or a fine or both.
(a) If not acting with another, summarily Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
(b) If acting with another,
(i) Summarily Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
(ii) On indictment Two years or a fine or both.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 27 refers to a schedule in the 1975 Act in connection with offences and, as I understand it, simply removes the facility for magistrates' courts to treat Section 1 offences (that is about illegal implements) and Section 27 offences (that is fishing without a licence) under the quick provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, whereby defendants pleading guilty can do so by correspondence.

While Section 1 offences are usually associated with other more serious indictable offences, Section 27 is so widely cast as to draw in less serious offences. Indeed, many water authorities, for example Thames, do not have a salmon fishing licence and the clause and offence as stated would make coarse fishing without a licence an indictable offence in every case, much to the annoyance of the courts.

As at present drafted, as I see it, a small boy fishing for gudgeon in the Thames without a licence would apparently be commiting an indictable offence, which is surely ludicrous. It would also generate a great deal of court work for bailiffs and legal staff and, in the long term, may be a deterrent to prosecution. Thus I have suggested, at the request of the Water Authorities Association some alternative wording. I believe the Minister was good enough to say that he had something to offer on this. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Belstead

Clause 27 removes the present distinction in the 1975 Act between offenders acting alone and those acting together because that particular distinction is no longer considered relevant to the seriousness of the offence being committed. Clause 26 is drafted so that it does not differentiate between persons acting alone or together in relation to the new handling offence. However, the noble Lord has hit on a problem in this particular amendment and we recognise that Clause 27 as drafted presents a problem in that some simple angling offences—fishing without a rod licence or the kind of offence that the noble Lord mentioned—would be triable either summarily by magistrates or on indictment by Crown Courts.

We accept that it is not necessary to provide for trial on indictment in such cases. We therefore propose to bring forward an amendment to that part of Clause 27 which relates to offences under Section 27 of the 1975 Act to the effect that offences committed with rod and line will be triable summarily while offences committed with other fishing instruments will be triable either summarily or on indictment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will feel that that goes far enough to meet the case which he is making on this particular amendment.

Lord Moran

I am very grateful to the Minister and I think that should clear it up. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 78C not moved.]

Clause 27 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)

There are two Amendments No. 81.

[First Amendment No. 81, second Amendment No. 81 and Amendment No. 82 not moved.]

The Marquess of Lansdowne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 82A:

[Printed earlier: col. 857.]

The noble Marquess said: I apologise for speaking out of turn. I cannot be satisfied with the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. All that he has given us is an undertaking to review affairs in three years' time. I find it totally unacceptable. Various suggestions have been made. I have taken the hard line that drift netting should be banned. I have suggested that it should be banned immediately, and if Her Majesty's Government are so concerned with the livelihood of the 600 or 700 people involved in drift netting perhaps they will consider compensating them. I think it would cost something in the neighbourhood of £2 million. Other suggestions have been made but there has been no firm undertaking by the Government. That is my worry. I am only repeating the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth.

Lord Burton

Perhaps I may suggest a gesture by which we put down an amendment for Report. Clearly the noble Lord's reply was unsatisfactory. We can discuss it there and if he does not give us something better we can divide the House on it.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

Like my noble friend Lord Burton (though I take a slightly different view) I rather wonder whether my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has forgotten that there is another stage to this Bill and that it might be a good thing between now and then to see what has been said today. Then we can put down an amendment to the phrasing to make it a little different from the wording so far.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have not put the amendment yet.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I naturally take my noble friend's advice and very reluctantly, promising to come back to this later, I shall not move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 82A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments.]:

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 83A:

Page 35, line 3, at end insert— ("In section 19(2) of that Act (forfeitures) the words "on indictment" shall be omitted.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which went with Amendment No. 68A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 84:

Page 35, line 3, at end insert— (" . In section 22 of that Act (provisions as to River Tweed), for the reference to the Board of Commissioners of the River Tweed there shall be substituted a reference to the council constituted under section 6 of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969.

.In section 24 of that Act (interpretation), for the entries relating to "District" and "District Board" there shall be substituted the following entries— District" and "Salmon Fishery District" shall be deemed to include the River Tweed; District Board" and "District Salmon Fishery Board" shall include the council constituted under section 6 of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969;")

The noble Lord said: These related amendments are all intended simply to achieve consistency between provisions in the Bill and provisions in existing legislation. The 1951 Act definitions of "district" and "district board" have been removed to avoid possible confusion with the comprehensive definition in the Bill. It is necessary to preserve the existing recognition in the 1951 Act of the River Tweed as a district and the River Tweed Council as a district board. The drafting achieves this. References to the board of commissioners of the River Tweed are also updated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Burton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84A:

Page 35, line 3, at end insert— (" .In section 10(6) of that Act (powers of water bailiff) after the word "obstruct" there shall be inserted the words "or assaults" ")

The noble Lord said: I have drawn attention to this matter: it is a quite simple and straightforward one. I hope that my friend will look at this, and I therefore do not propose to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 84A not moved.]

[Amendments No. 84B and 84C not moved.]

On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be agreed to?

Lord Burton

May I draw attention to two matters at this point? Section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 refers to "one mile from low water". I think that this Bill is now changing it to three miles. I do not ask for an answer now, but may I ask the Government to look at this matter?

The other point concerns the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. That allows in certain circumstances, for a certificate to be produced to a court instead of an expert witness perhaps having to wait hours or even days to give his evidence; and it is possible to submit a statement. Could we not add that to this Bill so that analysts producing evidence in respect of fish might produce a statement rather than these very valuable people having to waste a lot of time sitting in the court?

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

May I ask the Minister very briefly, when he is considering this, also to look at the question of "miles"? I understand that "miles" means "statute miles". Is there any way of putting that into the Bill? I think it has been raised once or twice before, Perhaps if we could get the term "statute miles" put into the legislation that would help a number of people like myself reading it in the future.

Lord Gray of Contin

I can give the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Burton the assurance that they seek. We shall look at both of those points before the next stage of the Bill.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Schedule 5 [Repeals]:

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 86: Page 35, line 29, column 3, at end insert ("1,").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. We are retaining some parts of the 1868 Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act and it is necessary to ensure that the Short Title to that Act is not repealed. The amendment achieves this. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 86A: Page 35, line 36, column 3, at end insert ("In section 19(2), the words "on indictment".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with manuscript Amendment No. 68A. I beg to move the amendment formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Citation, commencement and extent]:

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 87:

[Printed earlier: col. 800.]

The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 87). Clause 31, page 26, line 29, after ("shall") insert (", with the exception of the provision mentioned in subsection (1A) below,")

Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 88:

[Printed earlier col. 800.]

The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 88):

Clause 31, page 26, line 30, at end insert— ("(1A) Section [Permitted methods of fishing for salmon] of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and such an order may include such transitional or saving provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provision brought into force by the order.")

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 90A, 90B, 90C and 91 not moved.]

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 92:

[Printed earlier: col. 809.]

The noble Lord said: I hope very much that the Government will accept this amendment. As I understand it, they have undertaken to consider the whole question of dealer licensing in England and Wales, which was supported by so many of your Lordships. They said earlier that if this is done it will require the amendment of the Title. Also, during the whole of our discussions, it has become apparent that, apart from the provisions for the administration of salmon fisheries in Scotland, the whole of the rest of the Bill ought to apply throughout Great Britain. This point has been made by many noble Lords and it seems to me that the shortest, quickest and easiest way of achieving this is to put it in the title at this point. I beg to move.

Lord Gray of Contin

I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. My noble friend has given certain assurances that matters will be looked at again. But, if I may say so, the noble Lord is putting the cart before the horse here, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot agree to change the Long Title at this stage. My noble friend has given an assurance for the earlier request which the noble Lord made, but I am afraid that I cannot accept an amendment to change the Long Title at this stage.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

If the cart is before the horse, which I can see is possible, I take it that there would be no objection—perhaps we could be helped by the Chair—to putting down the same amendment at the Report stage. I do not want it to go because if we are going to alter the Long Title it has to be done in this House. We do not want to miss the only opportunity we have.

Lord Gray of Contin

I can answer my noble friend. I am advised that the change of the Long Title would be consequential if the earlier changes which were requested were made so that it could be done in this House.

Viscount Trenchard

I very much trust that with all the talk we have had on conservation in relation to England and Wales in two Committee days in a situation of probably a bigger crisis in salmon in England and Wales even than there is in Scotland, we shall not have difficulty in getting some conservation measures in at the Report stage, which can only be done if there is a commitment to change the Title also.

Lord Moran

What the Minister has said will cause some disappointment in England and Wales but I have noted his assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Home, that this can be inserted at the Report stage. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.