Lords Sitting of 24 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 St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Ashford International Station
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce their decision relating to the building of the international passenger station at Ashford in Kent.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government support plans for an international passenger station at Ashford. Track and signalling are the critical areas where delays could cause disruption once the full international service has started. The recently announced public expenditure settlement should allow British Rail to progress that key element of the project. The details are currently under discussion with British Rail.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for that positive Answer. Is he aware that the completion of the international passenger station at Ashford, which will take advantage of the full flow of traffic through the Channel Tunnel in 1994, is in many ways a vital test of whether the Government mean to make the most of the advantages that will accrue to the nation from building the tunnel? Is the Minister further aware that if the Government are looking for a major investment which will provide immediate employment in an area that needs it and which at the same time will meet strategic objectives, the international passenger station at Ashford fulfils those criteria?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree about the importance and desirability of the station at Ashford. However, the noble Lord will be aware that it is for British Rail to come forward with the final details.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, will my noble friend also consider an advantage to the national economy? East Kent is in great need of development. Is it right that one of the many important purposes of the Ashford international passenger station is to help East Kent to develop itself? The area is applying for assisted status and the station is important in achieving that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the case for East Kent and the desirability of further investment there. I can say that the same applies to Caithness.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that the Government remain committed to the Ashford station project, can we assume that it will not be affected by the cutbacks in funding for British
914
Rail? Furthermore, how will privatisation affect the scheme? Will it go ahead and will the Government commit themselves to it? In the event of privatisation who will own Ashford station?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says that we are committed. That is not what I said; I said that the Government support plans. It is of course for British Rail to bring forward the detailed plans and costings for financial appraisal.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, why are the Government not committed? The station is a great national asset and the Channel Tunnel is part of a great national rail infrastructure. Is it not about time that the Government were committed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are committed to a good rail service. The noble Lord will be aware that British Rail is investing more than £l.5 billion in Channel Tunnel services.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that during previous Question Times in the House and in debating the British Railways (No.3) Bill the Government accepted the principle of the station at Ashford? Will not people be astounded to hear that the Government are not committed to it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought that he had accused me of saying in my Answer that we were committed to the station. I was merely clarifying the position.
Lord Morris: My Lords, following on from the question put by my noble friend Lord Aldington, and with particular reference to the monstrous irrelevance of the Minister's comment about Caithness, I agree that the station is of vital importance to the people of East Kent. Will it he possible for local passengers to use the facilities at Ashford to travel to London?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I recognise the importance that many people in Kent put on the Ashford station and, as I said, it has the support of the Government. It is now necessary for British Rail to bring forward for consideration a detailed financial appraisal.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while the Minister rightly says that this is a matter for British Rail, will he assure the House that the development will not be impeded by the complicated privatisation arrangements now being discussed with British Rail?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, many issues will be covered in general. The privatisation measures to be brought forward will be of immense benefit to British Rail and to its users. It will continue to produce large infrastructure projects.
Lord Newall: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is worthwhile bothering about Ashford until it is confirmed that the railway line will go through Ashford?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, much work has been carried out as regards the details of Ashford. Indeed, planning permission exists. It is now a matter for British Rail.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister refers to waiting for a financial appraisal by British Rail. Are there not areas which should be developed on a social basis alone? Such areas may warrant more than mere financial appraisal. The Government should have an input in such areas in order to make sure that social structures are retained and developed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is not advocating that we should not carry out a vigorous appraisal of all public expenditure issues because such appraisals ensure that taxpayers' money is used to its best advantage. Unless British Rail puts forward a detailed financial appraisal, there is not much that we can do.

English Channel: Collision Reports
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering urgently the recommendations, published on 10th September, of the inquiries into recent collisions of vessels in the English Channel.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there were 11 recommendations in the two reports. The Department of Transport has accepted eight, partially accepted another two, and action has already been implemented on five.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. As those collisions were found to have been caused by negligence—one by a foreign registered vessel and the other by an unknown vessel—costing the lives of 11 British fishermen, do the Government favour compulsory identification by radio on entry into the Channel and eventually the automatic electronic labelling of ships?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an extremely important point. Under current requirements—that is, under the international law of the sea—what he proposes cannot be done mandatorily. That is why the matter is now being discussed in the IMO. We are putting an enormous amount of effort into trying to achieve a better situation than that which pertains at present.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is there nothing to require ships to use radar? It is well developed and it is quite simple to use. Should it not be used almost universally in all areas where there is heavy shipping?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, probably all ships in the Channel use radar. It is rather a question of somebody looking at the radar and somebody keeping a good look out at the same time.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, 11 lives were lost and it is not impossible for such a situation to occur again. The Minister has indicated that his department is working with the IMO. What pressure is he bringing to bear and what kind of timescale does he envisage for the discussions relating to this issue? When can we expect some kind of action to evolve from the discussions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if we were in charge of the IMO, I could give the noble Lord some definitive answers. However, the noble Lord knows well how the IMO works and that the views of other member states must be taken into account. I assure the noble Lord that we are pressing hard to make progress on this matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister taking any action or is he able to indicate whether he is seeking to co-ordinate a European Community effort in this regard? This is a matter of the greatest possible importance and such an initiative could pay dividends in terms of the discussions with the IMO.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that it is an important matter. That is why I have raised it on two occasions recently with my French opposite number and that is why there will be discussions with the French on 4th December.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, if my noble friend consults his records he will find that this noble Lord was involved in just one of the incidents to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy drew attention this afternoon. The department took immediate active steps. The incident involved a British ship in the Channel. I was crossing the Channel from Cherbourg and the other ship refused to get out of the way when it should have done so. The result was that a Department of Transport official dealt with the skipper. That ship was registered in Hull. If any British ship about which there was a complaint were dealt with in this way, it would be helpful.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on a very important point; namely, the question of identification. Where we can identify people who transgress the rules of the Channel, we do so. Last year there were 1,312 occasions on which we detected that the rules were not being obeyed. We managed to identify about 585 vessels, which accounted for under half the number of transgressions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in busy and restricted waterways around the country, merchant ships are required to take on pilots? Would it not be worthwhile contemplating, along with our Community partners, moving down that road with regard to the Channel, which is extremely busy and which has merchant ships sailing on it? Often those ships are not very heavily crewed and on occasions, there are no properly qualified people on the bridge to keep a watch. Pilots would ensure that ships are taken safely through.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the amount of traffic in the Channel, I wonder whether my noble friend's suggestion is practical and whether it would be as beneficial as he hopes. Pilots are used extremely successfully in narrow waters that are difficult to navigate. But with all the modern aids, I am sure that most merchant ships would be able to navigate the Channel properly if they behaved themselves.

Motorway Service Areas: Sites
2.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to the provision of service areas on motorways.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is for the private sector rather than the Government to identify sites for motorway service areas and take proposals forward. The Department of Transport retains a responsibility for ensuring that only service areas providing a minimum range of facilities are signed from the motorway.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that it is possible to enter the M.25 at, say, Chertsey and drive all the way north as far as Hilton Park (around 120 miles) without passing a single service area? Is that not a hazard for drivers who travel that route regularly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that depends to some extent on the driver. The noble Lord will be aware that drivers can take an exit off the motorway if they choose. There are two sites that are nearing final planning consent on the stretch of motorway that he mentioned. The advantage of the change in the rules announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will help to resolve the situation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have seen reports that it is government policy for motorway service areas to be provided every 15 miles. Does the Minister agree with that? I believe that that will be extremely obtrusive and wasteful of valuable land.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the correct situation is that sites must be no less than 15 miles apart. That means that they are probably smaller and less intrusive developments than hitherto.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the M.3 and M.4 there are long distances with no service areas? That causes great inconvenience to motorists. Will he and his department do all they can to encourage the provision of additional stations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hoped that my noble friend would welcome what I said. Having now changed the situation to enable the private sector to come forward, we hope that the kind of gaps referred to by my noble friend will be filled.
Lord Monson: My Lords, American researchers have established that sober drivers who fall asleep at the wheel cause almost as many serious accidents as do
918
over-the-limit drivers who stay awake at the wheel. Therefore, does the noble Earl agree that there is an urgent need for the provision of more service areas to enable soporific drivers to keep up their caffeine intake?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the point is that it will be up to the private sector. I felt that that was something the noble Lord in particular would welcome. However, one of the rules of the department is that there will be no sale or consumption of alcohol at motorway service areas.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, when there are no service stations within a limited area, does not my noble friend agree that an indication at an exit that a garage exists three miles in either direction would be helpful? At the moment one has no idea whether there is a garage in either direction. It would be much easier and cheaper to provide signposting nearby.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have seen such signs, and that is something we are looking at, particularly in relation to the A.1.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the Government accepted tenders in the past based on the previous policy. Is it not commercially unfair to change the goalposts when the money has been pocketed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from the mood of the House, I sense that most Members are in favour of the Government's policy, which is to provide more service areas by allowing the private sector to come forward.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, will my noble friend look also at the environmental aspects of service stations before planning permission is finally given? Does he realise that at least one approval was given for a service station against environmental interests purely because the cost was slightly —only slightly —lower than an alternative area? Is that not a pity?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. Any proposal for a motorway service area will be subject to planning permission. In response to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I would say that perhaps that is one of the reasons there are so few.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in regard to environmental considerations, the matter requires careful examination? The general environmental consequences, which may not only affect an area within a few miles but perhaps a greater area, are matters which should also be taken into strong account. In that regard, would it not be helpful for the Minister's department to give some guidance in regard to the environmental consequences?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with all the local variations in this country, that is exactly what local authorities exist to do. It is best that the private developer puts forward a proposal to be considered by local authorities.

Cyprus
2.55 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote a peace settlement in Cyprus.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are working in active support of the efforts being made under the auspices of the United Nations to find a just and viable solution. That should be based on the Secretary-General's "Set of Ideas", endorsed in Security Council Resolution 774, which sets out the framework for a single, bi-communal, bi-zonal, federal republic.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, particularly as the Minister prefaced it by saying that the Government support Resolution 774. The Minister quoted part but may recall the remainder, which states that,
"the present status quo is not acceptable",
and that,
"a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities".
As the Government are guarantors of the independent sovereignty of Cyprus, can the Minister say what plans they have for the implementation of the resolutions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the set of ideas endorsed by SCR 774 has been covered in face-to-face discussion. I am glad to say that there are significant areas of common ground even though Mr. Denktash blocked the deal because he wanted three other points resolved. However, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is determined to settle the matter. There will be further work behind the scenes before a meeting begins again in March between both sides.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that a settlement would be much easier to obtain if the Turks, as a gesture of goodwill, withdrew all their forces from Cyprus?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if that were to happen chaos would immediately ensue in Cyprus. Is it not better that the Secretary-General should be allowed to work out his policy in the present circumstances without destabilising the situation even further?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as it is highly unlikely that Turkish forces will withdraw, the latter course of action is more likely. I remind your Lordships that it is the first time that in indirect talks a full set of ideas has been worked through. As I said earlier, there are significant areas of common ground. We must continue to press those areas, and the United Kingdom will give the fullest support to those talks.
920
Through our active policy with Greece, Turkey and Cyprus we shall do all we can to bring them to a successful conclusion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that this is one of those problems that has continued for a long time? Unfortunately, the longer it continues, the more a part of the fabric it becomes and the less easy it is to resolve. Has the Minister considered attempting to activate our partners in the Community on the matter? If so, what reaction was received?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that it perhaps becomes a small part of the fabric, the set of ideas developed by the United Nations over the past five years has taken us considerably further down the road. The Government would not favour introducing yet another element into the question. While from time to time there are some differences of opinion within the European Community, I believe that all Community partners have confidence in the UN's work and wish to see a successful resolution of the problem. There is one particularly interested party which makes it difficult to have unanimity on all matters in the EC context. We should leave matters to the United Nations Secretary-General and give him the best help that we can.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that the problem of settlers is a complexity which is militating against a settlement? Can she give us an idea of how many Turkish settlers are in Cyprus? Can she also say whether that will be one of the topics to be discussed at the meeting which she has just announced?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that there are no reliable figures available of the number of Turkish settlers. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, may remember, the recent independent report before the Council of Europe estimated about 25,000. Some of them were born in Cyprus after 1974. We certainly understand the concern of the Greek Cypriots on this matter. The question needs to he addressed in the context of an overall settlement. We would not favour any further forced movement of populations under any circumstances. We have to proceed along the "Set of Ideas" which must form the basis of any settlement.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of the BBC.

Clean Air Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the Clean Air Act 1956, the Clean Air Act 1968, Part IV of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and related legislation. The law relating to clean air was amended most recently by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
This consolidation Bill contains a number of minor technical amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Comission and the Scottish Law Commission which are necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation. The amendments are contained in the joint report of the two commissions. I take the opportunity of thanking both commissions and the draftsman for their work in producing this consolidation.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in Clause 6 of the Bill there is the rather curious statement,
"'Minister of the Crown' includes the Treasury".
Can my noble friend say why that provision is necessary? Does it mean that representatives of the Treasury other than Ministers will play a part in the operation of the clause?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, in this instance the Bill was written to ensure that it conforms with the EC regulations which it matches. That is the reason why that provision is there.
On Question, Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Licensing of fishing boats]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
(""(6A) In considering what action to take under subsection (6) (c) above, the Ministers shall first give
922
due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in order to achieve a significant reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I managed to get here despite roadworks on the M.3. I was not expecting to speak quite so soon. This is an important amendment. It is very similar to the one which I brought before your Lordships in Committee and which gathered a considerable amount of support. It has been slightly altered. In a moment of some warmth I threatened to come back, insisting that the funding of any decommissioning scheme should be adequate. However, on reflection I realised that that was a totally unreasonable request to put into an amendment.
My object was, and still is, to present an amendment to your Lordships which is also acceptable to my noble friend Lord Howe. The amendment stems originally from the knowledge that I and others received, being fortunate enough to sit on Sub-Committee D, from numerous witnesses who pointed out that in the end, and sooner rather than later, we would have to have some kind of decommissioning scheme that was acceptable and also effective. The phrase, used again and again by nearly all the witnesses, was that there were just too many boats chasing too many fish.
In that same report and recommendations I believe we said (I am paraphrasing) that tying up, although disliked intensely by the fishing fraternity, might have to be a staging post towards a proper decommissioning scheme. That is the foundation of the amendment.
In talking about a reduction of fishing "effort", my noble friend Lord Howe considers that that word describes ships actually moving about fishing. I feel that decommissioning is a reduction in effort as well. If a ship does not go out at all it cannot catch fish: it has an effort equivalent of nil. In the scientifically-based report it was stated that about 25 per cent. of the fishing capacity of one kind or another should be taken away, so to speak, from the vessels which are fishing in the waters around our shores.
If that is to be accomplished by tying up, as indicated in this enabling Bill, then fishermen are in a very serious situation. They may not be able to maintain their businesses. It is wrong that there should be a large fishing fleet which is under-used with all that capital equipment not being fully put to work. It also seems wrong because, as I mentioned before, there is a temptation for the fishermen to go out on those days when they are allowed to fish but for too long. That may possibly endanger life. If there are too few crew, that can equally possibly endanger life. That would be wrong indeed.
The tie-up situation, if carried on for long, may take more policing than my noble friend on the Front Bench imagines. After all, somebody has to know where the ships are. If they have been decommissioned then it is a far simpler matter. Furthermore, the fishermen themselves feel what I think is a very reasonable resentment at the idea of this somewhat arbitrary tie-up—at this stage they do not know for how long—and, after all, it comes without compensation. Perhaps not without reason they interpret it as a form of decommissioning by the back-door.
In Committee when we discussed my first amendment on the licensing of vessels of under 10 metres, I was very pleased to receive from my noble friend the assurance that that would now be done. That, of course, is absolutely vital to any sensible decommissioning scheme. So to that extent the stage is at least set for having an efficient decommissioning scheme. Perhaps what we want, however, is a larger scheme—certainly larger than can be funded by £25 million spread over a period.
However, that is not really the point of this amendment. The point of it is that decommissioning should be on the face of the Bill and should be perpetually in front of any government who might be in charge of shipping and fish conservation matters —and this is a serious matter. If any of your Lordships have studied this or other reports—I am sure that many of you have—you will know that fish stocks are in a parlous state. A number of the important ones are described as "depleted" or "over-exploited" or by other expressions of that sort. Something quite serious must be done. Once more, in the end I hope that sooner rather than later it will have to be decommissioning. That is why, with other noble Lords, I have tabled this amendment, with the addition this time of just that fact: the reason why it has been tabled, which is to conserve fish stocks. Conserving fish stocks and getting back to the point where recruitment equates with catches and where we have some sort of sustainable yield are vital to our fishing communities.
The amendment in no way drives the Government into a corner. It is not in point of fact asking them suddenly to launch themselves vigorously into a decommissioning scheme. All that it is doing is keeping the matter before their eyes—or before the eyes of any subsequent government—and putting it on the face of the Bill so that one day—as I said previously, sooner I hope rather than later—for the sake of the fish and of the fishermen, it will come into being. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I, too, should like to say a word or two about this amendment to which I have put my name. Presumably since they have agreed to introduce a decommissioning scheme, the Ministers responsible believe that decommissioning must be of some use, although they say that it will not in itself be sufficient to prevent over-fishing without other means of effort reduction such as a limit on days at sea. A scheme so minuscule that it will reduce the capacity of the fishing fleet only by up to 5 per cent. will, as I see it, be nothing but a waste of money. Therefore, it really is imperative that, if £25 million-worth of taxpayers' money is not to be wasted, a rather more extensive scheme is introduced.
My understanding is that it is thought desirable that the capacity of the fishing fleet should be reduced by at least 25 per cent., as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just said. At any rate, the European Communities Sub-Committee D considered that a "substantial" reduction in capacity was long overdue. I do not think that anyone could call 5 per cent. or under a "substantial" reduction.
924
I appreciate that we live in times of financial stringency —but then, when do we not? I cannot seem to remember ever not living with the necessity for the most stringent economy, so I can accept that more than £25 million may not be available this year or the next. However, surely if a sizeable chunk of that is to come from European Community coffers, another £25 million—or, if things improve, perhaps a bit more than £25 million—might be made available the following year and so on until the capacity of the fleet has been reduced to a satisfactory level.
The decision to give up fishing for ever will not, for people who have never learned any other way of life, be one which would be taken lightly or in a hurry. This is especially the case if, as I heard this morning, the haddock TAC for next year has been considerably increased. In devising the manner of implementing such a scheme, I would again urge the Government to look carefully at the scheme which has been proposed by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, an outline of which is to be found on pages 36 to 39 of Sub-Committee D's report, HL Paper No. 9. I think that I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at a previous stage of the Bill whether the Government had considered that proposal, but I do not think that he told me. Perhaps he will comment on it when he winds up. I am anxious to know the answer to that question because I understand that that scheme would be compatible with the European Community's structures policy for the purpose of attracting Community contributions.
I believe that the Government would like their scheme to work by a system of tendering whereby the fishermen would each put in a sealed bid for the amount of money that they would be prepared to accept to decommission. The Government would then accept the lowest tenders and so keep the cost of the scheme down. However, I also understand that that scheme would not attract Community assistance. I may be wrong, but that is what I understand. I suspect that it could also be manipulated so as to keep the price of decommissioning up. I should also have thought that it would take out only the oldest and least efficient boats.
Lastly, none of the schemes devised so far—not the Government's, nor the European Community's scheme, nor that of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—has addressed the problem of crew members, the majority of whom are not employees (who would be entitled to redundancy pay) but share fishermen who are self-employed and who will have no entitlement, except in a relatively few cases where they own a legal share of the boat and its equipment. I believe that that was another very unsatisfactory aspect of the previous decommissioning scheme which the Government operated some years ago and that it gave rise to a lot of ill feeling between the boat owners and the fishermen, many of whom were members of the same family. I ask the Government to address this problem so that the same thing does not happen again.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. This question was discussed in Committee, but the Minister's response was not particularly encouraging. Nevertheless, in the light of the speeches already made, I believe that there is an obligation on the Government—and on the Minister in particular—to say why an amendment of this kind, in such moderate terms, which is asking only that "due consideration" should be given to a scheme to achieve a significant reduction in capacity, cannot appear in the Bill.
It is a fact that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the European Communities studied the whole question of the common fisheries policy in considerable detail and produced a report which was widely praised both here and outside the House as being in some senses a definitive document on the question. Certainly the part of the report which dealt with decommissioning expressed the opinion that the Bill's proposals for decommissioning are not of themselves sufficiently adequate to deal with the problem. Consequently, it asked for a substantial increase in decommissioning as such.
The Minister will probably tell me that decommissioning is only one aspect and that conservation is the aim and objective of the Bill. Nevertheless, it appears in the Bill and, unquestionably, the industry is looking at decommissioning in the light not merely of what the Bill provides for decommissioning, which is modest enough and is considered to be inadequate, but also of the other powers which are being taken in the Bill. Those powers, in my opinion, would guard against what the Government fear about a large decommissioning scheme; namely, that if decommissioning is extensive the vessels which remain will fish more intensively and as a consequence the conservation objective of the Bill may be lost. It seems to me that the Government's powers in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen are adequate, and consequently the fear about an increase in fishing effort nullifying the objectives of the Bill is somewhat misplaced.
On finance, here again I appreciate what the Minister has to say. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has dealt with this point in some detail. I think it is a fact that the British financial privilege at Fontainebleau may be the subject of considerable pressure in the coming months. As a consequence, any disability which a decommissioning scheme would have suffered because of the existence of the concession we obtained at Fontainebleau may be subject to renegotiation if Fontainebleau itself has to be renegotiated. I am not suggesting that it should be. I am not suggesting that Her Majesty's Government will agree to it. I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are firmly of the opinion that Fontainebleau requires a majority of all member states. Nevertheless, the Commission's affairs being what they are, the possibility of renegotiation, perhaps as a quid pro quo for something else, cannot be ruled
926
out. In that context the burden of a larger decommissioning scheme may not be as great as the Government currently believe it to be.
For all those reasons I hope that the Minister will say something about the amendment which is designed to be helpful and to address a problem which I think is worthy of the consideration of the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, with great respect I think the problem is that decommissioning does not appear on the face of the Bill. We are trying to put it there.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I acknowledge the point. I have never been an authority on semantics. I am well aware that decommissioning is in the Bill somewhere. Although it does not appear on the face of the Bill, the fact is that the Government have in mind a modest scheme of decommissioning and the sum of £25 million has been mentioned many times as being the upper limit for that scheme. It is the inadequacy of that sum of money in the context of the problem which the amendment seeks to address.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee which produced the report, I should like to join the three previous speakers in pleading with the Government to accept the amendment. I do not know whether all Members of the House are aware of the fact that the fishing industry today is a high capital investment industry. I should like to ask the Government this question. What other industry with capital investment of such a high order would happily accept not using its equipment for a large number of days? If the number of days when the equipment cannot be used is significantly increased there is no doubt that a lot of fishermen will go bankrupt. Some of them have invested large sums of money. Some of them still hire some of their equipment which has to be paid for every week and every day, including the days when the boats lie in harbour.
Secondly, to police the system of a limited number of days at sea is a very difficult thing to do. We have heard suggestions that we will have satellite monitoring to control the number of days at sea. It would be much easier and much cheaper to police a decommissioning scheme than it would be to police the present suggestions. The fishing industry, the fishermen and the crews that are employed by the trawler owners deserve better of us. I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of accepting the amendment now before the House.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I too hope that my noble friend will find it possible to accept the amendment. I do not think that there is a great deal between the view that he has put forward and the view of my noble friend Lord Radnor. I sat on the Select Committee which produced a report which, though I say it myself, will, I believe, be studied for many years ahead. It was a most valuable report. We said that there was certainly room for a tie-up and for putting a restriction on valuable assets and saying that they may not be used for many days in the year but we felt that it must be secondary to the much simpler scheme

927
of reducing the effort by reducing the number of vessels in an overlarge fleet. The reasons for that suggestion—reasons perhaps that are not all that valid —rely on the fact that every other country in the Community with one exception has taken that line. They regard it as more efficient to reduce effort than to restrict assets.
It takes a great deal—I have never known it happen —to make more than 1,000 fishermen march through Aberdeen on a Saturday to try to draw attention to the extreme difficulties in which they are placed. They believe that in decommissioning lies the most effective way of doing what everyone agrees is essential; that is, to increase conservation. There are too many boats catching too few fish. That is unarguable and undeniable. It only comes back to how best and how most fairly one tackles the problem.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have some sympathy with this amendment which arises in respect of an industry which I believe all of us in the House would consider to be regulated, or perhaps over-regulated. I have looked in the Bill for the word "decommissioning" but I cannot see it. I believe that it is part and parcel of the arrangements which we must have for the future regulation of the fishing industry. I say that because I believe that the history of decommissioning is not a particularly happy one. We can look back at a previous scheme which has been talked about at great length and which was not a success. That does not mean to say that this scheme will be a failure, but there is a risk that it could fail.
It could fail for several reasons. First, it could fail if the Government are not wholeheartedly behind this approach. They have perhaps moved their position over the years on this matter. Secondly, it could fail because of the large investment in the various boats which go out to catch most fish.
The amendment places on government the duty to use the decommissioning tool. It is an industry which is ever more dependent upon higher capital costs and ever more able to catch more fish than it was in the past so that fewer boats are catching more fish. If we are to be able to meet our MAGP targets in time, decommissioning must be a tool used effectively by government. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says in reply to the amendment. It is permissory. It underlines to the fishing industry the importance that the Government place on trying to obtain the right size of fleet in the UK to deal with the resources at its disposal.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have been consistent in what I have said during the passage of the Bill. There is no question but that fishermen feel that this is the best way forward. When they say that they mean that they feel that there should be more than the £25 million allowed towards the decommissioning scheme so as to have a bigger scheme and that the taxpayer should contribute more. The problem with the amendment is that it does not mention how the money is to be raised. I wish that my noble friend
928
had included in the amendment the fact that consideration should be given to charging for licences so that money could be raised towards the decommissioning scheme—so that the fishermen themselves could contribute towards it. That would make the scheme much more acceptable to the taxpayer and, incidentally, to the Treasury.
I am sorry that this small amendment, anodyne though it is, does not say that, because I shall have some difficulty in voting for it for that reason. I believe that the fishermen will understand and appreciate that point. They want the Government to move forward as time goes on towards a larger decommissioning scheme. The amendment does not make that possible unless money is made available to do so. My noble friend may say why he did not include that when he replies to the debate on the amendment. It would have been helpful to the House and to me had he done so. I am not sure that I shall support the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as I said in Committee, unless the Government accept the amendment, or a similar one, the fishing industry will come to the conclusion, like farmers, that it has been led up the garden path and is now being dumped. Perhaps I should say sunk. I have to remind my noble friend that, despite warnings, including those from your Lordships' Select Committee several years ago, that the Government should start a decommissioning scheme in line with those operated by other EC countries, they did nothing. It was only recently—a year ago I believe—that they repented and put, as the noble Baroness said, this small decommissioning scheme into being.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Howe said (at col. 146) that he would much prefer a decommissioning scheme to set-aside payments as proposed in an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I agreed with him and so did my noble friend Lord Selborne. I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will reinforce the view that he expressed in Committee and accept this moderate amendment.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, there are two further arguments in favour of the amendment and of considering seriously a decommissioning scheme. The first is that other countries have done more of it and can throw at us the accusation that we are not decommissioning whereas they are. We then argue with our days-at-sea restrictions, but they still have that case. A stronger and more mercenary point is that a good proportion of the cost of such a scheme would come from the EC, whereas all the costs of our days-at-sea restrictions have to come from our own fishermen.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having listened to this interesting debate, perhaps I may ask some questions for clarification. Surely your Lordships are not wholly concerned with the conservation of fish stocks, avoiding depletion or even the position of self-employed fishermen, who have, alas, no share in the catch or the boat, but with the monetary considerations.

929
The amendment, as cast, relates to subsection (6) (c), which refers to the principles upon which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at. That must surely include decommissioning. As far as I am aware, decommissioning is not defined in any statute or subsidiary legislation. If those assumptions are correct, why is not subsection (6) (c) sufficient to carry the situation to the end which those who support the amendment would wish to carry it?
It seems, with respect, that what the amendment does is to give precedence and pride of place to decommissioning, which fortunately is a vague term, undefined by statute, above other principles referred to in subsection (6) (c). First, what would the amendment truly achieve in effective terms? Secondly, is it right to impose a statutory priority of precedence, above other principles available, to keep vessels at sea?
Lord Greenway: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government are in danger of falling between both stools. We have already heard from other noble Lords that the earlier decommissioning scheme did not work. My noble friend Lady Saltoun said that it caused a great deal of upset among some of the fishing families. By ignoring the amendment, it strikes me that the Government will be upsetting the fishermen again, because my understanding is that they would much prefer a proper decommissioning scheme to the reduction in days at sea proposed by the Government. The argument that decommissioning does not work has surely been disproved by the fact that it appears to have worked in other EC countries.
I fully support the amendment, but I must add a note of personal regret: it is rather ironic that the only sector of our battered and dwindling merchant fleet (the inshore fishing sector) that has shown an increase over the past few years will now have to be reduced, albeit for perfectly valid and proper reasons which we all understand.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when I came into your Lordships' House this afternoon I had no views on the merits of the matter. I have listened carefully to the debate and I am bound to say that I have found the arguments in favour of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor to be unanswerable. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will appreciate that the combined wisdom of your Lordships' House seems to point somewhat in that direction. I take the point, as I am sure he will, raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour as to who should pay for the decommissioning. As I understand the amendment, it does not deal with payment one way or the other. Acceptance of the amendment would therefore not prejudice a decision on that. I am bound to say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the views of the noble Baroness that it is expenditure towards which those in the industry might well have to contribute.
What seems to me to be difficult to argue against is that we should have in the Bill some reference to decommissioning. We are now at the Report stage and unless we continue to violate the rules about amendments on Third Reading—as your Lordships'
930
House has done once or twice recently, on occasions which it would be indelicate on my part to recall —this is the last opportunity for the views of your Lordships' House to be put into the Bill.
Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will not look for trouble by objecting to the principle of the amendment. If he can give some assurance that the principles behind it will be accepted and the necessary amendments put into the Bill by the Government at a later stage, so be it. But if not, I ask him to consider seriously whether it is not right now to put the amendment into the Bill and make any adjustments necessary later on. I hope that the Minister will accept what seems to be the overwhelming view of your Lordships' House.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made such a useful contribution to the debate. I merely wish to say that where we have tended to fall down a little is that we have perhaps been bogged down by the semantics of the wording and forgotten what we are really talking about—the livelihood of a whole industry. We are talking of people who have made an enormous investment, who have given of themselves, who have given their lives.
I do not wish to become emotional on the subject, but when one talks about the fishing industry, it is extremely difficult not to do so, especially if one has had the privilege, as I have, of a very close connection with the industry for a number of years. All the points which my noble friends have made have been valid. The Government can get the best of both worlds if they accept the amendment. After all, it asks them merely to consider the scheme, it does not ask them to produce a definitive scheme immediately. It asks them to consider the full question of decommissioning. I feel that that is hardly too much to ask at this stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that apparently this is the last opportunity we shall have to make such a move and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider what has been said.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by my noble friend Lord Radnor and other noble Lords this afternoon. However, I have to say that I do not think that they advance the debate which we had in Committee on this issue. I am naturally sorry that the assurances that I gave in Committee on the question of a decommissioning scheme have not counted for very much. I made the Government's position quite clear at that time and the position has not changed.
The nub of the matter is that noble Lords want a larger decommissioning scheme, paid for by the taxpayer. We simply do not have the funds for a larger scheme and there is no prospect whatever of our getting them. The Government have now announced their public expenditure plans and it is quite unrealistic to suppose that these will be changed. The £25 million that was set aside for a decommissioning scheme has been safeguarded, despite all the pressures

931
on public expenditure. I think that that is an achievement in itself. But that amount will not be increased.
If we look at the wording of the amendment, the fact of the matter, is, as I said in Committee, that the Government have considered a decommissioning scheme prior to the introduction of effort control. They have made what allowance they can for such a scheme. The effect of that scheme will be taken into account, if we ever come to consider a reduction in the number of days at sea to be imposed on fishermen. Of course, in allocating public money for any scheme, the Government must take a balanced view of all interests, not just those of the fishing industry. There are many competing demands on the public purse at the moment and value for money is a key concern. But that does not compromise our view that decommissioning and effort control, taken together, remain the most effective way of conserving fish stocks. That is why they are inseparably linked to one another in the conservation package announced earlier this year. Either scheme taken on its own, would be significantly less effective.
I would just point out to certain noble Lords who have raised the point that there is a fundamental difference between fishing effort, as defined by days at sea, and the capacity of the fleet. We debated at length in Committee why days at sea are a vital part of the package and I have nothing to add to what I said at that time.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked me about the evidence of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to the House of Lords committee. We have considered that evidence. However, it includes a statement that a scheme five times greater than the Government's scheme is needed. It goes without saying that in the current public expenditure climate, such a proposal is completely unrealistic. A scheme to reduce the capacity of the fleet by, let us say, 25 per cent., would cost £125 million. The argument that the Community would pay that is, I am afraid, unfounded because the Fontainebleau Agreement leaves the taxpayer paying roughly 80 per cent. or £100 million. That is a very substantial sum of money indeed.
Furthermore, as I said in Committee, the industry must play its part in fleet rationalisation. There is no justification for putting the entire burden on the taxpayer. We have suggested changes in our quota management arrangements with exactly that in mind. If the industry has other ideas which would fund a larger decommissioning scheme, then we would be happy to consider them. If they do not. they must accept the £25 million that has been allocated. We estimate that this will reduce fleet capacity by around 5 per cent. which could be about a quarter of the total reduction that we shall have to achieve to meet our MAGP targets. I would say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that that is not an insignificant contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked why the Government could not accept this amendment, as it is an innocuous form of words. The form of words may be innocuous, but the import of the amendment, as we have debated it, is not. I would not wish it to be said
932
that the Government had accepted an amendment other than in good faith. I cannot do so. Decommissioning has a part to play; there is a decommissioning scheme on offer. The sum involved is significant; it is a worthwhile sum. It is not a sum for which there is any scope for an increase and I hope very much that my noble friend will he persuaded by what I have said and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he draw the attention of your Lordships' House to any part of the amendment which commits the Government to any particular item of public expenditure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have said that it is a matter of good faith. I have presented the Government's view on the scope that exists for extending the decommissioning scheme. There is no such scope. I cannot say to the House that there is such scope when there is not. I think it would therefore be unwarranted for me to accept the amendment in those circumstances.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, first, I wish to thank all noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part in this interesting and vigorous debate. I must admit that at times when my noble friend Lord Howe was answering, I felt that we were talking about two totally different amendments, particularly in view of what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
The amendment was in no way intended to commit the Government to an enormous decommissioning scheme which would cost a lot of money. I said that quite clearly in my opening remarks. What it does do is to keep the proposition of the decommissioning scheme in front of whatever government are in power. In the long run I am quite sure that that is the right way to preserve fish and therefore to preserve fishermen, fishing communities and all downstream work.
I am not sure that I am capable of answering the question of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because I am not a legal gentleman. However, as regards the comments of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I believe—I am sure I am right —that under the 1967 Act the Government already have the power to obtain money for licences. All in all, the Minister's answer was very disappointing. There has been an enormous amount of support both in Committee and at this stage of the Bill for the measure and I must seek the opinion of the House.
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Aylestone, L.

Addison, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Beloff, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Birk, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

933

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brain, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bridges, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brightman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Moran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Moyne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nicol, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northesk, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cudlipp, L.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Perth, E.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dundee, E.

Porritt, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, E.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Radnor, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Geddes, L.

Rix, L.

Geraint, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenconner, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenway, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Shannon, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sherfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Harvington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tenby, V.

Hughes, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

TordofT, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Underhill, L.

Kagan, L.

Varley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whaddon, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wharton, B.

Kintore, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lyell, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boardman, L.

Aldington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Brigstocke, B.

L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Astor, V.

Cadman, L.

Blatch, B.

Caithness, E.

934

Carnock, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chalker, B.

Manchester, D.

Clanwilliam, E.

Margadale, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Marsh, L.

Cockfield, L.

Melville, V.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Onslow, E.

Effingham, E.

Orkney, E.

Elibank, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elles, B.

Prentice, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Finsberg, L.

Rochdale, V.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Goold, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Selkirk, E.

L.

Sharples, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Joseph, L.

Ullswater, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wakeham, L.

Knollys, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

The BBC
4.2 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the future of the BBC which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The Statement is as follows:
"The BBC's present Royal Charter, granted in 1981, expires at the end of 1996. We now have an important, and rare, opportunity to consider the role, objectives, organisation and funding of the BBC in the years ahead. Earlier this year, in our general election manifesto, we said we would issue a discussion document about the future of the BBC, taking account of its special responsibilities for providing public service broadcasting. I am publishing that discussion document today. It is right that I should acknowledge the work done by my right honourable and learned friend, the Member for Putney, in taking the preparation of this document to an advanced stage.
"Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say something about the context of this debate on the future of the BBC. Broadcasting is changing rapidly and radically, both in this country and throughout the world. Everywhere the number of services is increasing, as new television

935
channels and new radio stations open, using cable and satellites as well as conventional methods of transmission. Increasingly programmes and services are being designed for audiences in more than one country and some services can be received in millions of homes throughout Europe.
"The position is unrecognisable from that which existed a few years ago and it has altered even within the last year. In the foreseeable future there will be opportunities for even more services, on satellite and cable systems. Looking further ahead, the introduction of digital transmission may ultimately increase the number of channels which can be provided, first from satellite and eventually on the terrestrial network. We expect digital audio broadcasting to provide more radio services in this country in the next three or four years.
"Since broadcasting began some 70 years ago, and until quite recently, there have been few outlets and little difficulty in finding programme material to broadcast. In this country we devised a framework which enabled the broadcasters to achieve diversity and quality in their programmes. Now the number of outlets is increasing and all the outlets are looking for material to broadcast.
"This opens up new prospects for United Kingdom broadcasters both in this country and throughout the world. In this country the BBC's services are popular and widely used. Over 90 per cent. of the population use the BBC's television services every week; about 60 per cent. use its radio services. The BBC's services are part of the daily life of the majority of people in this country. As I know from the letters I receive, and as all honourable Members of this House will know, our constituents often care deeply about the BBC's services and have strong views about the programmes it broadcasts.
"Externally the BBC's World Service Radio, which this year celebrates its sixtieth year of broadcasting, is highly respected, particularly for the reliability of its news. The service is estimated to have 120 million regular listeners. BBC World Service Television, which is a commercial venture, is already providing news and current affairs programmes throughout most of the world. Internationally there are new opportunities for the BBC and for other British broadcasting organisations and programme makers.
"The Government believe that the BBC should continue as a major public service broadcasting organisation. But that is not to say that there is no need for any changes. Change there has to be if the BBC is to meet the new challenges which are being created by changing circumstances.
"However, there are a number of possible ways forward. In the discussion document we have tried to set out some of the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of options. We now wish to listen to the arguments and to weigh them before deciding on the proposals to bring forward to this House.
"The essential issues in the debate are likely to be the future objectives of public service broadcasting; the range of the BBC's programmes, services and
936
functions; how the BBC should be financed; how it should be organised to provide its services more efficiently; and the ways of making the BBC responsive to its audiences and accountable for its services. All these issues are linked and need to be seen as part of a coherent policy for the future.
"I hope there will be a well-informed, considered and constructive debate. The BBC will shortly be publishing its own proposals for its future. I would like to encourage other major organisations to publish their responses to the discussion document and the BBC's proposals. In this way we should all have a better understanding of the issues and this should help us to reach sensible decisions.
"I am particularly anxious to hear the views of the public about the BBC's services. I would like to hear what audiences want from the BBC. I am therefore publishing a short, popular version of the discussion document which I plan to make available in public libraries and citizens advice bureaux.
"The BBC has its supporters and its critics on all sides of the House. But I hope that, in pursuing an informed debate with a degree of passionate interest, we shall not forget that the BBC has informed, educated and entertained most people in this country for most of their lives.
"The BBC has both embodied and communicated our national heritage. There are fundamental questions to be asked about the future of public service broadcasting and the role of the BBC in providing it. The Government believe that the public service broadcasting organisations exist to serve their audiences and it is the wishes, interests and needs of audiences we should keep at the forefront of our minds as we consider the BBC's future after 1996."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I am a little bemused by the whole operation. It seems that we have had a paving Statement to lead us to a very green Green Paper which I consider has been unnecessarily embargoed. This is really not the Budget: this is just to lead us to a Green Paper for discussion, and in time, I imagine, we shall come to a White Paper and other things.
As the Minister said in the Statement, the BBC has always been of the greatest importance and, indeed, the foundation of our public service broadcasting. The Statement of his right honourable friend says that,
"the BBC should continue as a major public service broadcasting organisation".
I find this a little disturbing and worrying. I believe the phrasing should have been that the BBC should be "the" and not "a major" public service broadcasting organisation. Therefore I hope that when we get to the discussion stage we can imprint this on the minds of the Government.
Perhaps I may ask some questions that arise even at this stage. How is the debate to be conducted? So far as we can understand from this Statement, no formal

937
inquiry is planned. Will the inquiry by the Select Committee on the National Heritage regarding the future of the BBC be a formal inquiry? What will be the structure of the debate? People cannot just keep on running round and saying, "I think the BBC should do this or that". Surely there must be some sort of structure and some body to which people can put their views. I should like also to ask whether consideration will be given to a public inquiry so that a great many different strands can be looked at thoroughly. It is also essential that minority interests should not be drowned in the desire for mass audiences. Will there be market research along the lines of audience trends which has been carried out first by the IBA and then by the ITC?
The next very important question is funding. I hope that even at this early stage an index-linked licence fee for a period of 10 years will be the top consideration. Neither subscription nor advertising would bring in enough revenue to fund the BBC. Full subscription —I do not mean partial subscription—would more or less disenfranchise those who are in greatest need but who would not be able to afford some of the programmes they might want: educational programmes and some of the more serious programmes. In its turn it would put up the costs for others who could for the moment afford a subscription but who might find that the costs had risen greatly in the course of time.
So far as advertising is concerned, the Peacock Committee turned this suggestion down some years ago, having started off with the idea that advertising was going to be the answer. Advertising would mean the end of a proper diversity of services, and a full diversity is essential.
So far as a public service broadcasting council is concerned, this was mooted by the previous Secretary of State for National Heritage and some other organisations. Many of us, certainly on this side of the House, have not so far been convinced that this would be an advantage: in fact it could be a great disadvantage. We welcome the new technology which has been mentioned, but does the Minister agree that it would have to be balanced with the need to provide the services which most people want at a price they can afford? Although cable and satellite are here and on the increase, they should not be provided at the expense of services which are most in demand and which should be financed through the licence fee.
Finally, could the Minister give us some idea of the legislative timetable? When will the White Paper be published? When will the Bill come before Parliament, and will there at all stages be time for proper consultation? We do not want a progression just from Green to White and that is the end of it.
We look forward to a response on these matters from the Government. But I would point out once again the fiasco that occurred over the Channel 3 licences and the fact that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was so deeply flawed that even the mass of amendments that were passed in both Houses did not leave it in any way viable. The responsibility resting on the BBC has become even greater than it was then, and it is very important that we guard it as the communications treasure it is.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in thanking the Minister for repeating this Statement. With the qualification that none of us has seen the discussion paper, for my part, and from these Benches, I welcome the fact that it appears not to pre-empt in any way a full and free public debate on the future of the BBC. At an earlier stage there was some fear that the Government had in mind to close doors, and the fact that they remain open is a good thing.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I welcome the fact that the Government say in the Statement that they believe that the BBC should continue as a major public service broadcasting organisation. I only say that I would have been happier had that sentence contained the phrase, "a major adequately-funded public service broadcasting organisation". It is the funding of the BBC that will be one of the major areas of argument. I hope that at the end of the day the Government will feel that a licence fee is still probably the best basis for funding the BBC. Like the noble Baroness, I think it is important that the public funding of broadcasting should be concentrated on the BBC. The siren voices about some public service broadcasting "Arts Council of the Air" funding other organisations should be very firmly resisted.
I also agree that the BBC faces a need for change. There will be much debate about the best way in which it can bring itself up to date and about the changing landscape of broadcasting, which the Minister has just described. But will the Government please remember that they themselves, in their last Broadcasting Act, gravely undermined and damaged the public service dimension of that half of British broadcasting which is commercially funded?
The future of the BBC is the issue which will be the absolute foundation stone of quality public service broadcasting in this country. It is very important that the BBC should not itself, by its internal changes, pre-empt the great debate which the Government are now initiating. It seems to me of special importance that the BBC should retain what might be called the critical mass of its own creative programme-making capacity. The new independents have played a major role in the diversification of British broadcasting, and we all welcome that; but there is a need for a major BBC programme-making capacity at the end of the day.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC has provided high quality services in this country and overseas for 65 years, but obviously a periodic reassessment is necessary and desirable. The BBC's present charter runs until the end of 1996, so there is an opportunity to take stock and consider the future. The Government's discussion paper sets out the main questions as a framework for public debate: it is not a statement of the Government's views. We want a well-informed, realistic debate and a thorough and constructive discussion of the issues. We particularly want to hear the opinions of viewers and listeners as well as, of course, those of broadcasters and other interested parties. We welcome fresh ideas, and we do not want to prejudge the outcome.

939
I understand that the BBC will publish its own document soon, and I hope that other organisations will publish their responses too. This will be an important contribution to the debate. Our discussion document will be on sale from Her Majesty's bookshops in the usual way, and we are sending copies to representative organisations. Of course the Green Paper is now available in the Printed Paper Office, as is usual on these occasions. We are asking for replies by 30th April next year. In answer to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord we expect to publish the government proposals towards the end of next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked me about the possibility of a committee of inquiry. We do not believe that the setting up of a committee of inquiry is the best way forward. Many of the issues have already been identified and a committee of inquiry would delay the timetable for decisions. Obviously the question of financing the BBC is crucial, and it will be considered as part of our review of the BBC's charter.
We think that there is no obvious replacement for the licence fee. It has been the Government's aim to keep the TV licence fee as low as possible. Since 1988 increases in the fee have been linked to the retail prices index in the same way as pensions and other benefits. The present colour licence fee of £80 a year is equivalent to 22p a day. It is good value for money for two television channels, five national radio networks and local radio. If the BBC were, for example, to raise its finance elsewhere it is equivalent to 1p on income tax or half a per cent. on VAT, which puts it in some kind of context.
It is important that the BBC has a regular and reliable source of income for the future. We shall be looking at all the options, but so far none has looked better than the licence fee. Of course it is important that the BBC is accountable for its standards. In answer to the noble Baroness, there may be a role for a public service broadcasting council, but that depends on the conclusions about programmes, finance and organisations in the future.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister tell us a little more about the consultation process? He indicated that organisations would inevitably make representations, but many of these organisations are special interest organisations. In the course of the activities of the independent sector consultations and discussions took place through public meetings with the viewers. Will the noble Viscount assure us that the voices of those people who view and hear these programmes will be heard, apart from those of the well-established organisations who will make their special representations?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I hoped that I had made that point clear. We want to hear from the viewers, and apart from the Green Paper we shall be publishing a popular version that will be available free of charge in public libraries and citizens advice bureaux. It is important that this is a genuine public debate.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while it is hoped that the general public individually will respond to the request set out in the consultative document for people to examine it, and that the examination will be as wide as possible, there is nothing that the noble Baroness asked for in terms of making it free and independent in its views that is not suggested in the consultative document. Bearing in mind the future and that we shall start legislating on this for 1996, my noble friend ought to recognise the difference in tone between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches. The noble Lord from the Liberal Benches approached it in the correct way. He said yes, something that has been going as long as this ought to be examined in the light of the experience that has been garnered over the years. I did not quite get the same message from the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness reminded me a little bit of the Midlands work chap who said that he was going home and, "if my supper ain't ready there'll be hell to pay, and if it is ready I shan't ruddy eat it". I recognised that kind of element in the preliminary observations made by the noble Baroness, who will no doubt see it through its various stages. It is a good document and a wide document, and the results that can flow from it if we all do our duty can only be good for the nation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I see that my noble friend already has the document. Of course he is quite right that it is important that it should be read by as many people as possible. The heart of the debate on the future of the BBC is what should be the aims of public service broadcasting in the years ahead. That is what we are looking at. We recognise the BBC's special responsibilities for public service broadcasting, and we need to consider what this means for the future of the BBC's programmes and services. This obviously leads to questions about how the BBC should be organised to deliver this efficiently, how it should be paid for, questions about the licence fees, and also no less fundamentally how the BBC should be made accountable for its services and responsive to its audiences.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is a rare pleasure to be able to give a general welcome to the Statement. I can hardly say the same about the Green Paper. I could hardly come to such a quick conclusion about it as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. One glance and he is overwhelmed by it, but I do not think that that is something that is likely to happen elsewhere. Indeed, I trust not.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount one question and to make one comment. As regards the comment, I am sure that the noble Viscount will wish his right honourable friend to take due notice of the Viewers and Listeners Association, which has recently made a valuable input to thinking on broadcasting. I am sure that that will be among the organisations whose views will be considered. Perhaps the noble Viscount would be kind enough to confirm that.
The other point is this: the noble Viscount said that the BBC itself is producing its own document. I think we would all have expected that. What I am not clear on myself is whether that document is to be a reply

941
taking into consideration the Government's document, or is it to be issued virtually simultaneously with it? It would be valuable to know that.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, manages to read the document he will be stimulated by it, and will perhaps have new and fresh ideas for the BBC that we shall be interested in. I am sure that the organisation he mentioned will take part in the many discussions that we shall have in the future. I understand that the BBC's document, which will be published in a matter of days, is its own document. It is not a document in response to our Green Paper, but it presumably sets out its views—I have not seen it—on what the discussion will be about in the future.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am not as quick on my feet as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, so I have not seen the document. I should like to ask whether the document includes a suggestion for a review of the way in which the BBC is internally organised and managed and, if not, whether this would still be appropriate for public representation. Looking back over the history—and I remember making crystal sets in the early 1920s to listen to the BBC—it seems to me that there was a period in which everybody knew the BBC's point of view. Roughly, it was Lord Reith's. Since then we have had this management—a board of governors whose responsibilities are not clear to the general public. We have a chief executive, or chief executives, whose responsibilities appear to be administrative and financial, and we have a multitude of producers and bright young men and women who go around to make programmes and who may, or may not, fulfil a public service or public duty in the way in which many listeners and viewers would like.
As was proved in the other section of broadcasting, regulatory bodies find it difficult to enforce their views. Therefore, it appears that the only way in which the public can be assured of, for instance, impartiality in public affairs programmes is to know and to understand the inner workings of the BBC. Will that matter be examined during the course of the inquiry?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We shall need to take a fresh look at the BBC's organisation and its objectives and performance in the context of the Citizen's Charter and other government measures for improving quality in public services. There are commercial opportunities for the BBC in the new global market for broadcasting. The BBC must become more efficient with a more streamlined management and geared to carry out specific tasks. We welcome the BBC initiative to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Making changes during the next four years does not pre-empt the charter review. There cannot be a standstill on change until 1997.
Of course, the BBC governors are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the Government's recommendation. The appointments are normally for five years and the governors are not chosen from any particular age group or professional background. We look for respected public figures with personal qualities and
942
experience who will contribute to the successful running of the BBC. We have every confidence in the ability of the present chairman to discharge his role successfully for the remainder of his term of office.
Lord Howell: My Lords, while the Statement is welcome in its tone, is it not incredible that it refers to a Green Paper which is available to us but which is described in the Statement as being embargoed? That is extraordinary—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: No, the Statement did riot state that.
Lord Howell: That was my impression, but if I am wrong I withdraw the remark. If the Green Paper contains options which the Government wish to discuss—in that case, why cannot we he told today what those options are so that we can make sensible comment—will the Government assure the House that time will be provided for us to make our contribution as a House when we have read the Green Paper?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is no embargo on the Green Paper; it is available in the normal way. We are not setting options in the Green Paper. It is a substantial document of some 43 pages and sets the criteria for debate. That is important: we are not saying that it is this or that option. We are saying merely, "These are the areas which ought to be discussed and these are the areas upon which we would welcome views."

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
4.32 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. On Second Reading I said that I hoped to bring forward an amendment enabling us to use satellite technology for the control and enforcement of the activities of vessels which habitually tie up abroad. This group of amendments fulfils that expectation. It also tidies up the Bill by bringing together in one section of the 1967 Act all the provisions concerning evidence to be used in court proceedings for licence offences.
I wish to explain how those various provisions work. First, I must make it clear that it is not necessary for us to make provisions in the Bill for vessels to carry transponders; that is, automatic recording equipment, to use the correct terminology. We already have the power to do that as a licence condition under Section 4(6) of the 1967 Act.
Amendment No. 7, however, provides for the data derived from or via automatic recording equipment, and being carried or used in accordance with licence conditions, to be available as evidence in any court proceedings for a licence offence. In other words, a satellite record showing a vessel's movements could be

943
used as evidence in court proceedings of where that vessel had been between certain dates. For example, if a vessel reported that it was tied up in Den Helder in the Netherlands but the satellite records show that it was sailing in the North Sea at that time fisheries departments could prosecute the vessel owner or master for being at sea after he has been at sea for more than his permitted days. The amendment will therefore increase significantly the likelihood of bringing successful prosecutions against vessel owners or skippers for breach of the days-at-sea restrictions, particularly those vessels which do not tie up regularly in the UK.
Amendment No. 8 ensures that British sea fishery officers —our enforcement officers—have the powers to require the production of automatic recording equipment and records produced by it; to search vessels to ensure that automatic recording equipment is being carried and used in accordance with licence conditions; to examine and to copy any records produced by that equipment; and to seize and detain any such equipment or records when a vessel is detained in port. Without those powers it would be too easy for vessel skippers not to carry or to use the equipment or to tamper with it and thereby evade the control measure.
Those two amendments contain the main substance of our proposals. We have, however, taken the opportunity to tidy up the Bill and also to make some minor modifications to the Scots evidential provisions.
Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7 tidy up the Bill by removing the Scots provisions for Clause 1(5) and Clause 3(3) and including them in the new Section 4C, which is in Clause 4 of the Bill. This will bring all the evidential provisions together in one place in the Act.
Subsection (3) of new Section 4C expands the Scots evidential provisions by incorporating a detailed definition of the word "document". That will ensure that the term "document" also embraces other forms of record including data held on disc or tape, or in the form of maps, charts or photographs. I understand that case law in England already allows those storage media to be covered by the term "document", so the provision extends to Scotland only.
The amendments taken together are designed to strengthen our enforcement powers, in particular with regard to vessels tying up abroad. I trust that noble Lords will welcome them. The amendments will come into force in relation to offences committed one month or more after Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am somewhat ignorant about the electronic devices and about the law. I apologise because the questions that I wish to ask could have been asked in Committee but at that time my mind was on other matters. I understand that the clauses affect evidence of offences. Amendment No. 7 provides that,
"In any proceedings in Scotland… any document which constitutes or contains… shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein".
944
The Minister explained that the documents relate to all kinds of issues. Does that mean that any document can be produced to the court by anyone without that person taking any responsibility for it?
During my brief career at the Bar it was usual, if one produced a document for evidence, that a witness must swear that it was what it purported to be. Has that provision now gone by the board? It appears that any documentary evidence relating to any of the electronic devices is accepted and the person who produces it to the court takes no responsibility for it. That appears to be strange, but I understand that to be the meaning.
I also understand that there should be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein. Certainly in Scots law and even in English law some aspects of the evidence will need corroboration. That provision also appears to have gone by the board. Therefore, am I right in the supposition that all the old customs of producing documentary evidence through a witness who swears that the document is what it purports to be and those relating to corroborative evidence have been removed?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am speaking on the same theme as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It seems to me that as this provision applies to Scotland, it could cause a number of disputes in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, referred to documents. We now understand that the records of satellites and so on are also included. All documents should be tested in court. This is a new type of document. The testing of such a document involves highly specialised and technical knowledge. That will obviously be available to the prosecution but will independent sources of analysis of those documents also be available? I believe that only a few fisheries officers and members of the Armed Forces will be specially trained and will have a complete knowledge of the reading and understanding of satellite pictures. I do not know whether satellite pictures are effective in mist or fog.
What defence is available to a skipper who claims that he was nowhere near the point at which he was alleged to be? How can the average person defend himself? We are not talking about written documents some of which can be difficult to deal with in court. This is a totally different field. Perhaps the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will enlighten the House as regards provisions available to the defence.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, what I have to say may impact on the carriage of satellite equipment as it affects Scotland. In the Banff sheriffs court last week it was decided that there was no legal obligation on a vessel to report in when it crossed the 4 degree West line. The sheriff ruled that as the boat was not fishing, it could not be covered by licence conditions which, in his view, apply only when the vessel is fishing.
Not only do I believe that that is serious from the point of view of regulating the 4 degree West line, it also has consequences for other regulations governing boats when they are not fishing. Perhaps my noble

945
friend will consider this matter and discuss it with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. This may be an area which should be tidied up on further consideration of the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the best answer that I can give is to say that I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and other noble Lords on the points raised. I cannot deal with those matters in such a way as I would wish.
This clause refers to the log hooks which are required to be kept under EC obligations or, for example, documents that are required under the licence conditions. The amendment seeks to remove the need to corroborate that those log books are what they purport to be. The provisions do not prevent the defence or the Crown leading evidence that the record is flawed. It merely allows that in the absence of such evidence, the record should stand without corroboration.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked how the average fisherman might defend himself. The fisherman will be able to call an expert witness on the reliability of satellites. As I understand it, this technology does not involve photographing from a satellite in orbit. It relies upon the transponder within a vessel and the satellite detecting that vessel by means of the transponder that is situated on the vessel. It is a slightly different kind of technology from that suggested by the noble Lord.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write to me. The point I make is extremely simple. If I am an advocate in a police court and I want to put in evidence a policeman's notebook, I must bring the policeman before the court so that he can swear that it is his notebook, that the entries were made at a certain time and so on. As I understand it, under this procedure matters can be put before the court without the necessity for corroboration and its validity will not be called into question at all.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall endeavour to respond to that point when I write to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he undertake to write to me on the point that I have raised?
Earl Howe: My Lords, yes, certainly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restrictions on time spent at sea—appeals]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert:
("() As soon as possible after the end of every period of twelve months ending with 31st March during which it exercises functions under subsection (4) above, the tribunal shall send to the Ministers a report on the exercise of those functions: and the Ministers shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in tabling this amendment, I am fulfilling a commitment which I
946
made in Committee to bring forward an amendment to replace Section 4C of Amendment No. 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. The amendment requires the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal to report to Ministers on its work over the preceding 12 months as soon as possible after 31st March. Ministers will be required to lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament. If the tribunal has not exercised any function under subsection (4) of Section 4AA during the 12 months prior to 31st March, no report will be required.
I believe that this amendment satisfies fully the requirements of the noble Lord and the noble Lady by ensuring that honourable Members and noble Lords have access to an annual report on the work of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I welcome the amendment and in particular the fact that the Minister said that it will be an annual report because the amendment suggests that it may be a one-off report. I warmly welcome the fact that the Minister says that it will be an annual report.
Many of the problems arising from this legislation have resulted from the lack of proper consultative machinery with the industry. I am not saying that that does not exist at local or regional level. I know that in Northern Ireland there is a close working relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture's representative dealing with fisheries and the local fishermen.
On Second Reading I raised the fact that licensing, rather than decommissioning, is the key to conservation matters. The tribunals will have a great deal of work to do. We have heard about documentation and the way in which satellites will monitor the arrangements. The staff of those tribunals will be required to have up to date knowledge and information not only about global matters but also about regional matters concerning fishing. Therefore, the staff of the tribunals will require more than a simple legalistic viewpoint; a great deal of expertise will be needed.
I feel that the representatives required to sit on the tribunals should conduct consultations in the local regions in which the tribunals are being held. There are a culture and an ethos in regard to fishing which in many ways go back for centuries, and that must be reflected in what is contained in the licensing procedures. The amendment reflects also on Clause 8.
Having said that, I welcome the fact that it is to be an annual report and I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary regulations]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert:

947
("Provisions supplementary to sections 4 and 4A-evidence.
4C.—

(1) Where automatic recording equipment—

(a) is used in accordance with a condition included in a licence by virtue of section 4(6) or 4A(6) of this Act, or

(b) is used to record information transmitted or derived from equipment used in accordance with such a condition,

any record produced by means of the automatic recording equipment, or partly by those and partly by other means, shall, in any proceedings for an offence under section 4 or 4A, except proceedings in Scotland, be evidence of the matters appearing from the record.

(2) In any proceedings in Scotland for an offence under section 4 or 4A, any document which constitutes or contains—

(a) an entry in any logbook kept, or purported to be kept, under an enforceable Community obligation relating to fishing activities, by the master of a vessel,

(b) a declaration made, or purported to be made, under such an obligation—

(i) as to fish landed, by the master of a vessel or by an agent,

(ii) as to trans-shipment, by the master of a vessel,

(c) information provided, or purported to be provided, under—

(i) any condition imposed under section 4(6) or 4A(6), by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel and, in the case of any condition imposed under section 4(6), by any of those persons or by an agent,

(ii) a requirement under section 4(7) or 4A(7), by the master, owner or charterer (if any) of a vessel and, in the case of any condition imposed under section 4A(7), by any of those persons or by an agent,

(d) a record referred to in subsection (1) above or anything which purports to be such a record,

shall be received in evidence without being produced or sworn to by any witness and shall be sufficient evidence of the matters stated therein or appearing therefrom.

(3) In subsection (2) above, "document" includes, in addition to a document in writing—

(a) any map, plan, graph or drawing,

(b) any photograph,

(c) any disk, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual aids) are recorded so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom, and

(d) any film (including microfilm), negative, tape, disc or other device in which one or more visual images are recorded so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom.

(4) This section shall have effect in relation to offences committed after the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 was passed."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Power of British sea-fishery officers. 1967 c.84.
In section 15 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, after subsection (3) (under which certain powers listed in section 8 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 may be conferred by order on British sea-fishery officers for the enforcement of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967) there shall be inserted—

"(3A) The powers which may be conferred on any such officer by an order under this section shall include power to—

(a) require any person on board the boat to produce—
948

(i)any automatic recording equipment or transmitting equipment used in accordance with a condition included in a licence by virtue of section 4(6) or 4A(6) of this Act, or

(ii) any record produced by means of such equipment, or partly by those and partly by other means;

(b) search the boat for any such equipment or record, and require any person on board the boat to do anything which appears to the officer to be necessary to facilitate the search;

(c) examine and take copies of any such record;

(d) seize and detain any such equipment or record for the purpose of enabling that equipment or record, or any record which may be produced by means of that equipment, to be used as evidence in proceedings for any offence.

(3B) An order under this section shall not permit anything which is required to be carried on board the boat by a condition included in a licence by virtue of section 4(6) or 4A(6) of this Act to be seized and detained except while the boat is detained in a port."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Commencement]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("and (4) to (6)") and insert (", (4) and (6)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 47, at end insert:
("() Within the period of 6 months beginning on 1st January 1997, the Ministers shall lay before Parliament a report reviewing the operation of this Act and its effectiveness as a method of conserving sea fish after consultation with fishing industry organisations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 has a precedent in the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975, with which I was concerned although not as a Member of your Lordships' House. The circumstances of the Bill bear some similarity to the situation which existed in that Act when it was introduced all those years ago. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by reciting that history. Suffice to say that the insurance industry was wary of the new powers contained in the Policy Holders Protection Act, including the possible system of levies which it introduced. The review of the operation of the Act, upon which Clause 9 is based, was included in order to put at rest the fears of the insurance industry. In fact it succeeded in doing so. When the review took place after a period of operation, the industry was satisfied and the clause therefore achieved the purpose for which it was intended.
The Bill produces a similar unease in the fishing industry. It is primarily about conservation but it uses diverse means to achieve that objective—part decommissioning, reduced effort via tie up and limits on days at sea, an extended licensing system including small craft, an appeals tribunal and tougher fines. All that is against the background that fishers believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that enforcement of the common fisheries policy is less strict in other member states than here and is likely to remain so.
The review of the operation of the Act which the amendment suggests, with a report to Parliament following the review after four years' practical experience, in my opinion would give Ministers and

949
the industry an opportunity to decide whether all was well with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act, as it will be, or whether modifications were required. It is in those circumstances that we tabled Amendment No. 10, which will provide for such a review within a period of six months beginning on 1st January 1997. The proposal is modest. I hope that it is constructive, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, let me say straight away that I believe that the sentiments behind the amendment are both sensible and worth while. Assuming that the current MAGP ends in 1996—as I said in Committee, there is some uncertainty in that regard —the Government will need to have conducted a thorough review of the effectiveness of the whole fish conservation package, including the effort control regime.
We shall need to see how the Act has been implemented and how effective it has been. One of the aspects of its effectiveness will be the way in which conditions are imposed on licences, which should be foolproof. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may say in response to a point raised earlier by my noble friend that it embraces any technical matters such as
950
the one that came up in the sheriff's court in Banff a few days ago. That ruling is being examined in some detail. In the light of the results, if it is considered appropriate to do so, the Government will come forward with an amendment at a later stage.
The Government will need also to consider what further measures will be required until the end of the century. As drafted, Amendment No. 10 does no more than require the Government to report their findings to Parliament after consulting with the industry. I am content to accept it in principle. With the noble Lord's consent, I shall bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading in slightly different form. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Callacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. In the light of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Durham Markets Company Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before five o'clock.