Lords Sitting of 10 November 1992

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

The Highland Midge
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the introduction and distribution in the West Highlands of the red mite and natterer's bat, in order to reduce the numbers of the Highland midge.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, regrettably it is doubtful if such a measure would have the desired effect. Claims last summer of a new mite, parasitic to midges, have not been substantiated so far as we are aware. We do not propose to initiate or encourage releases of natterer's bats which already occur in the wild in Scotland. It is likely that this species of bat would already have increased its range and numbers in the West Highlands if the midge was a good food source for it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Highland midges bite ferociously and repeatedly, bringing human activity to a halt, as many noble Lords may be painfully aware. Should not their natural enemies—more effective than those suggested—be put to work to assist residents and local tourism?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes. The misfortune is that although it was thought that both of these enemies might be real ones, it has so far proved difficult to establish that. I fear that the natterer's bat would probably have to consume a considerable number of midges before it had a substantial high tea. Nevertheless, it is appreciated that this is a problem that afflicts tourism, and I should like to reassure my noble friend that the Government are not standing idly by. Through funding from the Agricultural and Food Research Council, Aberdeen University and the Institute of Animal Health are seeking to identify ways whereby the midges might be attacked and diminished.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether the natterer's bat and the red mite might be able to help us in Dorset to eliminate the Blandford fly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, regrettably, the red mite is proving a mite elusive. We are not sure whether it exists. There were accounts last summer that the red mite had been identified. But perhaps I may make a plea on behalf of the Department of Zoology at Aberdeen University: if anybody knows anything about the red mite, would they please advise
82
the department? If it is of any assistance with regard to the Blandford fly, I have no doubt that that information will also be communicated.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to define the Highland midge? Is it called the Highland midge because it comes from the Highlands or because it has settled in the Highlands?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. It is certainly no white settler. It is known colloquially as the Highland midge. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was somewhat unfair to it. Not all midges bite—only the female when she is pregnant.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, anyone who has been involved in the question of the West Highland midge will be aware that almost the same answers as those that have been given today by the noble and learned Lord—but perhaps he has put a bit more science on it—were given by Tom Johnston way back in the mid 1940s. I wonder whether all our science cannot do something about this. A great deal of effort has been put into it. I understand that one of the problems with natterer's bats is that the midges are around for only part of the year and that the bats would therefore find it difficult to acquire food during the other part of the year. This probably happens with all ecological attempts to get rid of the midges. However, I hope that serious research is still being conducted. The Minister's comments about the Department of Zoology at Aberdeen University certainly seem a wee bit more hopeful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I appreciate that the "nattering bat" sounds something like a refugee from a mother-in-law joke. From what is known of what it eats, the trouble is that it tends to eat rather larger insects than the Highland midge. The work that is taking place follows the work at Edinburgh University as far back as 1952, which is perhaps the matter to which the noble Lord refers. Work is going on at the University of Aberdeen to identify the pheromones involved in the mating behaviour of the Highland midge. The potential for their use in traps is the matter under research and study.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there are hazards with biological control—witness the rabbits in Australia which were controlled eventually by myxomatosis? What are the red mite and the natterer's bat going to eat when they are not eating midges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, maybe the red mite does not eat anything because it does not exist. That is the scientific matter that must be established before there is any prospect of any serious research. However, I take the noble Earl's more serious point. The natterer's bat has a fairly natural range. It is to be found in the Highlands of Scotland; but one would not want to introduce it artificially if there were not to be an ample food supply for it throughout the year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, since doubt has been thrown upon the existence of the red mite, will

83
my noble and learned friend or his office get in touch with Professor Angus Stuart, who is reported not only to have discovered it but to have determined that it has the useful ability of being able to kill the midge?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving a name and a possible source of information. I conclude this deeply serious matter by telling the House that we would love to campaign for tourists in Scotland with the saying, "The red mite at night is the tourist's delight".
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, has the Minister had consultations on this matter with the conservation bodies in Scotland? Will he accept from me that my efforts to find out something about these creatures in the past week have met with no success at all? Scottish Natural Heritage seemed to know very little about it. Therefore, the Minister has my greatest sympathy if he was looking for briefing on this subject.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that a pair of natterer's bats were found in a loft in a house in Lochaber. Because of their presence, there was a throwaway line at the time that perhaps the natterer's bat might assist in the reduction of the midge population of Scotland. I do not think that that assertion was made with any scientific basis; but, if it can be established, we shall do so.

Shot-guns
2.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many shot-guns are estimated to exist in the United Kingdom and how many (a) shot-gun licences and (b) game licences there are presently issued.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, about 1.5 million shot-guns are held with certificates. We do not know how many shot-guns are held illegally.
At the end of 1991, there were 724,556 valid shot-gun certificates on issue in England and Wales and 75,529 in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the possession of any firearm, including a shot-gun, requires a firearm certificate. At the end of September 1992 there were 87,302 firearm certificates on issue there. About 46,700 game licences were issued in the United Kingdom in 1991–92.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very informative Answer. I acknowledge that there are many shot-gun owners who do not require gun licences—for instance, clay pigeon shooters—but does he not agree that there still appears to exist a very wide deficiency in the number of game licences issued? Given that at present a game shooter has to apply both to the police and to the post office separately, would it not save a great deal of administration and cost, and almost certainly increase revenue through more game licences being issued, if shot-gun licence application forms contained an
84
additional section whereby the applicant could apply and pay for a three-year game licence at the same time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that sounds an ingenious and attractive idea but there are very good reasons why that is not possible. First, it would place some additional work on the police which is not of a policing nature. It would need a change in the law because the power to issue game licences rests with local authorities. The game laws would also need to be amended to allow a game licence to run for three years. Shot-gun and firearm certificates are a method of controlling dangerous weapons for which a fee is charged. Game laws and game licensing date back to the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860. The game licence is an excise duty.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Home Office recently refused to give details of the number of people under 16 holding shot-gun licences because it claimed that that information was too expensive to collect? Can the noble Earl give the House an estimate of what it would cost to collect?
Earl Ferrers: More than would be justifiable, my Lords.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, if the game licence is subscribed to by so few, is it really worth collecting? If it is worth collecting, should not the Government do something more about it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend can decide not to get any licence which he desires not to get. If he does not get such a licence, and he is found out, he will be committing a criminal offence. The game licence was introduced as a method of controlling poaching and of controlling those who kill game and deal in it. That is an entirely suitable matter for licensing. If my noble friend does not have a licence, I advise him to get one.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he made the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Geddes sound very intricate? In point of fact it could be brought about with a reasonably modest Bill. Is it not a fact that if the intention were there it would not be quite as intricate and difficult as my noble friend appeared to suggest in his answer?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not mean to make it more intricate or difficult than in fact it is. I was trying to explain to my noble friend that shot-gun and firearm certificates are a method of controlling dangerous weapons, which it is quite right for the police to do. The operation of a game licence has nothing to do with the police. It is an excise duty. Of course it is perfectly possible to change the law on anything, but your Lordships are aware of the number of problems requiring legislation and I am bound to tell my noble friend that this is not of the highest priority.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how much revenue has been raised by

85
the game licence, how many people have been prosecuted for not having one and how much poaching has been stopped by game licences?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as to the last question, my noble friend will know perfectly well that I cannot possibly answer it—and neither could he if he were standing here. With regard to the first, local authorities receive a revenue of about £240,000. In 1990, 1,600 game-law offences went through the courts.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Earl was asked a legitimate question about the cost incurred in providing information. In my view, it is quite unfair simply to say that the cost would be greater than is justifiable. Cannot the Minister do better than that? Can he give my noble friend some idea of the cost and then let the House judge whether the cost is justifiable?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords; I cannot give the noble Lord the answer because I do not know what it is. Had I known, I would have told your Lordships. However, I shall certainly try to find out. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will know that there are limits to the amount of expenditure to which government departments can go in order to find out the answers to certain questions. Some statistics are easily available, while others are not.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. I await his letter with great interest.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the control of guns and game applies only to people who are shooting legitimately and that no poachers, or people who should not have guns, apply for either?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we have the laws and the licences.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, as a generality, that "where there's a will there's a way"? Further, does he have sympathy with me when I say that his answer to my supplementary question was frankly very disappointing? I understand that there are two laws and that they would have to be changed. I was endeavouring to save administration and cost, and also increase revenue to the Exchequer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if my reply was disappointing to my noble friend. Of course, I realised he was pursuing a perfectly legitimate point and trying to be helpful. However, I was merely trying to point to him in turn that there are certain difficulties. One need only consider the amount of legislation which passes through your Lordships' House. It would mean having to put extra burdens on the police and altering other sections of the law, which would in fact give the police an obligation to carry out an excise duty. I do not think that the chances of that are likely to be forthcoming. I did not want to mislead my noble friend.

London Taxis and Minicabs
2.52 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
When their decision on the report of the working party on the safety of users of taxis and minicabs in London will be announced; and whether they will publish a White Paper on the matter or introduce primary legislation at an early date.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London is studying the working party report carefully and meeting interested parties with a view to reaching a conclusion which is in the public interest and fair to both taxi and minicab trades. He hopes to make an announcement by the end of the year. It is unlikely to take the form of a White Paper. If primary legislation is required, it will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time is available.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, does he appreciate, as revealed in our debate on 21st October, that there is considerable concern about the matter and a demand for action? Have the Government accepted the principle that there should be some form of regulation? If so, how will they determine not only a timetable but also how any regulations will be introduced? Further, have the Government considered the suggestion of the CBI that a working party should be set up to work out an exact timetable and how regulations should be achieved?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government accept that something should be done. As I said in my original Answer, my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London is meeting interested parties and taking all views into consideration, including those expressed by your Lordships. He intends to announce his proposals by the end of the year; I should not like to pre-empt them.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, as one who piloted through the other place the first Bill to control minicabs and who acted as adviser to the London cab trade for 10 years, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he accepts that all informed opinion in London, tired of the length of time that cab legislation takes to go through both Houses whatever the government in power, wants a one-tier board and the raising, not lowering, of standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are advantages and disadvantages to all the main proposals to regulate minicabs and taxicabs in London. The Government do not wish to do anything that would attack the licensed cab trade in any way.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is quite unfair that the ordinary taxicab is subject to so many regulations whereas the minicab is not? Is it not high time that regulations were synonymous?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the licensed taxi driver has to pass the "knowledge" examination and,

87
indeed, drive a suitable vehicle. Those regulations put a burden on the licensed taxi driver and enable him to be in a different position from the minicab driver. If there is to be a change in that situation, it will be announced by my honourable friend.

GATT:State of Negotiations
2.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current position of negotiations to conclude the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, since I reported to your Lordships' House on 5th November, both the European Commission and the United States have made it clear that they want negotiations in the Uruguay Round to resume as soon as possible. That aim was endorsed at a meeting between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission on Friday, at an informal meeting of trade Ministers over the weekend, and at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, can she add to it by indicating whether anything at all has happened since that last meeting? If not, can she say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to secure that this vital agreement is obtained whatever the President of the Commission, or anyone else, may say?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government's aim is to get people back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. The last discussion took place at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday where common agreement on this was reached.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the President of the Commission, M. Jacques Delors, has now admitted that he interfered in negotiations on the GATT round between the EC and the United States to the extent that the negotiating commissioner resigned, will the British Government be demanding the resignation of M. Jacques Delors?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have a more direct line in such matters.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords; I just read the newspapers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, just reading the newspapers would not, I think, enable me to stand up here and reply. As I said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and M. Delors had a meeting on Friday. It is confirmed that everyone wants the negotiations to reach a successful conclusion just as soon as possible.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if there is a failure of these negotiations and sanctions are applied by the United States of America on the European Community, will it not be the case that we shall have a major crisis of loyalty between our own trading interests (which are in free trade) and those of French farmers? If that ghastly scenario should come about, what are the Government's contingency plans?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we continue to believe that our best efforts should be directed towards finding a solution to the negotiations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to her noble friend, will she give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will veto any endeavour to save anyone's political skin on the other side of the Channel and that they will veto any question of sanctions against the United States?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the House showed on 5th November, and, I believe, would agree again today, that retaliatory action is the least constructive move we could make.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, bearing in mind that Commissioner MacSharry was negotiating on behalf of the whole European Community, including this country, can the Government give any opinion about the reason for his resignation? Was it that he disapproved of the instructions that he was receiving from the President of the Commission or was it connected with the fact that there is to be a general election in Ireland, in which country Mr. MacSharry might have ambitions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is not for me to explain Mr. MacSharry's motives. He resigned from the negotiations, and that is much to be regretted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was the French farmers' clout before UK accession that brought the European Community to the verge of collapse on no less than three or four occasions and that since our accession, that lobby, or, as one understands it, political force, has embarrassed not just this country but other member states? Now that the crunch is coming, what attitude will Her Majesty's Government take?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I point out that France stands to gain as much as anyone from the agreement; for example, it is the world's second biggest exporter of services. President Mitterrand supported fully the Birmingham summit declaration which called for agreement by the end of the year. All our efforts from now on should be directed towards finding a successful solution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister accept from our side that we have always supported the achievement of the Uruguay Round and will continue to support it? It is desperately important. Does she also accept that at the beginning of the British presidency the Prime Minister explicitly

89
said that he would be responsible for driving through the GATT agreement and would ensure that that was done? Is not the problem that the British presidency, after the events of the past few weeks, is in such a state of shambles that anyone—Mr. Delors or anyone else for that matter—can do and say whatever he pleases, having regard to his own domestic political ambition?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his support of our aims of ensuring that there is a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. It is important. It is worth so much to the whole world, not just the developed world but the developing countries. The European Community and the United States have confirmed that they are still working towards an early agreement; that is, before the end of the year. Obviously, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's comments about our presidency. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary successfully chaired the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday: the outcome received total agreement from the Community.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that not only has the Prime Minister been giving the main leadership on this point but also that the Commission has, on the whole, been completely behind us and against France? Is she aware that there are a great many people in this country who would be pleased to see sanctions introduced by us against France if it remains as intransigent as it is?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I endorse wholeheartedly my noble friend's opening remarks. Her closing remarks must be her personal opinion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister now reply to my question? In the event of an endeavour to apply sanctions against the United States, will she undertake that Her Majesty's Government will veto that proposal?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. At this stage, we shall continue to work to try to solve the problem and to succeed in the negotiations.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that if the wish, which I share entirely, is to obtain a successful deal with the United States, it is highly desirable that this country and this House should live in a world of reality and not of fantasy? Will she note, for instance, that although I disagree with the French Government's attitude, it was supported by no fewer than four other member states yesterday, and that the crucial factor in dealing with the matter is the German Government's attitude? When the French Government are being difficult, the only way to deal with them is to get the German Government, representing broadly the free trade outer looking area, to have an effect upon them. Will she do no such foolish thing as to urge the British Government, having supported, to the surprise of some people, the renomination of the said Delors a year ago, suddenly to demand his resignation? That, in present circumstances, would have about as much
90
of a counter-effect as the Prime Minister's claims that on no account would he accept the resignation of Mr. Mellor or contemplate the resignation of Mr. Lamont.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, certain parts of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seem to be wide of the Question. The German Government's role in this matter is crucial. It is perhaps appropriate and fortunate that the Anglo-German summit to be held tomorrow will be able to discuss the issue.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, what does the Minister consider to be a successful conclusion—giving America carte blanche to flood this country and Europe with cheap grain?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I stress that we are not the negotiator in this matter; the Community is the negotiator. Were there easy solutions such as that suggested by the noble Lord, the matter would have been concluded a long time ago.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Matrix Churchill.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992 and the Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992 will be taken.

Clean Air Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968 and certain related enactments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 31,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 32 to 37,

Schedule 2,

91

Clauses 38 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Schedule 4.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships will recall that the proposal to establish a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee originated in the report of the Jellicoe Committee. That was subsequently endorsed by the Procedure Committee, whose report was agreed to by the House on 9th July. The committee will be established on an experimental basis and the experiment assessed at the end of the current Session.
If your Lordships agree to this Motion today, the Committee of Selection will meet early next week to discuss the composition of the committee and its report will he put to the House. Once established, the committee will have as its first task the establishment of criteria to help it judge the appropriateness and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensing of fishing boats]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("() In subsection (I), leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the first amendment is simple. It is to lay an obligation on the Government or future governments to license all commercial fishing vessels. To date, those under 10 metres in length have been largely if not completely ignored. That does not adequately take account of the potential of ships of that size or indeed their number. We are dealing with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and it seems ridiculous that it should be left at the behest of governments to decide whether or not they license all ships.
It is my suggestion that governments must do so unless we are just playing with words. To go into a sensible scheme of whatever kind without taking notice of the smaller vessels would be rather like going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind one's back. There are plenty of precedents, or at least one salient precedent, to show that the fact that smaller vessels are not licensed has been detrimental to sea fish conservation. I refer to an earlier decommissioning scheme of which one fault was that the bigger ships could be decommissioned. The owners, having taken their money, were able to purchase a number of ships of under 10 metres and continue trading as before, having put a sum of money into their pockets. At least, that is how I understand it.
I make that one of the main planks to support the amendment because, as the Committee will know from the Second Reading, decommissioning must eventually be the answer to dealing with this rather difficult situation of sea fish disappearing. Eventually, if that happens, fishing communities will go down the same road.
The force of the Bill is to limit fishing by tying up. As the Committee will remember from the Second Reading, this was unpopular or very unpopular indeed. But it also seems to me that, if we reach a situation of having to tie up vessels to reduce the fishing effort, by the same token as decommissioning, it is unfair on vessels over 10 metres to have to tie up if the potential for catching fish is left with the smaller vessels. Possibly, the same difficulties might arise as with a previous decommissioning scheme.
This is a simple matter and I end by repeating that it seems ridiculous to deal with any Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill without knowing what is going on so that we can organise matters. That seems wrong. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to know that the Government have already announced their intention to extend fishing licences to vessels of 10 metres and under so that this sector of the fleet cannot extend further. This step has been widely welcomed by the fishing industry. It was part of the package of measures which we announced earlier this year, with the aim of reducing effort and capacity in the UK fleet. We are now finalising the details of the new licensing system and hope to make an announcement soon.
Once the Sea Fish Licensing Order is amended, the licensing regime will apply to all vessels wishing to fish for sea fish (except salmon and migratory trout) for profit in domestic waters. There is no need to amend the primary legislation to achieve the aim of extending licensing to cover the 10 metre or under fleet. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I am content. I was not absolutely clear what was the Government's position regarding the licensing of smaller vessels. It still seems strange that it should be left to the discretion of future governments whether or not they license, and that is

93
how I understand the matter stands under the 1967 Act. I cannot remember the precise clause under which licensing is permitted.
It is encouraging to hear that it is the proper intention of the Government to carry out licensing and that we shall hear further details soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No.2:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("() After subsection (2) (which provides for limitations concerning the type of fish, method, season or period) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) An order made under this section in respect of fishing in an area may make provision for controlling fishing in Specified Areas being areas delineated by the Ministers following advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the effects of fishing on the marine environment." ").
The noble Lord said:This amendment has not been put forward in the hope of reducing fishing effort, indeed it does not tackle the rather sticky and controversial issue of tie-up or decommissioning. It looks at the other aspect of the Bill—conservation.
The idea of the amendment is to introduce areas or boxes in which fish stocks or certain types of fish can be protected and therefore restock the whole environment. I wish to give an example of one area where boxing has worked. Sand eels have been protected around the Scottish coast under legislation which can be removed. As they are at the bottom of the food chain, with most other stocks of fish eating them, that can only benefit the long-term future of the fish industry.
The fishing industry is in such straits because of the over-fishing that has taken place. One of the areas lacking is that there has not been enough research over a long period into fish stocks and what fishing will do to sensitive members of the marine eco-system such as sharks, sand eels or other elements apart from the main staple stocks.
The idea of the boxes would be to protect more vulnerable members of the marine eco-system and also areas in which breeding stocks of fish could be maintained. The proposal is that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee should look into this aspect of the amendment and see where the boxes ought to be set up. The amendment concerns the future of the fishing industry. No one here will deny that many groups of fish are under threat due to over-fishing or will be threatened in the future.
I wish to put forward a recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities common fisheries policy which recommends that:
"more use should be made of closed boxes and marine protected areas".
Such boxes are a vital, essential management measure of the goal of a fishing policy. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: On this side of the House, we have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, particularly as he is able to pray in aid the observations of your Lordships'
94
Select Committee in the report on the common fisheries policy. We are also familiar with the position regarding sand eels because it is frequently the subject of Questions in your Lordships' House.
Our anxiety as regards the amendment, however, is based on its practicality. It is certainly in line with conservation aims, but I wonder whether, when the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government, he will be able to tell us, on their assessment of its terms, that it is a practical amendment from the enforcement angle and whether, if enforced, it would not unduly restrict those who must fish in the areas in which they are entitled to fish without the imposition of boxes where they are not allowed to fish. If, for example, in order to protect fish, boxes were created where catchable fish were not allowed to be caught because they were in the box, what effect would all that have on TACs which already concern fishermen under the provisions of this Bill? We have sympathy for the proposition but we are hoping for clarification from the Minister.
The Earl of Selborne: While I agree that the proposal is a highly admirable objective I rather wonder whether the clause under discussion is the appropriate place to try to achieve such ends. It seems to me that unless one puts these closed boxes and marine protected areas into the common fisheries policy, as opposed to a national fisheries policy, one is discriminating against one's own fisheries industry. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Nothing would delight the committee more than to try to help to establish marine protected areas. I believe, however, that the amendment is not the appropriate vehicle for achieving those commendable aims. I hope that when the common fisheries policy is reviewed next month the Council of Ministers will bear in mind the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has made a powerful case and it is a case with which the Government have a good deal of sympathy. I understood from the general tenor of his remarks that this may be a probing amendment to ascertain what action the Government intend to take in the environmental field and specifically what action the Government intend to take to meet their obligations under the European Community habitats directive so far as this relates to sea fishing. I am glad to have the opportunity to put the Government's position on record.
The Government recognise that fishing practices can have an adverse effect on the marine environment. That is why we supported the passage earlier this year of the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act. That requires fisheries regulators, including Ministers, in discharging their functions in relation to sea fishing, to have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna and to balance that consideration with others which they are required to take into account.
We recognise that additional measures will be required to implement the provision in the habitats directive for Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), which may include areas of sea. However, we need to

95
consider carefully how this should be done in consultation with interested parties, including the fishing and environmental interests. Separate primary legislation may well be required and we propose to issue a consultation paper on this next year.
The noble Lord's amendment would pre-empt that process. I hope that he will recognise, as the Government do, that this is not a matter which can be dealt with appropriately by an amendment to an Act concerned with the regulation of fishing rather than with the marine environment. That is an area that is not really covered by the Bill. However, I should tell the noble Lord that the mid-term review of fisheries that is currently under way will support the maintenance of the Shetland box which is an important ingredient of the common fisheries policy. As I said, the amendment would pre-empt the process of wide consultation that I have outlined. I have tried to be reassuring about the general point of principle here, and I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for those comments and for informing me that the Government are looking closely at this issue. I look forward to seeing the legislation when it appears. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("which restriction shall be no greater than that imposed on any vessel of any other Member State of the Community having an entitlement to fish the stocks which are fished in common with any vessel which may be restricted in terms of this paragraph." ").
The noble Lady said:The intention of the Bill, it is understood, is to ensure that a reduction in effort leads, first, to a reduction in the capacity of the fleet and, secondly, to making more difficult the possibility of quotas being exceeded. Ministers have undertaken that a reduction below the 1991 level of effort, which is to apply in 1993, will not be introduced unless they are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks have taken effective steps to meet their own multi-annual guidance programme targets. Those "effective steps" are not defined.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the effective steps are the same as those being taken in the United Kingdom and no less restrictive. Our Ministers may argue that a member state with a fully fledged decommissioning scheme is taking effective steps. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, on Second Reading of the Bill at cols. 980 to 981 of Hansard of 26th October, said that although the decommissioning schemes,
"may help to rationalise the structure of the internal fishing industry of any particular country, they have not reduced fishing effort".
Ministers should understand therefore that the introduction of expansive decommissioning schemes in other member states of the Community can never be regarded as the equivalent of days at sea restrictions imposed in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie,
96
has virtually said that. It is essential to ensure that United Kingdom vessels are not operating at a commercial disadvantage compared with their competitors in other member states. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support this amendment to which my name is added. It is a simple case. Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber know of the depth of feeling and fear aroused among many fishermen as regards this issue. It is essential that the Government are able to show they have a level playing field. All of us here and indeed the Government know of cases of what is termed "quota hopping", or some such phrase, which means that foreign vessels which are registered in this country and land their fish elsewhere register doubtful counts against their quotas. For this enormously unpopular and draconian measure to be accepted, the fishermen of this country must know they are not being penalised unfairly while fishermen elsewhere are not faced with the same restriction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The amendment raises quite an important point regarding protection of our fishing industry. I wholly agree with what the noble Lady said about the necessity of securing that restrictions should be no tougher than those imposed by other countries. However, I am a little puzzled by the fact that Members of the Committee opposite whose names are attached to the amendment limit its wording to,
"any other Member State of the Community".
It is at least possible that states which are not members of the Community will impose restrictions. It is surely the case that we want to make sure that our restrictions are no more severe on our people than those imposed by any foreign state, whether a member of the Community or not.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I, too, support the amendment to which my name is attached. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 3A as it tries to achieve the same purpose but in a different way. The remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, are supportable. Indeed, if the Government are right in their arguments that future conservation can only be achieved by this method of time at sea—the measure will apply not just to British fishermen but to fishermen in the whole of Europe—they should be pursuing with all active power at their elbow ways to persuade other countries to adopt the measure.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, rightly says that British fishermen, who at the moment are deeply worried about their future viability, their businesses and their bank loans, should be given the comfort that this provision will only be applied if other countries within the European Community follow suit. Leaving aside for the moment the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which is a very good point, I believe that at present it should be restricted to Community members.
I am sure that none of us disagrees that the issue of conservation is vital for the future and that any encouragement which the Government can give, not only to our industry but for the future of European fishing, will be welcome.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: We on this side of the Committee support the amendment. For that reason I added my name to it. It is an important amendment because it goes to the heart of the problem of our participation in the common fisheries policy. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised the wider issue, and quite rightly so. Perhaps in framing the amendment we have been too limited in our vision and too narrow in our objectives.
The nature of TACs is such, as we know from our experience of quota hopping, that they are not really the province of the member state. The member state admittedly administers the quotas, but other countries in membership of the Community may, under certain conditions, take their share of the fish covered by the quotas. Provided the regulations are observed, at present there can be no objection to that. British fishermen have always lived, somewhat unhappily, with that position. In legislation relating to marine transport the British Government attempted to place some restrictions on foreign vessels from other member states fishing here, but in the event an adverse ruling by the European Court of Justice meant that the relevant clause of the Act in question was no longer sustainable.
Therefore, in a situation in which a Bill of this kind, with the tougher penalties which it imposes and its modest attempt to introduce a decommissioning scheme, is necessary, while conditions for the moment are unlikely to be worse under the Bill than they were in 1991, it behoves the Committee to consider the future. That is the purpose of the amendment. I believe that it is fair and reasonable to ask the Government to make that, if not an article of faith, then at least an objective of policy. If that were done I believe it would satisfy all parts of the Chamber. It would certainly be welcomed by the fishing industry and it might give cause for some satisfaction that the Bill in its totality will not be as harmful as fishermen believe it to be at present.
The Earl of Selborne: I have some difficulty with the amendment and with the debate so far. We do not seem to have recognised that in 1991 one of the problems was that we were one of the countries which had failed to bring its capacity into line with the required multi-annual guidance programmes. I believe that, if we are to consider the matter on a European basis, as the amendment suggests, we should at least acknowledge in this debate that we are well out of line with a number of other countries in trying to bring our capacity into line with that proposed in the common fisheries policy. I draw the Committee's attention to page 61 of the European Communities Committee's report, which sets out those countries which were in default, of which we were one of the major offenders. A number of countries which are often alleged to be encroaching on our fisheries, such as Spain, Ireland and the like, are not in default. That point should at least be acknowledged.
However, I do not believe that quota hopping is particularly relevant. It is a separate issue, and a serious one, but I do not believe that it is applicable to
98
this particular amendment. If a boat from another national fleet joins our fleet, thereby quota hopping, it has to abide by our own regulations. Therefore, that issue is not relevant to the present situation.
I believe that we have to consider the issue in the context of total allowable catches (TACs). That is the basis of how the fishery effort is divided. As Members of the Committee know, that in turn allows national quotas to be determined. Those national quotas are then allotted by species for each fisheries area. Therefore it has to be recognised that tying-up does not reduce the national quota or total allowable catch. However, if one has failed, as we lamentably have, to match one's capacity to one's quotas, then one simply has to do something else. Sub-Committee D and almost every speaker at Second Reading agreed that it would be much better if we could achieve a balance between capacity and effort so that tying-up would not be necessary.
We cannot ignore the fact that we have failed lamentably in our responsibilities under the common fisheries policy. It would appear that until we have achieved a balance we have to consider tying-up as an alternative.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to endorse what my noble friend has just said. It seems to be almost impossible to figure out what a level playing field will be because as a country we did not enter into the multi-annual guidance programme. Therefore, we did not decommission vessels on the same scale as the rest of Europe. Also, we did not take the bonus that would have resulted from doing so to provide for the modernisation of the fleet. That is another complication. We went down a different route altogether. It will be impossible to say whether or not there is a level playing field.
There appears to be a good argument in favour of us now turning quite vigorously towards decommissioning and away from tying-up so that at least we can start to operate on the same level as our partners in Europe. Then we can begin to compare our position and see whether or not we are being done down.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I see the point of the amendment. However, there is one point relating to negotiations with the other member states which concerns me. I believe that it ought to be borne in mind that over the past few years we have been able to benefit from the Hague Preference, which allows us to have a greater TAC for haddock in the North Sea than would otherwise be possible. I hope that in any negotiations with Europe my noble friend the Minister will not endanger the Hague Preference, which has been so valuable, particularly to Scottish fishermen, in the case of haddock.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned quota hopping and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, spoke of the reference to the European Court in relation to the same subject. I should like to say a little more on the subject than my

99
noble friend Lord Selborne, who pointed out that that is a completely different problem. It must be dissociated from the matter we are discussing.
I have raised that issue at Question Time and during debates, as Members of the Committee will remember. Quota hopping is a problem which relates entirely to Spanish vessels which are registered at British ports. They do all they can to employ a percentage of British crews. About two years ago we adopted an Act of Parliament introducing a new register. That would have made it very difficult for Spanish vessels to get on to the register and qualify for the British quota. Subsequently cases were referred to the European Court. Everything is now held up while we await further legal proceedings.
I have pointed out that that is a weakness in the EC policy. Within individual fisheries, quotas are allotted among EC members entirely according to nationality. On the other hand, another part of the EC Commission is doing its best to try to bring the nations together and do away with differences between nationalities. It is that aspect which has commended itself to the European Court and which was the reason for its judgment so far. As long as quotas are allotted according to nationalities and as long as the European Court takes the view that difference of nationality should not be allowed to stop Spanish boats fishing for our quotas, we are in a cul-de-sac.
However, that is a separate question. As I see it, the Spanish boats which succeed in qualifying to fish for our quota, and establish themselves as British boats operating from British ports, will be subject to exactly the same conditions as our own British boats. Our fishermen are always quite rightly annoyed about it because theoretically it increases the British fishing fleet who have to fish for the limited British quotas, but that is a separate question. I would ask my noble friend Lord Howe to confirm in his reply that quota hopping does not arise here because those Spanish boats that are qualifying at the moment will be subject to exactly the same regulations as British boats.
Lord Moyne: I suggest that we look at the wording of the amendment, which does not have much to do with national quotas but is concerned with individual vessels. It seems to me to be exceedingly unfair if it is possible for an individual British vessel to be penalised to a greater extent than an individual foreign vessel. It seems to me that that is the point of the amendment. That is why I support it and hope it will go through.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In relation to quota hopping, our fishermen are deeply suspicious that registration of fish landed at a Spanish port under the British quota may be erratic, to put it mildly. Another point is that in the negotiations over the common fisheries policy and the MAGP, only three states were in line at the time. I do not think that that point will stand examination.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The point is that those vessels would be subject to the tying-up scheme in
100
British ports. If this Bill and the scheme go through, boats that are Spanish but manage to register as British will be tied up in British ports.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The point I was trying to make was that our fishermen fear that in their time at sea those vessels might well be able to exceed their quota through landing it elsewhere. We have a fishery policy; and the Norwegians, for example, adhere to their waters and protect them and adhere to the rules as regards ours. I believe it is up to the Government to give us the arguments against it; but the main thrust of the point is that a sense of unfairness will not make the regulations work well.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about this. There is no question but that the amendment relates to the letters we have all had from fishermen all over the country who are extremely worried about the effects of the Bill, probably not as it stands at the moment but how it might be in the future.
I do not know whether the Minister would agree, but the solution suggested in the amendment could not really work from what we discovered on Sub-committee D, which looked at the whole problem. It would be very difficult to know precisely what was happening in some of the other countries. It would be ideal if one could. Quite apart from the legal problems to which my noble friend Lord Sanderson referred, it would be difficult to find out. The problem is not quite as clear-cut as we would like it to be. To depend on finding out what the people who were doing least or getting round the questions the slowest were doing before we did anything would be very damaging to our fishermen.
As I am sure will be revealed as we go along to those who have not looked into the matter in any detail, the Bill is as much about protecting our fishermen from what others of their number are doing as it is about protecting them from fishermen in other countries. It seems to me that this particular solution would be very difficult to implement and could not work. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says and, if possible, what the Government are going to do to make sure that Community policy ensures that our fishermen are on as level a playing field as possible. That is what is behind all the fears.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Moyne: Is the noble Baroness not confusing that which foreign fishermen are entitled to do with that which they are doing? People can always break regulations, but what is important is that legally there should be a playing field and it should be ensured that administratively the playing field is level. But I suggest that legally it must be made level by this Parliament.
Earl Howe: We have listened to a number of powerful speeches reflecting many of the concerns expressed at Second Reading and the depth of feeling that I know exists in the fishing industry. I intend to respond in some detail.

101
Perhaps I could start by asking all noble Lords, including some of my noble friends who may entertain doubts about the Bill, to listen to what I shall be saying in its justification and to accept that this is not some hasty or ill-considered government measure but one designed to help our fishing industry and one which I believe the industry can adopt and implement successfully.
I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment; namely the wish to ensure that United Kingdom fishermen are not treated more harshly than their European counterparts in national and Community efforts to conserve fish stocks. But I must make it clear at the outset that the amendment, which goes to the heart of the Bill, is in substance and consequence a wrecking amendment and can in no circumstances be accepted by the Government. It is a wrecking amendment because it prevents the United Kingdom from using effort control to meet our MAGP targets if any other member state chooses not to do so. That means all other member states must introduce effort control before we can. This is simply unacceptable. We cannot allow our whole conservation policy, upon which the future of our industry depends, to hang upon detailed rules generated in other member states. Even if the point of principle were not so offensive, the amendment could mean that in practice we might never be able to implement this part of the Bill.
Why is it so important for the United Kingdom to introduce effort controls? Noble Lords opposite would like a larger decommissioning scheme and to place greater reliance on technical measures. Even in conjunction, these will not do. Technical measures, though valuable and important, cannot, as I explained at Second Reading, be appropriate for mixed fisheries, nor can they prevent excessive fishing. As the Government have acknowledged, decommissioning has a part to play, but the good done by decommissioning can be undone at a stroke by allowing those vessels which remain in the fleet to increase their fishing effort either by increased time at sea or by adopting technological improvements.
The advice of scientists—international scientists as well as our own—is that the remaining necessary measure if we are to control our fish stocks successfully is effort control. Noble Lords have questioned why we intend to impose days at sea restrictions on our fleet when other member states may not see fit to do so. My answer to that is to question the need to draw international comparisons when what we are trying to protect is our own industry.
The United Kingdom fleet accounts for 89 per cent. of the haddock quota in the North Sea, 52 per cent. of the whiting quota and 46 per cent. of the cod quota. In comparison with other member states, the United Kingdom's share of fish stocks around our coasts is very substantial. Yet it is these stocks which in some cases have reached critical levels. If we are serious about conservation it is up to us above all to take the necessary steps to conserve. No other member state will protect our industry for us. It is no good our saying that effort control is not a perfect instrument or
102
that we should move at the pace of the slowest; the problem needs to be addressed now. If not, the stocks will disappear and with them our fishing industry. Other member states will have their MAGP targets and they too will have their annual entitlements of fish. Those entitlements will not be increased simply because the United Kingdom is introducing effort control.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned the so-called quota hoppers. I do not want to belittle the concern and resentment generated by the problem of quota hoppers but I do not think we ought to over-emphasise the size of that problem in relation to our conservation difficulties as a whole. Quota hoppers are registered and licensed in the UK and will be subject to the provisions of the Bill, as my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Selborne rightly pointed out. I remind the Committee that this Bill has teeth in the form of substantially increased penalties for the infringement of a licence condition. There are also a number of ways in which our ability to police the quota hoppers can be tightened.
Let me clear up another point of confusion. The effort control measures to be brought in under the Bill are not in the least intended to prevent fishermen from catching their full entitlement of quota. We are not out to curtail fishermen's income from legitimate fishing. What effort control does aim to curtail is the discarding and the black fishing which unrestricted days at sea make easy for some vessel owners. Black fishing, illegal fishing above quota entitlements, is a serious problem in some sections of the fleet, and it is that problem on which the days at sea restriction should make an impact.
In the first instance we intend to freeze fishing effort at last year's levels. That should not cause fishermen undue difficulties. After that, we may decide that it is necessary to reduce days at sea to a lower level. But if we do, we shall come to both Chambers, as I shall be explaining in a later amendment, with an affirmative resolution order, which we shall not make unless we are satisfied that other member states are taking effective steps to meet their MAGP targets. That is a commitment previously given by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Curry, and I am happy to confirm that, when any such affirmative resolution is debated we shall provide the Chamber with an account of the actions of other member states.
I hope that Members opposite will feel that that undertaking meets the essence of their concerns in this amendment and that the noble Lady will not press it. As I said, the United Kingdom must be left free to take the action which it thinks necessary to conserve the stocks on which the livelihood of our fishermen depend. We cannot allow our hands to be tied by other member states, as this amendment proposes. For many other member states fishing is a much more marginal activity than it is for ourselves. They have different conditions and different targets. Our targets will be all the more important for us to meet because the stocks we need to conserve are predominantly ours. Without effort control, the other measures that

103
we take will be in vain and public money spent on decommissioning will be wasted. I urge the Committee not to be deflected from that central truth.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps he could answer a question. I am a little puzzled by what he said. Is he saying that decommissioning is ineffective unless there is also restriction of days at sea? If so, what is wrong with the philosophy of the amendment which, as I understand it, wants other countries to restrict their days at sea in a like manner to British fishermen? Or have I misunderstood him?
Earl Howe: My noble friend has misunderstood me. As I tried to explain, the circumstances of each member state vary tremendously. We have a large fishing industry which accounts for very substantial proportions of the quota, especially in the North Sea. It is up to us to address that problem as best we may. It is no part of our business to look over our shoulder to see what our partners across the Channel may or may not be doing and to allow those actions to influence what happens as a result of this Bill. That is my point of objection to this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Surely the Minister must see that we are not objecting on behalf of the fishermen to efforts to control the stocks and keep the stocks there. We agree that that is absolutely vital and that strong measures have to be taken. But the whole point about the amendment is that although we must control our own stocks, we do not have the ability to control the other people involved who have a substantial portion. If they do not control their 50 per cent., or whatever it is, our efforts will be frustrated. That is why we urge Her Majesty's Government to make every effort to ensure that the restrictive measures, whatever they may be, of our partners—it is equally important for them to preserve the stocks—are at least equal to ours, although they may not be the same.
Earl Howe: With respect, I do not think that is what the amendment provides. The amendment is much more draconian than that. I wanted to address the central concern of the amendment in my remarks about the government amendment which immediately follows it. That amendment fulfils a pledge made in another place which arose from exactly the same kind of concern as those just expressed. We agreed that before reducing days at sea below the levels fixed for 1991 we would come back to both Chambers and demonstrate that other member states were taking effective measures to meet their MAGP targets; and that is what we shall do.
Lord Gallacher: The point has been made that, in a sense, the problem is of our own creation. The noble Lord, Lord Selborne, pointed out that the fleet is too large for the amount of fish that we are entitled to catch. The blame for that surely cannot be laid at the door of fishermen who need licences to fish. The Government have to reckon with the fact that in the past, having regard to the growing problem of TACs,
104
they have been too liberal in licensing British vessels. That is acknowledged, if not openly, certainly in the context of this Bill.
There is another point that I should like to raise with the noble Earl. He mentioned—conveniently for him and his case—the two stocks where the United Kingdom have the highest share in the Community. Looking at other species and other sea areas, the United Kingdom has only a small share—of cod, for example—in the English Channel. The United Kingdom share is 8 per cent. One has to view the amendment and the problem in the round and not simply be selective in the statistics one uses.
Lord Grimond: I had intended to view this amendment with some doubt because I felt that it would be extremely difficult to implement. For that matter, the whole Bill would be almost impossible to implement. What has converted me entirely to the amendment is the argument that it is a wrecking amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It may be a wrong amendment, a foolish amendment or an unintelligible amendment; but it is not wrecking a Bill to say that this shall not happen unless certain things are done.
Secondly, we may control a very big proportion of the European fish stocks at sea, but the fishing industry is nothing like so important to this country as it is to Norway. Norway has the biggest interest in maintaining a fish industry which will enable it to employ its people. For us it is a small matter compared with what it means to some of the Scandinavians.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that I was selective in my figures. I think that he was selective in his figures. Taking just about any of the quotas west of Scotland, we have 60 per cent. of the herring quota, 51 per cent. of the cod, 79 per cent. of the haddock, 64 per cent. of the whiting, 60 per cent. of the plaice and so on. Those are high figures. I do not feel that the point I made was unfair.
The noble Lord said that in the past the Government may have been guilty of too liberal a licensing regime. Doubtless we could have a debate about that. The point of the Bill is to address the problems that we have now. It is our view that decommissioning with effort control will be more effective than decommissioning on its own. It so happens that many member states have relied heavily on decommissioning in the past. Some member states already share our view about effort control and we naturally hope that that view will gain ground. It is a view that we push at every opportunity. But it is not realistic to expect in the Community that we can convert others to our views all at once. At the same time we should not refrain for that reason from doing what we think is right.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend clear up one point which I failed to identify in his speech? If he dealt with it, I apologise. If the Bill goes through without amendment, and if subsequently it turns out that our European friends allow to their fishing fleet longer hours of fishing than the Bill allows to our

105
fishing fleet, and it appears that several of the major fishing fleets of our European friends will have longer hours, will the Government amend the Bill?
Earl Howe: We do not expect all other member states to introduce a days at sea regime. We have said that we shall look at the way in which other member states are tackling their MAGP targets and use that as the justification for coming to both Houses with any proposals to reduce the days at sea regime that applies under the Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Will the Minister clarify one point? As I understand it, the Hague Preference so carefully negotiated in 1983 was a permissive order which allowed British fishermen to obtain more of the haddock quota than they would otherwise receive. My noble friend indicated that the haddock quota, which is so important to Scottish fishermen, is 89 per cent. of the total European catch in the North Sea. Will he indicate what that figure would be without the Hague Preference? As I understand it, if the figure has to be renegotiated with the Council of Ministers there is no guarantee whatsoever that the Hague Preference would be implemented. That is a serious position for British fishermen.
Earl Howe: I agree entirely with my noble friend that the Hague Preference is an important measure. At present I do not have an answer. I shall find one and write to him.
The Earl of Selborne: If we assume that there will be justice only if each member state has equal numbers of days at sea, that seems to deny the premise which noble Lords, including myself, made earlier—that some national countries have not addressed the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is right. We should have addressed the multi-annual guidance programme years ago, when it began in 1985–86. We did not do so. We kept the larger capacity. Therefore, if one tailors capacity to the national quota one has to get on with decommissioning; and also limit access to the sea.
It is no good saying that that means other countries will have more days at sea than we do. Those countries simply have their act more in balance. They have fewer ships fishing for the national quota. It is quotas which ultimately will limit the ability to take fish. My noble friend on the Front Bench puts it clearly. We are seeking to ensure that we do not go for discards and black fisheries, all of which are a terrible blight on our fishing industry at present. We cannot be complacent and say that we are in no position to reduce our days at sea until everyone else does the same. The problem is not a level playing field and that is partly our own fault.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: We have had an interesting debate. This was not intended to be a wrecking amendment but to ensure that effort limitation was not confined to ourselves. I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have said, in particular the noble Earl. I shall read the noble
106
Earl's speech, and others, and then consider whether to return with a different amendment at Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Matrix Churchill
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to repeat a Statement which my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware counsel for the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill case informed the court yesterday that, in the light of the evidence given by Mr. Alan Clark in cross-examination, he had concluded that it would no longer be right to seek a conviction in the case; and that the prosecuting authority, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, had accepted that conclusion. Both he and the commissioners were satisfied that during the course of cross-examination Mr. Clark had given evidence which was inconsistent with a written statement he had made in 1991 and with what he had said in an interview with an officer of Customs and Excise in September 1992.
"The case raises important questions about the operation of export licensing policy in relation to Iraq during the period to which the events related. The Government will ensure that a full and independent inquiry into these events is undertaken by a judge. This will encompass the operations of all relevant departments and agencies. I am glad to tell the House that Lord Justice Scott has agreed to undertake this task. The precise terms of reference will be discussed with the judge. It is hoped to make them available to the House later this week. The judge will have access to all relevant papers and will be able to invite evidence from anyone he thinks fit. It will be for him to decide the extent to which he sits in public. His report and evidence will be published except in so far as, in the light of his advice, publication is contrary to the public interest.
"This inquiry will be set up and conducted as speedily as possible, having regard to the need not to prejudice any further criminal inquiries or proceedings. On this aspect, I should say that the commissioners have referred the papers in the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Any further action is a matter for them.
"Finally, it has been alleged that Ministers by signing public interest immunity certificates gave orders that departmental papers should be kept from defence lawyers in an attempt at a cover up. This is a complete misunderstanding of the law in this area and thus a distortion of the truth. It is the

107
law expressly enunciated by the courts that Ministers have a duty to claim public interest immunity either in respect of specific documents or recognised classes of document the production of which would in principle be contrary to the public interest. This duty cannot be waived. Once a proper claim has been made it is for the court to look at the papers if it thinks fit, to balance the competing public interests and to determine whether the interests of justice in the particular case require disclosure of some or all of the documents in issue. Such a claim must be made irrespective of whether it is embarrassing to the Government either to reveal or to withhold. In this case it was at the express invitation of prosecuting counsel that the judge looked at all the material before he made his ruling."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. It is clear that the matter is one of the utmost gravity. We welcome the Government's proposal to set up a full and independent inquiry—a course which we have been advising—and that Lord Justice Scott has agreed to perform that important task. We note that the judge will decide whether there are to be public sittings of the inquiry. It may well be in the public interest that as much of the evidence as possible is heard in public. In view of what we have already heard of the affair it seems desirable that there should be as much disclosure as possible.
The Statement indicates that the inquiry will be conducted speedily so as not to prejudice any further criminal inquiries or proceedings. We note that papers have been referred to the DPP and we fully support that action. However, given that the court had already sat for four weeks on the case why did the Ministers concerned not intervene much earlier? That is very difficult to understand, especially in view of the fact that if the matter had gone further it is not impossible that three innocent men might have been sent to prison.
The Statement refers to the allegation that by signing public interest immunity certificates Ministers kept departmental papers from defence lawyers. We know that Ministers have that duty in certain cases. However, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind that there is anxiety about the increasing propensity of senior government Ministers to claim public interest immunity in criminal trials? We hope that the inquiry will look at that aspect of the matter.
Furthermore, did the four Ministers concerned in the case agree between them that the certificates should be issued? There was a time when such a question was decided by Cabinet committees. That is not now the case but it is important that Ministers know what is going on; indeed, the Cabinet should be aware of what is going on. I should like to be certain that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were aware that the certificates were to be issued in this case.
108
The Statement indicates that the judge will be able to invite evidence from anyone he thinks fit. Does that mean that he can summon anyone he wishes and require him or her to give evidence on oath? That is an important matter. Finally, will the terms of reference cover the conduct of Ministers as well as matters of policy? It is essential that the judge should have the right and the facility to look into every aspect of this affair without let or hindrance.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches regard the inquiry as essential. One or two aspects of the noble and learned Lord's Statement puzzle me, in particular the implication that the four Ministers concerned had a duty to withhold the papers where production would in principle be contrary to the public interest. The inquiry will ask carefully what the public interest was. At that time the war had ended and Mr. Henderson was no longer employed by MI6. What was the public interest involved other than the need to protect the reputations of the Ministers concerned?
Am I right in assuming that the terms of reference will refer only to Matrix Churchill and not to other firms about which similar suspicions have been voiced? I also wish to inquire into the express invitation of the prosecuting counsel that the judge look at all the material before making his ruling. I read that the prosecuting counsel argued that the documents disclosed would not help the defence. Is that so? If so it conflicts to a startling degree with the final sentence of the Statement.
Obviously, we must wait for the inquiry's report. In the meantime, thanks to the trial, certain facts are already incontrovertible. And they are barely credible. For three years up to the outbreak of war senior Ministers declared repeatedly and publicly that we were not helping to arm Saddam Hussein. At the same time in the utmost secrecy they pursued precisely the opposite policy. They helped to arm an aggressor and probably, almost inevitably, thereby encouraged him to take his chance. As the truth leaked out, and as was shown in the trial and is incontrovertible, Ministers resorted to increasingly desperate measures to cover up the truth. The climax was the signing of the certificates, which I am certain that the inquiry will wish to investigate. But for those papers being disclosed, and but for the decisiveness of the judge, these innocent men might have suffered a terrible injustice—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sorry to say that we are used to incompetence on the part of the Government; for instance, Maastricht, coal and the ERM. But here, in the new scandal, we are faced not with the gross incompetence of Ministers but with their gross misconduct.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about public sittings of the inquiry. That will be a matter for Lord Justice Scott; I am sure that he will take into account the kind of matters which the noble Lord raised. However, it is a matter for him. The noble Lord asked why nothing

109
was done at an earlier stage. I understand that what happened during the trial arose out of the specific evidence of Mr. Clark. As was explained in the Statement, that evidence differed from what had been said on two previous occasions. As a result, independent prosecuting counsel, and on his advice independent commissioners, then took the view that nothing further should be done and that the case should not be proceeded with. I understand that there was no reason to intervene at an earlier stage.
The question of the public interest immunity certificate has been dealt with by the courts and by your Lordships' House acting in its judicial capacity. In the light of the rulings of the courts the view has been taken that Ministers have a duty to take a point on public interest immunity where they consider that to be appropriate; for example, it is generally regarded that it would be against the public interest to reveal certain classes of documents. Decisions on such matters are taken and were taken in this case fully in the knowledge that in the light of case law which has been laid down by the courts they can be reviewed by the courts. It was not as if decisions in this case were taken and were thought in some way to be a final gag. They were taken fully in the knowledge that the matter could be raised in the trial court, as indeed happened. I do not know whether there was any degree of consultation among Ministers but I understand that decisions on the particular certificates would have been taken by individual departmental Ministers on the advice of their officials.
The inquiry is of the same general type as that of Lord Justice Bingham in respect of BCCI. Just as that inquiry was able to get to the bottom of those issues it is equally clear that this inquiry will have similar powers thereby ensuring that a full inquiry is carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked what was the public interest. I have explained already that the public interest can arise in various ways, either as to the particular content or the class of a document. A decision on that matter is taken in the full knowledge that, at the end of the day, a judge will decide whether the interests of the defence, the conduct of the trial and of justice would, in a particular case, outweigh the claim for public interest.
AS regards the terms of reference, noble Lords must wait until they are published. I understand that they will be wide terms of reference. Whether or not they will cover matters outside the Matrix Churchill case, I cannot at this stage inform your Lordships.
I believe that there is a misunderstanding as to what is implied in the last sentence of the Statement. The position was, as I understand it, that prosecuting counsel said something to the effect that he did not believe that certain aspects of the documents would be of particular assistance to the defence. He was entitled to say that, but that was in the context of his submission that it was for the judge to look at the whole situation and to rule on the matter. I have already given the reasons as to why the prosecution was dropped at the end of the day.
As regards the noble Lord's concluding remarks, I hear what he says but I refute completely any idea that
110
Ministers were in any way engaged in increasingly desperate measures, or any other kind of measures, to cover up wrongdoing on their part. All such matters will be for the consideration of the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott, and it is better for that independent forum to make the decisions.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a very short question: short because my noble and learned friend may agree with me that in the light of the wide inquiry proposed it is unwise to make further comments on the merits of the inquiry.
What is the exact constitutional position of the inquiry which is proposed? Lord Justice Scott is obviously a very well respected judge, but what powers will he have? Am I right in thinking that my noble and learned friend indicated that the inquiry would not be held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act? If so, what powers will the judge have to compel evidence and the production of documents? Will he be able to issue a subpoena and will he have disciplinary powers against those who refuse to give evidence? How far will the rule against self-incrimination be applicable?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the inquiry will not be conducted under the 1921 Act. I do not believe that the precise formula of the inquiry is yet settled. That must be determined. Therefore, I cannot give my noble and learned friend all the details for which he has asked. The model being considered is the inquiry used in the case of BCCI. That proved effectual. One expects that all people and papers from the Government will be made available to the inquiry.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, irrespective of this case, is it the practice of the Government that ordinary Ministers should always be advised as to what is in the public interest and what is in the interests of the Government?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in the light of advice received and having regard to the law of the land and everything else, Ministers must consider what is a proper basis for giving such a certificate. That matter is what comes under the heading of public interest.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend four questions from these Back Benches. I ask them not as a Conservative, which I am, but as an ordinary lawyer who has seen a little service with the Armed Forces. First, is it right that, within a few days of the inception of the Gulf conflict, sophisticated weaponry was sent from this country? That was a conflict in which relations of mine certainly fought and in which even I, although fortunately the offer was refused, offered to serve.
Secondly, is it right to prosecute people who implemented government policy, if it was government policy? Thirdly, is it right for the Cabinet, the Government, or whoever it is, to fail to inform the Attorney General of the true position, which resulted in an abortive trial? Thank Heavens for the judiciary

111
of our country which ensured that, in the end, justice was done. There is an explanation to be given; it is not a question of a judicial inquiry. That explanation should be given now.
Fourthly, was it right for the Government, whom I support or try to support, to continue that trial by withholding essential evidence on public interest affidavits held by the judge to be spurious, which could only have secured an acquittal?
There is a certain revulsion—and this is not a question —on the part of an ordinary lawyer like myself at what has happened in this case. What is the answer? I should like to have an answer now. What is the answer in regard to those Ministers of the Crown who swore those affidavits? I should like an answer to that question now.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as to my noble friend's first question, I cannot give him information as to precisely what happened within a few days of the Gulf conflict breaking out. All questions which are relevant to that issue and to the issue to be determined will be matters for the inquiry to consider. Therefore, as I have already said, I do not believe that it would be proper to go further than that.
As to whether it was correct to prosecute people who implemented government policy, the question is whether or not, on the information available to independent prosecuting counsel, the decision to prosecute and to continue the prosecution until it was discontinued, was correct. Again, that may be a matter which the inquiry will look into. I have explained the position as I understand it to be.
As regards the true position, I have explained that what happened in this case, and in particular what led to it being discontinued, was that certain evidence that was given by Mr. Clark, which cast a new light on the circumstances, was not known to the Government or to the independent prosecutor before that change was made.
Whether or not it was right to continue the trial was a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. My understanding is that it is not true to say that those certificates were universally held to be unfounded, or overruled by the judge. I understand that to some extent, at any rate, he upheld the contention for public interest immunity where he thought that was justified. With reference to the law on this matter, I have explained already that the Ministers concerned had a duty to take that point but did so in the full knowledge that the matter would be explored by the courts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind some bleak, implacable facts? Those defendants have been in danger of ruination and certain imprisonment for month upon month, year on year, when it is more likely than not that government departments had in their hands documents which would have pointed to their innocence—and all this in England in 1992.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that these defendants might have been saved from suffering injustice. They have already suffered it. Is it not unjust to be burdened by this weight in these circumstances?
112
Will there be any thought of apology, compensation or—a word atrophied through disuse—resignations? Will the terms of reference be sufficient to guide Lord Justice Scott specifically to the conduct of senior Ministers and not senior civil servants? Will the defendants be allowed representation? Finally, will it be for Lord Justice Scott and for him alone to decide what is to be published?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was more likely than not that documents which pointed to innocence were available to government departments. That is a matter of assertion. That question and others relating to the merits of this matter are, as I said, a matter for Lord Justice Scott and not a matter for comment on this occasion in the House.
The terms of reference will be wide and such as to allow a full and proper inquiry to be made into the actions of those who have played a part in the matter. Whether or not representation will be permitted may be a matter to some extent for Lord Justice Scott in the light of how he chooses to conduct his inquiry. I have already explained in the Statement how the matter of publication will be dealt with: that is to say, it will be judged in the light of the advice of Lord Justice Scott. I leave it at that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord one further question? It was put first by my noble friend Lord Mayhew and also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. They asked whether in fact a witness could be compelled to give evidence. The noble and learned Lord referred to the Bingham inquiry. As he will be aware, no one could be compelled to give evidence at that inquiry. Is he therefore saying that we are going to have a situation where some witnesses could refuse to give evidence?
My second point refers to the security services. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of the matters which Lord Justice Scott will look into concern a number of operational decisions taken by MI5 and MI6? Is it not almost certain, would he not agree, that these matters will not be dealt with fully in Lord Justice Scott's report, for rather obvious reasons? Can I also ask whether the Opposition parties in Parliament will be shown those sections of the report on a Privy Councillor basis?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not think I really can go further on the question of the machinery of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry because the matter has not been determined. I cannot really give any assurance or otherwise on the question of compulsion. I would merely add that the inquiry of Lord Justice Bingham did indeed prove fruitful, and I think that in the same sort of way this inquiry should be able to deal with the issues which are involved. On the other matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I think one would need to wait and see what was in Lord Justice Scott's report that related to the security services. A decision as to what is to be done with the publication of those matters will have to wait until that stage is reached.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is in his place and as he has special knowledge of this matter he might feel disposed to assist your Lordships in the matter if he were so minded?
Lord Monson: My Lords, one can agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that it is a very great pity that Ministers did not intervene much earlier so as to save the taxpayer a very large sum of money and also to spare three innocent men being put on trial on a very serious criminal charge. Having said that, would the Minister not agree that it is all very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to say now that it has been obvious all along that Saddam Hussein is an evil man and that Iraq has always been our enemy number one in the Middle East? However, that is not how it seemed less than three years ago. At that time it was Iran which appeared to be enemy number one: Iran, with its fanatical ayatollahs, with their fatwahs and their mass hostage taking. On that basis, it must have seemed only prudent to let Iraq have a limited amount of low-grade non-nuclear weaponry which would help keep the Iranians at bay.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not think I can go into the substance of what has been said. On the matter of the intervention of Ministers, I have to remind your Lordships that we are dealing here with a prosecution in the courts. It is a proud part of our tradition, which is jealously guarded, that Ministers do not intervene in prosecutions. That is a matter which would raise the most profound issues. The independence of our prosecution system is one of the most important principles that we have.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give two assurances to the House? Will he assure us that the four Ministers who signed these documents will have no hand in determining what the terms of reference are going to be? Secondly, will he give an assurance that if they are invited by Lord Justice Scott to give evidence, or "summoned"—a word used latterly in another place—they will accept that invitation?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, on the first point, I do not know exactly what the machinery will be for determining the terms of reference but, as I pointed out in repeating the Statement, the terms of reference will be discussed with Lord Justice Scott. I am sure he will make sure that the terms of reference will be what he considers suitable to allow him to carry out an effective inquiry. On the second point, I am perfectly certain that if Ministers are asked to co-operate with the inquiry they will do so.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, in case it should transpire that this prosecution turns out to have been totally unjustified right from the beginning and has led directly to a well-known company being forced into
114
liquidation, will the noble and learned Lord use his influence to see that the terms of reference enable the tribunal to award such compensation as is appropriate?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I think that that would be rather an unusual power to give to a tribunal of this kind. The terms of reference will be a matter for consideration by Lord Justice Scott, and I do not think I want to go further than that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does this affair not have the stench of arrogance and corruption of a government that has sat for too long and of a party that has governed for too long? Will the noble and learned Lord answer the question which was put to him by my noble friend Lord Williams about who will decide about the publication of the report when it is finally ready? Will it be Lord Justice Scott, or will the Government decide what is to be published? Regarding the Ministers involved, will resignations not be enough and if in fact something more serious is proved against these Ministers, will they be indicted or impeached?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I simply say of these matters that so far as publication is concerned I cannot and will not go further than what was said by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in his Statement: that is, that the matter will be considered in the light of the advice of Lord Justice Scott. As for matters of resignation, and so on, I think all that is rather premature. We have to await the outcome of the inquiry.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be reasonable for someone who could never be described as anything to do with the law just to say a word as far as your Lordships' House is concerned. Equally, your Lordships will understand, someone like me is deeply hurt and upset by the incidents that we have been told about. Obviously, they have to be seriously investigated, and I understand that they are to be. I wonder whether it is really wise for your Lordships' House to continue a debate in which many harsh things will be said before the opportunity of the inquiry has been able to be fulfilled. I feel myself that we would do ourselves better—
Noble Lords: There are only two minutes left.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, maybe there are, but I still want to make the point that I was making. At least if I succeed in stopping it, I shall be very pleased indeed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I would concur. As I have said, a lot of these matters are for Lord Justice Scott's report and it really would be wrong for your Lordships to trespass on them.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this inquiry was welcomed on this side of the House by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and I understand the spirit in which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made his remarks. However, has it not now become clear that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate cannot even tell us the form of the inquiry,

115
this Statement is a panic device by the Government to block public discussion of a very serious affair affecting the lives of three individuals, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Williams? Perhaps I may ask one more question. The judge was asked to look at the documents in this case. Did the Attorney-General have any part to play in making that decision or was that decision made purely by prosecuting counsel on his own initiative?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, on the first point, perhaps I may say that if the Attorney-General had come to the House today and had not offered an inquiry, I am perfectly certain that those on the other side would have been making a greater complaint and insisting on having an inquiry. On the second matter, as I understand it, the question of looking at the documents was a matter that was put forward to the judge by prosecuting counsel on his responsibility. One would not normally expect the Attorney-General to get involved in the detail of such a matter. Indeed, I understand that he did not in this particular case.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
4.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(6C) The Ministers shall by order make provision as to the principles on which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at for the purposes of any condition included in a licence by virtue of subsection (6) (c) above." ").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 20, 36 and 41. In tabling this group of amendments today I am fulfilling a commitment made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which I reiterated on Second Reading. I also referred to it in our previous debate on Amendment No. 3. My honourable friend undertook that:
"Ministers should be obliged to seek an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament before they use their powers to reduce effort below the level set for 1993".
He also undertook that:
"We should not introduce such a resolution"—
that is, to reduce days at sea—
"unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/92; col. 1027.]
The wording of the amendments, I am well aware, is opaque and somewhat confusing and I shall try to explain precisely how they achieve the desired result. This group of amendments provides for two things: first, for the principles governing the time which licensed vessels may spend at sea, that is to say the general principles upon which days at sea calculations are to be made, to be laid down in negative resolution orders; and secondly, for principles involving a reduction in time at sea allocations for all vessels, that
116
is to say specific rules for specific vessels or for groups of vessels, to be laid down in an affirmative resolution order.
In this way, the Government will be required not only to set down in regulations the basic principles on which time at sea allocations will be based but also to make an affirmative resolution order on each occasion on which they wish to make a reduction in allocations for all vessels or for any specified group of vessels. By requiring an affirmative resolution order each time the Government wish to make overall reductions, Parliament will be given an opportunity to debate the size and nature of those reductions.
The amendment to Clause 1 inserts a requirement for Ministers to make orders specifying the principles on which time at sea allocations will be based. There are, as I say, the general rules governing the way in which calculations are to be made. This requirement was formerly in the clause dealing with the tribunal (Clause 2). These orders will be subject to the negative resolution parliamentary procedure.
The amendment to Clause 2 removes the enabling power in respect of principles from that clause.
The new clause amends Section 20 of the 1967 Act, which is the section concerning orders made under the Act. The new clause makes a distinction between two types of orders which can contain principles on which days at sea will be based. The first type of order will contain the basic principles. The second type of order will contain principles which involve a reduction in the time all vessels or specified groups of vessels may be spent at sea. New subsection (5A) makes the distinction by providing that any principles involving overall reductions in time at sea must be excluded from orders containing basic principles and must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The new subsection (5B) describes the reduction principles in general terms—that is, principles containing reductions in time at sea allocations in comparison with previous allocations applying to all vessels or specified groups of vessels.
Finally, the amendment to Clause 7 provides for the order-making powers in Clause 1 to come into force on Royal Assent.
Turning to the actions of other member states and whether they are taking effective action to meet their capacity targets, I recognise that this is a matter which reflects deep concern, as expressed by noble Lords in this Committee and by honourable Members in another place. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee earlier, the Government will stand by the commitment made by my honourable friend in another place on this matter. We will deal with the issue when we debate the affirmative resolution orders which are the subject of this amendment. It will be for the House—for both Houses—to decide at that time whether effective action has, indeed, been taken by other member states and it will be for the Government to present the relevant information on which Parliament can make a judgment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: These amendments carry out the undertaking that was given by the Government in another place when the Bill was passing through that other place. They were repeated

117
by my noble friend in his Second Reading speech. In my speech on that occasion I welcomed what he said. I believe that this will be an important addition to the Bill (if the Committee approves it) because it provides the assurance that both Houses of Parliament can consider—I hope quickly—any changes which could be painful or injurious to the British fishing industry. I hope therefore that the Committee will accept these amendments.
Lord Gallacher: We are grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled in fulfilment of the promise made on Second Reading. He began his moving of them by saying that they were somewhat "opaque", but they were considerably less opaque by the time he sat down than they were when I attempted to decide their import myself in relation to the Bill. We welcome the affirmative procedure where it is to be used. We shall look again at what the Minister said in relation to those areas where the negative procedure will continue to apply. But, in general, I think that the industry and those of us who have been concerned about the Bill will be gratified that the Government have had second thoughts about this aspect since the Bill left another place. We therefore support the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Although one supports my noble friend in bringing forward these amendments and carrying out his undertaking, there is a weakness in that, although the order is brought before both Houses, it cannot be amended. It has to be accepted or thrown out. Therefore I hope that my noble friend can reply now and say that, in view of that, there will be the fullest co-operation and consultation with the industry in drawing up these very important principles. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that. I have tabled an amendment which will put such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on that point. We shall be coming to it later on, as he rightly said, but I believe I shall be able to give him reassuring answers at that time about the question of consultation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I too had some difficulty in deciphering exactly what the Government's amendments mean. My noble friend said that this would always happen when the number of days at sea was being decreased. What will happen if the number is being increased? The industry may be interested to know whether that will be discussed by Parliament because many conservationists may object to that. Will it apply only when the number of days is decreased?
Earl Howe: It will apply when there is any change to the days at sea that have been allocated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6B), any day or part of a day during which a vessel sails from port for a purpose other than fishing shall not count as time at sea." ").
The noble Earl said: It is my honour and duty to move this probing amendment. Its purpose is simple and I am sure that my noble friends will give it their support. As a member of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, one knows very well how generous fishermen are in supporting charities at weekends and in the summer to raise money for distressed fishermen. There are many occasions when boats go out to sea for trawler races, sea festivals and so on. They go out for rescue work as well and even to perform guard duties around our oil installations. Those are non-fishing activities. I hope that in the principles that are to be announced my noble friend will make it very clear that those fishermen will not be subject to penalties in carrying out those duties. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I hope that included in the idea of not penalising vessels when they go out of harbour for non-fishing purposes is the possibility of allowing them to take out parties of sport fishermen, who after all do not catch that many fish. They can hardly be considered to be engaged in commercial fishing. If Members of the Committee want another example, perhaps I may refer to the fishermen of Folkestone harbour, who spend quite a lot of time in the summer escorting Channel swimmers from Cap Gris Nez to St. Margaret's Bay and back again. Perhaps that too can be taken into consideration.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: They also take out parties of tourists in the summer. That is important and useful.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I wonder whether this covers the kind of episode which was mentioned in another place on one occasion. Let us say that a boat's home port is at Buckie but it unloads fish at Macduff and then goes home for the weekend to berth at Buckie. There have been occasions when the trip from Macduff to Buckie was counted as a fishing day at sea. I gather that there was some indignation—un-derstandable indignation—about that. In addition, even when a boat had to go elsewhere to get an engine repaired, it was counted as being at sea. Will relief be given in future on that kind of episode?
Earl Howe: I understand the concern of fishermen who may believe that days at sea restrictions will prevent them from carrying out other legitimate economic activities at sea. However, I can reassure them now that that is not the case. When fisheries departments come to issue days at sea allocations to individual vessel owners they will make an allowance within that allocation for such non-fishing activities. For example, where a vessel is known regularly to collect white weed, this could be included in the vessel owner's allocations. I have every reason to think that the other activities mentioned by noble Lords—trawler races, charity events and tourist trips—will be included in the definition of non-fishing activities. Departments may also consider other mechanisms such as licence suspensions for dealing with vessels which will be carrying out non-fishing activities over

119
longer blocks of time. If individuals are not satisfied with their allocation in respect of non-fishing, they can of course appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal.
The reason we are treating non-fishing activity in this way is that it would simply not be possible to enforce the days at sea regime if non-fishing activity was not included in the allocation. Fisheries inspectors would never know for what purpose a vessel had set to sea and whether therefore the time was counting towards his allocation. The whole system would be wide open to abuse. So I can assure Members of the Committee that we do not intend to prevent fishermen carrying out non-fishing activities but we must include those activities at the outset within their days at sea allocation to ensure proper enforcement. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am grateful for that reassurance. I hope that the allowance when granted will be generous because there are many activities—not only the ones mentioned but others as well—which will cause problems if the allowance is not generous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6B), any day or part of a day which a vessel spends in port while the fishing gear pertaining to that vessel is laid at sea for the purpose of fishing shall count as time at sea." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to find out whether the Government have considered all the points at issue. A trawlerman going out to sea takes his trawl. He cannot fish without it. A day at sea is therefore more easily recognised. But there are fishing methods whereby nets are set, creels are laid and so on. How will this be assessed? If the weather has been bad and the fishermen cannot get back to his nets, will those days be counted as days at sea? How will this be done? It is an illustration of the difficulties faced when trying to regulate a very complicated and complex industry. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say because it is a very fair point. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I readily acknowledge that this amendment identifies a potential problem area for fishermen using static gear; days at sea restrictions are not a perfect mechanism for controlling their activities. Our scientists do nevertheless advise that even in this sector days at sea controls have some effect in restricting fishing effort.
This is a problem which we intend to address but we do not believe that we can do it by altering the days at sea regime. It would, quite simply, be impossible to enforce. The amendment would require us to check not only on fishing vessels' activities and where they were but also on where their fishing nets and pots were as well. I hope the Committee will acknowledge that this could lead to chaos.
The noble Lord may be aware that the European Commission is also considering the problem and intends to produce a report with recommendations on
120
this subject. We do not wish to pre-empt any ideas that the Commission may have. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that it is a matter which requires a good deal more thought. On that basis, I hope he will be content to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I certainly agree with the noble Earl that the matter requires more thought. But, what is to happen in the meantime? How does he propose to deal with those boats? Will they not come within the restriction? If that is so, for their sakes I should be happy to hear about it. However, it raises questions in the minds of the trawler fishermen.
Earl Howe: I can only point out to the noble Lord that there are various options which we can adopt, such as limits on the number of pots, on the length and the depth of nets and on the frequency of visits to such gear. All such restrictions would pose major enforcement problems and would undoubtedly run us into further criticism. I do not want to labour the point. I take the noble Lord's argument very seriously. We are thinking about the matter and we hope to be able to consider the Commission's proposals very soon.
If I am in order, I should like to make a small correction regarding something that I said earlier to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I said that the affirmative resolution orders which applied to principles will be made whenever there is a change. I was wrong. They will be made only when there are reductions in time at sea and not when there are increases in time at sea. I apologise for misleading the Committee.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: On the basis, as I understand it, that the boats will not be under restriction at present, and that thought has been given to the matter, we shall also reconsider the amendment and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Amherst of Hackney Lord Amherst of Hackney moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() Gale force conditions shall be excluded from any restrictions on permitted time at sea for fishing vessels whose voyage duration is in excess of 24 hours and who are at sea in such conditions.
() The existence of gale force conditions (mean wind speeds in excess of 34 knots) shall be proven by the submission of weather facsimiles depicting gale conditions for the relevant area and time issued by the Meteorological Office, Bracknell." ").
The noble Lord said: I believe that noble Lords will have received numerous letters from fishermen's wives expressing their concerns that the provisions of the Bill could place the lives of their husbands seriously at risk by necessitating their engaging in fishing operations in dangerous conditions with tired crews and equipment pared to the minimum. While the restriction on sea time will result in burdening all the fishermen with great financial hardship, inshore fishermen will at least be able to decide from the latest weather information available whether or not to

121
utilise a precious day of permitted sea time. On the other hand, offshore fishermen will be unable to take any view on the weather they are likely to encounter over an extended period at sea. Their precious sea time will be ticking away so long as they are at sea, regardless of conditions. The financial pressures are likely to be even greater due to the greater size of the investment.
The weather is no respecter of averages as we have seen in the recent record drought; neither does it distribute its disfavours equitably. Our fishermen and their lives should surely be protected from its vagaries. The fact that it is so simple and foolproof to establish from weather facsimiles, issued and recorded by the Meteorological Office, whether gale conditions did or did not exist in a specific sea area on a particular day surely makes it impossible to justify the blanket inclusion of gale force conditions in permitted time at sea for offshore fishermen, and the consequential risk to life and limb that will inevitably ensue. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: The amendment before the Committee is most important, as was mentioned on Second Reading. My first point is that it should extend to all fishermen. It is quite true that it will primarily affect offshore fishermen, but inshore fishermen are also liable to be caught in gales and should be encouraged to return to port rather than attempt to continue in dangerous conditions. Further, this and previous amendments once again raise in my mind the whole method of the Bill. At its best, it is a very draconian measure. It takes away people's livelihood in a way which is very seldom, if ever, done in this country. It then appears to hand over to officials all sorts of decisions as to what is to count as time at sea; for example, whether gale force conditions will be excused, and so on. Again, that seems to me to be undesirable.
If Parliament is able—I do not know whether it can; personally I think that it is a pretty unworkable Bill—it should ensure that the Bill states exactly what is to count as time at sea, what the hours are and what conditions are to be taken into account. If that cannot be done, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in greater detail how such decisions will be made and, if gales do arise (as they do very quickly and, unfortunately, very violently, certainly in the north of Scotland) who is to decide whether or not the time at sea is to be wiped out. If it is not to be wiped out, how can we expect vessels—fairly small vessels at that—to continue at sea in conditions which may well be dangerous?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: On the face of it, there is a great deal to be said for the amendment. I say that because, if a fishing vessel is caught in stormy conditions and is unable to fish, it seems unfair that it should all the same be using up its permitted time and that that should be treated as time at sea. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, very clearly explained the purpose behind the amendment.
122
I should like to say, first, that I fully understand that fishermen may feel worried that if they are prevented from fishing by gale force winds they will not have sufficient days at sea left in which to catch their full fish entitlement for any year. Nevertheless, I believe that their fears are groundless. I shall explain why.
Each vessel's track record will be based on its activities in the base year; that is to say, 1991. It is safe to assume that trips undertaken in that year—taken together and analysed—will be no different from trips undertaken next year: on some occasions in 1991 fishermen will have been prevented from fishing during a trip of more than 24 hours by gale force winds. In other words, the vessel's track record for 1991 will already have included within it time when that vessel was at sea but was prevented from fishing by bad weather. Skippers are professional men: they know the weather and they must make a judgment as to when it is safe to go to sea or to stay at sea. One thing we should not forget is that 1991 was itself a year when many vessels were subject to a compulsory tie-up scheme under EC rules—a scheme which was in many ways more restrictive than the one which the Government are now proposing. There is no evidence to suggest that during that year the judgment of skippers (as to whether or not to go to sea or stay at sea) was applied in anything but a sensible and professional way. We believe that that will continue.
I put it to the noble Lord, therefore, that there is no need for the amendment. An allowance for abortive trips will already have been taken account of in the time at sea allocation and does not need a special provision. I hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend can go a little further. It is all very well to say that skippers are experienced seamen and will, therefore, be able to foresee the weather. It suggests that they are apparently rather better at the task than the Meteorological Office has recently shown itself to be. When a boat is going out fishing for some days I wonder whether it is really fair to say that time should continue to run against it if at that time it runs into a wholly unforeseeable gale and is unable to fish. I do not think that my noble friend's answer was very satisfactory.
Earl Howe: I was not saying that skippers could foresee the weather; I was saying that, if they go out to sea and then they find a storm descending upon them, they are sufficiently professional not to let their judgment as to whether to stay at sea be compromised by the storm. Their allocation of days at sea will already have taken account of such incidents which will have occurred in the base year of 1991.
Lord Mottistone: Does that mean that my noble friend is saying that the gales in 1991 were typical of gales always? From my experience of many years at sea there are particular years during which there are many gales and other years when there are not so many. Last winter I believe that we had fewer gales in the waters around the United Kingdom than has been the case this year and in many others. One can only

123
rely on an average of five or six years for gales. My noble friend should reconsider how this problem should be dealt with and make the allowances that I have suggested.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I echo that plea. My noble friend serves the interests not just of fishing but of farming. I am surprised to hear my noble friend rely on what he called the "track record". Farming is not nearly as precarious as fishing, but no farmer dares rely upon the track record of one harvest which was good five years previously to say that it will therefore be good five years hence. One goes up and down and in and out. One knows how precarious it is. I beg my noble friend to reconsider this matter. Trying to turn dangers at sea into bureaucratic terms is not the right thing to do.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I may be mistaken, but I thought I understood the Minister to suggest that, if a skipper found himself caught at sea in a storm, he should run for his home port or the nearest port. There are occasions when it is unsafe to run to port and one has to ride out the storm at sea. Will the Minister clarify that point because it is something that needs to be taken into consideration?
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may answer the noble Lady's point first. I was not suggesting that a skipper should head for port in all circumstances. I say that it is up to his judgment whether to do so. Over the year as a whole—we are looking at 1991—there will be occasions when the skipper will have made a dash for port and others when he will have stayed at sea.
As to whether 1991 was a good or bad year for storms, I shall study that point because it is something of which we should be aware. My noble friend Lord Stodart was a little cheeky in comparing these circumstances with those of a farmer. Farmers have to harvest at definite times of the year. I was seeking to say earlier that over the year as a whole there will be statistically an average number of days when the weather is less than clement. Those days will be built into the allocation that vessel owners will receive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is an ingenious argument to say that in 1991 so many days were lost. That might be so. This legislation contemplates a further cut in time at sea into which the same number of storm-damage days will eat much more deeply.
Earl Howe: I take the noble Lord's point, but I do not believe that the days at sea limitation will prove to be the limiting factor for fishermen. It is not days at sea but quotas which will prove to be the limiting factor. As the noble Lord is aware, this year there are vessels tied up in port two months before the year end because their quotas have been exhausted. I do not see this as being a problem.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: That is the whole point of the Bill.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Would it not be more rational to accept the approach suggested in the
124
amendment and remove the gale days from the 1991 experience? Then one would merely act on what had happened in the year about which one is talking.
Earl Howe: Then there will be grave enforcement problems when it comes to monitoring days at sea when the regime is introduced.
Lord Blease: The discussion has taken place based upon days at sea and days upon which gales occur. Gales do not occur to a regular pattern all over the United Kingdom. The Irish Sea may be different from Scottish waters or the North Sea. Will an appeal system be included in relation to the monitoring of days at sea?
Earl Howe: As the noble Lord is aware, the Bill provides for the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. It will be able to hear appeals when a vessel owner feels that storms or other factors have not been taken sufficiently into account in the allocation. The allocations will be made vessel by vessel. Each vessel operates in a different area of our waters. The allocation will be based upon the track record of individual vessels. The noble Lord is right to point out that some areas will have a different history of storms or inclement weather from other areas. Those factors will be taken into account when the allocations are made.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: I thank the Minister for his helpful comments. As I understood it, this summer brought about the termination of the driest period since records began. I mentioned that earlier. What is to stop the winter of 1994–95 being the most violent winter since records began?
We are not talking about the type of fishing boat that can turn back to seek a port of refuge. I was referring more to the 40-metre trawler which would be four or five days from its home port and would not have shelter available. Even if it did have shelter available, it would not be in its home port. It would be seeking refuge off some coastline and so it would still be deemed to be using up sea time.
The wives are worried that the skippers, urged on by the whole crew, could be persuaded or feel themselves pushed into fishing in conditions which were downright dangerous merely because they were becoming short of permitted sea days perhaps because they had already lost a substantial number due to bad weather. It is dangerous to put skippers and their crews into a position where they could feel forced, for financial reasons, to take decisions which should be governed entirely by seamanship.
Earl Howe: I take the noble Lord's points. I have tried to answer them as best I can. There is a whole range of factors which could compromise a skipper's judgment. The fact that he has a high overdraft at the bank could lead him to go to sea when it might be safer not to, but, as I said, skippers do not act in that way. They are not the type of people who endanger the lives of their crews. While there is a serious point underlying the amendment, I do not believe that it will prove to be a problem in practice.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: I again thank the Minister. I am referring to circumstances in which the skipper would have no possible advantage from deciding to go to sea in storm conditions. There may be a three or four-day passage to a fishing ground. I am sure that the meteorological service has let your Lordships down a number of times with a 24-hour forecast, let alone a three or four-day forecast. After three or four days it would be hoped that the boat would have arrived at the ground and started to fish. Will the Minister give us some assurance that that is a factor that will be studied and that some further wording may be considered.
Earl Howe: I cannot do that, but what I can say is that the scenario the noble Lord has just painted is exactly the kind of situation a skipper would have faced in 1991 if he had not changed his fishing practice in the interim. I repeat that his allocation will reflect exactly that situation; so he should have no cause for worry.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(6D) A licence condition or variation of a licence condition, imposed under subsection (6) (c) shall not be valid for any year or part of a year unless notification thereof is given to the master, charterer or owner of the vessel named in the licence before 1st October in the preceding year." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows on, in some senses, from what we were discussing in Amendment No. 7. Its purpose is to establish in the Bill a period of time which owners must be given in order to deal with the condition or variation of a licence imposed under subsection (6) (c). It goes so far as to say that in order for such variation or condition to be valid for any year or part of a year, notice of the variation must be,
"given to the master, charterer or owner of the vessel named in the licence before 1st October in the preceding year".
Having regard to the fact that fishing conditions in 1993 will be different from those which applied in 1991—even though the number of gales may be similar—and are likely to be still more different in subsequent years, it is important that fishermen should receive as much notice as possible of the restriction to which they are subject to enable them, for example, to raise and have decided any appeal they may wish to make; to plan their fishing year or even to plan in as orderly a fashion as possible the disposal of their business, including applying for decommissioning.
We believe that in such circumstances three months is surely the minimum requirement in any of these situations. Those Members of the Committee who have had experience of contraction of a business will know that in many ways it is much more difficult than expanding a business. It is a sensitive time for all concerned and in fishing particularly so, having regard to peculiar circumstances such as the share fishing system which applies widely. In this context, if decommissioning is being contemplated, the wives and families of the fishermen come into the matter as well.
The purpose of the amendment is to acquaint the Minister with the nature of the problem and to ask him for a response on the basis of the human side of this aspect of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I have some sympathy with the amendment for the simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, pointed out, things have to be done in a relatively short space of time. I am quite concerned, however, because the whole question of days at sea is tied up with total allowable catches. Scientific evidence seems to come later and later in the year and we get nearer and nearer Christmas before a Council of Ministers decides what the total allowable catches are.
Will my noble friend the Minister consider at any stage that the start of the fishing year might be looked at in relation to a sensible and orderly way of dealing with the matter? I feel that the fishermen—skippers in particular—have a real point when trying to plan their year. They cannot do so because they do not know what the situation will be until the last moment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This problem also applies in farming. Decisions are made late or not at all and farmers are faced with an inability to plan forward because they do not know what will be the price or the restrictions. In this case it must be much the same. I have now said my piece!
The Earl of Kinnoull: While my noble friend is gathering his papers for his reply, perhaps I may say that the amendment deals with notice of the licence. I do not believe there are any amendments down for the Committee stage on how long the licence will last, whether it is for a year, two years or three years. Further, we have no indication, if the recipient of the licence does not like the conditions and appeals, as to whether he is allowed to fish during that period. Of course, the appeal may take from three to six months to materialise. I hope that my noble friend will be able to expand on these issues either now or at a later stage.
Earl Howe: I understand the concerns which have led to the tabling of this amendment, but I hope that in the light of what I am about to say, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will think it right to withdraw it. I say this, not because the thought behind the amendment is not a reasonable one, for the reasons that he stated—indeed, on the face of it, it is perfectly reasonable—but because there are very real practical difficulties with it. If it is carried, far from assisting fishermen, as noble Lords intend, I have to say that it could have the very opposite effect.
So far as the initial days at sea allocation is concerned, fishermen already know that the Government's intention is to freeze it at 1991 levels. I take it from the noble Lord's remarks that his concerns relate to what happens after the initial allocation.
In subsequent years I can say that fisheries departments will be able to give a general indication of likely changes some time in advance. However, before they can decide on any specific reductions in days at sea allocations, they will need to bring together scientific data on the up-to-date state of stocks and to

127
link this with the effectiveness of other measures in the conservation package. These data will not, of their very nature, be available until late in the year and decisions on possible reductions in days at sea therefore cannot be made until late November at the earliest.
For that reason, it would simply not be possible to give fishermen an accurate picture by 1st October of the likely size of any reduction. To try to do so would be no more than guesswork and could be highly misleading. Furthermore, the consequence would be that in the absence of any firm data at that stage of the year, departments would necessarily have to err on the side of caution and the resulting reductions might, as a result, be higher than they would be if they were set later in the year. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this would be highly undesirable.
However, as I said—and I intend this to be of some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher—fishermen will receive an indication of the scale of any proposed reductions as and when the Government table their affirmative resolution order. In practice, this will give them between four and six weeks' notice of the Government's intentions. I believe that most fishermen will find that adequate and I hope that the noble Lord will see that in practical terms it is the only sensible course to adopt. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, made a very interesting suggestion about changing the date of the fishing year. Would the noble Earl care to comment on that? It seems to me that it might possibly be the solution.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: There is a further point. I see no reason why the scientists and politicians should not get together earlier. There is no reason at all for them to wait until November before they make a decision. That is surely more logical than the poor fishermen, who go to sea in a difficult and dangerous occupation, not having the information. Let us assemble the scientists and politicians earlier. Would that not be possible?
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. The politicians and scientists, I may say, are talking all the year round. It is simply that we wish to make an accurate assessment of the state of the stocks as late in the year as we can so that any reductions that we have to make to the days at sea allocation can be justified.
The question was raised about the start of the fishing year. Under Community rules, TACs and quotas are managed in terms of calendar years and the issue of licences (which, incidentally, are renewable annually) is linked to that. So I cannot see much scope for changing the fishing year as proposed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the European Community could be persuaded to change the fishing year.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: That is an interesting suggestion. I shall bear it in mind and take it away with me.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I suspect that many fishermen will rely on the tribunals to come up with some kind of support. I asked my noble friend whether he could give any indication of how long these hearings may take and whether, after year one, a fisherman may continue to fish on the existing lease even if it has been reduced, subject to appeal.
Earl Howe: I do not think I can give my noble friend a straightforward answer to that point at the moment. I shall consult on that matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the reply he gave us. I think we are beginning to get the first indication that any date and year, however chosen, is likely with the passage of time to be flawed. I have yet to experience in any walk of life a situation where that does not apply. Nevertheless there has to be a starting point and 1991, so far as this Bill is concerned, is it. The noble Earl said that he hoped a general indication would be given about prospects in advance. We are grateful for that. But he went on to say that scientific data will usually be available late. Of course the later that is available the better it is in the sense of the validity of the advice the scientists are giving. Of course, if scientists were compelled to give an earlier forecast, they would err on the side of caution and in consequence the reductions might be higher than they otherwise would be if they had been allowed more time.
Nevertheless in the supporting speeches, for which I am grateful, a number of avenues have been opened up—notably the question of the date from which the Community fishing year was to run. I am well aware that at the moment it is a calendar year and I know from the days when I had something to do with this matter as a member of Sub-Committee D that the late announcement of TACs was always of great concern to fishermen. It may be that the prospect of inviting the Community to look, in the overall review of the CFP which is now about to take place, at what the fishing year should be is one avenue that should be explored. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will do that. Taking account of all that has been said and acknowledging the difficulties inherent in this matter, although I believe the problem still remains, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() In considering what action to take under subsection (6) (c) above, the Ministers shall first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning." ").
The noble Earl said: This is a very mildly worded amendment but it goes right to the centre of my disagreement, and indeed that of fishermen, as regards this Bill. The amendment states that the Government should keep in their sights the whole time, every time they review this situation, the whole matter of decommissioning. If I had worded the amendment a

129
little more carefully, I would have added the words "properly funded decommissioning", because the present scheme's provision of £25 million stretched over a certain period is most certainly inadequate, since it is expected only to take out 5 per cent. of fishing effort, whereas the need is to take out probably 25 or 30 per cent.
Without making a Second Reading speech, I believe it is fair to consider the slightly broader difficulties which attach to the tying-up process and to consider the fears that the fishermen themselves have. There are two main fears, or perhaps three. Some fishermen think, probably quite rightly, that they will be placed in a dangerous position and that they will be forced to tie up for such a period that when they go to sea they will have to fish for longer hours, possibly with smaller crews. I am sure that other Members of the Committee have, like myself, received many letters on this matter.
Further, there is a burning resentment that fishermen feel that this tying-up procedure is a decommissioning scheme by the back door. There is no compensation such as farmers receive for their set-aside land. On the other hand, a scheme of decommissioning may cost some money but it would be far easier to police. The argument which my noble friend has used before—I shall mention it before he does—that such a scheme would not work because those who remain will merely fish harder with more efficient equipment must be completely false from a mathematical point of view because one can obviously decommission down to such a point that that cannot possibly happen.
I also believe it is completely wrong to have an enormous amount of high technology, expensive fishing machinery tied up. In any business where one has to buy expensive machinery one tries to use that machinery effectively for as long as possible. Fundamentally the economics of the situation are wrong too. Finally, I believe that a proper decommissioning scheme with owners paid off, combined, as we now know, with the licensing of vessels under 10 metres, will at the end of the day constitute a far better provision for fishing com-munities than what is now on the face of this Bill. I hope that one day soon the Government will realise that they must enter—as other countries have done long ago—a proper decommissioning scheme. If they must pursue the idea of tying-up, I hope they will treat it as a temporary measure leading them towards that end. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that a properly worked out decommissioning scheme would result in a sizeable reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet. I understand that that has happened in other countries. I was certainly under the impression that one of the Government's reasons for refusing to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 3 was that decommissioning schemes were proving so successful in other countries that it was possibly not necessary for them to have tie-up days.
On the other hand Ministers argue against the schemes. I have heard many arguments made against
130
decommissioning schemes in the past. I have heard Ministers say they do not believe the schemes represent value for money because they would not necessarily secure the withdrawal of the right vessels. If that is the case, I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to waste—for if that argument is valid, waste it must be—£25 million on the decommissioning scheme they propose. Surely it would be better to use the money to compensate fishermen for tie-up days? Ironically of course they are right to argue against such schemes because the decommissioning scheme they are proposing is useless and will be a waste of taxpayers' money. It will reduce the capacity of the fishing fleet by approximately 5 per cent. only. That scarcely seems to be worth doing.
In September before last the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposed to government Ministers an alternative decommissioning scheme. I have read the federation's proposals and to me they seem eminently sensible and workable. They are to be found on pages 36 to 39 of the evidence in the report of Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee, published last June. I understand that the European Commission would be prepared to pay grants towards the cost of the scheme. Can the noble Earl say whether the Ministry has considered the scheme in depth? If not, will it please do so? Either decommissioning will help or it will not, but what is quite certain is that the scheme which the Government propose will not because it will not take nearly enough capacity out of the fishing fleet.
It is also quite certain that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation scheme would cost more than £25 million. However, I ask the Government to set against that the financial advantages of a healthy, profitable industry manned by taxpayers who spend money in the high street. That would be preferable to an industry in the doldrums with large numbers unemployed or going bankrupt and the consequent increase in social security benefits which would have to be paid.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: The noble Lady and my noble friend will not be surprised, after what I said at Second Reading, that I wholly support the amendment. In the report of Sub-Committee D we stated firmly that, while there was a place for tying-up, we regarded that as essentially secondary to a decommissioning scheme.
That is a view which is not shared by the Government for reasons which I have never found clear. My noble friend on the Front Bench has an excellent opportunity to explain with all the lucidity of which he is capable, not only to me but to the fishing industry, which will read his words avidly, the Government's objection to decommissioning.
The fishermen want it. That is not the best of reasons. My noble friend accused me this afternoon of being cheeky. I venture to say that I thought that Mr. Curry's comment that anybody would want a decommissioning scheme if the taxpayer was going to pay for it was a slightly cheeky remark to an industry which takes the matter extremely seriously.
Practically every other country, with the exception of Ireland, has opted for decommissioning. At Second Reading, echoing reasons which were given

131
previously, my noble friend said that decommissioning would not reduce effort. I should like to put this simple proposition in place of the admitted complications, the bookkeeping and the monitoring involved in a tying-up scheme. I shall use hypothetical figures. Suppose that the total catch is 100,000 tonnes and at the moment that is being caught by 1,000 boats. The quotas and TACs would be maintained and boats would be licensed, but instead of having 1,000 boats the total could be reduced to 800. Unless the quotas were altered the catch would be divided among a smaller number of boats, which would thus become more profitable. What is the objection to that?
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Radnor said. I hope that the Government will look at decommissioning positively. I recognise that, while the report of Sub-Committee D was on the whole received favourably by the Government, they felt that on the decommissioning issue we were wrong. They told us time and time again—and it must be recognised—that last time decommissioning did not work well. That is quite true. The reason it did not work well was that there was no licensing to identify those who broke the rules. That problem has now been taken care of under the Bill. There would not be the absurd situation which occurred last time round in which someone was paid a considerable sum of money to decommission his ship and was then able to buy a smaller but very much more effective ship with new technology which could produce an increased effort. That was clearly an inefficient way of operating a decommissioning scheme. However, that problem has been dealt with.
The second issue of which the Government have, quite correctly, reminded us time and time again is that the first thing that happens when one operates a decommissioning scheme is that people come forward with ships which will go out of commission anyway whether or not the owners are paid. The owners are delighted. They collect their money thinking that Christmas has come early. That is true, but it is not an argument for abandoning decommissioning; it is a reason to avoid a small scheme. Such a scheme cannot be operated on a small sum of money, and I fear that in this context £25 million is a small sum of money. One either has to have confidence in the objective of reducing capacity or one might as well not bother. I fear that the Government are falling into a trap and that lack of commitment to the principle of decommissioning and a sorry experience in the past have allowed this country to fall behind our competitors in Europe.
The reason I support the Government's efforts to limit days at sea is that I recognise, as many of us do, that we really cannot say to those countries which have made a serious attempt at and succeeded in reducing their capacity that they now have to operate on the same number of days at sea as us because we have not reduced our capacity and we do not want them to derive any benefit from the actions they have taken in the past. That is an untenable situation.
132
I recognise that decommissioning will be more expensive than the Treasury would wish. I recognise that any scheme which will cost the taxpayer large sums of money will be unwelcome to any government. However, bearing in mind the sorry state of fishery stocks and the inevitability of capacity having to match the available stocks, I believe that the only long-term solution is through a decommissioning scheme. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give us some assurance that in the long term the Government will consider that as the ultimate solution.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I shall not repeat the excellent arguments that have already been put. However, I hope that the Government are not looking for a decommissioning scheme through bankruptcy. It is quite obvious from the figures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, that if capacity is reduced by 80 per cent. some boats will go bankrupt. In order to give fishermen confidence, quite apart from all the other arguments, I believe that the Government should give an indication that they will seriously consider a decommissioning scheme.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I also support my noble friend. It is obvious from the excellent Select Committee report that conservation of our fish stocks for the future involves a combination of a host of different measures. This is the first conservation Bill that we have had for 25 years and the British Government appear to be trying to give a lead to our fellow members of the Community. Yet all we have is a short enabling Bill. It is a great shame that the Government do not grasp some of the other issues at the same time. Industrial fishing and black fish are key issues. I believe that something on those issues could be written into the Bill, and also on decommissioning.
Whatever the Government say, there must be a suspicion that behind the Government is the Treasury, which is keen not to increase the budget which has already been extracted for 1993.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Following on from what my noble friend said, if the problem lay with the Treasury that would be understandable. It has already been stated in the debate that any decommissioning scheme would have to be a substantial one if it were to have any effect on conservation.
Did my noble friend on the Front Bench notice the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Selborne—which I believe was his personal suggestion and was not mentioned in the Select Committee report—in the Second Reading debate that if a charge was made for licences it would be possible not only to pay for the licence scheme, which would in itself be expensive, but the licence fee would contribute to the cost of decommissioning? If the industry can contribute some of its earnings to decommissioning it may make that possible. In view of the difficult times facing public expenditure the industry may see the point of it. Perhaps my noble friend could respond to that?
Earl Howe: I hope that I can reassure my noble friend about his concerns. The days at sea restriction proposed under the Bill should not be looked at in

133
isolation but seen as an integral part of the package of conservation measures announced by the Government earlier in the year. That package included technical measures, such as minimum net size for certain fisheries; proposals to enable vessel owners to transfer or aggregate licences more freely; capacity penalties to apply to such transfers or aggregations; and the announcement of a cash-limited decommissioning scheme to the value of £25 million to assist that process of rationalisation. The extent to which we shall need to tighten effort control will depend on the degree to which other measures in the conservation package are having the desired effect on our fleet capacity and stocks. As my noble friend is proposing in the amendment we shall have regard to our scheme of decommissioning before we further restrict days at sea.
My noble friend would like us to consider a larger decommissioning scheme. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the schemes of other member states. It is true that other member states may have spent more but there is no evidence that this has achieved the desired result in helping to conserve fish stocks. On the contrary. We have a duty to maximise value for money. I remind my noble friend that a previous United Kingdom decommissioning scheme was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for being poor value for money. More money does not necessarily mean better value; it could mean quite the opposite.
My noble friend Lord Stodart asked a number of questions. Decommissioning is one part of the Government's package. The fishing industry pressed us strongly for a decommissioning scheme and we have responded to those requests. The Government do not take the view that a decommissioning scheme is completely ineffective; I dissent from the tenor of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selborne. We believe that it cannot he guaranteed to have the effect of reducing total pressure on fish stocks without restrictions on fishing effort. A scheme to pay fishermen to tie up temporarily, to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred, seems certain to have less effect than the form of decommissioning and payment for permanent withdrawal of boats which the Government are proposing to introduce. The noble Lady also said that she regarded the Government's decommissioning scheme as a waste of money. I would agree with her if there was ever a decommissioning scheme which was not also accompanied by effort control. My noble friend Lord Stodart asked why our decommissioning scheme could not be increased. I have already explained some of the reasons for that. It cannot be for the taxpayer to shoulder the entire burden of rationalising the capacity of our fleet. Fishermen must address that imperative and play their part.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked about the possibility of charging for licences to pay for more decommissioning. That is a very interesting suggestion which on the face of it would not go down well with the industry. However, if the industry has some proposals it would like to put to the Government on those lines we would be very pleased to look at them.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Perhaps I may say with regret and sorrow that my noble friend has not answered as I thought he would the proposition I put to him, namely, that a decommissioning scheme would reduce the number of vessels and share out the existing catch—keeping the quota and everything else—among a smaller number of vessels which, other than those that might go bankrupt, would be more profitable. What is the objection? Is it basically cost?
Earl Howe: I will not disguise from my noble friend that there is no prospect of increasing the value of the decommissioning package beyond the levels already announced. I am sure I have no need to tell him that public expenditure constraints are very severe. I would ask him to look at the package of measures that the Government are proposing. There are market mechanisms (if I may refer to them in that way) that will assist in the process of rationalising the fleet. I referred to the ability of vessel owners to transfer and aggregate licences more freely. That will enable the more efficient fishing vessel owners to address any reductions in days at sea imposed upon them. The fleet should contract in a natural way through mechanisms of that kind. Decommissioning certainly has a part to play as the Government have recognised. We estimate that the scheme proposed should account for approximately 5 per cent., and the other market mechanisms the order of 2 or 3 per cent., of the fleet, leaving effort control to take account of the remainder of the reduction that we seek to achieve under whatever MAGP targets the Commission sets us.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Does not the Minister think he is getting himself into a certain amount of difficulty on procedural grounds? What is wrong with the words he is asked to accept? He says he has some interest in a decommissioning scheme and that he already has one, though not a brilliant one. All my noble friend is asking him to do is to give due consideration to a scheme. I am surprised he has not said that he is against putting extra words into the Bill. I cannot see what harm it would do him to accept the amendment.
Earlier, we discussed the question of a level playing field. There is the danger, I believe, of the Minister coming back to the House saying that other countries have gone into decommissioning schemes that have proved successful in reducing their effort and seeking to persuade us that that works fine for them but not for us. I do not know by what criteria he intends to judge the reduction in effort by other countries. If he has no idea of those criteria I suggest that he will be in great difficulty when he comes to get his Order in Council, unless the Government resort to putting it on at 2 o'clock in the morning at the end of a heavy debate on some other issue, which is not totally unknown.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, must be taken into account by the Minister. As I understand it, the only other country with restrictions on going to sea is Holland. What he is saying is that all the other schemes within the common fisheries policy area are

135
ineffective. That appears to me to be a grave reflection on the idea of a level playing field. If he is looking at that he should also look at the licensing fee. The industry proposed a licensing fee some years ago.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps my noble friend the Minister ought to have another look at the particular amendment about "due consideration". Various facts have arisen in this debate and there is some controversy as to whether or not the industry would subscribe to some scheme. I believe that that needs to be looked into. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he takes the amendment away, has another look at it and gives us some assurance that it is not completely out of court to give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in this way.
6 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I apologise to the Minister for not having been present during all of the debate but I had to leave the Committee for a little while. The proceedings are at an early stage and I hope that he will agree to look again at this point. It has been reasonably argued by all Members whom I have heard speak and I hope that he will reconsider it.
There is no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of feeling for the fishing industry. In recent weeks we have experienced the sort of sympathy that exists for the mining industry. I can assure my noble friend that those of us who come from areas with a lot of fishermen, whom we frequently meet, know that there is equal sympathy for that industry.
I heard suggested earlier this afternoon that the fishing industry must be prepared to look after itself. I can assure my noble friend that there is no industry which is more self-reliant than the fishing industry. From skippers down to the crew, they have all made personal investments in the industry. They put their money where their mouths are. They are now seeing their very livelihood eroded. I hope that, in view of what has been said tonight, my noble friend will consider looking again at this issue. All we ask him to do is to consider it. We hope that by Report stage he may be a little more sympathetic.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I intervene to give my noble friend a few more minutes to think about the matter. This is not a difficult amendment. My noble friend refuses to accept its very moderate intention. Fishermen and Members of the Committee may perhaps feel that he is being somewhat intransigent. I hope he will think carefully and perhaps give my noble friend Lord Radnor some assurance.
Earl Howe: I have tried to be as reassuring as I can in my remarks. I said that the 1981 Fisheries Act clearly provides that we can run a decommissioning scheme. What I cannot do is to accept the point behind the amendment; namely, that the Government should look again at a decommissioning scheme larger than the one that we have already proposed. There is no prospect of our doing that.
However, I can assure the Committee that we shall
136
have regard to our scheme of decommissioning before we restrict days at sea below the 1991 level. That is as far as I can go. I have tried to be helpful and I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that all the comments made in this debate will be studied very carefully.
The Earl of Radnor: It is no good pretending that I am not very disappointed with many of the answers that have been forthcoming. They have been those we have always heard before: that it has to be a mixed bag to deal with the shortage of fish and, although we know the trouble that the fishing community is in, the effort has to be cut. It is as though decommissioning were not a cut in effort. Of course it is and it is also the most effective one.
I shall not repeat any of the arguments that I have put forward before. I started off by saying that the amendment was a mild one. In my opinion it is too mild. The last remark made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, to the effect that he could not hold out any hope of a much larger decommissioning scheme (if I understood him rightly), is more than a little disappointing. I intimated that I hoped that the other measures would lead on to decommissioning as the main prop to the whole business of sea fish conservation and therefore conservation of fishing communities.
I shall not press the amendment now, though I am tempted to do so. The reason is that I shall bring back the amendment on Report, probably with the wording that I produced at the start of my remarks. I feel that the Government would get away with murder if they accepted this amendment, which merely allows them to look at the issue. I shall compose the next amendment with considerably more care. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 14:
Page 1, line 22, after ("of") insert ("section 1(5) of").
Page 1, line 24, after ("kept") insert ("or purported to be kept").
Page 1, line 27, after ("made") insert ("or purported to be made").
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("required") and insert ("provided or purported").
Page 2, line 5, after ("(ii)") insert ("a requirement under").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 can conveniently be considered with Amendment No. 31. They both apply to Scotland only. Both are purely technical and simply correct an omission in the original wording. They now make clear that the evidential provisions of the Bill will have effect one month after Royal Assent rather than having immediate effect.
With the Committee's permission, I shall deal also with Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, which deal with these evidential provisions. They fall to be considered along with Amendments Nos. 32 to 34. Again they introduce minor technical amendments to Clause 1(3); the later amendments refer to Clause 3(3) of the Bill.
The subsections provide that documents and information which vessel masters and their agents are

137
legally obliged to produce—such things as log sheets and landing declarations—can be used as evidence in Scottish courts without being sworn to by any witness. In other words, the documents will provide sufficient evidence of the information they contain unless—and this is important—the contrary is proved. Effective enforcement is essential if we are to operate an effective conservation policy. I say that not just in relation to the proposed days at sea provision but also and more widely across the whole range of quota management arrangements. An essential feature of effective enforcement is the ability to bring cases efficiently before the courts.
The documents referred to in the clauses are fundamental to the regulation of our fisheries. They are often the only sources of information on, for example, where a vessel has been fishing and what species and quantities of fish have been taken. Vessel skippers and their agents are already under a legal obligation to complete the documents and complete them accurately.
I turn to the specific amendments before the Committee. I have already explained that the original provisions are designed to improve the efficiency of prosecutions by ensuring that the court can consider that information, which is statutorily required. These further amendments will ensure that the Crown does not have to bring witnesses to court to give purely formal evidence that the log books and landing declarations bearing the name of a particular skipper or vessel in fact relate to that vessel.
The Committee will know that the original provision and the amendment before us merely mean that the Scottish courts can consider these classes of evidence. Inaccuracies in the records can still be corrected through the defence or, as the case may be, the Crown leading evidence to the opposite effect. The only change will be that the information contained in the documents will be taken as accurate unless the contrary is proved by either the defence or the Crown.
With that explanation, and with the permission of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gallacher: I wish to oppose the proposal that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I do so for a simple reason. The Bill is defective in a major way. It makes no provision for the licensing of fish buyers. However, when I attempted to draft an amendment the best possible advice I received was that such an amendment would not be acceptable and that if I were to press it the Committee would be advised that it was not in order. At the same time I was told that if I chose the procedure which I now follow, it would be possible to raise the matter on the Question of whether the clause shall stand part. That is what I now do.
The objection stems from the fact that the parent Act refers in licensing terms exclusively to fishing boats. Consequently fishing buyers are outwith the scope of the Bill, as we would say in Scotland. There is now growing evidence in the media and elsewhere that the selling of black market fish is on the increase.
138
I do not wish to particularise as to which place or which section of the media I refer to. But the interest in the subject is such that I have already received a few telephone calls from people who would like to know more about black fish and the part played by fish buyers in sustaining the black fish market.
If the Government's package of measures, about which the noble Earl has quite rightly said much today, is to take effect, then one must consider the matter fairly broadly. To do so without considering the subject of fish buyers narrows the scope of the Bill and may leave open a channel which will undermine the conservation objectives of the Bill.
Since the Select Committee on European Communities supported me in the matter, I should be the first to quote chapter and verse of its recommendations. However, in paragraphs 1.08 and 1.09 of its report it took the view that fish buyers should not be licensed. With respect, I believe that that view was wrong and if the committee were now to re-examine the question it might reach a different conclusion. The media have much to say on the subject. One must take note of the growing concern about black fish.
Market trends in the fishing industry are difficult to ascertain. When we pressed the Minister in bygone years about reductions in the total catch, we were often told that that was compensated for by increases in the value of the catch. That seems to be an example of the operation of the law of supply and demand. However, through the good offices of the Scottish Office I receive information which is circulated in Scotland on fish and farming matters. Advice dated 4th November states that:
"The value of fish landed into Scotland by UK vessels during the period January to September 1992 was £189.8 million, 6 per cent. less than in 1991. Average prices were eight per cent. down on the same period last year. Haddock prices were down by 33 per cent. and those for saithe, whiting and cod fell by 15, 13 and two per cent. respectively".
That appears to contradict the laws of supply and demand, although I recognise that the fishing industry does not necessarily follow the normal rules on prices and availability.
In time the clause will impose much larger fines on fishermen. In some ways they are penal fines, from £5,000 to £50,000. It introduces restrictions on days at sea. Those combined factors place a heavy responsibility on the Government to ensure effective enforcement. As the trend towards heavier penalties and the necessity for better enforcement grows, the incentive to break the law will become that much greater. If indeed the law is currently being broken, as I believe it is, the deterrents in the Bill will not be sufficient to eliminate the problem of black fish. The sale of black fish is only possible through the availability of black fish buyers.
I have no particular suggestion to make about the timescale of a licensing scheme. However, if such a licensing scheme were devised, the penalty on the fish buyers of losing a licence as well as fines on the submission of evidence of illegal dealings, would contribute in a major way towards the elimination of the problem.

139
For those reasons, and in order to have a reaction from the noble Earl to the proposition of licensing of fish buyers, I beg to oppose the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Grimond: First, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on introducing the subject of fish farms into the Bill. It shows ingenuity worthy of the fishing industry at its best. Were he not such a distinguished lawyer, I would not have believed that it could have been done.
I have only this to say on fish farms. When dealing with them I hope that the noble Lord will remember the immemorial udal rights of the Orkneys and Shetlanders which have caused problems before with these farms.
I agree that there is need for control. Possibly the way to control the farms is through local planning. However, at present the fish farms are in a dicky position, so it may not be quite so necessary.
However, I rise on a rather different matter, which links up with what the noble Lord said about black fish, and that is discards. We are all agreed that discards are one of the most shameful uses to which fish are put. Does the Minister hold out any hope that the Bill will decrease the number of discards? It may increase the total number of fish caught, but is any proposal expressly aimed at the problem of fish discards?
Secondly, I ask a simple question—it is so simple that no doubt I ought to have known the answer long ago. I am still vague as to how the Bill will operate. Let us say that in 1993 it becomes apparent that there is a grave shortage of haddock; and there is overfishing of haddock. As I understand what the Minister says, the base date will be 1991—that is, two years earlier. Have I interpreted that correctly? I understand that he would then ask for a return of haddock quotas. If the shortage is in the North Sea, he would exclude from his consideration any boats fishing for haddock in the Channel, the Bristol Channel and off Northern Ireland. He would consider only the track record of boats fishing in the North Sea. I am deeply suspicious of drawing any inference from the track record of fishing boats. But still I understand that that is what the Minister will do. Presumably he would pick out those boats which landed a great many haddock in 1991, leaving aside discards, whiting, cod and other fish. He would then limit the days at sea of those boats.
I can hardly believe that I have this right. I do not believe that it is possible to do that. But let us assume that I am right. The fishermen will then say, "This year we are not fishing for haddock. We know about the shortage of haddock so we have transferred our fishing effort to other species". I agree that they cannot do that entirely; they will still have discards and so on. But they can do it to some purpose. Many fishing boats have certainly changed their type of fishing.
I must emphasise that fishing is a hunting operation. It is not like farming. The fishermen do not
140
control the crop. It is like fox-hunting—although that is not approved of in England. Fishing is not an agricultural occupation.
We now say to those people who were fishing for haddock but are now fishing for whiting, cod or other fish, "You must tie up". We shall come later to compensation. I do not wish to repeat what has been said about the difficulties of tying up fishing boats. Of course expenses continue. Of course people will want to use the capital that they have acquired. A boat is expensive to keep. People do not wish to see it tied up in port. As regards share fishermen, the income of the crew is knocked on the head if they cannot go to sea. They are paid only from the profits on the catches.
I cannot believe that my exposition of what will happen is right. I do not always hold in high regard the actions of governments but I cannot believe that this Government are as stupid as they appear. How will they decide the matter? Let us suppose that there is a shortage of a particular fish in 1993. How will they decide which boats to tie up? Will many boats be tied up each for a short time or will one or two boats be told to tie up for a long time? Is the decision to be left to local inspectors or will it be made in Whitehall or St. Andrew's House?
I ask those questions because, after all, we are supposed to be passing legislation which ordinary people can understand in their ordinary lives, without lawyers and without reading debates. The fishermen are entitled to be told exactly how the scheme will work because if in 1993 there is a shortage of fish the Government may turn to this instrument in order to restore the balance.
The Earl of Selborne: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, was right about decommissioning but, sadly, he has entirely wrong the idea about licensing all links in the food or fish chain. The measure would be one of appalling bureaucratic complication. That is not to say that there is not a real problem about black fish. There is a clear problem which must be addressed in some way. However, the idea of licensing each buyer and transporter of fish, and everyone in the processing link, all of whom must show that the fish are the opposite of black fish (which I hasten to say are not white fish) would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
There will be a cost to the industry and I realise that those who supervise will be a charge on the taxpayer. However, the operation of such a bureaucracy would be a cost to the industry and to the taxpayer. If we are to spend such amounts of money I should prefer them to be spent on decommissioning schemes. I believe that a moment's thought about a proposal such as this would persuade the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that Sub-committee D is unlikely to change its mind. Nothing could be calculated to cause greater consternation and discrimination against the fishing industry than his suggestion.
Lord Gray of Contin: I take a different view from that held by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, because I support the inclusion of Clause 1 in the Bill. We must be pragmatic. We must realise that the Bill will go through Parliament and that the Government will get

141
their legislation. To try to remove Clause 1 in Committee would unquestionably wreck the Bill. I wish to keep Clause 1 because I am hopeful that as time passes the Minister will be persuaded towards some of the suggestions which have been put to him tonight.
The debates on the amendments to Clause 1 highlighted the fact that the main fear of our fishing industry is that it will be treated less favourably than those of certain of our European partners. The industry feels most strongly about that matter. As I said previously, the fishermen have made a huge investment in their industry. I accept that there has been substantial government aid in grants of one kind or another. However, one must not forget that the investment which the fishermen have made in their industry has been enormous and all of it must be repaid. Loans have been subject to high interest rates, which has been a source of great embarrassment to many people in the fishing industry. They have just about managed to weather that difficulty but now, as a result of the tie-up proposals, they see their future in great danger.
I fully accept that negotiations with the Treasury must be far from easy. I realise that that is largely responsible for the disinclination on the part of the Government to offer an improvement on the decommissioning scheme. It would be difficult to argue about that point because there are priorities within Government and one does not know where in the batting order the fishing industry lies. However, we know that those who earn their livelihoods from fishing in our seas are most worried about their future.
I do not wish to say more at this moment but merely tell the Minister that I support him. I hope that Clause 1 will remain part of the Bill, that he will be sympathetic to the suggestions that we put to him and that we shall see the benefit of his sympathy at the Report stage.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne. I am a warden of the Fishmongers Company, which controls Billingsgate Market. That is not a happy place at present because it has problems in dealing with the EC. I wish merely to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that what was said by my noble friend Lord Selborne was manifestly right. It would be a major undertaking to license all the fish buyers and all the merchants.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has indicated why he believes that the clause is inadequate as it stands. I hope that he does not intend to divide the Committee. If he succeeded in removing Clause 1 he would cause immense damage to the Bill, risk the conservation of our fish stocks and in turn the future of our fishing industry. I am grateful for the supportive remarks of my noble friend Lord Gray.
When debating an earlier amendment we explained why the Government believe that effort control is an absolutely essential adjunct to the other conservation measures announced earlier this year. Decommissioning and technical measures will be insufficient to stop over-fishing, especially the discarding and the black fishing so rightly mentioned
142
by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It contributes seriously to the depletion of our important fishing stocks. Not only is effort control an essential adjunct, it is an indissoluble one in the context of the package that the Government are proposing. If the Committee is persuaded to remove the clause from the Bill it will deprive the industry of its decommissioning scheme. I cannot believe that that is what Members of the Committee or the industry want.
The clause does more than introduce effort control; it empowers Ministers to require licence holders to provide the information that we need to administer and enforce the licence system, not least for the so-called quota hoppers. The clause covers evidential provisions for criminal proceedings in Scotland. The prosecution of offenders will form an essential part of the process of ensuring compliance with fish conservation measures. Certain documents, such as EC log books which vessel skippers are under a legal obligation to complete, provide vital evidence for such prosecutions. They contain information about the days spent at sea and the catches taken. The clause also covers the extension of Ministerial powers to revoke or to suspend the licences of fishermen who have breached licence conditions. The industry itself has requested that provision. It will enable us to take action in the case of persistent offenders who, by blatantly disregarding the law, are putting fish stocks and the livelihoods of law-abiding fishermen at stake.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked whether the Government had considered the licensing of fish buyers. I share his anxiety about black fish and we are considering various solutions to the problem. The licensing of buyers could well be helpful but we believe that it could also be bureaucratic and inflexible. That is why we have preferred to focus on fishing vessels.
The noble Lord questioned why prices should have gone down in the fish market and made certain remarks about the possible increase of black fishing, which I cannot positively confirm. However, I put it to him that those two matters may well be linked. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also made some supportive remarks about the need for better enforcement. I welcome that. This clause tackles extremely important aspects of enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked how the Bill will deal with black fishing and discarding. The easiest way to answer that is to say that the effort controls which the Bill will introduce will oblige fishermen to concentrate their effort on fishing for legitimate quotas. He asked also how the provisions of the Bill will work. We do not intend that the provisions should affect the ability of fishermen to take their full quota entitlement. The TAC and quota regime should be looked at quite separately from the Bill's provisions. Vessel owners will be quite free to manage and utilise their days at sea allocation with maximum flexibility.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that discards are a serious problem. That was a point highlighted by the committee chaired so ably by my noble friend Lord Selborne. Ministers have highlight-ed that too in the Community discussions which we have had. We are waiting for the Commission to produce proposals to reduce at Community level the

143
present extent of discards. Meanwhile, I hope that restrictions on days at sea based on this Bill will reduce overfishing, black fishing and the taking and discarding of fish at sea. I hope that it will bring actual catches more closely into line with fishermen's quotas.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will think better of his opposition to the clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Earl said that black fishing may have had an adverse effect on the price of fish; it may have lowered the price. Does he not agree that the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on fish farming may well have a great deal to do with the fall in fish prices? There has been an enormous increase in Norwegian farmed salmon which, in many cases, has reduced the price of salmon in the shops to below that of haddock. In fact, it may be quite relevant to license fish farming.
Earl Howe: I agree that there is an underlying truth here. Certainly as regards salmon we have seen an effect on prices as a result of fish farming. I should like to consider the point made by the noble Lord on fish farms and I shall write to him about it.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the fact that I judge from his remarks that his mind is not closed as regards the possibility of licensing fish buyers. I should have made it clear that I was thinking of wholesale buyers of fish rather than retailers. Members of the Committee may not have understood me on that. I did not raise the question of fish farms and that is no part of my submission this evening. I have no intention of further opposing the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation

.—(1) The Ministers shall pay to the master, owner or charterer of a vessel named in a licence containing a condition imposed under section 4(6) (c) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, a sum in compensation for any restriction upon time spent at sea by that vessel, calculated in accordance with regulations to be made by Ministers after consultation with appropriate industry bodies.

(2) Any master, owner or charterer who is dissatisfied by the award of compensation under subsection (1) above may make application for a review of said award to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal which Tribunal shall have the power to vary or revoke the award.").

The noble Lady said: By the introduction of a decommissioning scheme, albeit modest, to put it mildly, Ministers have recognised that there is a right to compensation for vessels being taken out of fishing. A right to compensation, where an arbitrary restriction on the right to make money is imposed, should be accepted also by the Government.
That is recognised by Her Majesty's Government in that agricultural producers whose effort is restricted are compensated under the set-aside scheme. Is it not equitable that compensation should be made available to those in the fishing industry who are affected by
144
effort restrictions? While admittedly it is not as large as the agricultural industry, the fishing industry is not negligible. An industry which directly employs over 19,000 people in this country, and on which many times that number depend for employment in ancillary industries, is scarcely negligible even if it does not command quite as many votes as agriculture.
That claim is reinforced by the fact that the principle of compensation for periods of lay-off is established under Community structures policy, which was put in place during the last United Kingdom presidency of the Council in 1986. No details of a compensation scheme have been proposed in this amendment as the basis of calculation would be complicated. However, were the Government prepared to accept the amendment, I understand that the industry would be willing to co-operate fully in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable formula.
Subsection (2) gives the right of appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal to anyone aggrieved by the proposed award of compensation. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Simply for the ease of the Committee later on, do I understand that the noble Lady is speaking also to Amendment No. 35?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Yes, because Amendment No. 35 is consequential on Amendment No. 15.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I support the noble Lady. This is an extremely important principle to be introduced into the Bill and is a matter of almost natural justice. Large companies which have invested great amounts may find that their businesses have been badly affected. They should have some comfort from knowing that they can appeal to a tribunal for compensation.
One wonders why the Government do not believe that to be just. After all, the Ministry of Agriculture has long experience of compensation to farmers, particularly under the set-aside scheme where an identical situation has come about; that is, where capacity has to be reduced through no fault of the farmer. Reduction in fishing may not necessarily be the fault of the fisherman, but may be in the interests of the conservation of the fish stocks of the world.
There is a strong case for the principle of compensation to be included in the Bill. This may not be the right amendment but I am convinced in my own mind that there is a case for it, having regard in particular to large investors. As my noble friend Lord Gray said, they may now be faced with considerable mortgage interest to pay and may suddenly find that they cannot meet those commitments because of the restrictions. Therefore, there must be a case for compensation.
The Earl of Selborne: We all recognise that the common agricultural policy is full of strange anomalies and sets an appalling precedent for any system of support for any industry. We are in desperate trouble if we are now praying in aid payment aid and set-aside as a compensation for the fishing industry.

145
Let us think what we are trying to do. We are trying to recognise that there are fewer fish in the sea than there are fishermen who wish to catch them. We are saying that there are national quotas and unless we reduce our capacity we shall find that discarding and black fishing will increase. The quotas will not increase because they are limited by total allowable catches, and are quite irrelevant. The total allowable catches will determine how much fishermen can take and therefore, the return on the investment of those large ships in which, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull reminds us, there has been considerable investment.
Does the Committee think it sensible, having agreed that there is overcapacity, to say, "As there are no fish in the sea, we shall pay you for not fishing them". I believe that the taxpayers' money should be spent on decommissioning and removing, once and for all, that surplus capacity. By paying people not to fish, we shall merely keep that overcapacity in existence. I believe that all Members of the Committee will agree that that is the last thing that we should do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Of course the noble Earl is absolutely right. However, this amendment shows quite clearly the need for a proper decommissioning scheme. The Government have rejected extremely reasonable amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. The evidence is piling up and they should now think again.
Earl Howe: In responding to this amendment, I think I ought to make two points quite clear. The first is that unless fishermen are prepared to accept and shoulder some of the responsibility for the over-fishing of stocks, conservation will become simply an empty word. The fish in the sea do not belong, as land does, to anyone in particular. I do not accept the analogy with set-aside, which is a scheme to compensate landowners for keeping their own land out of production and in good heart. Fish in the sea are a common resource, to be respected or exploited by the fishermen who fish. If there are too many fishermen fishing that resource, as my noble friend has just said, the industry must recognise that it is they, collectively, who are causing the problem. Fishermen must, as a consequence, share the burden of reducing fishing effort and fishing capacity.
The Government accept that they should assist this process and the decommissioning scheme we have announced is an important part of the package of measures. But the taxpayer cannot be expected to foot the entire bill for the excesses for which the industry itself is to blame. That is a point of principle I do not accept. Conservation is in the fishermen's interests and it is therefore in their interests to be prepared to show restraint in order to safeguard their own long-term future.
Initially, as I have already said, fishing effort will be frozen at last year's levels. This should not affect a fisherman's ability to take up his full entitlement of fish and to meet his full earning potential within the quota system. Any reductions in days at sea which follow are likely, as I have said, to be of modest proportions year by year. There will be nothing in the regulations to prevent any fisherman from continuing
146
to catch his full quota entitlement. Effort control is targeted at reducing discards and black fishing, not legitimate income.
Secondly, as a purely practical point, if we are to spend public money, and a finite pot of public money, it must be better to spend it on taking vessels permanently out of the fleet: that is, on decommission-ing—and I agree with the comment made by my noble friend—rather than to spend it on compensation. To spend it on compensation might actually be used to increase fishing effort; for example, if a fisherman uses that money to upgrade or re-engine his vessel. I do not believe that noble Lords would want to see that happen. It would be an extremely irresponsible use of public funds, even if public funds were unlimited.
Therefore, I repeat that effort control is in the fishermen's long-term interests and they must share the financial burden of conserving fish stocks. They must also choose between compensation and decommissioning: they cannot have both. I stress that if this amendment is pressed and, unfortunately, carried there can be no decommissioning scheme because the two are inextricably linked. I therefore strongly urge the noble Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am fascinated by my noble friend's argument. He is saying that he would much prefer decommissioning to this amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Selborne and I agree with him. Why then did not my noble friend look more sympathetically on the amendment on decommissioning put forward by my noble friend Lord Radnor?
Earl Howe: I am simply saying that there is a finite pot of public money—namely, £25 million—which the Government have earmarked for the decommissioning scheme. I am also pointing out that if we are looking for value for money then we shall achieve it more effectively by means of the decommissioning scheme rather than frittering it away on compensation, which may be used for purposes other than those preferred by, I am sure, all noble Lords.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the noble Earl saying that the Government have earmarked £25 million in addition to the money which will come from the EC?
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: The proportion of the £25 million that has been earmarked, which is accounted for by the Exchequer—I believe I am right in saying this, although I am subject to correction—is approximately 80 per cent. The remainder comes from EC funds.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My noble friend made an important statement in saying that there would be only modest reductions over the foreseeable future in the amounts that would be put into licensing. I wonder whether he can give the Committee a little more comfort, because his department must have worked out those reductions. Can he say whether it might be 5 per cent. a year as a maximum? That would be of some comfort to those planning for the future.
Earl Howe: Yes, perhaps I may address that concern in a little more detail. I cannot anticipate the final outcome, but all the indications are that for those vessels affected by the highest rate of effort restriction days at sea will have to be reduced by about 5 per cent. a year over three years. In other words, a vessel spending 200 days at sea in 1991 would still be able to spend approximately 170 days at sea in 1996. I recognise that even this restriction will be unwelcome, but it is a far cry—this is a good opportunity for me to put this on the record—from the 30 per cent. which has been mentioned at various times. It is surely worth having such a measure to safeguard our stocks.
For other vessels the reductions will be even less than that. In some cases there will be a freeze at the 1991 level: that is, 200 days in this example. That may well be sufficient. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Am I right in thinking that the financial worry for fishermen is whether they are going to have enough fishing days to catch their quota? If they can catch their quota and sell it, they have done all they can do anyway, so that to suggest that they should get financial compensation for fishing days lost, which might be lost when the quota has been caught and they would not be fishing anyway, would not be justified. Is that correct, or have I got it wrong?
Earl Howe: As I said earlier, I do not expect days at sea to be the limiting factor for vessel owners. The limiting factor will be their quotas. I think that point was made earlier and I hope it answers my noble friend.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Of course I entirely agree with all noble Lords and the noble Earl who have said that decommissioning is infinitely preferable to compensation. It was only because the Government refused to accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that I gave this one a whirl. If the Government could produce a properly-funded decommissioning scheme which would take a great deal more than 5 per cent. out of the fleet, or possibly if they would consider putting in £25 million every year until a sizeable reduction was effected, then of course that would be very much better. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Restrictions on time spent at sea—appeals]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("(2A) If—

(a) a licence under section 4 of this Act contains a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea, and

(b) a licence containing such a condition has previously been granted in respect of that vessel,

the person to whom the licence is granted may make an application to the tribunal requesting it to review the time which, according to the condition, the vessel may spend at sea, provided that the application relates solely to the refusal of Ministers to add to the number of days which a vessel is entitled to spend at sea in any year the whole or part of the number of days on which the vessel was entitled, in terms of this Act, to proceed to sea but was unable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment is a simple attempt to perhaps remove some of the anomalies which would be caused to various skippers and vessel owners by the scheme. What we are really trying to point out is that in normal circumstances when something goes wrong with a boat —if it has the misfortune to have a collision, breaks down, needs a new engine, or if the owner is ill—the owner will of course make up his time as best he can by fishing more at a later date and trying to make up his quota. Of course, when he is severely restricted he cannot do that, so we are suggesting that it would be reasonably easy to appeal to the tribunal for more days, giving the circumstances which had knocked off the days he should have been fishing. Although the noble Earl keeps saying that it is the quota that is to apply, this Bill is about days at sea. We therefore think that, in these circumstances, the amendment is reasonable and will ensure that we shall not penalise individual fishermen and restrict them exploiting their legitimate fishing opportunities.
Days lost for reasons beyond the fisherman's control could well be considered by the tribunal on an appeal. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about this very reasonable amendment, which seeks to remove an injustice from many fishermen who are extremely hard pressed because of, as your Lordships know, the price of the boats, of interest and everything else. I think that it is a reasonable thing to ask for. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: There is another reason why I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in this amendment. If fishermen can carry over unused days from the previous year to the following one, I believe that there will be very much less pressure on them to go out in very bad conditions in order to make sure of catching their whole quota. I think, therefore, that this amendment is very much in the interests of the safety not only of the fishermen, but also of those who might have to risk their lives going out to rescue them if they do get into difficulties. For that reason alone, I should like to support the amendment.
Earl Howe: From the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I believe that this amendment may be based on a misunderstanding of how days-at-sea allocations will be made each year. It may help if I explain a little further.
Fishermen will be issued with their days-at-sea allocations annually as part of their fishing licences. The first allocation will be based on the 1991 track record of each vessel, subject to any determination by the tribunal after an appeal. Thereafter it is this figure which will be used as the basis for any changes that are made. Changes will only be made to reflect the needs of fish conservation and the need to meet MAGP targets. They will not take into account whether or not fishermen use up their allocations in any one year. It would clearly not make sense—and I am a little surprised that noble Lords think that it should—for fishermen to be allowed to carry over unused allocation from one year to the next. Each year's

149
entitlement reflects the need to conserve fish stocks, and this must not be distorted by carry-over from the previous year.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised a further point. He asked whether the days at sea were likely to be sufficient to enable fishermen to catch their quotas. If effort control prevented important quotas from being taken across sections of the fleet—an unlikely event, as I stressed to my noble friend a moment ago—we could discuss corrective action with the industry and with the Commission. That action might well include relaxing the days-at-sea restrictions if that proved necessary. I hope that those remarks have been of some help and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I am sorry that the Minister has not said anything in his reply about the safety factor. I should have thought that that was a very important element in the whole question raised by the amendment. If he is going to say anything more, can he also say how the quotas are to be broken down between one species of fish and another? Are we going to have the same restriction on days for the whole of the United Kingdom? The situation in Cornwall may well be totally different from that in the Orkney Islands, Northern Ireland or somewhere else. I feel that a good deal more explanation is needed.
Earl Howe: We debated the safety factor at some length earlier this afternoon and I feel that that subject has had a very good airing. The noble Lord has just asked me how the Bill will address quotas as between the various species. With very great respect, this has nothing to do with the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: As I understood the Minister, he said that, where the quota had not been fulfilled, the Government would be prepared to discuss the question of extra days at sea. The quota applies to individual vessels because it is split by the fishing organisations down to individual vessels. Would the Minister be prepared to consider that provision applying to an individual vessel which had suffered some great disaster either to the skipper or to the boat and thereby lost a great deal of time at sea?
Earl Howe: I do not think that we could look at it vessel by vessel. It would be much too cumbersome. I was seeking to say that, if across substantial sections of the fleet this was proving to be a problem and important quota stocks were not being taken by virtue of the days-at-sea regime, clearly we would have to look at that very carefully and approach the Commission with whatever proposals we thought appropriate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: That is a more satisfactory reply than some that we have had from the Minister. For the present, although I shall withdraw my amendment, I shall look at what the Minister has said and hold further consultations. In view of the importance of this to individuals, I might bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("made") to end of line 35.
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from ("principles") to ("may") in line 41 and insert ("set out in any order made under section 4(6C) of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("() In determining any application made by any person to whom the licence is granted who is the master, owner or charterer of a vessel being either a vessel—

(a) acquired by the master, owner or charterer thereof between 1 January 1991 and the coming into force of this Act, or

(b) registered by the owner thereof as first registration thereof in terms of Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988,

then the tribunal shall be entitled to take into account the average time spent at sea by other vessels of a similar type engaged in similar fishing operations.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment tries to deal with the situation in which either ownership changes or new vessels come along. It relates specifically to the award of days-at-sea entitlement in respect of someone who has acquired a vessel during the reference period and has brought a vessel on to the United Kingdom fishing register after the Act comes into force. I am told that there are a substantial number of cases known where vessels have been acquired from a completely different fishery from that into which they have been introduced. Quite often, such a vessel was employing, in its previous ownership, a very different fishing method, requiring a different number of days at sea. The present owner of the vessel will be unable to appeal to the tribunal on that basis alone. We think, therefore, that it is essential that the tribunal should have the power to examine the days expended by vessels among which such a vessel is currently fishing in order to establish a reasonable number of days for that vessel in the new fishery.
The other category is in respect of a vessel brought on to the register which does not have any days-at-sea record whatsoever. I noted from a Written Answer in the other place a day or two ago that there are awaiting registration some 14 vessels which I presume would fall into this category. These are vessels which are British registered, but not British owned, for example. As I understand it, the industry has been advised by Ministers that in such cases Ministers will make an award of days. Ministers have the power to do that under Clause 1(3). However, if the owner is dissatisfied with the award, he has no basis for an appeal, having no previous track record on which to form a basis for appeal. We believe that it is essential in such circumstances that the tribunal can hear evidence as to the average time spent by vessels of similar type in a similar fishery.
I suppose that one could describe this as a probing amendment which is intended either to give the

151
Government an opportunity to clear up the problem or to give us an indication that these problems are not likely to arise because they have already been taken care of. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: The amendment puts forward what I would define—and what the Bill would define—as a principle on which days at sea should be based. In this case it is suggested that where vessels do not have full track records for 1991 the tribunal should use average figures for similar types of vessel engaged in similar types of fishing. While I accept that this is a matter which should be considered when the principles are drawn up—we shall certainly consider it—I must say that the proper place for such a principle is the order which the Bill requires Ministers to make laying down how the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at. It should not appear on the face of the Bill itself.
There is already provision in the Bill for principles to be drawn up. It would, I think, be inappropriate to give undue weight to one of those principles by singling it out on the face of the Bill. I shall take the noble Lord's suggestions back with me. I hope I have been reassuring in what I have said and that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said in respect of Amendment No. 21. He has pointed me where I suppose I ought to have looked in the first instance and he has said that the order is the proper place to deal with this. He has also, as I understand it, given me the added bonus that he will look at what I have had to say. On the basis of that mutual compatibility and agreement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("() In considering an application under subsection (2) above the tribunal shall have regard to the economic effects of restricting the time which the vessel may spend at sea.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to give the tribunal an additional power. As we are in the land of the Treaty of Rome, the common fisheries policy and the jargon of Brussels, I suppose the amendment is concerned with socio-economic issues. Provided no one asks me to define what "socio-economic issues" are, I shall be happy to say that those are what the amendment is about.
The amendment would allow the tribunal, in considering an application under subsection (2), to have regard,
"to the economic effects of restricting the time which the vessel may spend at sea".
That would in effect allow the tribunal to look rather further that it has powers to do at the moment where a case is advanced that restrictions are of such a character that they would seriously depress the standard of living of the fishermen in question. It would allow the tribunal in those circumstances to deal with the matter in that way rather than simply to
152
concern itself with a strict factual argument as to the number of days at sea which would be allocated. This would give the tribunal an element of flexibility to deal with issues which go beyond those already in the Bill.
The need for this power may arise. I should not like to tempt case histories in anticipation or anything of that kind, but we believe that such a power would be useful to the tribunal. I should like to hear what the Minister feels about it in the light of the obvious desire of the industry for a concession of this kind. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has put forward an amendment which on reflection I hope he will think better of. He is suggesting that, in considering an appeal on a days-at-sea allocation, the tribunal should take into account the economic effect on a fisherman of imposing a restriction on his fishing effort. The tribunal's role will be to consider appeals on the basis of the facts: how many days a vessel spent at sea in 1991; and how many days it was prevented from doing so by force of circumstance. A fisherman, for example, could appeal against his allocation on the basis that he had been sick during much of 1991. In that event he would need to produce a doctor's certificate to support his claim.
But the noble Lord is suggesting that the tribunal should also take into account a range of considerations which are not only somewhat ill-defined but could also require judgments which are a great deal more subjective. What kind of economic effects are we talking about? If I may be somewhat flippant, we might be talking about the economic effects on the UK Exchequer of policing the days at sea regime. We might be talking about the economic effect on the fisherman himself, as I am sure the noble Lord intends. But this could lead to gross anomalies: a fisherman with a large family or a large mortgage might be given more days at sea than a fisherman with a small family or a small mortgage.
We should not lose sight of an important point. It is not our intention that time-at-sea restrictions should prevent a fisherman from catching his quota. The economic effects of restricting time at sea in terms of loss of profit to the law-abiding fisherman will be minimal: the people on whom it will bite will be those who are breaking the law, the people who are black fishing. For those people, a days-at-sea restriction will concentrate fishing effort where it should be concentrated; namely, on catching legitimate quota entitlements.
I hope the noble Lord will agree that, carried to its logical conclusion, the amendment does not make much sense. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Gallacher: I had a feeling that, after our delightful experience with Amendment No. 21, rigidity would be in the air over Amendment No. 22; and so it has proved. I tried to suggest that the jargon of "socio-economic" was not unknown in the Treaty of Rome or in the institutions of the Community. I spent some five or six years on the economic and social committee, where it was used almost every hour on the hour, like a meteorological observation. In all those

153
years I never discovered what it really means. I was hoping that by throwing myself at the mercy of the Minister he might define it for me.
I was also hoping that, if the power existed in the Bill for the tribunal to take this view of certain cases, the Ministry itself, being aware of the power, might in turn be influenced by such a consideration. That is not, however, the case. If the Committee stage had been taken nearer Christmas the Minister might have been in a more sympathetic mood. He is not. I accept the line he has taken. I shall study what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:

("(4A) Subject to subsection (4B) below the tribunal shall publish a written statement of the reasons for its decision on an application.

(4B) The statement may be refused or the specification of its reasons may be restricted on grounds of national security; and the tribunal may refuse to furnish a statement to a person not primarily concerned with the decision if the tribunal is of the opinion that to furnish it would be contrary to the interest of any person primarily concerned.

(4C) If any party to proceedings before the tribunal is dissatisfied on a point of law with the decision of the tribunal he may either appeal to the High Court (with the leave of the court) or require the tribunal to state a case for the opinion of the High Court (and in Scotland of the Court of Session) with the right of appeal from the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the case of Scotland from the Court of Session, with the leave of the court, to the House of Lords.

(4D) An applicant to a tribunal shall be entitled, if he so requires, to legal representation by either a barrister, advocate or solicitor.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to give simple natural justice to an applicant who considers himself badly used by the tribunal. It is only right that he should receive a statement as to the reasons for the decision. Tribunals will have to take decisions based on law, fact, or a mixture of these. If the decision includes a decision on a point of law, it goes without saying that, as the result will have a bearing on the ability of the applicant to earn a livelihood, an appeal should lie to the appropriate appellate court. Legal representation, it is assumed, will be allowed but the Government might well confirm that.
Having read out my little brief, I do believe I shall get a sympathetic reply from the Minister in this case because it is purely a question of natural justice. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: To my great satisfaction, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord on all his points of concern. By virtue of Clause 6 of the Bill, the tribunal is under a duty to give a written statement, and the reasons for its decision, if requested to do so. Further, that statement may be refused or the specification of the reasons for the decision restricted on grounds of national security. The tribunal can refuse to furnish a statement of reasons to a person not primarily concerned with the decision where publication would, in the tribunal's opinion, be contrary to the interests of persons primarily concerned with the decision. As all
154
those matters already apply to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal by virtue of Clause 6 to the Bill, I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: To tell the truth, I am not sure whether the noble Earl has said enough to satisfy me.
Earl Howe: I am sorry. I apologise to Members of the Committee. I believe that I should go further. I think that appeals from the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law are addressed by the amendment. The amendment that I shall move later this evening (which will amend Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992) has precisely the effect of the noble Lord's amendment in subsection (4C). I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that part of his amendment can be withdrawn.
Finally, the amendment seeks provision for applicants to the tribunal to have legal representation. We have no objection to applicants having legal representation. I believe, however, that that is a matter which is best dealt with in the rules of procedure of the tribunal and not on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with an assurance that we shall include the provision in the procedural rules of the tribunal when they are drawn up. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thank the Minister for that response. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to study his reply and take further advice upon it. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("if) to first ("the") in line 2 and insert ("a determination that the licence should be varied is made by, or on appeal from, the tribunal,").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. The duties and conditions attached to membership of certain non-departmental public bodies are often such as to create potential conflicts of interest for those who are also MPs or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is therefore necessary when creating new public appointments to consider whether such conflicts might arise and to do so in accordance with a standard set of Cabinet Office guidelines.
We have considered whether members of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal should be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly and have concluded that they should be for the following reasons. The office is an office of profit and individual members could attract salaries above the current de minimis limit. The tribunal is also likely to be working very intensively during the autumn of 1993 at coastal locations throughout the United Kingdom. We have concluded that that would prevent members from fulfilling parliamentary duties satisfactorily.
Therefore, the amendment disqualifies all members of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal from membership of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland

155
Assembly. It does so by inserting the tribunal into Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and into Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert:
("() In making appointments to the tribunal, the Ministers shall invite such organisations as seem to them to be representative of producer organisations to submit names of persons for consideration for appointment.").
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move the amendment to which my name is attached. The fact that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made comments about the composition of the tribunal and the exclusion of certain people makes it easier for me to make some suggestions. The amendment proposes that there should be representatives of "producer organisations". By that, I mean actual fishermen's organisations. I have already expressed the view—although I am not sure that the Minister was present when we previously discussed the matter—that I believe the Government have lost at least the first round in the battle concerning the argument on fishing and tying up. They require a fair amount of goodwill from the fishing community, from all those who are interested in the fishing community and, perhaps, even from the public in general.
It seems to me that if the Government wish to help to build bridges—from all the representations that I and colleagues receive, such bridges are badly needed—it would be a good idea if they asked representatives of the fishermen's and producer organisations to submit names from which the Government would be able to pick their people.
On the other hand, if it happens that the Government make a selection of the great and the good, we shall be back to where we started. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, with whom I had many interesting anti-government battles on other Bills, I do not mean members of the Fishmongers Company. I do not think that that would go down all that well in Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Buckie. I am sure that the Minister has got the drift of my remarks. There should be some real fishermen on the tribunal. I hope that he will give the matter some consideration, even if it is only a change of words. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: There is nothing in Clause 2 about the composition, the size, the quorum, or the procedure of the tribunal. It is possible that that is governed by the reference in Clause 6 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. For all I know—and perhaps my noble friend will tell me—that dictates the size, the composition, and so on, of an appeals tribunal. I certainly support the noble Lord in the suggestion he made that there should be a representative, or representatives, of the industry at some level.
156
My mind went back to what seems to me an analogous case. I refer to the time when milk quotas were introduced for farmers. There was a set-up of appeals by farmers who thought either that they had not received enough or, very rarely, had been awarded too much. Panels were set up for the purpose. In at least two cases they were presided over by a farmer. Therefore, one might say that the panel was presided over by a very interested party. I am not suggesting that that should necessarily follow. But if that was to be used as a comparison, then I think that the case for having a representative of the industry on the tribunal would be very hard to resist.
Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place that individual tribunals which will be sitting as part of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal will comprise three members: a chairman, who must be a qualified lawyer; a lay person; and, a person with expert knowledge of fisheries. So, we have made clear our intention to ensure that the interests of the fishery sector are represented on the tribunal. We shall be happy to seek the industry's views on potential members with knowledge of fisheries. I hope that that is some reassurance to the noble Lord. However, I am advised that the tribunal's independence could be put into question if the Bill were to provide that one of the constituent parts of the tribunal should have a specific influence over the membership. That would also be a most unusual provision in legislation. As we intend to have someone on each tribunal with a knowledge of fisheries, and as we are prepared to discuss potential candidates for those posts within the industry, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured enough to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. We all understand the problem of representation and the difficulty that might arise if someone appointed to a tribunal is not independent. I hope the Minister realises that I was genuinely trying to be helpful. The impression is that the Government's attitude—it might also be the attitude of a Labour Government—might not be as helpful as it should be and, therefore, as I said earlier, the greater rapport we achieve the better. The Minister's reply was good and we shall wait with great expectation to see the lists to discover who has won the Minister's approval. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and the applicant").
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will agree that my noble friend has dealt with the proceedings today with great skill and courtesy. I hope that when he replies to the amendment he will show a wee drop of generosity. The amendment does not seek much. It relates to the Minister making provision for the remuneration of members of the tribunal, its staff and accommodation costs. It then provides:
"and any expenses reasonably incurred by the tribunal".
The amendment seeks to add, "and the applicant".
I am seeking only a modest contribution. It may be, for instance, subsistence or travel, but it should be something. When the industry is faced with a new cost such as a tribunal hearing, it would be a small, modest but welcome addition if my noble friend were to say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Much as I would like to display a wee drop of generosity, I fear that I cannot accept the amendment. The expenses of those appealing to a tribunal are not normally reimbursed, and, moreover, to do so in this case would be unwarranted. Fisheries departments will be going out of their way to minimise the cost to fishermen of going to the tribunal. They will be making arrangements for tribunal hearings to take place in all the major coastal ports. They will also use flexibility in arranging the timing of hearings so that wherever possible fishermen can attend on a day when they would not have planned to be at sea.
There is no reason, therefore, why the fishermen's costs should be reimbursed. If fishermen make applications to the tribunal, then in accordance with the general rule they must bear the cost of so doing. If the Government were to pay such expenses it would also mean that the money available for decommissioning would be that much less. I do not believe that that is something which the fishermen's organisations would welcome. I hope that my noble friend will understand the point that I have made and will be content, if somewhat reluctantly, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Before the Minister sits down, is he suggesting that the tribunal might behave like the Scottish Land Court and travel to the port where the fisherman resides rather than make him travel elsewhere?
Earl Howe: We shall be at pains to minimise expenses. We estimate that 80 per cent. of fishermen will have to travel less than 40 miles for their hearing. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
The Earl of Kinnoull: It is of course a disappointing answer, but if between now and the next stage of the Bill I find an example I should like to bring back the amendment for my noble friend's attention. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert:
("() The tribunal shall report annually on its work to both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment merely places upon the tribunal the obligation to report annually on its work to both Houses of Parliament. The justification for that lies in the tribunal's novelty. As we are aware, it made its appearance at a fairly late stage in the Bill's progress in another place. It is an important body for the fishing industry. It is also an important body for both Houses of Parliament. In the circumstances, it would not be imposing too onerous a duty upon the tribunal or tribunals—I am not sure whether it should be singular or plural; the Bill refers
158
to the body in the singular—that it should report to Parliament, thus giving us an opportunity to look at its work and some indication of the manner in which it is functioning. In that way, we shall all be better informed about what the tribunal has been doing and is capable of doing in respect of conservation. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has made a persuasive case here. In the light of what he has said, I should like him to know that we accept the principle that the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal should be required to report on its work annually to both Houses of Parliament. What I propose to him is that I should bring forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill to achieve that end, as I am advised that the drafting of the amendment is deficient. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: On that basis I readily withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for that concession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): The words to which Amendment No. 29 relates, and without which Amendment No. 29 would not make sense, will be left out if Amendment No. 28 is passed. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are interdependent.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 28 with my fingers crossed. I am also down to move Amendment No. 29, but let us proceed with Amendment No. 28 and assume that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 29. When the Minister replies and tells me what he thinks about Amendment No. 28, perhaps I can then decide what to do in the light of what we have just heard from the Chair.
The amendment relates to the old question of orders and whether they should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. With Amendment No. 28, we believe that the orders relate to matters of sufficient importance to warrant using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Again, I plead that we are in new territory in the Bill. In the light of that, rather than put both Houses of Parliament to the chore—if it can be so described—of praying against orders under the negative procedure, it would be better to go for the affirmative procedure, and that is the object of the amendment.
The risks inherent in the affirmative procedure in this Chamber are minimal, as the Minister will realise, because there is a long-standing tradition that, although we may say things, at the end of the day we cheerfully accept what is before us. With that half assurance, and the plea that I have made, I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I have some difficulty with the amendment. If, as the noble Lord indicated, the purpose of the amendment is to provide an affirmative

159
resolution procedure for the order which will set out the principles on which days at sea will be based, that order-making power has now been moved to Clause 1, which we debated earlier. We referred earlier to the negative resolution procedure for those principles. To the extent that it applies to principles for reducing time at sea, the amendment is unnecessary because the Bill, as amended, already provides for the affirmative resolution procedure in that instance.
I am advised that it would be most unusual for the parliamentary procedure for orders setting out, for example, rules of procedure for the tribunal to be other than the negative resolution procedure. I do not think that it would be wise for us to employ parliamentary time in rehearsing broad matters of principle which have already been the subject of extensive debate during the passage of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand why we have come to that conclusion, despite the arguments that he has put forward, and that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("except regulations made under subsection (3) which shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: I am down to move this amendment and do so formally in order to listen to the Minister's reply.
Earl Howe: We could have a very interesting debate on Amendment No. 29 but the substance has already been addressed in our debate on Amendment No. 28. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw this amendment as well.
Lord Gallacher: In the light of what the noble Earl has had to say to me, I shall note carefully his remarks and reserve my right to come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 34:
Page 3, line 28, after ("of") insert ("section 3 of").
Page 3, line 30, after ("made") insert ("or purported to be made").
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("required") and insert ("provided or purported").
Page 3, line 36, after ("(ii)") insert ("a requirement under").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary regulations]:
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 4, line 3, after ("may") insert (", after full consultation with bodies representing the industry,").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked me to move this amendment on his behalf in his absence. It is completely self-explanatory. I feel sure that as the Minister has talked on many occasions about the extensive consultations he intends to undertake, he will be happy to see what is proposed written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As I am sure my noble friend will be aware, none of the other powers to make orders or regulations in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 requires Ministers to consult before exercising those powers. Acceptance of my noble friend's amendment would therefore involve departure from the legislative norm. However, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that it is normal practice for the Government to consult the industry before they exercise the powers in the Act to make regulations where they would involve a change of policy. It is, therefore, the Government's intention to consult the industry before exercising the powers in Clause 4. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: It is clear that the Government have wholly virtuous intentions, and we shall have to see that the noble Earl lives up to them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Orders

(" .—(1) Section 20 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (orders) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (5) for the words "subsection (6)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (5A) or (6)".

(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—

"(5A) A principle of the kind to which subsection (5B) below applies shall not be included in any order under section 4(6C) of this Act which makes provision for principles of any other kind; but any statutory instrument containing a separate order providing for a principle of that kind shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5B) This subsection applies to a principle providing for a reduction in the time which all vessels, or all vessels of any specified description, may spend at sea during any period by comparison with the time which they, or vessels of that description, were permitted to spend (or spent or were treated as spending) during a specified previous period (making any necessary adjustment where the periods are of different lengths); and for this purpose "description" means description framed by reference to size of vessel, method or area of fishing or description of fish." ").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Parliamentary disqualification
(" .—(1) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
"The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal".
(2) The same entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.").
The noble Earl said: I am in some difficulty with this amendment, even though it is a government amendment. I have an apology to make to the Committee. Owing to an inexcusable muddle on my part and perhaps more than usually opaque wording that the parliamentary draftsman has devised for us, when I spoke to Amendment No. 24 and directed my remarks towards the exclusion of the members of non-departmental public bodies from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly, I should have reserved those remarks for Amendment No. 37. They did not relate to Amendment No. 24.
I now find myself in some difficulty as I have not spoken properly to Amendment No. 24. I should like to take the guidance of the Committee on what I should do about putting on the record the Government's remarks about it. With the leave of the House, I shall go ahead, if I may, and address the substance of Amendment No. 24, the points relating to Amendment No. 37 being already on the record.
Amendment No. 24, to which I should have spoken properly, rectifies a minor omission in the provisions of the Bill dealing with the tribunal which I feel sure the Committee will welcome. The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal is added to the tribunals listed in Section 11(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. A right of appeal is provided from that tribunal to the High Court on a point of law and a further appeal, with leave, to the Court of Appeal. In relation to proceedings in Scotland, appeals will go from the tribunal to the Court of Session.
The provisions also amend Clause 2(5) of the Bill so that Ministers will be required to vary licences, not only as a result of decisions of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal but also as a result of decisions taken on appeal to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session. That means that applicants to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal will have recourse to appeal to the courts on a point of law if they are dissatisfied with a decision of the tribunal.
I stress again that those remarks relate to government Amendment No. 24. The remarks that I made earlier on that amendment should have been made now. I trust that the Committee will be content to accept the line of argument that I put forward earlier. I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Annual report on renewals
In section 20 of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Section 4(6) (c) of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of each period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed unless before the end of that period—

(a) the Ministers have laid before each House of Parliament a report on—

(i) the exercise of the power conferred by section 4(6) (c) and its effect on the fishing industry;

(ii) the measures and the effect thereof, taken by other Member States to meet their Multi-Annual Guidance Programme Targets; and

(b) that report has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks an annual report on the workings of the Act and seeks that the report should be approved by each House of Parliament. In view of the complexity of the measure and the restrictions applied, I think this amendment is only reasonable. Ministers have undertaken that they will not introduce greater restrictions than those applying in 1993 without coming before the House and seeking approval of those restrictions by affirmative resolution. So that Parliament has the information necessary to consider such an application, and also to consider whether that which Parliament has approved is having the effect pleaded by Ministers, it is right that Parliament should consider annually what effect effort restriction is having on the capacity of the fleet and also the other benefit claimed that effort control is essential if the fundamental problem of fishing mortality is to he tackled.
It is quite clear that an annual report is necessary because the fishing industry is under severe restriction. The Minister has already made doubtful statements on the effect of decommissioning in other countries. Therefore, I think it is only right that Ministers report to Parliament the effect of the measures taken by other member states and the effect of the Bill on our own fishing industry over the previous year. I am sure the Minister will find the amendment reasonable. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I take note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, but I hope that on reflection he will feel that this amendment has been rendered unnecessary by Amendment No. 4, which I tabled and which was accepted earlier today. That amendment provides both Houses of Parliament with an opportunity to consider any overall reduction that the Government propose to make in days at sea allocations below the freeze based on 1991 levels of activity.
When I tabled that amendment I made clear that the Government, in presenting the case for any reductions during the debate, will perforce need to give an oral account of why the reductions are necessary and on the actions that other member states are taking to meet their MAGP targets. That surely is the essence of this amendment and I hope the Committee will feel that we have already covered the point of principle satisfactorily in our earlier debate. I do not believe that there is any need to go further and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister is getting better and better. I will consider his reassurance, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("(tribunals") and insert:

(" .—(1) The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 11(1) (appeals from certain tribunals) after "37" there shall be inserted ", 40A".

(3) In Schedule 1").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Right of appeal against decisions of Tribunal
Notwithstanding the provisions for the general supervision of the tribunal established by section 6 above, there shall be a right of appeal by licence holders to the European Court of Justice when it is contended that a decision of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal is in conflict with or fails to conform to decisions by the European Community regarding the Common Fisheries Policy.").
The noble Lord said: Not being a legal person I am in something of a dilemma, as regards Amendment No. 40, which was created for me by the effect of Amendment No. 24. That gives, as I understand it, rights of appeal to High Courts in England and in Scotland. I shall not move this amendment this evening. In the meantime, perhaps the noble Earl will be kind enough to let me know whether, in the light of Amendment No. 24, such a provision as is proposed in Amendment No. 40 is still necessary or whether it would be available in any case. In those circumstances and in anticipation of hearing from the noble Earl I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 40A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 42, after ("1,") insert ("(2) and (4) to (6),").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("less") to the end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: I find myself under considerable difficulty. I had hoped to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, but he is unfortunately stricken with laryngitis and unable to be present. There is no one here that I am aware of who shares the concern which I expressed on Second Reading about the fate of that limited but locally important class of fishermen who use small boats off the beaches of south-east England, east Sussex and Kent, and who feel that subjection to
164
this kind of scheme of limiting days at sea, while perhaps understandable in relation to large commercial vessels with high intensive capital content, is not reasonably applicable to them. They feel that their livelihood risks being destroyed, as they see it—I reflect their own anxieties—because of something said earlier today in our debates; that is, the feeling that while the British no doubt will, as usual, observe the letter of every regulation that is made on behalf of our own Government, or on behalf of the administration in Brussels, they themselves will be penalised because foreign fishermen will not necessarily be regulated to the same extent.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that it was impossible to have a conservation scheme unless boats of every size were included. I did not find that argument convincing. The fishing grounds concerned are not those frequented by the major trawlers that we have been discussing off the Scottish, Northern Ireland or Cornish coasts. The fishery I am discussing is essentially a local fishery. I feel sympathy for those fishermen in that local fishery and I feel obliged to advocate to the Committee, even with my minuscule knowledge of the subject, the case for their exemption.
There must have been some worry on the part of the Government about this particular issue; otherwise why were those fishermen not included in the Bill from the beginning? Why should it be necessary to have a Ministerial order? Whenever a Ministerial order appears, even if as is sometimes the case we are allowed to consider it on affirmative resolution, we know that it is, in fact, law making. As I say, I feel obliged to move the amendment which has the effect of omitting boats of less than 10 metres length unless and until there is primary legislation affecting them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne: I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff. It would simply drive a coach and four through any hope of operating a decommissioning scheme in this country. Earlier in the day while discussing previous clauses we acknowledged that the earlier decommissioning scheme failed because people who were rewarded for taking their ships out of commission simply spent their money on new and extremely efficient but smaller boats of under 10 metres—the rule breakers.
I am afraid that, much as we all sympathise with the local fishing industry around the coasts of Sussex and Kent, it simply is not the case that those ships are used exclusively in that area. They are now widespread in all fisheries. It was a common factor in the evidence to Sub-Committee D from all the fishery organisations that while that lacuna existed in our national legislation capacity could not be reduced.
I fear that if my noble friend Lord Beloff wishes to give preferential treatment to the fishing industry of Sussex and Kent this is not the way to do it.
Earl Howe: I have the greatest possible respect for my noble friend Lord Beloff and I appreciate the anxieties which he has expressed. However, I put it to

165
him that the amendment is unwise. It is unwise because it seeks permanently to exclude vessels of 10 metres or less from days at sea restrictions.
Vessels of 10 metres or less make up a sizeable sector of our fishing fleet and have a significant effect on some fishing stocks. Days at sea restrictions are being introduced to conserve fish stocks. I really cannot see why all vessels which can have an impact on those stocks should not eventually share the burden of conserving them. I have no need to tell my noble friend that, if we make an exception for smaller boats we shall simply encourage the growth of a class of vessel—known as the "metre beaters" —whose dimensions are designed specifically to evade the restrictions applying to larger vessels. That would directly undermine our fish conservation measures. We must allow ourselves the scope in this Bill to ring fence fishing effort across the entire fleet. I wonder whether my noble friend realises that the industry itself is calling for greater controls in certain sectors, notably for shellfish, and that those are typically the smaller boats about which he is concerned.
Perhaps I can convey this reassurance to my noble friend. The restrictions that we impose as regards days at sea are likely to be different for different classes of boat. As a rule the type of vessel about which he is worried is likely to be at the less severely restricted end of the spectrum. Both Houses will of course have an opportunity to consider the policy of extending days at sea restrictions to some or all of those vessels if and when an affirmative resolution order specifying the commencement date of such restrictions is tabled.
On that basis I hope that my noble friend has received some reassurance and will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beloff: In the absence of anyone who shares my anxieties to the extent of supporting me in the debate, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment and to record the assurances which the Minister has given. I hope that they will give some comfort to those men who are fearful for the loss of their livelihood.
If it were possible to devise an amendment which was locally exclusive rather than, as has been pointed out, raised problems elsewhere I would gladly support it. In the absence of any counsel at this stage there is nothing I can do but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Expiry of Act
This Act shall cease to have effect on 31st December 1996.").
The noble Lady said: Although in their confusion the Government have proposed two major reasons for the introduction of this Bill, the first being the reduction in fleet capacity and the second an attack on excessive fish mortality, a more important reason appears to be that proposed by both Ministers in the
166
Second Reading debate in this House, namely that it is a necessary complement to a decommissioning scheme aimed at reducing capacity to meet multi-annual guidance programme targets.
The requirement to meet the target expires on 31st December 1996. For that reason alone there can be no validity in any argument that the Act should have any effect after that date. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I do not believe that there can be anyone in this Chamber this evening who does not realise that the need to conserve fish stocks is continuous. It is not driven by the arbitrary deadlines which the Community sets for its structural policies. It is driven by the over-arching imperative that fishing effort and fleet capacity should be in safe proportion to the stocks available. It would therefore be quite wrong to link the powers in the Bill to Community deadlines.
If the powers of the Bill were terminated at the end of 1996, which may be the end of the next multi-annual guidance programme, further legislation would be necessary of exactly the same type as we have in this Bill. That would be an unnecessary waste of parliamentary time. In fact the Committee will also wish to note that the end date for the multi-annual guidance programme is not yet fixed. New objectives are likely to be set with a target date of 31st December 1998.
We cannot, therefore, assume that the end of 1996 will mark either the end of our MAGP targets or, more importantly, an end to the need to conserve fish stocks. The amendment, if it were pressed and carried, would not only terminate Ministers' powers to restrict time at sea at the end of 1996; it would bring to an end all the provisions of the Bill, including those which the fishermen's organisations have been pressing us to introduce and which are desirable in their own right: namely, licence suspension or revocation for breach of licence rules; increased maximum fines; the Scottish evidential provisions, and so on. At the very least I should have thought that the noble Lady would wish to reflect further on whether this is really what she wants. I hope that this evening she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that very clear explanation. In the light of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992
7.59 p.m
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. The amendment which is proposed by this draft order will help to combat the evil of drug trafficking. The order is designed to bring five precursor chemicals and five essential chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of controlled drugs within the control of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The order is required in order to comply with the United Kingdom's treaty obligations under the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It implements decisions taken earlier this year by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to bring these extra substances under the control of that convention.
In order to set the draft order in its proper context it may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of how the 1990 Act controls both precursor and essential chemicals. For almost 20 years the United Kingdom has relied upon the voluntary co-operation of the chemical industry in providing information covertly about suspicious orders and transactions involving chemicals which are used in the illicit manufacture of controlled drugs. The Government have enjoyed consistent support from the industry throughout this time, and this has led to the detection of many illicit laboratories in the United Kingdom and overseas. Since 1989, 36 such laboratories have been detected in the United Kingdom, of which 23 have been traced as a result of direct information from the chemical industry. We are most grateful to the industry for that co-operation.
Unfortunately, with the growth over the last 20 years of the international trade in chemicals used for illicit drug production, it became clear that the existing provisions were insufficient. The 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Drug Trafficking was subsequently adopted, and that was a significant step forward in the international effort to control precursor chemicals.
The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 was designed to implement the requirements of the 1988 United Nations Convention. That required parties, first, to take appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of 12 scheduled substances to illicit drug manufacture and co-operate with one another to that end, and, secondly, to establish as criminal offences the manufacture or supply of scheduled substances knowing or suspecting that they were to be used in the unlawful production of controlled drugs.
I should like briefly to explain how the 10 additional chemicals are by this order to be included within the provisions of the 1990 Act. The 10 chemicals are divided into two groups in paragraph 2 of the draft order. Five of the substances are to be included in Table I of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. As with all of the substances in Table I, these five chemicals are precursor chemicals—that is, they are one step removed from the drugs themselves. Four of the substances are precursors for the group of related compounds which include MDMA, more commonly known as Ecstasy. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that there has been a worrying increase in the
168
use of this drug in the United Kingdom and that it is illicitly manufactured both here and in mainland Europe. The additional five substances are to be incorporated into Table II. Table II comprises chemical solvents and reagents which have a much wider commercial use. The five substances involved are widely used in processing heroin and cocaine as well as synthetic drugs. The order will bring the 10 chemicals within the scope of the offence provision in Section 12 of the 1990 Act. On indictment the maximum penalty which may be imposed is 14 years' imprisonment or a fine or both.
It is also important to place these measures in the context of developments throughout the European Community. The Community has taken measures to implement a number of regulatory recommendations made by the Chemical Action Task Force. This has resulted in a Council regulation which will come into force on 1st January 1993 and will control the trade between the Community and third countries. A directive controlling the trade within the Community is due to come into operation on 1st July 1993. Regulations are being brought forward to implement both the Council's regulation and directive.
It is within the context of the international effort to combat drug-trafficking that the provisions contained in the order are being introduced. A number of the chemicals which are to be brought under control are used in large quantities for a wide range of perfectly legitimate commercial purposes.
We have worked together with the chemical industry throughout the negotiation process. We have endeavoured to thwart the operations of the drug-traffickers as much as possible while not unnecessarily impeding the perfectly legitimate commercial dealings of the chemical industry. I think and I hope that we have managed to achieve this. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the order is brief and clear and has been fully explained by the Minister. We fully support its objective of placing further controls upon the drug trade by adding to the list of chemical substances which may be used in the manufacture of controlled drugs. Because of the rapid changes that occur in the drug market it is essential to respond quickly to, and if possible anticipate, new developments in so-called designer drugs. Drugs are being developed in laboratories and some have become more fashionable among young people than the traditional products of Asia and South America.
First, perhaps I may ask the Minister what steps are being taken to monitor new fashions in drugs and to prevent their use amongst young people. The noble Earl went on to describe European Community-wide initiatives. If I may, I should also like to refer to the title of this order, which makes reference to international co-operation. This can often be merely liaison at police officer level. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what arrangements there are at governmental level for sustained collaboration and initiatives, not just quarterly meetings, with the

169
drug-producing countries—I noted a recent visit by the Home Secretary to Colombia—and, perhaps more importantly, joint ventures with countries such as Italy, Spain and Nigeria, which often provide major channels for the drug trade. I conclude by confirming that we fully support the order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the comprehensive but brief way in which she has supported the order. She asked what monitoring was carried out of new types of drug. I can tell her that several agencies are engaged in monitoring the drugs scene in the United Kingdom. The police, customs and forensic science services continually monitor new trends in drugs as part of their law enforcement activities. Their findings are co-ordinated and disseminated nationally through the drugs division of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Databases maintained by regional health authorities and data collected by non-governmental organisations such as the Standing Conference on Drug Addiction and the street agencies also provide valuable indications of the trends in drugs use.
The noble Baroness also asked about consultation. There is a great deal of consultation at international level within the United Nations system. The World Health Organisation and the Pompidou Drug Co-operation Group of the Council of Europe are both organisations in which a great deal of concentration takes place. Agreement has just been reached within the European Community on the establishment of a European drugs monitoring centre whose main task will be to provide accurate and comparable information about drug misuse within the Community. Through both Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council the police and customs services also pool information about drug trends. Plans are well advanced for the creation of a European drugs intelligence agency, which will be called Europol. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is a very great deal of international co-operation on drugs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992
8.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved. The draft regulations seek to give effect to requirements of the European Community Directive on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons. The directive lays down minimum standards which all Community states must achieve in their national firearms controls. But states can be stricter than the minimum. Our domestic firearms controls are among the strictest in Europe. And they
170
will remain that way. There will be no relaxation of the standards of control which we consider necessary to protect public safety.
But some relatively minor adjustments are required to bring our controls up to European Community standards in the few instances where we are not as strict as the directive requires us to be. The most notable change is the extension of our category of prohibited weapons and ammunition. Firearms which are disguised as other objects, explosive military missiles and their launchers, armour piercing and incendiary ammunition for military use and expanding pistol ammunition will all become prohibited under draft Regulation 3.
We have made special arrangements for collectors and for those who use expanding pistol ammunition. They will not be affected by the ban if they have a special condition added to their firearm or shot-gun certificate. We shall be implementing an exgratia payment scheme for owners of disguised firearms. If they lawfully held a disguised firearm on 16th July, the day after the draft regulations were laid, they will be able to apply for a payment provided that they surrender the firearm to the police before 1st January 1993. Payments will be based on the value which the firearm had immediately before the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
The directive says that no one under 18 should be allowed to acquire or to possess a firearm except for hunting or target shooting. "Hunting", in this instance, does not carry the definition which an Englishman would normally give to the word, but rather the definition which our American and European friends ascribe to it; namely, shooting wild animals or birds.
The draft regulations, therefore, provide that certificate holders under 18 can use firearms only for sporting purposes, vermin destruction, the shooting of wildlife as part of estate husbandry, competitive purposes, including target shooting, or target shooting outside competition.
Residents of Great Britain will need a European firearms pass after 1st January 1993 if they wish to take their firearms to other Community states—for example, on a shooting trip. Draft Regulation 5 provides for chief officers to issue European firearms passes free on request to firearm and shot-gun certificate holders in their areas.
Visitors from other Community states who come here with their firearms after 1st January 1993 will also need a European firearms pass issued by another Community state. That will not mean, though, that European Community nationals will be able to bring firearms here just by virtue of holding a European pass. They will still need our prior consent. They will still need a British visitor's permit, which can be obtained by a sponsor applying to the local chief constable.
Draft Regulation 7 simply ensures that intending visitors from elsewhere in the Community have a European firearms pass, as is required by the directive, when they apply for a visitor's permit.
The draft regulations make a number of other minor changes to the controls on European

171
Community residents who buy firearms here and on our residents who buy firearms abroad. They also ensure that we can tell other Community states when one of their residents buys a firearm here, as the directive requires, without breaching confidentiality requirements.
I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that these regulations do no more than implement our Community obligations under the weapons directive, and, most importantly, that the changes will not mean any relaxation of our existing firearms controls.
I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, these complex regulations have been clearly explained by the Minister. Their intention is to bring our firearms legislation on the control, acquisition and possession of weapons into line with the European Council directive. We support these amending regulations with the sole reservation that they may, by their very complexity, be difficult to implement in practice. I anticipate particular difficulty with Regulation 4. Seeing that it is headed "Restrictions on minors", I had hoped that it would prohibit the use or possession of firearms by children—by children, I mean children of 11 or 12. I regret that the Government have not seen fit to tighten the law in that respect.
Moreover, Regulation 4 as at present drafted allows a chief constable to refuse a shot-gun certificate only if he believes that the applicant intends to use it for an unauthorised purpose under the European directive. That is an odd provision. No applicant will declare that he intends to use a shot-gun for an unauthorised purpose. So it seems difficult for the chief constable to form the opinion that that is his intention. I therefore see very little purpose in terms of necessity or usefulness in this part of the regulation. However, in all other respects we support the amending regulations.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, as chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, perhaps I may briefly say a few words. As my noble friend explained, the regulations do no more than give effect to our Community obligations by bringing British legislation into line with EC standards in a number of minor areas where that is not already the case.
The Firearms Consultative Committee has been kept fully informed of the Government's plans for the implementation of the weapons directive. We welcome the helpful approach which the Government have taken in transposing the directive's requirements in a way that will cause the minimum of inconvenience to legitimate shooters in this country. Although the regulations will prohibit disguised firearms and certain other weapons and ammunition, we are pleased that sensible arrangements have been made to ensure that serious collectors will not be prevented from pursuing their interests and will be able to collect the newly prohibited items.
172
We were particularly glad to note that the Government have retained the visitor's permit requirements for EC visitors as recommended in the Firearms Consultative Committee's second annual report. We were also pleased to see that the Government have taken on board our recommendations on the issue of European firearms passes to British residents and that such passes will be issued freely to firearm and shot-gun certificate holders. I also welcome the fact that the regulations will not prevent legitimate young shooters from participating in sporting and other lawful activities. I refer the noble Baroness to the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, in which it looked in depth at the whole question of young people with both firearms and shot-guns.
My committee will be monitoring the effects of the implementation as part of our programme of work during the coming year.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining these regulations so clearly. In the light of his explanation, I do not think that there is very much to object to in the content of the regulations. Nevertheless, and quite differently from the previous order, I am astonished that we should be considering this measure tonight.
If ever there were a subject suited to the exercise of the principle of subsidiarity which our Prime Minister purports to support so strongly, it is this one. For those very few individuals who want to take their rifles, pistols or shotguns across national frontiers within what is still technically known as the European Economic Community, some Community-wide harmonisation, and hence consequent legislation, may very well be desirable. I should not object to that. But at least 99 per cent. of licence holders, whether they be firearms licence holders or shot-gun licence holders, do not shoot and have no desire or intention of shooting outside their own country.
As is well known, every state within the United States—and, I imagine, every province in Canada and every state in Australia—has its own individual gun laws as well as its own laws on seat belts, the maximum power specification of motorcycles and similar matters, which the European Commission seeks unjustifiably to standardise right across the Community. Unless the principle of subsidiarity is invoked without delay so as to leave matters such as this to national parliaments, those who suspect that the hidden agenda of the European Commission is not the creation of a federal super-state but, far worse, a unitary super-state and that everything will be standardised to a much greater degree than is the case in the United States, Canada or Australia, will turn out to have been justified in their suspicions. How can the noble Earl defend interference by the Community in what is almost exclusively a domestic matter with virtually no implications for free trade or the free movement of goods, services and people across frontiers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions that they have made, in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. She

173
quite rightly stated that the draft regulations do no more than harmonise our own arrangements with those of Europe. She was anxious about young people. It is important to remember that the regulations can give effect only to our Community obligations. They do that, and no more. A chief officer can refuse a shot-gun certificate if he has reason to suspect that a young person intends to use a shot-gun for a purpose that is not authorised by the directive. Under the Firearms Acts, no young person under the age of 15 may use a shot-gun unless he is supervised by an adult. The chief officer of police will also take account of an applicant's age, skill and experience when considering whether he should grant a shot-gun certificate without danger to public safety. Therefore the noble Baroness need have no undue cause for worry.
The Firearms Consultative Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Kimball, recently reviewed the controls in that area. It advised the Home Secretary that the existing restrictions adequately safeguard the public. My noble friend Lord Kimball thanked the Government for implementing the directive in a way which will cause the least destruction. That may not be the word that he used—he referred to the least possible inconvenience. Even though the directive looks somewhat complicated on paper, there will not be a great deal of difficulty in bringing it into operation. My noble friend was also glad that we took the advice that European firearms passes should be issued free. That will be a good thing.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say this to my noble friend. Firearms and their use and control, or lack of control, are always an enormously sensitive issue. My noble friend's committee is doing, and has done, an astonishingly good job of work. It is a complicated area. Members of the committee come from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. It is exceedingly helpful to my right honourable friend to have the advice that my noble friend's committee gives. I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend and his committee for the work that they do.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that the regulations would be a good subject for subsidiarity. I believe that it is good to have a common standard
174
throughout Europe applying to those who can and cannot have firearms. It is one classic example of an area which is suited to a directive—in this case one which states that throughout Europe no one can have a firearm if he falls below that standard. I believe that that is better than giving the sole decision to individual states. That does not mean that our own standards cannot be higher than the minimum set by the European Community: indeed, they are higher. In that way I should have thought that the noble Lord had the best of both worlds. Whenever he goes to another member state, he will know that its standards of control are as good as ours; and when he returns to our country he will find that our standards are better than those of the Community.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is the principle to which I object. Once one gives the Commission the right to interfere in purely domestic matters in one sphere of life, however beneficial it may appear to be at the time, it gives the open door to interference in almost every other nook and cranny of our daily lives, as I believe that the Prime Minister put it at one point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that that is an argument that many people use. However, the point of subsidiarity is that there are occasions when it is much better for governments of member states to take their own decisions. Nevertheless, even if one uses subsidiarity, it does not mean that there will not be common standards which will be used through directives over some issues throughout the Community.
However, I do not believe that we wish to pursue those esoteric subjects at the moment. Suffice to say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will agree that the implementation of the directive is and will be a benefit. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.