Lords Sitting of 26 October 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 Portsmouth.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford
Harry Ewing, Esquire, having been created Baron Ewing of Kirkford, of Cowdenbeath in the District of Dunfermline, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Kirkhill and the Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.

Lord Williams of Mostyn
Gareth Wyn Williams, Esquire, QC, having been created Lord Williams of Mostyn, of Great Tew in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mishcon and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
Lord Martonmere—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The Duke of Argyll—Took the Oath.

Wessex Regional Health Authority: Computer System
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what circumstances over the last 10 years the Wessex Regional Health Authority incurred a financial deficit of £40 million on the purchase and operation of a computer system which proved unsatisfactory, and what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken or are taking to deal with the situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Wessex Regional Health Authority has stated that mismanagement led to that problem. The National Health Service management executive has issued revised guidance to health authorities concerning the control of such contracts.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the information given by the noble Baroness in her reply. However, is she aware that the regional authorities are managed by people appointed by the Secretary of State, including the chairmen, who, we are told, possess special qualities and have the special knowledge to manage this kind of organisation? Does she agree that not enough attention was given to this matter by these people or that not enough knowledge of the subject was available to them? Or was it complete incompetence that allowed the situation to continue for 10 years? Would the Minister care to take
902
to the Secretary of State the suggestion that these people are not up to the job that they were given and that other people ought to be found to do it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right up to a point. But the people concerned in the letting of these contracts are no longer involved with the regional health authority.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what kind of financial control enables such a deficit to build up over 10 years? Does the noble Baroness agree that this is a matter which ought to be of concern to Ministers? There is no suggestion that the noble Baroness is in any way responsible for this situation. But will she confirm that in respect of such a sum the Minister ought to have been involved to ensure that there was proper control'?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the department was concerned. Although the scheme was very much a regional one and the region has taken responsibility for the mistakes that were made, the department on a number of occasions, through its regular review system, raised the issue with the region. The Secretary of State quickly appointed a new chairman, who in turn appointed a new regional general manager, whose first act was to call for an inquiry into the scheme and to abandon the project.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this sum of £40 million squandered, in her own words by "mismanagement", would have paid for the hospital for which my former constituents in Bristol South have been waiting since 1932?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely clear that £23 million of the expenditure has been put to good use. In addition the regional health authority has recovered a significant amount of money. It is also taking legal action to recover further amounts from the other companies involved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that a substantial proportion of the £40 million expenditure referred to a contract let to a company formed by former employees of the health authority? Can she inform the House whether her department, the management executive or the Audit Commission have the power to investigate and if necessary stop the so-called "sweetheart" deals between health authorities and former employees for the supply of goods or services?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it was that very concern which led the regional general manager to institute an inquiry. He involved the district auditor, who has now said that he is satisfied with the financial and management arrangements that have been introduced by the region.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, one of the most exciting and sensible things that my noble friends on the Front Bench have done has been to introduce the National Health Service reforms. Does my noble friend agree that the corollary is that if someone makes a mistake—I put it as mildly as that—of this

903
calibre, someone's head ought to be on the block? Have there been any resignations or sackings and if not, why not?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the present regional general manager arrived in 1990, by which time the officers concerned had either moved to other jobs or retired. Two former senior members of staff were dismissed by the regional health authority in 1991 for gross misconduct, following its own investigation into the circumstances surrounding the placing of contracts for certain IT services. Those former officers are currently under investigation by the police for alleged fraud. All the evidence that the regional health authority possesses, including the district auditor's report, has been shared with the police and the RHA's own legal advisers.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the district auditors should be fired as well?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, fortunately that is not a matter for me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, apart from sacking the chairman, can my noble friend say what other steps have been taken to rectify the situation so that it will not happen again? Is she satisfied that all appropriate steps have been taken?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I am satisfied that all steps have been taken. In addition, the NHS management executive issued fresh guidance to the NHS on 9th September on the standards of management and conduct. That included advice on the tendering, management and monitoring of contracts with management or information technology consultants.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in reply to my first question, the Minister referred to the wrong people. She spoke about management staff and officers moving from the authority. My question was targeted at the people who were appointed as members of the regional management committee; it referred not to officers but to regional members, including the chairman. Are we to assume that they do not have any responsibility in this matter? Will not people think otherwise? Does the Minister agree that if a local authority had acted in that way, the council members would have been surcharged'?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should explain that the scheme was launched in 1984. In 1986 core tender invitations were issued and the contract awarded. In 1988 the facilities management contract was awarded. The new chairman was also appointed in 1988 but that was after the contract had been awarded.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will the Minister confirm that in a case of this kind the health authorities receive advice from government departments which, after all, have much experience of computer systems? I had intended to ask whether they
904
received advice from the Treasury but, judging by the Treasury's computer operations recently, maybe that would not be very appropriate.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the case. I think I spelled out in an earlier Answer that the management executive issued fresh guidance on 9th September.

The Maastricht Treaty and the Arts
3.8 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, whatever the eventual fate of the Maastricht Treaty, they will seek the inclusion of culture in the area of competence of the European Commission.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are committed to securing the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Article 128 in that treaty formalises and puts on a clear legal base the co-operation in the cultural area which is already taking place. Without Maastricht ratification there would be no legal basis for any extension of Community competence to this area.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer in so far as I understand it. Will he give a commitment that the future activities of British arts associations, which, after all, contribute some £8 billion to the nation's balance of payments, will be vigorously promoted and fully protected by Her Majesty's Government in any future European Community arrangements?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we certainly hope so, but we must wait and see when the Maastricht Treaty arrives in this House.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the letter in today's Times from the heads of a number of leading art firms in this country pointing out the folly of the latest set of directives from Brussels and the likelihood that they will ruin London's position as a leading place for arts sales? Does that not suggest that the further we keep culture away from Brussels the better?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have indeed read the letter that appears in The Times today. We appreciate the anxiety about the proposed directive and regulation. We have been involved in negotiations to achieve movement away from the originally overly-restrictive proposals. Much has been achieved both in the legal requirements in the body of the instrument and in the composition of the annex.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, my question arises from that put by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Is the noble Viscount aware that the proposal to impose VAT on imports of works of art and antiques into the Community from outside the Community will have an adverse effect on our art trade since over half the imports come from outside the Community? Will the Government take up that issue?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes, we are aware of the worries about the seventh VAT directive. It is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the Secretary of State for National Heritage will meet with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Paymaster General this week to discuss the future of the proposal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be far more productive for Her Majesty's Government to encourage the Commission to do the work that it is already supposed to have in hand? Is the noble Viscount aware that in particular since the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from the Commission, it has nothing to offer in the cultural field?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are today discussing Article 128 of the treaty which means that, at this country's insistence, action can be taken only on the basis of unanimity. Article 128 also lists a limited number of specific areas for Community cultural action and therefore excludes many others. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the various nations and peoples of Europe have successfully managed to produce countless magnificent examples of art, architecture, literature and music over many centuries without feeling the need for assistance or interference from bureaucrats or Eurocrats? Moreover, does he agree that the principle of subsidiarity, which his right honourable friend the Prime Minister supports so strongly, must effectively remove perhaps 98 per cent. of what might loosely be described as culture from the competence of the European Community?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Community has been increasingly involved in cultural activity. Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty establishes that position for the first time on a clear legal basis. The text underlines the importance and respect for national and regional cultural diversity. It makes clear that Community action is to support and supplement action by the member states.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, under the Maastricht Treaty the promotion of culture and heritage conservation is spelt out clearly in Articles 92 and 128. However, if the Maastricht Treaty falls, does not come before Parliament, or disappears, does the Minister agree that the Council of Ministers can take action on culture under Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome if acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission? Will the Government vigorously pursue that route if it becomes necessary?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Culture is covered by Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome, and action by the Commission by Article 36 for national treasures. The important factor about Article 128, about which we speak, is that it provides a legal framework for what already happens and an appropriate framework as to what should be pursued at European level rather than member state level.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that an increasing number of people in this country are anxious about the competence that the Commission already has in this country over many areas? They are worried that that competence may be increased. Is he further aware that Community competence has caused disaster to the farming industry, the fishing industry, our balance of payments and to our public sector borrowing requirement? Who on earth would want the Commission's competence to stray now into cultural matters?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has read Article 128.5. The last sentence states that the Commission shall adopt only recommendations that have been unanimously approved.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in informing the House about Article 128 of the treaty, he has just enunciated a powerful argument against ratifying that treaty?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an intriguing question. I shall have to consider it before I answer.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, Article 128 makes legal what has occurred until now. Does that mean that the previous position has been illegal?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no, the proposal defines the area of competence that the regulation will cover in future. It will be restricted to matters that are important at a European level rather than member state level. That is what matters.

Strategic Nuclear Missiles
3.16 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the theoretical military justification for strategic nuclear missiles; and how many of them there are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, NATO's new strategic concept says:
"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance".
The United Kingdom's strategic force currently consists of three Polaris submarines, each capable of carrying 16 missiles. Details of the strategic nuclear forces of other nations are provided on page 20 of this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, Command Paper 1981.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the completeness of that Answer. However, is he aware that the arguments against the existence of strategic inter-continental missiles are growing and the arguments in favour of the continuation internationally of such missiles are declining? Not only are such views held in Scotland where Trident is being manufactured but they have even penetrated the columns of The Times and the

907
Daily Telegraph. Does he agree that it is time to consider a plan of diversification? If the present tendency continues, people will no longer be able to continue working on Trident. It is necessary for the Government to prepare for the possibility that Trident may have to be put out to grass.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we have always made it clear that the British nuclear deterrent is based on the minimum deterrent. Conventional weapons alone cannot prevent war, and certainly nuclear weapons can be a force for peace and stability.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that at a time of immense unpredictability in international affairs the test of a relevant defence policy is its ability to meet situations such as the grim events in Yugoslavia rather than situations such as were characteristically foreseen in the days of the cold war? With that in mind, is there not a danger that an overemphasis on strategic nuclear weapons is dangerously unbalanced? Will he therefore indicate what the preconditions would be for Her Majesty's Government to include British weapons in future strategic nuclear arms reduction talks?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am not certain whether the noble Lord was present last week when we discussed a number of matters. I hope that I made it perfectly clear to your Lordships' House that the nuclear deterrent underpinned the breadth of our overall strategic approach in matters of defence. At present it is perfectly clear that we have gone for the minimum possible nuclear deterrent, as I stated to your Lordships a moment ago. We foresee that as being the basis of the underpinning of our nuclear and strategic approach for the foreseeable future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Viscount realise that the small group of unilateral surrenderors who protested against the arrival of HMS "Vanguard" in the Clyde yesterday are but a small proportion of our population? The great bulk of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are wholly behind a policy of a unilateral deterrent which has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years and ensured the end of what President Reagan called the evil empire.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, in particular because I know that he is well aware of the state of public opinion in Scotland. He represented part of that country with distinction in another place when I was also made a Member. I have grown to accept his judgment of the state of public opinion in that country.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if our present deterrent is a minimum deterrent, what world events made the Government decide to increase it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that I have understood the noble Lord's question. It is a minimum deterrent. There is no doubt that not only is it the minimum that we are able to deploy at the moment but, as I have made perfectly clear in
908
parenthesis, we have a declared maximum of 128 warheads per boat. That deterrent will provide a clear underpinning for the whole breadth and balance of our policy in the strategic field.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members on this side of the House are delighted that we retain an independent nuclear deterrent because it is not so much a question of what we would do about Yugoslavia but what we would do about Iraq and other countries of that ilk which undoubtedly would build such nuclear weapons if they were allowed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has always taken a strong and constructive interest in these issues. He is well aware, as are all your Lordships, that Russia has a remarkable strategic nuclear capability to this day and that the disintegration of the Soviet Union has led to the leakage of a number of sophisticated weapons systems. There is always a strong danger that nuclear proliferation could occur in third world countries, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that he will not accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, to take the views of The Times and the Telegraph as a reliable guide, because nowadays those journals appear to be somewhat unreliable?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's experience of Fleet Street is considerably greater than mine and therefore I am happy to take his advice about the reliability or otherwise of the nation's newspapers.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, would it not be more logical to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, an article of which states that nuclear powers should take steps to reduce their nuclear armamentaria?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are subscribers to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as the noble Lord knows. At the same time we are well aware that our present posture in no way contravenes the provisions of that treaty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there has been a suggestion that the United States does not intend to continue the development of the Trident missile. Is that true and, if so, what will then happen?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are clear and have received assurances that the agreements under which the United States has supplied the Trident missile remain in good order and still stand. I can reassure the noble Lord on that score.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in this Question we are not discussing general nuclear disarmament but in particular the strategic inter-continental missile, which has a potential for evil greater than that of any preceding empire?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always listen to the noble Lord's comments with keen attention. However, I find it extremely difficult to support his contention that a strategic policy which has protected this country so effectively during the past 50 years is one based on evil. The events which would follow a nuclear explosion could be described as nothing else but evil, but the noble Lord has failed to distinguish between the explosion of a nuclear weapon and its deterrent effect.

London Hospitals: Future
3.25 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the operation of the internal market will be the only criterion in deciding the future of the London hospital service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team have supplied a strategic view of London's health services and medical education, taking account of a whole range of factors. The Government welcome his broad conclusions and intend to respond with detailed proposals early in the New Year.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she satisfied that enough will be done in implementing the proposals of the Tomlinson Report so that London's health services are not harmed in any way?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the whole purpose of the report and the Government's intention is to maintain high standards of health care for Londoners and to ensure that medical education and research is strengthened and that future developments in primary and acute care are further progressed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister make herself aware of the breaking up of high calibre clinical research teams which are part of some of the famous London hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the current position is that within a six mile radius of central London there are 11 major teaching hospitals,14 cardiac specialist units,13 neuro-surgery units,13 cancer units,11 renal units and nine plastic surgery units. That level of specialism cannot be sustained. Indeed, we know that as a result of the problem of having so many units we are falling behind in the international expertise which is necessary.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the primary health care services, which the Tomlinson Report advocates as needing strengthening, will be in place before the hospital service is dismantled in the way that is suggested?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a difficult question to answer because the Government have not yet reached any decisions about Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report. They will consider the proposals, take advice and consult many interested parties during the next three months. At the end of that period the
910
Government will certainly make their decisions. I am sure that one of the questions that they will wish to consider is how to strengthen primary care.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware, and will she note, that if she or that Ministry of hers interferes in any way with Guy's Hospital she will be subjected to a row the like of which she has never heard?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have the great misfortune that both my brother and my father trained at Guy's; therefore, I know the strength of feeling in that hospital.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Government consider what to do about the recommendations in the report will they add to their list the provision of casualty and life support services within reach of the centre of London in crowded traffic conditions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that undertaking.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her first supplementary answer will bring considerable rejoicing because she said that the Government have rejected the internal market as a mechanism for solving the problems of London's health service? The Government have said that there will be wide-ranging consultations following the Tomlinson Report. Will those consultations include patients? Furthermore, do the Government accept the main thrust of both the Tomlinson Report and the earlier King's Fund Report that substantial new resources must be invested in primary and community care in London before the closure of hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to clarify my first Answer. I was asked whether the internal market was the only criterion in deciding the future of London hospital services. I said that it was not; it was one of other criteria. On the question of consultation, no hospital can possibly be closed without going through the formal procedures. Those are lengthy. They involve community health councils and consultation with others before any decision by the Secretary of State. With regard to resources, on Friday in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health said that we cannot make any commitment on the level of expenditure until the current public spending round is over. However, we have stressed time and again that our main objective must be to improve health services for Londoners. We cannot achieve that without radically improving primary care.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that this is the greatest opportunity for improving the health care of London? Florence Nightingale complained that St. Thomas's should not have been opened because there were too many hospitals in central London. I believe Florence Nightingale died in 1910. Surely the Government have been offered a way of improving the bottom layer of London health, which is bad, compared to the top layer, which is oversubsidised.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Anyone who has any knowledge of London health services will recognise that the services are out of balance; that primary health care needs to be strengthened and that we must change a system that was coping with, and providing services for, a population which was at its height in inner London at the turn of the century or, if one includes outer London, in the late 1930s. The population has drifted away from London and we must tailor a service to meet the needs of the people of London both for this century and the next.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have passed the 30th minute on the digital indicator. At a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on English Heritage.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Today we are debating two fisheries matters, the Second Reading of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and the report of the European Communities Committee inquiry into the common fisheries policy. Our consideration of the Bill will undoubtedly be assisted by taking it together with a review of the common fisheries policy. The CFP, as it is known, has provided the framework for the development of UK fisheries conservation policy for the past nine years and a number of issues in the committee's report have a direct bearing on the Bill and associated policies.
The common fisheries policy has three broad aims: to regulate trade in fish and fish products through the common organisation of the market; to conserve and manage the common fisheries resource by controlling fishing activity; and to improve and adapt the structure of the fisheries sector. But the CFP—unlike the CAP (common agricultural policy)—leaves member states with considerable freedom to devise their own detailed policies. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to announce a national package of fisheries conservation measures on 27th February which was aimed at the special problems of the UK industry and which included the measures contained in the Bill.
The problem which this package and indeed measures emerging from Brussels seek to address is that of declining fish stocks. Fishing is a traditional industry in this country and many coastal communities depend on it for their livelihoods. But its survival is absolutely dependent on the availability of fish. Scientific advice indicates that many important stocks are seriously over-exploited; for example,
912
North Sea cod, haddock and whiting, and some stocks have reached critical levels. Although TACs and quotas are a useful management tool they have not prevented excessive fishing because they encourage discarding of both immature fish and over-quota fish in mixed catches which depresses stock levels while not counting against quota. Action is needed now to secure a long-term future for our fishing industry.
To put the Second Reading of the Bill in context, I should like briefly to describe the main elements of UK fisheries conservation policy. I shall start by describing what we are doing on technical conservation. I shall then go on to describe each part of the February conservation package and show how each part will contribute to achieving the targets which we are negotiating with the Commission under our multi-annual guidance programme (or MAGP) for reducing fishing effort and capacity during the period 1993– 1996. I hope that that will demonstrate that what we have is a package of related and interdependent measures of which the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill forms a vital part. As I describe each measure I shall respond to any issues that have been raised in the European Communities Committee report. After I have explained the provisions of the Bill in more detail, I should like to finish by addressing the wider aspects of the CFP covered in that report.
Fisheries conservation is being addressed through so-called technical measures where minimum mesh sizes and types of gear are laid down to ensure that juvenile fish escape capture and survive to maturity. We have agreed significant new Community measures, including different minimum mesh sizes for different areas, and the UK has taken its own unilateral measures following consultation with the industry to supplement the Community measures. The UK's national measures include the compulsory use of square mesh panels in the nephrops fisheries. The Government have noted the concern of the committee about the one-net rule and are aware that it may bear harder on certain sections of the industry than others. We will keep that, and all conservation measures, under review. I should nevertheless remind committee members and other noble Lords that the rule was introduced to stop the cheating and heavy discarding prevalent in certain sections of the industry. Fisheries departments are following with great concern the indications that these problems are worsening.
I should also like to remind your Lordships that technical measures cannot provide a complete answer in mixed species fishing grounds. For example, net sizes which allow juvenile haddock to escape will still catch immature cod. We nevertheless acknowledge that those measures can make an important contribution to fish conservation; that is why we will be continuing discussions with the industry next year to look for further improvements. I must stress however that they will not substitute for measures in the Bill.
Turning to the February conservation package, the first measure is to extend the licensing system to all vessels fishing for profit. Until now vessels of 10 metres overall length or less have not been licensed. But that sector of the fleet has expanded significantly

913
and is having a marked impact on some stocks. We need to limit that if we are to achieve our MAGP targets. We. are particularly keen to halt the development of the "metre beater" vessels whose dimensions are designed specifically to avoid the restrictions currently applying to larger vessels. We are pleased that the committee welcomes that move. We have also noted the committee's suggestion that licence charges should be introduced to cover the cost of administration. We shall bear that suggestion in mind but the Government have no plans to charge at present.
Secondly, we are considering measures which will allow producer organisations flexibility to take their own steps to help rationalise the fleet and thus meet our MAGP targets. We propose that in future producer organisations will be free to make whatever quota swaps they think are in their members' interests. The rules which restricted such swaps to quantities of different fish of the same notional value would be abolished. We have also consulted the industry about other ideas for further rationalisation through increased flexibility, such as buying and selling quotas. That has brought a mixed reaction and fisheries departments are still considering the way forward.
The third plank of our capacity and effort reduction policy addresses the fact that, quite simply, the fleet is too large for the amount of fish that can be taken if stocks are to be maintained. The Government plan to make up to £25 million available for a cash limited decommissioning scheme to help industry bring effort and capacity into balance with fish stocks. We do not agree with the committee, however, that this is too little too late. Decommissioning cannot be effective on its own because it would leave those vessels remaining in the fleet free to increase their fishing effort either by increasing the time they spend at sea or through the technological improvements which are made year by year.
This is why, before we introduce a decommissioning scheme, we are taking powers in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill to limit the time that fishermen may spend at sea. This is the only part of the package of measures announced in February that requires primary legislation and it will enable us to restrict fishing effort to the level necessary to conserve fish stocks, taking into account the effects of the other measures in the package.
We do not agree with the committee that tie-ups should be simply an interim measure until effective decommissioning schemes are in place. For the reasons I have already given, decommissioning on its own does not prevent the remainder of the fleet from increasing its effort. We already have powers to control fishing activity but, as noble Lords will realize, it is quite impractical to control the activities of some 4,000 vessels fishing across thousands of square miles of sea. What the Bill does is to refine the powers we already have in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to enable us to control fishing effort in the only practicable and enforceable way—by limiting time vessels may spend at sea.
I know that there is widespread and deep concern in the fishing industry about the Bill and, before I deal
914
with its provisions in detail, there are two specific points that I would like to address. First, it is said that days at sea restrictions will ruin the livelihoods of many fishermen. That is simply not true. Our aim is to start by freezing effort at last year's levels. This should not seriously affect levels of profitability and we believe that all fishermen will be able to take up their full entitlement of fish. Moreover, fishermen will continue to be permitted to transfer licences and will therefore have the opportunity to acquire additional days at sea if they wish.
In future years we cannot rule out the possibility of having to make reductions in some sectors of the fleet to meet our MAGP targets. But the figure of 30 per cent. that has been widely reported by representatives of the industry is a considerable exaggeration. We are still negotiating in Brussels but it is already clear that member states regard that figure as too high and want the Commission to reduce it. In any event, there will be different rates of reduction for different sectors of the fleet. Moreover, the scale of days at sea reduction also depends on the extent to which the industry plays its part in reducing capacity by taking up the other parts of the package, including decommissioning. It is clear that the other measures I have described will together make a substantial contribution towards the targets set by Brussels. Noble Lords will also be pleased to know that I intend to introduce an amendment to the Bill at a later stage which will require the Government to make an affirmative resolution order each time they intend to make overall reductions in days at sea allocations. Parliament will therefore have an opportunity to consider the size of the reductions.
Secondly, I know a great deal of concern has been expressed on the question of whether other member states are intending to impose similar controls on their fleets and also whether we can enforce our restrictions in respect of the quota hopper vessels. I would like to repeat to noble Lords the assurance that my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food made in another place in July. He said:
"We should not introduce such a resolution [to reduce days at sea] unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets".—[Official Report, Commons,14/7/92; col.1027.]
The Government will stand by that commitment. We are aware of the concern about quota hoppers. As UK-registered vessels they will of course be subject to days at sea restrictions and it may be possible to use satellite technology to monitor their compliance more closely. That would be in line with the Commission's recent proposals for a new control regulation. I hope to table an amendment concerning the use of this type of information for control and enforcement at a later stage.
I should now like to explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 enables Ministers to restrict the time that licensed vessels spend at sea by imposing a new condition in sea fishing licences. It will also enable them to determine, by way of licence conditions, what time at sea will mean in practice. Our intention is to restrict the days that fishermen may spend at sea and

915
to use licence conditions to set down precisely how they will be defined, notified and controlled. We intend to allow as much flexibility as possible in operating the scheme including leaving fishermen free to choose when to fish and when not to. This should allow them flexibility to observe any religious or other traditions and to avoid putting to sea in bad weather.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for interrupting so early in his speech. I thank him very much for giving way. There is a very important point. Are the restrictions on putting to sea to be levied vessel by vessel, by classes of vessel, by ports or how?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the intention is to impose them vessel by vessel. Clause I also gives Ministers a broader power to require information from fishermen by enabling them to require the provision of non-statistical information and to specify the form it should be provided in. This provision will ensure that fisheries departments have all the information necessary to enforce the new time at sea restriction. Subsection (5) amends the evidential status of certain documents under Scots law. The documents affected are all vital to the successful prosecution of breaches of licence conditions and in each case the author is under a legal obligation to complete them and to complete them accurately.
Finally, Clause 1 enables Ministers to revoke or suspend licences when licence conditions or prohibitions, including time at sea restrictions, have been breached. All sea fishing licences are issued at the discretion of the Minister. Furthermore, Ministers already have and exercise powers to revoke and suspend licences for the purposes of regulating fishing. This provision simply extends those powers to individual licences whose owners have breached licence rules. The main purpose of this amendment is to enable Ministers to take action in the case of persistent offenders who, by blatantly disregarding the law, are putting not only fish stocks but also the livelihoods of law-abiding fishermen at risk. We all know that there is widespread disregard for fishing rules by some fishermen: we intend to do everything we can to put a stop to it.
Clause 2 establishes the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal to hear appeals from fishermen against their initial time at sea allocation. It also provides for regulations to be made on the principles on which time at sea allocations will be based, on how appeals should be made and on the procedural arrangements for the tribunal. Ministers will appoint the members of the tribunal and will make provision for their remuneration and expenses and for the staff, accommodation and expenses of the tribunal. Clause 6 brings the tribunal under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
Clause 3 applies the provisions of the Bill concerning information, evidence status in Scots law and licence revocation and suspension to fish transhipment licences.
Clause 4 enables Ministers to make regulations concerning how fishing and transhipment licences will
916
be granted and how licence variations, revocations and suspensions will take effect. The regulations will also cover the persons to whom such documents must be delivered and the time when they will be effective. The purpose of these regulations will be to clarify how and when licences take effect so that fishermen cannot avoid being bound by their terms by claiming that they had not received a licence because they were at sea.
Clause 5 increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breach of a licence condition from £5,000 to £50,000. This increase will bring the penalty for breaching a days at sea restriction into line with other similar fishing offences, such as fishing without a licence, which already attracts a maximum fine of £50,000.
Clause 7 deals with commencement. The provisions relating to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal and to the regulations on the granting of licences will come into effect immediately on Royal Assent. The remaining provision will come into effect one month after Royal Assent. However, because time at sea restrictions will not apply initially to vessels of 10 metres or less in length, Ministers will be required to specify a commencement date for the introduction of such restrictions for this sector in an affirmative resolution order. This will provide Parliament with an opportunity of debating the extension of the time at sea policy to smaller fishing vessels.
We must take action to ensure that we take no more fish from the sea than can be replaced by remaining stocks. The February package of measures will go a long way to achieving that goal but the measures will not work unless Ministers have the powers contained in this Bill. They are essential to the long-term future of the fishing industry in this country and I commend the Bill to the House today.
Turning to the wider issues I am grateful to the European Communities Committee for its report on the common fisheries policy. I have already addressed the important questions of fleet structure and capacity addressed in that report but there are a number of other important recommendations which it makes to which I feel I should respond now. The Government have also submitted a memorandum.
Noble Lords, I know, share the Government's view that relative stability is one of the cornerstones of this policy. It ensures that the fishing industry in each member state is guaranteed annually the same percentage share of total allowable catches. The shares are based on historic track records and account is taken of lost long-distant water fisheries and communities highly dependent on fisheries for their livelihoods. In this way the system safeguards traditional fishing patterns. Any reopening of the basis for these national allocations, except as may be necessary to deal with further enlargement of the Community, could upset this complex balance.
We know that the application of Hague Preference in the Irish Sea is felt to be unfair, but the Hague Preference is inextricably woven into the fabric of relative stability and overall it brings substantial benefit to the United Kingdom. Any changes to it would probably have far-reaching and unwelcome

917
consequences for our industry. Recognising the real concerns expressed, however, the Government will continue to seek to reduce any disadvantages to Northern Ireland and Wales, for example, by utilising the system of quota exchanges with other member states which has traditionally enabled the United Kingdom to obtain additional quantities in the Irish Sea.
I fully endorse the committee's view that the weaknesses in the system of total allowable catches and quotas are not fatal. I agree that the system and its enforcement can and should be improved. Total allowable catches serve two important functions; first, ensuring management of the amount of fish stocks which should be caught and, secondly, enabling fishing opportunities to be divided between member states and third countries on an equitable basis. Total allowable catches—alongside effort control—as the quantitative controls on fishing are reinforced by qualitative controls such as the prescription of minimum mesh sizes and minimum fish sizes. But all of these controls need to be developed or improved further. Changes to the system of total allowable catches need to be considered very carefully as it would make no sense to introduce changes where these would exacerbate the problem of discarding. The Community is now looking at ideas for rolling multi-annual total allowable catches and multi-species total allowable catches to see if these might have advantages over the present system of annual single-species total allowable catches. We will play a full part in those discussions.
The Government are very aware of the concerns of noble Lords and the public in general about the possible adverse effects of industrial fishing. We want to ensure that constraints applied to industrial fishing are every bit as stringent as those which apply to fisheries for human consumption and that in any event the latter type of fishery must always take precedence over the former. Only last week we pressed the Commission to produce the much awaited report on industrial fishing in the North Sea which, we hope, will provide us with a means to take matters forward during our presidency.
The Government also share the Commission's deep objections to discards. Indeed, that is why we have been taking the lead in the EC both in monitoring them, in pressing for more selective gear and in adopting national measures, including square mesh panels in the nephrops fisheries, over and above what the EC requires. We are less sanguine about the scope for a discard ban as suggested by the committee. Any system we set up to encourage fishermen to keep undersize fish may end up actually encouraging them to catch it: this is the dilemma. They will not necessarily encourage fishermen to move to other areas to avoid high catches of small fish; hence the importance we attach to technical conservation measures.
Turning further afield, the committee's report supported fisheries agreements with third countries. Noble Lords may know how much our distant water fleet depends on reciprocal fisheries agreements with third countries in the north Atlantic. These provide
918
valuable opportunities additional to those available in Community waters. But we arc concerned that other agreements with third countries, which involve fishing rights in exchange for financial compensation or the establishment of joint ventures, should always provide value for money and that there should be clearer reports on the uptake of such agreements by the Community fleet. Tariff reductions on imports are likely to be an increasing feature of these agreements and the trend in international negotiations generally is towards long-term tariff reductions.
The committee also addressed regional socioeconomic problems. The Government have an open mind on the Commission's proposal for the creation of a new Objective 6, as an addition to the present system for targeting the Community's structural funds, to address the socio-economic problems arising specifically from the fishing cutbacks. We note the committee's support for these proposals. However, it is not yet clear what measures the Commission has in mind, nor has it been clearly demonstrated that there is a need to set up a new objective rather than using the existing objective suitably amended to cater for fisheries-dependent areas.
Finally, enforcement is an important key to the success of the common fisheries policy. Strict enforcement of the rules is essential wherever Community vessels operate and improved surveillance and enforcement must be a priority for the Community. Measures to improve control are now being addressed on the basis of a newly proposed control regulation, issued earlier this month, and also a specific proposal relating to waters covered by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. We very much share the committee's views that, wherever possible, rules should be simplified to assist enforcement and we note the committee's wish for harsher penalties. We hope to take discussion forward on these issues during our presidency.
In the next few weeks as we discuss the future of the common fisheries policy we shall be taking on board as far as possible the various views expressed. We shall be seeking to emerge with an improved common fisheries policy with practical and enforceable management tools and with the correct balance of responsibility between member states, the Council and the Commission. But the key elements of the CFP, the key planks of Community policy, must remain—namely, relative stability between member states, TACs and quotas, and access within Community waters. That framework has served us well over the years. Within that framework, the Government and UK fishermen must play their part in fostering and maintaining the long-term viability of our fishing industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Howe.)
4 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill with his customary clarity. I take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Amherst of Hackney and Lord Moyne,

919
are to make their maiden speeches on this important subject this afternoon. I should like to say briefly to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, how much we on this side of the House appreciate the excellent report on this topic which the sub-committee has produced at a very important time. I hope that, by taking the Bill and the report in tandem, so to speak, we shall derive benefit from the wisdom contained in the report.
We are all agreed on the need for accepting advice from scientists on areas and species for conservation purposes. I hope, in view of the high price of acceptance of that advice, that the advice is correct and sound. Fishermen also accept conservation advice yet they see the Bill as basically a scheme for decommissioning. They do not like either its financial provisions, which they regard as inadequate, or the powers it gives to Ministers regarding licence conditions, especially days at sea, which we are told could be both oppressive and, in certain respects, as matters now stand, unworkable.
Past generosity in granting licences has caught up with Her Majesty's Government as total allowable catches of certain fish have recently decreased sharply; for example, in 1988 haddock had a TAC of 128,500 tonnes which, by 1992, had decreased to 45,000 tonnes; in 1988 the figure for cod was 71,490 tonnes, which has now decreased to 43,320 tonnes. The severity of reduced quotas has affected the livelihood of fishers. It has led also to alleged scams—another word for evasions—about which I hope to say something later.
Her Majesty's Government's decision to decommission contrasts with refusals when the industry requested such a scheme. On 21st January 1991 I asked a supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who then had responsibility for Scottish affairs. I asked him:
"in view of the major and continuing reduction in Great Britain's total allowable catches under the common fisheries policy … Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consider the introduction of a decommissioning scheme to allow fishermen over middle age and operating older vessels to give up fishing, subject to Community and government assistance towards the funding of such a scheme"?
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replied:
"We have always made plain the fact that the decommissioning scheme is not a good use of taxpayers' money. It would be expensive and would not help to reduce the overall capacity. Against that background is the fact that white fish prices have increased by 15 per cent. during the past 12 months".—[Official Report,21/1/91; col.2.]
Yet in February 1992, as the noble Earl told us, the Government announced their decommissioning plans. February 1992 was close to certain events in April 1992 and it may be that the Minister's intentions were something of an electoral gambit. If so, the hostility of the industry to the Bill is yet further evidence of the Government's error at that time.
How much of a reduction in the size of a fleet will a £25 million decommissioning scheme produce? Paragraph 106 of the Select Committee report calls for four or five times that sum. Whatever scale of reductions the Bill achieves, will quota hopping increase? That too is discussed by the Select Committee at page 55.
920
At col.200 on 19th October 1992 in the other place, Her Majesty's Government announced that 57 Spanish,21 Dutch and two Danish fishing vessels were registered in the UK. Will those increase under the Bill's provisions? Do the Government consider that quota hopping is compatible with conservation? Will the satellite technology which the Government are proposing as an amendment to the Bill really meet the case of dealing with quota hoppers.
Clause 1(2) gives Ministers powers to specify the time—that is, the number of days—which a licence holder may spend at sea. That power is compounded by the power giving Ministers authority in Clause 1(3) to say what is a day at sea. That definition is a vital issue as regards fishermen.
In some ways those provisions are at the heart of the Bill. As the noble Earl recognised, fishermen are rightly apprehensive about them, not least because United Kingdom fishing practices differ by areas. Other speakers will doubtless have queries, but for now questions about pre-consultation, flexibility and enforcement of days at sea are provisions fundamental to the operation of the Bill.
Present ministerial powers to regulate fishing by suspension or revocation of licences are to be extended by the Bill so that those powers become penalties for breaching licence limitations. That extension of use will enable fisheries departments to take enforcement action administratively and is to complement existing arrangements for summary conviction through the courts. Such administrative action, even for breach, is a heavy hand. Will there be any appeal system when it is used?
The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal is a quango-like creation, reminiscent of the machinery quickly devised to deal with milk quotas. Fishers would like to be as well treated under the Bill as farmers expect to be under the new CAP rules for set aside. However, the tribunal is necessarily an adjudication body to hear appeals against initial time at sea allocation. It was created following all-party pressure in Committee in another place. As the noble Earl said, the tribunal will be supervised by the Council on Tribunals. Is there any place in that for the European Court of Justice to intervene in continuing and unresolved disputes? It may be necessary to table a probing amendment to determine that question.
Financial penalties are heavily increased by the Bill from £5,000 to £50,000 for a licence breach. That emphasises the importance of days at sea restrictions. As has been said, the Bill is not to apply initially to vessels of 10 metres or less in length. The date of commencement for that category is to require an administrative order. We shall want to discuss that restriction when it is introduced, not least because of the apprehension concerning it. Can the Minister say when Her Majesty's Government expect to implement Clause 7(2)?
The administrative costs of the Bill's provisions are significant when added to present costs. Yet one wonders whether the enforcement proposed, including licence fines and deterrents, will be adequate if limitations on catches increase, as seems likely.

921
Discussions began in the Fisheries Council in Brussels on 19th October on draft regulations to replace the basic common fisheries policy regulations and control legislation. That is likely to be a lengthy process. In the course of discussions, will Her Majesty's Government seek to make quotas truly national? If tougher rules lie ahead, should we not think about landing white fish only at designated ports where inspectors are on duty?
The Select Committee report rejects on grounds of prohibitive cost the idea of licensing fish buyers. However, there is a view that such a system is necessary so that licences can be withdrawn if there is evidence of illegal dealings. Have the Government considered the position of fish buyers in a conservation exercise? Further, is the idea that fishermen should sell their fish only at public auctions too onerous to be practical either now or in the future?
If total allowable catches are further reduced, pressures to fish illegally may increase, so protection for legal fishing must be strengthened. Failure to ensure that will disadvantage those who observe the rules, as well as reducing the conservation value of the Bill.
No one should underestimate both current and future problems of fishermen. Letters from all parts of the United Kingdom show the realities of present difficulties as well as fears about the effect of further limitations on families and small communities. If home fishermen are not allowed to fish often enough to make a living, how are they to be compensated, especially under the share fishing system which now applies widely in the industry?
As it stands, the Bill is still capable of amendment. Despite a prolonged Committee stage in another place, Her Majesty's Government resisted changes. In view of the interval between the Third Reading there and the introduction of the Bill here, will the Minister say whether the Government have had any second thoughts, apart from those to which he referred in his speech, particularly of an amelioratory kind, following discussions with fishermen's organisations? We shall seek amendments but it would be helpful to know whether the Government will listen sympathetically to at least some of those.
We recognise that the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, we express anxiety about the aspects of the Bill to which I have referred in this brief speech. During the passage of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, we hope that there will be some disposition on the part of the Government to look at some of the problems which have been bought to our notice since the Bill received a Third Reading elsewhere. I am not without hope that, apart from what has been said regarding an affirmative order to amend the reductions for clays at sea and the use of satellite technology to restrict quota hoppers, that there are other aspects of the Bill to which intelligent amendments, vigorously pursued, will produce a sympathetic response from the noble Earl.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in thanking the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and in saying how much we look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Amherst and Lord Moyne. I hope it is in order to ask the Minister whether at the end of the debate we can be told anything about the explosion or fire which I understand has swept through Sullom Voe and possibly be assured that there has been no loss of life. That may be out of order, but if the Minister has any information I am sure the House would like to have it.
I am slightly out of date over fishing. It is some years now since I was out in a fishing boat. The industry is changing but there are certain things which I think are still common to all fishing communities and differentiate them from other communities. Fishing communities have a very specialised type of life. The most extreme example is probably a little community, Out Skerries, in Shetland. Skerries, as they are known, are a few rocks in the North Sea yet they have the same population as they had in the middle of the last century. Over the same period the agricultural communities have shrunk almost out of sight. The reason they have maintained their population is that the people fish.
There are two or three fishing boats on Skerries and they have been there for a hundred years. Boys on Skerries want to fish and the whole population of Skerries depends on fishing. There is nothing else to do and nowhere else to go. There is no land. With regard to other occupations it is said,"Give people compensation and they can find other employment". One cannot do that in Skerries. It would finish the whole Skerries community. That is an extreme case but it is only an extreme case of what is true of many fishing communities. The communities are as specialised as mining communities. In fact they are more specialised. In Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Wales there are communities which have depended on fishing for generation upon generation. The boys want to go to fish. If there is no fishing, a way of life will be ended.
The other feature of these communities is that fishing is a gamble. To my mind, sociologists have grossly neglected the fishing industry. Fishing suits many human beings. It is far less dull than agriculture. It gets the men out of the house—that is extremely important—and enables different forms of life to be carried on across the sea, amicably and without problems. But it is above all a gamble. Therefore, it is peculiarly resistant to bureaucratic control.
I do not understand much about the report, excellent though it is, but I should like to ask noble Lords to look at pages 43 and 44. Another feature of fishing is the extreme difficulty of collecting statistics or knowing how to interpret them. On page 43 noble Lords will find a list of the top 12 ports in the United Kingdom. The top port is Lerwick. More fish were landed at Lerwick than anywhere else. It is only 20 years since I was told that the Shetland fishing industry would probably be finished, that the big trawlers would be landing in Hull—Hull is not on the

923
list—that North Sea fishing would be badly affected by oil and that the outlook for Shetland was poor. Shetland is now the chief port in Britain. Third on the list is Ullapool. That might lead one to suppose that suddenly in the west of Scotland there is a very large local fishery, but I suspect that nearly all the fish in Ullapool are landed by east coast boats. Therefore one has to be very careful how one interprets these statistics.
On page 44 there is a list of the numbers of people employed in fishing. I am extremely surprised to find that more people are employed in fishing in the Western Isles than in Orkney and Shetland put together. Indeed, almost one-third as many people are employed in Orkney as in Shetland. I do not mind betting that that is strictly right but wholly misleading. I simply do not believe that there are all those numbers of people in the Western Isles toiling away at fishing. One may notice that Stornoway does not appear on the previous list of the 12 major ports in Britain. That is not to say that people do not go to sea or that they do not have boats but to suggest that it is a major fishing port in the Western Isles—as big as Shetland—would be wrong.
Another point I wish to mention is the Shetland box, to which reference is made on page 297 of the report. The Shetland box is an area off the north of Shetland which is being protected by licensing with the idea of protecting the breeding stocks. During the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons the Government said they intended to maintain the box. However, as the Government will see from pages 295 to 297 of the report, the Shetland fishermen think that the box should be extended. Have the Government any further information about the box? Do they intend to maintain it or even to extend it?
One feature of the fishing industry, as the Minister rightly said, is the great increase in catching power arising from industrial fishing, which I wholly agree should be looked on with some suspicion. I know that a large and well-equipped boat has appeared in Orkney. I wonder where it is going to fish. It may be going to fish in the southern Atlantic. It may be going to look for all the kinds of little fish which make up industrial catches. I take it that there will be a subsidy. In addition to the subsidy I understand that it is eligible for a grant of £280,000 from the local authority. I should like to be reassured that our policy of trying to restrict catching power, particularly of edible fish, is not at loggerheads with our policy of subsidising very large vessels for purposes of which I am ignorant. It may be, as I say, that they are outside the range of this Bill and are intended for the south Atlantic. I do not know.
I now come to the Bill. The first thing that struck me about the Bill is that it will be extremely dictatorial. As far as I understand it, the Minister is saying that if necessary the Government will bring in regulations which will enable someone simply to tell a particular boat—not a class of boat—that it cannot go to sea. I understand that if this regulation is passed by Parliament someone will be able to go along to a small port in Cornwall or in the Shetlands, name a
924
particular boat and say,"You cannot go to sea". I suggest to the House that that is an extremely dictatorial act and requires a great deal of justification. I should like to know on what evidence this decision will be made. Will it be made on the basis that a particular boat has caught too many fish, or will it be made on the basis that it can best afford not to go to sea? How will the decision be made? I am told that the general curfew will be dated 1991 but it is the future with which I am concerned. Next year, or the year after, decisions may be made forbidding boats to go to sea. Who will make them? There will be an appeal system but it cannot possibly work quickly enough to save any boat that is affected.
Further, fishermen have to plan ahead. A fisherman from Cornwall wrote to me. He has a mortgage to pay. If he has hanging over his head a threat that an official can come along and say "No, you cannot go to sea", it will make life impossible. I do not know the answer to that problem. However, the alternative of restriction class by class is even worse.
The Minister in another place made a very curious statement:
"We face the possibility of multinational guidance programme targets".
Legal libraries in fishing ports are rather scant and one can envisage the fishermen anxiously going along and saying, "Are we the target of a multinational programme?" However, I gather that there are no plans for multinational guidance programmes and that at least is something to be thankful for. However, we are left with an extremely unsatisfactory method and I cannot see how it will be applied.
What power will Parliament have? There will be an affirmative resolution entitling the Minister to choose the boats that cannot go to sea. That is the end of Parliamentary control.
What is the bureaucratic aspect of the matter? The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states:
"Restricting days at sea for some 3,800 vessels over 10 metres in length will require a significant increase in enforcement posts".
My God, I should say that it would. Is the length confined to over 10 metres or does it refer to all boats, in which case the figure is much more than that? It could be 6– 7,000 vessels. The Memorandum continues:
"Provisional estimates suggest that the Sea Fisheries Inspectorates will require an increase in man years of around 30 in England and Wales, over 25 in Scotland and around 5 in Northern Ireland-.
Why does the Bill refer to man years? Does that not simply mean employees? Will the whole staff be sacked every year and then re-engaged? Perhaps we can have further information on that matter.
Who will interpret what is the time spent at sea? The Bill contains a very curious phrase in Section 1 (3):
"A licence containing a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea may make provision as to the circumstances in which time is, or is not, to count as time spent at sea".
There is no restriction on time. According to the Bill, time spent in port may be reconciled with time spent at sea. That is another example of misuse of the

925
English language. It is extremely misleading. Who will decide what is the time spent at sea, and what does the phrase mean?
The alternative is the decommissioning scheme. It is true that that may not be the entire answer, but it is a better answer. I should like to know whether the Government can do more to improve it.
The total amount set aside is £25 million. That is an extremely small amount. Every day in the papers one sees that top executives who are sacked for incompetence receive anything from half a million pounds to £2 million by way of a golden handshake; and that is for incompetence! The wretched fishermen will have to share £25 million among 6–7,000 people, or those among them who are stopped from going to sea. That is a very odd of example of treatment of the poor compared with the treatment of the rich. The sum should be greatly increased. I understand that the EC offered to increase that amount and I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is not the case because I cannot believe that the Government would have been so foolish as to refuse it.
The decommissioning scheme should be improved. As it stands it will not solve the difficulties of the fishing communities and it may not solve difficulties of conservation. I do not say that survival of the fishing communities and the inshore communities is more or less important, but it is important and it was not mentioned in the objectives with which the Minister commenced his speech. It can be achieved in various ways. It is an important matter and requires very special thought because the communities cannot be dealt with by bureaucratic methods. Those communities differ all over the land with the different kinds of fishing that they undertake.
I do not as yet wholly oppose the Bill because the Minister may be able to convince me on how it will be enforced. However, I beg the Minister to look again at the decommissioning scheme, which I believe is a better method. It is extremely difficult to understand how on earth the Bill will be administered.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the debate. I am particularly pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate not only the Second Reading of the Bill but also our committee's report. The two work well together in debate. We are looking at the wider review of the common fisheries policy. As the Minister has explained, he is bringing to us today just one part of a multi-prong strategy to deal with a problem that is recognised to be very serious.
The committee, faced with a technical matter such as this with many different and obscure aspects, was enormously grateful for a specialist adviser, Mr. Boyd Gordon. I should like to thank him and our clerk, Mrs. Mary Bloor, for all the help that they have given
US.
Other members of the sub-committee will be speaking today and I am sure that they will address a number of the issues which by force of time I cannot address. I regret that my noble friend Lady Carnegy
926
appears to have been omitted from the list due to some misunderstanding. I hope, however, that she finds an opportunity to intervene in the debate.
The report from the Commission forms the basis of our investigation and is what one might call a half-term report. After 10 years it was written into the common fisheries policy that there should be a review. The report was initiated in 1983, so this year we are approaching the Council of Ministers' deliberations. I hope that our report has helped to put the recommendations and the report itself into context.
The review does not pull any punches. It is quite damning in its indictment of the failure of its own common fisheries policy to achieve what it set out to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, stated, the first and most important objective was to secure a livelihood for fishing communities which are so much at risk if that one source of livelihood fails them.
Fishing stocks are failing. One has only to look at the statistics—which I hope are more readily understandable than those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—that deal with the decline of cod and haddock stocks in the North Sea. Those are two of the most significantly economic stocks and they are declining. The fish stocks are in danger of collapse. With their demise go the fishing communities. The two are inextricably linked. What the Bill seeks to achieve, what we commend and what the review of the common fisheries policy tries to achieve is a balance between capacity, effort and stock.
The evidence of the failure is not just declining stocks and increasing pressure on fishing communities. There is also evidence of grievance from other countries, which is not unjustified. They are addressing the same problems. Norway, Iceland and Canada share fisheries with us and they have all had to address very real problems. Sometimes they have been more effective. At times they have introduced draconian measures, but they have faced up to the problems.
There is the environmental impact which is dealt with at some length in the report. There is evidence that there is damage to the food chain going well beyond the fisheries stocks, themselves caused by the take, and there is damage to the marine environment as a whole.
What are the causes of such failure? One has to say, fairly and squarely, that it has been the inability of successive Councils of Ministers to tackle the problem. They have had scientific evidence, year after year, which has demonstrated that stocks are at risk. There has been the usual fudge and compromise which there always is on these occasions where one national government compromises with another and we end up with figures which are not supported by the scientists. There has then been the failure to allow for the implementation of new technology which means that we become ever more efficient. Some clever measures have been taken to avoid the rules. There is a whole new fleet of ships called the "rulebreakers". They are either 10 metres long or marginally less. They do not have to be licensed and are therefore not taken into account when the total allowable catches are fixed. They represent a significant proportion of the

927
capacity. We welcome the measures the Government propose to take to license them, but nevertheless they represent a large contributory factor in the failure to control the common fisheries policy and the stocks.
There are then the illegal landings. The Minister was right when he said that that represents an enormous problem which is worsening. As legislators, we should be worried. We are trying to legislate in a way which we believe will address the problem but there is a whole sector which feels that it can no longer abide by the rules and, quite frankly, breaks them and acts illegally. It seems to be an accepted way of life in a large part of the fishing community."Black fish" is a widespread phenomenon.
The last reason one must list is the lack of Community-wide enforcement. Some countries, notably the United Kingdom, do more than others. The fact that other countries do less causes grievances and no doubt adds to people's unwillingness to abide by laws which they feel are enforced unevenly.
I turn now to the measures which the committee recommends to achieve stability of the stock. We recognise—we are at one with the Minister here—that the principle of relative stability between nations is an important concept. We accept that it cannot be put at risk. I say that because the memorandum which the ministry has published seems to imply that the committee wants to make some radical changes to the allocation. There is one aspect to which the Minister referred about which we agree with him. It is that the Hague preference which sought to protect fishing communities in the extremities of Europe—that includes the northern part of the United Kingdom—gave a degree of preference to those communities, but it seems to have borne unfairly on Northern Ireland as compared to the Republic of Ireland. Without opening the Pandora's Box about which the Minister is so worried, we hope that that issue can be addressed in the context of the review that is to take place at the half-term stage.
The multi-annual guidance policy has not been conspicuously successful in the past. It set unrealistically low targets. The United Kingdom has not sought to participate and the policy has not sought to make adjustments relating to improvements in efficiency. We recognise that "tie-up" as part of the package is essential at this stage of the game. It is described in our report as a necessary interim measure because it is economically inefficient. After all, some member states have spent a great deal of their taxpayers' money grant-aiding new capacity as part of the deal under the multi-annual guidance policy. What on earth is the point of the taxpayer spending that money on new capacity if we then say that there must be tie-up and it is no longer used? It is clearly a waste of resources.
Ultimately, we hope to be able to balance fleet capacity with stock. When we achieve that happy state, tie-up will not be necessary. That should he the Government's objective. We should not accept that tie-up will be a necessary part of the policy for ever and a day, although it will be for the time being. We welcomed the flexibility to which the Minister referred which suggests that the tie-up proposals can be
928
tailored to individual circumstances. That will be important, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I do not envy the man who has to do the tailoring.
We suggested that licences should be charged for and should apply to ships under 10 metres in length. Clearly it is not possible to have a decommissioning proposal if people spend their money on the small rulebreakers. We achieve nothing, and so we welcome the proposal to license ships of under 10 metres. If, as is clearly the case, the Government believe that they cannot afford anything more generous than £25 million for decommissioning, which comes in next year we hope, then the Government might have to study the proposal for charging for licences as a further source of funds. We do not make such a proposal in our report. We merely suggest that licences should be charged for in order to cover administrative costs.
Such licences, which are issued free, change hands for enormous sums of money. We were told that it might be up to £1 million. It therefore seems not unreasonable that if the taxpayer is to fund part of the cost then there is an effective opportunity to levy tax when those valuable properties change hands. That is a suggestion which should be examined. Incidentally, one of the witnesses who gave evidence to us, Mr. Holden, who used to work for the conservation department of DG14, advanced the theory, which we did not pursue very far, that licences should be used as a control measure.
The Minister referred to industrial fishing. We were worried as to whether we could justify taking 2 million tonnes each year of sand eels, Norway pout and sprats. Those organisms are rather modest forms of life, but they are the bottom of the food chain. Although research is still in progress, instinct told us that that considerable effort was bound to have an effect on larger fish, seabirds and mammals. As it did not seem to be an industry which needed to be carried out in fishery areas as exploited as those around the United Kingdom, we felt that there may be an opportunity to trade elsewhere where fisheries were less under pressure and might be keener to produce this type of low-use product than we are.
Again—we agree with the Minister on this point, or perhaps I should say that the Minister agrees with us in this case—we believe that the common fisheries policy's environmental objectives should be strengthened. In the Single European Act we have seen the hope expressed that all the legislation should take on board the environmental effect. This is a policy in which the environmental objectives form an important part. We should like therefore to see them listed as a fifth objective in the Commission's review.
I shall not deal with technical matters because they become complicated and I do not believe that I have time to do so. I should like however to deal with socio-economic measures. I was a little saddened to hear that the Minister felt that the case for Objective 6 of the Structural Fund has not yet been made out. When the message is understood that capacity will have to be reduced in relation to available fish stocks and that that will inevitably mean that there will be

929
fewer jobs and some of the vulnerable communities will be at risk, it will be some small palliative at least to know that that has been recognised in Objective 6 of the Structural Fund. I urge the Minister to reconsider that point.
I shall end by saying, as the Minister did when he finished his speech, that unless we can achieve consistent monitoring and enforcement of the fishing effort there will continue to be grievances and it will be difficult to make people who earn their living from fishing in the United Kingdom understand the justification for the half measures that will be necessary.
We would certainly not suggest that the principle of subsidiarity should be breached. That is a matter for national enforcement but national enforcement must he carried out in an even fashion and the Commission must be prepared to take infraction proceedings before the European Court of Justice where national enforcement of Community rules is deficient. The Minister's evidence in the committee's report makes it clear that many national governments were far from conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities.
However, the failure of the common fisheries policy cannot be attributed just to other countries in Europe. We must all share in that failure. In many ways we have been no more successful than other countries in this regard. I for one welcome the Bill as only part of the Government's commitment to address the fundamental issues. I commend the committee's report as a contribution to an informed debate on a difficult but urgent problem.

English Heritage
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I now wish to repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer made to a Private Notice Question by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage in another place.
"English Heritage has today published its forward strategy for the rest of the 1990s. The strategy sets out 20 key policy objectives. English Heritage proposes a new priority programme for restoration of the most important monuments in its care and new partnerships for local management of other monuments. Grant resources will be better targeted on areas of greatest need. There will be vigorous private sector fund raising to widen support for key projects. There will be a restructuring of the organisation to meet those objectives. Our Citizen's Charter principles will be applied to raise standards of service. Proposals for London which would redefine relationships between English Heritage and the boroughs will be the subject of full consultation.
"This is a positive forward-looking strategy which recognises both the opportunities and the constraints which lie ahead. It confirms English Heritage's central role in the protection of our heritage. That role will continue with my full support".
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer in this House. I have a personal interest in the matter as a former Minister in the Department of the Environment who was responsible for Britain's heritage until it was hived off to English Heritage. I am delighted to hear that so many plans are to be implemented after full consultation has taken place. In the past few days the chairman of English Heritage has dramatically outlined the plans of that organisation. That may have obscured the important strategies that English Heritage is trying to implement.
As I view the position, English Heritage has two strategic aims: one is to achieve a closer partnership with local authorities and local bodies and the other is to attempt to obtain better value for money. Clearly, those aims are to be welcomed. However, I am still puzzled about the secrecy surrounding those aims. I am puzzled that English Heritage's senior archaeologists, architectural historians and important committees were not consulted on the proposals. Therefore I hope that the Government will press for consultation on the plans.
English Heritage proposes to achieve its objectives of better value for money and closer partnership with local authorities with a diminished staff. It has been said that 80 staff will go by 31st March. It is not clear whether 380 to 400 staff will leave in the next three years. It has always been a problem replacing some of the staff who work for English Heritage as a number have extraordinary skills, for example, stonemasons and people who are skilled in handling lead or caring for windows of awkward shape. It is important to retain those people. In a period of mass unemployment the issue of redundancy is a serious one. How many compulsory and how many voluntary redundancies are forecast? Will 450 to 500 staff go in the next three years? I hope that the Minister can reply to my point on skilled staff.
Asking local authorities and local trusts to take on management responsibility, in effect the stewardship, of half the monuments in English Heritage's care has a great many advantages. However, the main problem is that English Heritage will merely export its own financial problems to local authorities. All local authorities are now capped and are having to make huge cuts across the board in all their services. Unless English Heritage obtains a great deal more funding it will have great difficulty in funding the strategies it wishes to implement.
From what has been said and reported so far the position in London remains unclear. After the demise of the GLC, the London advisory committee, the body dealing with heritage matters, has played a central role. That body has been praised by people associated with all political parties. I shall not lengthen this discussion by giving a complete list of the bodies the London advisory committee has managed to save; suffice it to say that it has saved a great many. If it had not been for the intervention of the London advisory committee, many of those bodies would have been lost or would have been dealt with shabbily.
The success of the strategy will be measured in terms of the adequate care of buildings, the

931
availability of public access to those buildings and educational input. The latter factor is increasingly important with regard to our historic monuments. The Government will have to ensure that both English Heritage and local authorities receive more adequate funding if we are not to lose our heritage. If we lose many of our fragile monuments and buildings we shall not be able to replace them. They are irreplaceable. The proposals should be studied carefully; they should certainly not be rushed through. I know that we often blame the Government for not acting quickly enough. However, I do not wish to see these proposals rushed through to the detriment of our heritage. I hope that the Minister can be more reassuring on these proposals than the present chairman of English Heritage has been.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, first I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, for the fact that I shall be unable to hear his maiden speech as I have a train to catch. I regret that fact greatly. I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question that was given in another place. I associate myself with many of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Is it really the case that the drastic changes in the policy of English Heritage were undertaken without any consultation with the ancient monuments advisory committee or the historical buildings advisory committee or the specialist archaeology advisers whom English Heritage has hitherto employed? If so, that is a totally irresponsible state of affairs. I must confess that until I read, not the Answer to the PNQ, but the statement issued by English Heritage at its press conference this afternoon, I had always supposed that the purpose of English Heritage was to preserve our heritage, not to dispose of it. Nor had I thought that the purpose of English Heritage was to make a profit; rather I had thought that it was to spend money to preserve that heritage. There seems to be a radical change of policy which deserves a fuller explanation than that given in the Minister's statement.
Is it really the case that at a time of high unemployment English Heritage proposes to dispose of 80 skilled craftsmen by March,380 skilled tradesmen in the next three years and 100 skilled people from its headquarters? Is that really the policy of the Government in the middle of a recession, the policy of a government which is going for growth? It is an extraordinary move to make, particularly when—I think I am right in saying—the National Audit Office last summer expressed the opinion that the private sector did not possess the skills to perform those tasks. I appreciate that in its press statement English Heritage says, not that it will dispose of the skilled tradesmen or make them redundant, but that it will privatise them. That is a new euphemism for compulsory unemployment.
English Heritage also proposes to dispose of half of the properties for which it is responsible to the private sector and local authorities. As the noble Baroness asked, what evidence is there that the local authorities have the financial resources to undertake those
932
responsibilities? Local authorities are hardly flush with money at the moment. How will they find the resources for that task? What expertise do they possess? Some have no conservation officers and will certainly not be able to afford to train and recruit them. Those are questions which deserve serious answers.
It is suggested that the properties retained should be managed as joint ventures by English Heritage with the private sector. Stonehenge is an example. The loss makers will be off loaded, if not on to the local authorities then on to the private sector. What evidence is there that the private sector will be more interested in preservation than profit, which is after all its purpose?
I find the statement deeply disturbing. The introduction given to it in the PNQ was inadequate in the sense that it does not cover the very wide implications of what is intended. We have not had an opportunity to read the report Managing England's Heritage on which I take it the statement is based. I should like to know when that will be available and when, having read that document, we shall be able to discuss the matter at greater length.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is right to say that there was considerable press speculation over the weekend about English Heritage and its future. Today English Heritage announced its proposals, which are rather different from much of the speculation. The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions, which I shall attempt to answer.
First, the noble Baroness asked me about consultation. The chairman of English Heritage announced today that consultations will now begin. This is a programme of strategy for the future. It does not relate to individual sites or cases or to tactics. It sets out how English Heritage wishes to go ahead in the future.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the staff. I do not belief that their skills will be lost. I believe that they will be taken up by the private sector. She also asked about the numbers involved. English Heritage believes that probably the majority of the 100 headquarters staff will opt for voluntary redundancy or early retirement, but that is obviously a matter for negotiation. The position of the 380 members of the directly employed labour force is also a matter for negotiation. I must point out that that is a matter for negotiation between now and 1996. That is three and a half years. Therefore it is not sudden and there is no rush.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. It is an important question. If the purpose of the statement was to indicate that there was to be consultation, why were specific figures given in the hand-out about the number of staff who are to go? How could that come about if there has not yet been any consultation on the subject?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to add that the hand-out refers to privatising, over a three-year period, the directly employed labour force

933
of 380 skilled tradesmen. There is no suggestion in the statement that any negotiation is to take place. It is a statement of intention.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. When I mentioned consultation I was not referring to consultation with the direct labour force. I was talking about consultation with the headquarters staff and whether the reductions might be achieved by voluntary redundancy or early retirement. That is a matter for English Heritage. English Heritage has announced that 380 jobs are to go between now and 1996, the first 80 by next March. That is a matter for English Heritage to negotiate with its staff. We are confident that English Heritage will do its utmost to ensure a smooth transition. There may be opportunities for the privatised workforce to bid for contracts. It would be very odd if we did not apply to English Heritage the same principles of competition which we have successfully applied to many local government services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also asked about the transfer of sites to local authorities. No local authority will he forced to take on responsibility for sites. Sites can be transferred to local authorities if they wish to take them on. Some local authorities have already expressed the wish to look after certain sites. Indeed, some have been negotiating for a number of years to look after a number of sites. They are often well able to do so.
The noble Baroness also referred to the announcement in relation to London. English Heritage proposes to withdraw from its role in relation to ordinary Grade II sites. It would still be closely involved in all Grade I and II style building casework. That would merely put London on exactly the same basis as any other city in England, such as historic cities like Bath, Chester, Oxford and Norwich. It is a matter for English Heritage to negotiate with the London boroughs. The boroughs will not be forced to take on the role. Indeed, English Heritage announced today that it will consider offering grants to London boroughs in order that they can establish expertise in those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned profit. There is no mention in the statement of profit. Profit does not enter into it. English Heritage is still responsible for preserving our heritage. That will always be the same. However, it does not mean that local authorities, local trusts or groups of local people might not wish to take on sites and be able to look after them better.
Some sites do not have any staff. They may be merely something on the top of a hill; there may be nothing there but an open site. There is no cost involved in looking after them. If they were looked after by a local organisation that might improve access and facilities. We are seeking to improve the way in which we look after our heritage.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government, when considering the matter further, will bear in mind the fact that the
934
Government themselves, every year, add to the tasks and difficulties of preserving our national heritage by the imposition of death duties—or whatever they are now called—whenever the owner of a historic and splendid house dies? Surely my noble friend is aware that inheritance tax, falling as it does with particular weight on historic and splendid houses, every year increases the task of preserving them. Will my noble friend convey particularly to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the best and most sensible ways of helping to preserve ancient and splendid houses would be to do away with inheritance tax when their owners die?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I certainly take note of the points made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Of course, much of what he has talked about is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, one of the things English Heritage is trying to do is to organise its resources better so that they go to the places that really need the money.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, are we not presented here with a moderately remarkable situation? It is reported that English Heritage proposes suddenly to hand over a large number of sites entrusted to its care to private charities, trusts, local councils and private commercial companies. If that is so, what reasons has English Heritage to believe that any substantial number of local councils will cheerfully and happily assume responsibility for any monuments that English Heritage does not need and wants rid of? At the moment most local councils want an ancient monument on their books like they want the proverbial hole in the head. They will have got rid of the very staff—the conservationists—who could conceivably cope with this kind of thing and most, surely, will not welcome such additional responsibility. Can the Minister name, say, the first half dozen who have signified so far in writing their eagerness to acquire one of these sites? Or does this plan not simply mean that English Heritage is attempting to offload its own cuts on to anyone and everyone in sight? Will resources be made available to any local council which agrees to take on anything that will cost any money at all and, if so, where will the money come from?
Perhaps the Minister can also indicate which bodies, if any, were consulted before this extraordinary plan was promulgated? It is reported in the press that neither the senior archaeologists and architectural historians of English Heritage nor its ancient monuments advisory committee or historic buildings advisory committee were consulted. One wonders to what extent the Department of National Heritage was consulted before the proposal came out. That may be held to be an internal matter. However, is it not the case that there was no consultation with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the chief adviser to the Museums and Galleries Commission or the Council of British Archaeology who have described the plan as outrageous?
The backwards way of doing things—that the statement is issued and consultations will now take place—seems a trifle odd. But if the forthcoming

935
consultations do not support the strategy as we have had it can we reasonably expect a moratorium on anything happening? If these reports are accurate, should the Government not advise the very new chairman of English Heritage to do what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York advised the Government to do over the closure of the coal pits, namely, to think again?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the simple answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is no. He is under the impression that English Heritage will go out and hand over lots of properties saying, "Here is one for you and one for you." That is not the case. I do not know whether the noble Lord has managed to read the announcement today. What he says is absolutely not the case. It is a matter of negotiation with the local authorities. No local authority will be forced to take on any site whatsoever. If it does not want to take on a site it need not do so.
The noble Lord asked me to cite examples. I cannot give him half a dozen but I can certainly give one. The local authority in Hampshire is very keen to take over a fort now run by English Heritage which sits in the middle of the Solent. It is almost impossible to get to it; it is quite dangerous to get on to it. The local council has some great plans for it and will be able to do with it much better things than English Heritage.
As for the point about consultations, it is a strategy and it will go to the various advisory committees for detailed consideration. Most of the quotes I have seen about the proposals were made over the weekend long before anyone had a chance to look at them.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as a previous chairman of English Heritage perhaps I may say that the strategy document has my full endorsement. Indeed, many of the proposals were formulated during my chairmanship. But does the noble Viscount agree that local authorities already administer an enormous number of historic houses and sites—just as many as English Heritage? Therefore it seems to me there is no reason why they should not, if they wish, administer them in future. There is no question of sites being given away or sold. Is my noble friend aware that during my chairmanship English Heritage negotiated with Hampshire County Council with a view to taking over Calshot and Fort Cumberland? It also negotiated with private people who were living in guardianship properties which their families had given some years ago.
I ask my noble friend to agree that there would not be a queue of local authorities to take over these properties. Indeed, it would be a question of persuading them to do so. I hope the House and others will allow the document to be sensibly looked at, because a lot of hysteria and inaccuracies in the press are causing a deal of concern.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I must pay tribute to his chairmanship of English Heritage. He did an extremely fine job which is welcomed on every side of this House. He built it up
936
to the great state in which it is today. One has only to look at the English Heritage membership figures. In 1984 the figure was 13,000; it has recently signed its 300,000th member. That in itself is a tribute to the chairmanship of my noble friend.
Nobody will be forced to take on properties. Some people actively want to take them on. For example, we are not going to dictate a timetable to London boroughs. It will be a matter for full and open negotiation with them. English Heritage hopes to work with them to help them set up expertise which, after all, is the same expertise that exists everywhere else in the country.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the performance of local authorities in this matter is likely to be very uneven? Perhaps I may assure him that I know of one local authority in Huntingdon that has given generous grants to local voluntary bodies for the restoration of ancient monuments. But there are other local authorities which may agree to take on responsibility but will be incapable of fulfilling it and find that they do not have the resources. In those cases, where will the ultimate responsibility lie for getting things done?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton makes an important point. Some local authorities have a much better track record, if one may call it so, in looking after some important sites in their areas. Some look after a great many important sites at the moment and do an extremely good job. It will be a matter for negotiation between them and English Heritage. Obviously, it will be important for English Heritage to establish that public access is guaranteed and that the site will be looked after at least better than it is looked after at the moment. I feel that in many cases local management will probably do a much better job than having things run from London.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, with the world facing the greatest deflation for 60 years and the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the need to deal with the deepening recession in this country, this would be an ideal moment to increase very considerably the funds available to English Heritage for the restoration of many buildings which are sadly falling into disrepair? Will he further agree that that would be a most useful, non-inflationary, non-import-inducing stimulus to the local economy? It could be widely spread and stimulate craftsmen, perhaps rescuing a lot of small building firms which otherwise could go under in the next 12 months or so.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. One purpose of the whole operation is to produce savings in English Heritage which can be targeted on grants to support various projects, whether they be grants to private owners, local authorities or whatever. It is a matter of targeting resources as well as can be done.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may underline the point which was referred to briefly by the noble

937
Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Is it not the case that properties now managed by English Heritage have been assembled from a variety of sources over a long period of time? It seems to me important that there should be consultation not merely with local authorities but with those who may have been involved in the ownership and management of those properties in the past. A number of public bodies will have entrusted properties to English Heritage in the belief that they would be looked after in perpetuity. I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount can give an assurance that previous owners who may have given such properties to English Heritage will be consulted fully and not merely the local authorities where those properties happen to lie.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is important that the properties are properly kept up and maintained and that they are available for the public to see. The many properties of English Heritage are owned in a variety of ways. I believe that the majority are owned by the Secretary of State. A number are owned under rather complicated guardianship arrangements. Indeed, sometimes the original ownership or provenance is not entirely clear. English Heritage also looks after a number of properties on behalf of the National Trust. I believe that English Heritage itself owns a minority of the properties. Obviously, these are issues which it will have to consider very carefully before coming to any decision.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister consider asking that part of the Department of the Environment which deals with the standard spending assessment and delivers grant whether money could be made available in the grant to help those authorities with historic buildings—authorities such as Bath, Norwich, Cambridge and so on—which otherwise would not have specific moneys to spend for that necessary purpose.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a question which is rather outside the area of English Heritage which I am answering at the moment. I take note of her point and will pass it on to the department.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
5.14 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: My Lords, I seek your kind indulgence for my maiden speech. The necessity for fish conservation, so far as I am aware, is not contested by anyone anywhere. However, conservation must surely be achieved in a manner that is both fair and equitable to all those who earn their living from fishing in the waters of the EC.
The Bill requires our fishermen to live with the other EC fleets in the same seas on totally inequitable terms. Those fleets are to be voluntarily pruned by the availability of an EC decommissioning scheme which pays the sterling equivalent of some £750 per gross registered tonne. That is a scheme to which the United Kingdom is a non-contributor. Those EC fleets, as a consequence, are to be permitted unlimited sea time.
938
On the other hand, the United Kingdom fleet is, as we have heard, likely to be compelled through this Bill to reduce its sea time, possibly up to 30 per cent., in lieu of a comparable decommissioning scheme existing in the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister to consider the position of the skipper of a typical 40 metre stern trawler based on Hull or Grimsby. Her fishing ground could well be off the Shetland Islands, some three or four days' steaming from her home port, and her likely voyage duration would be 16 to 18 days. In the winter in that area of the North Atlantic gale force conditions are recorded as prevailing for 17 per cent. of the time. I understand that it is customary practice to suspend fishing operations when conditions deteriorate to storm force 9. Conditions therefore frequently require a decision by the skipper on whether or not to continue to fish. He must put the safety of his ship and her crew first. However, imagine a situation in which he and his 10-man crew have already lost valuable days of rationed sea time owing to bad weather on previous voyages. They, being remunerated on a no-catch no-pay basis and being pressed to meet financial commitments, would inevitably find themselves under tremendous compulsion to continue fishing regardless of deteriorating conditions.
That skipper would be called upon to go beyond the shadowy line of good seamanship when assessing the risk of injurious gear failure or the possibility of a broach and capsize. The Danish, German, Dutch, Belgian, French and Spanish skippers in the vicinity, being without the constraint of sea time, would suffer no such dilemma. They would just heave to and wait for the weather to moderate.
Does the Minister agree that the Bill poses an inherent risk to life and limb by the imposition of blanket sea time restrictions? Permitted sea time must surely exclude gale force conditions for the offshore fishermen. The existence of such conditions is readily proven by the weather facsimiles which are issued daily to shipping from both Bracknell and Northwood and then recorded.
The consequences of the Bill as it stands will be that only the older and less capital intensive units in our fishing fleet will survive. The vessels that remain in the United Kingdom fleet will therefore rapidly become outdated, less efficient, less safe, less well maintained and less competitive than those of our unfettered competitors.
Our fishing industry sees itself as having already played the role of sacrificial lamb on the altar of the EC. An oft quoted example is that the United Kingdom furnished the EC with two thirds of its fish resources and received back only one third of the fishing quotas. As we have heard, our fishing fleet has also suffered the influx of 80 Spanish, Dutch and Danish controlled trawlers. They have driven a coach and horses through the United Kingdom fishing vessels register and thereby obtained a share of the United Kingdom's precious quotas.
There is a very real feeling in the fishing industry that the ball is being tampered with. As noble Lords may have seen, "Panorama" recently depicted undersized—and therefore illegal—fish happily being

939
sold in the La Coruna fish market. I am assured that the same can be found occurring in the Boulogne fish market. I understand that the Spanish have appointed 17 full-time fishery officers to supervise what is by far the largest EC fleet and that they all reside in Madrid. The United Kingdom has 180 full-time fishery officers who do not live in London. Furthermore, it is well known that the French fishermen receive a fuel subsidy and grants for new trawlers, which are built under the guise of research vessels.
Surely we can and should afford support for our fishermen which is equitable to that received by their counterparts in Europe? In the event that this most unfortunate Bill becomes law, will the Minister ensure, as he has stated that he will, that both the permitted sea time and the associated licences can be aggregated. Those who are forced out could therefore sell for some further consideration over and above their portion of the proposed minuscule United Kingdom decommissioning budget while the few who can afford to aggregate can at least stay in and stay fishing.
Lastly, I urge the Minister that no legislation be enacted until it is absolutely clear that every other EC Fishing Ministry is properly enforcing the same rule book. I thank your Lordships for your patience.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, on his maiden speech in this House. I do so on my own behalf and on behalf of the whole House. He has expressed clearly his apprehensions over the Bill. His sincere concern for and interest in the fishing industry, together with his experience in maritime affairs generally, will add to the resources of this House. We shall look forward to hearing from him many times during our debates.
I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Selborne for introducing the Bill and the report of the Select Committee respectively. In the time available for an acceptably short speech I shall comment on the Bill and make reference to the report where it is relevant.
All the principal fishermen's organisations appear to be opposed to the main proposals in the Bill because they are worried about the likely consequences. The EC is providing for national schemes of decommissioning. The UK is exercising its right of subsidiarity and has opted for a scheme of tying up, limiting the days in the year when boats can be at sea fishing. It is not a scheme for reducing the British fishing fleet. The British fishermen's organisations have always supported conservation. They are in favour now of reducing the British fishing fleet. I make that clear because some of the media have misunderstood the position in recent days. I give as an example a television news report last Friday evening showing a demonstration concerning a ferry entering Plymouth. The commentator at the time stated that the fishermen were demonstrating against proposals to reduce the British fishing fleet. That is exactly the opposite of what they were doing. Even in their
940
demonstration they seem to have been misunderstood. They are in favour of reducing the British fleet. They are against the tying up scheme.
Most of the difficulties arising from the Bill are because the UK has adopted a different system from the other EC countries: a system of restricting days at sea. Although a small decommissioning scheme was announced earlier this year, it will have little effect and is not comparable with the schemes of the other countries. It will not start for several months. Will my noble friend who is to reply confirm that the other fishing nations of the EC have decommissioning schemes except for the Republic of Ireland? Will he indicate whether he knows what the intentions of Ireland are?
The Select Committee made it clear in its report that it is in favour of decommissioning and regards a tie-up scheme only as an interim measure. The main difficulty with having a different scheme is in judging whether equal treatment will apply to fishermen of different countries, in particular those within the EC. At present British fishermen are worried that they will be worse off than their foreign competitors for reasons I shall seek to explain.
First, the Bill is an enabling Bill. There is no indication of how many days will be defined for the boats to be tied up. That is left in the hands of Ministers and may be promulgated at short notice. The system will be based on the year 1991. Boats were engaged in a variety of different tasks and fisheries during that year. Some were not fishing for protected species for which there was a quota and therefore did not need to keep records. Others were doing so. How will it be possible to work out a scheme which is fair to all boats if it is based on arbitrary behaviour during that year?
When the boats are tied up in harbour their expenses will continue. For example, the Decca navigation scheme which most boats have has to be hired; it cannot be bought. The cost of that hiring will continue whether or not the boats are at sea. A skipper whom I met among others in northern Scotland a few days ago told me that it will cost him about £1,000 a week just to keep the boat tied up. Will there be any funds to meet those continuing expenses? Since it is not a commissioning scheme, will the scheme lose the EC financial aid available to other EC countries? I hope that my noble friend will give me some answers today.
Of course I welcome the announcement which my noble friend Lord Howe made today about the amendment: that proposals for the number of days a year in which boats have to be tied up will come before Parliament as orders.
Technical advances have greatly increased the catching power of fishing vessels. A new boat will probably have four or five times the catching ability of the boat which it replaces. To me that is an overriding argument for reducing the numbers of boats in an orderly and equitable manner. The alternative—to have no restriction on numbers but a regime of staying in harbour for unknown lengths of time—gives rise to uncertainty, erosion of confidence in individual enterprises and inability to formulate any kind of

941
business plan. Virtually all British fleets in the EC area are individual or family businesses, or they are operated by "share" fishermen whose wages depend on the success of their boat in its catches. Gone are the days when the crews of the large trawlers, operating in distant waters, were employees of companies. The few of those who remain have different factors also to consider which need not concern us today. The British fishermen affected by this Bill are working in many private enterprises of no great size.
The quota system in the EC continues for those species which need protection. So far as I know the quotas for the coming year are still to be announced. They are supposed to be based on scientific research. Can the Minister tell us more on how the scientists and governments reach conclusions? By what methods do they keep up-to-date with changes in the fish populations?
A few months ago I stated publicly that I was receiving information direct from fishermen that stocks of some protected species are recovering. Recent reports that I have received from skippers bring further good news. They state that some of the fish of the protected species are no longer scarce and are of good size. Conservation measures have been succeeding and certain fish quotas can with caution be increased. Decisions on total allowable catches and quotas need great care. If the quotas are too small and appear to the fishermen to be unrelated to the quantities that they observe in the sea, they are regarded as unrealistic. That encourages the black market in landed fish. During the past year or two there has been an illegal black market in this country of regrettable size—secret landings of "black" fish without records or the benefit of fishery officers. This is a development which I deplore.
Quotas and regulations should be such as to discourage the discarding of unwanted or small fish. After being caught in nets and then thrown overboard those fish do not survive. That is a lamentable waste which could be reduced, as our Select Committee points out in its report. British fishermen are asking for level fishing grounds, to adapt a much used metaphor. I am sure that the Government mean well. Everyone, including the Government, is in favour of conservation—there is no argument about that. What is at issue is the method chosen, because it is different from that of the rest of the EC and it raises doubts and difficulties.
I do not claim any metaphysical powers as a medium but I have been reflecting on what the late Lord Boothby would have said about the matter. I have a fair idea of what it would have been. He was a champion of fishermen and at the same time was dedicated to European ideals of European nations working closely together. Your Lordships may remember that in the last two or three fishery debates in which he spoke, from that Cross Bench, he stated, much too generously, that I had saved the British fishing fleets in the negotiations in 1971 and 1972 before we entered the Common Market. That was an overstatement but was in character for him to say. My noble friend Lord Rippon, who was then involved in
942
the direct negotiations, will remember that I as a fellow member of the Cabinet was pressing hard for what I felt to be necessary in sea fisheries.
When the United Kingdom joined the EC in January 1973 I believe that we obtained the best conditions possible. Later, when Spain and Portugal acceded, I was a member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee which dealt with that enlargement. I was also co-opted to the sub-committee which reported on the fisheries side of the matter. Again, I believe that the results were as good as any that we could have hoped for. With that background, but with all modesty, I find it most disheartening that the present rift between the fishermen and the Government should have occurred. The quarrel is not about objectives; it is a disagreement about the method, which gives the fishermen great anxieties and worries over their future livelihoods. I hope that those differences can be narrowed during the passage of the Bill.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, Cornwall is a depressed area male unemployment runs at about 25 per cent. for most of the time. Tin mining has disappeared. Agriculture is out on a geographical limb and in most parts suffers from sour land. Tourism is seriously blighted by the recession. However, there remains one bright spot; that is, the fishing industry. The grants and receipts are good and people are still making money. How long will that continue?
I have talked to fishermen in Cornwall. I do not agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the fishermen do not accept the Bill. There is a feeling that they can live with the Bill as it stands but as it is an enabling Bill other measures can be taken—for example, a further restriction of fishing days—with which they say they cannot live. That is their main anxiety.
The report on the common fisheries policy was reassuring in theory. It was intelligent and dealt well with the national quota of ships, the possibilities of decommissioning and the limitation of days at sea. The report appears to recognise the total lunacy of the discarding policy. However, it does not mention the fact that when many tonnes of fish are discarded not only are they killed but they can pollute a wide area of the sea bed. That makes the discarding problem more urgent than the report implies. However, the "wrongness" of discarding is certainly realised.
The report also realises in part the unfairness of what is referred to as "quota hopping"; that is the arrangement under which Spaniards and others can finagle their way into the English quota. That madness is compounded by an unfortunate decision of the European Court that such ships which make it on to our quota cannot be kicked off. In fact, if we kick them off they have the right to reapply.
The trouble is not so much the theory as the practice. The report states in so many words that the UK spends far more time and money on enforcement than any other Community state and adds that some states seem to carry out no policing at all. In the introduction to the Bill we are informed in quaint

943
language that we are to receive 60 more man years. I believe that in English that means 60 more inspectors. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, stated that we already have 180 inspectors but my information is that there are 200. However, in Spain there are only 17. Our inspectors sit in our ports and are very active. The Spanish inspectors sit in Madrid and go upon notice to the ports. They have a drink of brandy with the skipper, presumably, who has made everything shipshape in anticipation of the visit. I do not call that fair and even as between states.
The Bill will not help fish stocks in Area 7, which is the Cornish area. Foreign ships, including those which have fiddled their way onto our quota, will carry on in exactly the same way because of the inadequacy of their inspections. The foreign ships carry out 85 per cent. of the fishing in that area.
Satellite technology has been mentioned. It was described in the report as being uncertain and probably too expensive. Surely the possibility of satellite technology alone is not adequate.
I am afraid that what has happened is that the Bill has been hurried on rather too quickly. It should have been in parallel with similar measures elsewhere and it is not. I am afraid that the Government's attitude to this measure must be contrasted with that of France. The other day the French fisheries Minister, Mr. Josselin, faced with an EC order that France should reduce its fleet by 27 per cent. said, in so many words, that France would not accept that. When did a British Minister last say, in that kind of language, that Britain would not accept something? I await that happening because, paradoxically, when it does we shall be full and proper members of the EC.
The European Community, like all human communities, is competitive as well as co-operative. It is an arena as well as an alliance. We must fight our corner as the others do otherwise we shall have no fish left and unemployment in Newlyn will rise from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the whole House warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, on his excellent maiden speech. It was an extremely challenging and probing speech but I feel that it carries on in the tradition of his late father, whom I knew very well. He was an extremely caring and respected Member of this House.
I note that the noble Lord has been a journalist, an author and a banker. He is also a director of a well-known company which makes a product connected with the waves and sea breezes with which we are closely associated on this Bill. I wish the noble Lord every happiness and success and I hope that he will participate often in our debates.
I wish to commend the business managers of this House, the legal department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Printed Paper Office for the considerable amount of relevant background information which has been made available on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. When
944
the Bill was in Committee on 19th June the proceedings had to be adjourned for five days because essential documents were not available to Members of the Standing Committee. We know that the Bill had a rough passage in another place when some 4,000 fishermen lobbied Parliament and government party Members joined Opposition MPs in the Lobbies to vote against the Bill's Second Reading. That was in spite of strong whipping instructions.
This enabling Bill was considerably, but in my view somewhat equivocally, amended by the Government in another place. Those amendments seem to me to indicate that the proposed legislation was hastily drafted. The Bill raises matters of principle as regards essential sea-fishing conservation needs and a truly equitable common fisheries policy. It appears to me that the legislation's proposals were framed without due and full consultation with the sea fisheries industry.
The Bill now commences its passage through this House. Since July there have been considerable political and social attitudinal changes throughout the EC, including the United Kingdom, which will bear on the general outcome of our debates in this House. I believe that we are now in a much better position than were Members of another place to take a reasoned and informed approach to the critical sea-fish conservation problems and the sea-fish industry's policies. Those are problems and policies which this Bill should effectively and remedially address.
However, we know that the Bill is not welcomed by the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom. The fishing communities throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still strongly opposed to the Bill's present amended form. It is stated to be draconian in its approach to the livelihood of fishermen as well as being unfair and unworkable. It gives to Ministers virtually unlimited powers to restrict the number of days on which fishing boats may go to sea. If the Bill is enacted in its present legislative form, it will create much social distress in already hard-pressed sea-fishing communities and it will create chronic upheaval in family life in seaports and towns throughout the United Kingdom.
I noted and welcomed with pleasure the Minister's opening remarks when he said that further amendments will be tabled during Committee stage. He referred to the Hague Convention in connection with Northern Ireland and Wales. I am certain that his remarks and his intended proposals will be warmly welcomed both in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
I noted also that the Minister proposed that parliamentary approval would be sought for changes in respect of the days at sea and how that system should operate. Again, I look forward with pleasure to seeing the Marshalled List of amendments. At least some progress has been made during the Bill's passage through this House.
Like many men and women of my age group in Northern Ireland, I am one generation only removed from the farming and fishing communities. I have friends and relatives whose livelihood is closely linked with fishing ports and communities in the Province. I

945
know at first hand how anxious those people are about the serious social implications which this Bill could have for sea-fishing ports like Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie. In those towns and fishing village communities in Northern Ireland the main source of earned income and employment is derived from fishing. I must say that I cannot agree with the remarks made in this House that people will be protected from the social consequences which will arise as a result of the Bill. I do not see that and nor do the fishing communities and the industries directly involved.
I have met and discussed the Bill with officials of the two producers' organisations—the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers' Organisation. While both those organisations address distinctive Northern Ireland sea-fishing problems and operational policies, they both firmly support the United Kingdom fishermen in their opposition to the Bill. In other words, they are not making special pleadings for Northern Ireland affairs. They see themselves as part of the whole of the United Kingdom and its fisheries problems.
I should emphasise that all the fishermen and organisations who have contacted me and with whom I have had discussions support fully effective, efficient and equitable sea-fishing conservation measures. There is no dispute whatever that such measures are needed. Fishermen are realists. They know that their future lies with the effective nurture—and I do not use the word "nurture" in a scientific way—of sea-fish stocks. The fishermen realise that and they have adopted attitudes which take cognizance of those problems.
Principles of equity will be much to the forefront during our discussions in Committee. There are various opinions and conclusions as regards decommissioning by means of tendering. I feel that the matter requires full debate and exploration. In that connection, provision needs to be firmly enshrined on the face of the Bill; it should not be left to the whims and fancies of some form of discussion or regulation. The decommissioning must be fully understood and accepted.
The helpful benefits of having the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal under the supervision of the Council on 'Tribunals are important. Those are measures that should have been clearly stated when the Bill was first drafted. However, there is still a need for a considerable amount of detailed information regarding the appointment of members and how the tribunals will work, notwithstanding that they will work under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. I hope that during the debate the Minister will give us some detail on the effective use of tribunals. It is an important aspect of the whole operation.
There are many features of the Bill which I should like to raise, some of which have been mentioned during the debate. But I should like to deal particularly with a matter mentioned by the Minister of State, Mr. David Curry, when he spoke in the House of Commons on 14th July. Forgive me for
946
quoting in full but it is relevant to the matter with which I wish to conclude. At col.1053 of the Official Report, Mr. Curry said,
"During the Second Reading debate and in Committee I explained that the Bill is enabling legislation which makes provision for the broad principles of a certain course of action. There will be very detailed consultation about how it should apply specifically. I have made it absolutely clear that we hope that the industry will come to us with its views on how we should apply particular measures. We are still open to that course of action. Several hon. Members have asked me whether I will consult on this, that and the other. The answer is that if the industry is in a consulting mood I shall consult, but I cannot compel it to consult. It is known that my door is always open to people who want to see me, and that will remain the case. I have never taken up any contrary position".
In some respects I understand the Minister's point of view. But from long experience I know that open-door consultations and that form of diplomacy are not the way to conduct business of this nature. I feel that matters should be taken in hand to provide a proper consultative machinery for the industry. Northern Ireland is regional and does not have the full exploratory needs, but there is a sound constructive working relationship between fishermen of both organisations and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
The Minister said that there are some mischievous people. However, I could go to some length to show that in Northern Ireland, as the report indicates, compliance with EC and UK legislation is almost 100 per cent. There is no attitude of trying to put a quick one over on somebody else by cheating, although I know that does go on. In fairness I must say that during the period of the report—1991—seven vessels were prosecuted for violating the specific agreements. Along with that, the report goes on to say that,
"Two members of the EC Fisheries Inspectorate paid a week long visit to Northern Ireland to examine performance of the Department in carrying out its responsibilities and were satisfied with their findings".
In other words, it is important to have supervisory and monitoring arrangements, but they should be properly vetted and conducted. This cannot be done on an ad hoc basis. It must be done by sound consultative machinery. I suggest that the Minster should take away and consider the establishment of a sea fish industry consultative council representative of all the fishing organisations in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to enable the Bill to be concluded in a proper and constructive way.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, if anyone in any doubt that the fishing industry in Scotland was in difficulties had been listening to an early morning radio programme last week his doubts would quickly have been dispelled. An indignant tourist was complaining that she had been to Arbroath and could not find an Arbroath smokie. It is therefore reassuring to see my noble friend on the Front Bench who I am sure would have gone into action in another place.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, can probably recall many parliamentary Questions and debates on fishing matters in the Scottish Grand Committee during the early 1960s, in those days with more emphasis on herring than on white fish. I well

947
recall the then Member of Parliament for Caithness and Sutherland, Sir David Robertson, using the word "conservation" over and over again. He said that it is no use trying to work out policies for this or that, conservation is everything. Sir David should therefore be pleased, wherever he is. The herring stocks have enormously improved, at least so we were told in the Select Committee, thanks to sensible methods undertaken.
As the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, said in what I thought was an extraordinarily authoritative and excellent maiden speech, no one argues against the principle of conservation, although I recall in my days in the Ministry of Agriculture that it can clash with calls for efficiency. I have in mind the beam trawler which is a thoroughly efficient way of fishing but is not the best instrument of conservation.
Is the Bill considering conservation in the right way? I am bound to say—and slightly sad to say so—that it is not. It places most emphasis on limiting days at sea. As has been frequently said, it enables Ministers to take unlimited action in that area.
Boats of under 10 metres are to be licensed, quite rightly. There is no immediate intention to restrict their activities but power to do so is requested. In my senility—and my hearing is perhaps not as good as it was—when my noble friend the Minister was telling us about the affirmative resolution I thought I heard him say that the Bill would enable him, each time he required to do so, to call for a further restriction on days at sea. If that is what he did say, it looks to me as though the outlook is even less rosy than one might otherwise believe.
What are other nations going to be doing while our boats are tied up? To again quote the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, one has the bad weather prospect. I believe that probably one has worse weather off the North Sea around the Pentland Firth than one has further south. Therefore, one would have discrimination against the boats up there. What do they do if the weather is so rough that they cannot go out or, if they do, they are caught halfway?
Supposing that several nations have already decommissioned and taken the action which is thought wise. Are they to be able to ignore the need to tie-up, while we have to? That brings me to the subject of decommissioning. It is accepted on all sides that one must have regulation in order to conserve: license all our boats; keep mesh sizes for nets; keep the TACs and quotas, but reduce the capacity to catch. Then the existing available catch is shared out among fewer boats which become more viable.
I am not for one moment saying that there is no case for tie-ups but that should be secondary to the limitation of effort by decommissioning. In my view reducing capacity is much preferable to limiting effort. My noble friend will say that we are offering £25 million for the decommissioning scheme, but alas that is calculated to reduce the fleet only by 5 per cent. when about four times that reduction is needed. Therefore, I fear we shall have a situation in which £25 million will have been paid out to little effect and we shall have had the worst of all worlds.
948
European Commissioner Marin wrote the following words:
"The British face the problem that their fishing grounds are badly depleted and Britain is the one country in the Community that has the worst problem with too large a fishing fleet. Had they only reduced their fleet, say, five years ago, as did many other countries, the situation would not be so critical today".
Despite my noble friend's protest this afternoon, that amply justifies the expression of the Select Committee that the scheme was too little and too late.
That brings me to the subject of the report on which I wish to make two points. As the first member other than the chairman to speak, I must put on record my view of his outstanding feat of navigation. This is one of the best reports of its kind to have been submitted to your Lordships. As I say, on many occasions we managed to sail by Scylla without hitting Charybdis. There are only a few points in the report on which I wish to dwell. First is the subject of discards. I wonder how many people realise that a discarded fish thrown back into the sea is a dead fish. It applies not only to small fish, and that I believe has been emphasised this afternoon. If someone goes out to fish and he still has a quota for cod to fill, it is very difficult to keep the haddock out of the net. He is not allowed to take haddock so overboard go all the haddock. It was horrifying to be told by the Sea Fish Industry Authority that in 1985 500 million individual haddock were landed alive in this country while 460 million had to be thrown back. It strikes me that whoever did the counting of the haddock had his hands pretty full—but no doubt my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was put up to it.
Being quite serious, it is indefensible treatment of good food. Norway wishes to ban discards and at least to use the smaller fish for industrial purposes. Our reply seems to be that it would be too expensive to put inspectors on to large vessels in order to enforce that. I question whether it will be more expensive than the value of the 460 million haddock alone which were discarded.
As regards industrial fishing, to which my noble friend referred, the Select Committee recommends a general phasing out in Community waters. That was advocated by several of the bodies which gave evidence to us. In response to that I received a letter from the secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association protesting at the idea of a blanket ban when there was,
"a very large fishery for blue whiting to the west of the United Kingdom".
I must confess that I am the biggest bore in the country on the subject of blue whiting. Twenty years ago I was provided with a brief by MAFF. It might be interesting for my noble friend to go into the archives and look out that brief. It was prepared immediately after the debacle of the Icelandic cod war in which I was involved. It is worth digging that brief out of the files because I was told (I followed the instruction) to inform the Cabinet that there were millions of blue whiting off the west coast of Scotland and that that was at least a partial stemming of the haemorrhage which the fleets had suffered as a result of the dispute with Iceland. Admittedly, the fish swam very deep

949
and, alas, were full of bones although, so the brief said, the Germans were reputed to have solved the problem of filleting them.
The Prime Minister of the day expressed the greatest interest in blue whiting and asked if he could have some specimens. The Torry Research Institute was contacted and sent down 144 blue whiting, which were immediately sent round to Number 10. It happened to be the day of the final meeting between the Prime Minister and the miners. I have often wondered whether the gnashing of teeth that was caused by trying out those blue whiting as canapes led to the breakdown of the negotiations.
At any rate, here we are 20 years later with the secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association talking about a very large fishery. But how large? He says that in 1990 the Faroese caught 45,000 tonnes and the Norwegians 300,000 tonnes. That is a large fishery considering that in the most recent year for which figures are available the total fish landeddemersal, pelagic, and shellfish—in the United Kingdom by United Kingdom vessels was 608,000 tonnes. That means that those two nations are taking a tonnage equivalent to half of the United Kingdom's total landings. The secretary went on to say that one Shetland boat has caught 5,000 tonnes in each of the past three years. Is this the start of the successful blue whiting fishery which MAFF heralded 20 years ago?
I end with a reference to what noble Lords may have heard described as the "Scottish question". There is a general consensus at least on giving Scotland the maximum amount of administrative devolution and an immense amount has been done in that area. Indeed, so little is left in the administrative area that there is now a call for legislative devolution. There is one obvious candidate for administrative devolution. The Forestry Commission moved north because the bulk of the new planting was going to be done in Scotland. The Secretary of State leads on forestry matters, supported by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Wales. Twenty years ago 52 per cent. of all the United Kingdom's fish landings took place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with 48 per cent. in Scotland. Today Scotland's 48 per cent. has risen to 75 per cent. while landings south of the Border have dropped from 52 per cent. to 25 per cent. I mean no reflection whatsoever on the Ministers concerned, but I have had the privilege of serving as what today would be called the Fisheries Minister in the Scottish Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I am quite convinced that not only is it logical that fisheries should follow forestry into the Scottish administration, but that it would be thoroughly desirable.
6.14 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I live near Fraserburgh, in Grampian region. It is a fishing port with a population of about 13,000 people. Forty-five per cent. of employment there is fish-related and in Grampian region over 10,000 people derive a living directly or indirectly from the fishing industry, operating out of 14 ports, large and small, around its
950
coasts. Fifty per cent. of the total value of the fish landed in Scotland between January and October 1990 was landed in Grampian ports.
In 1991, over 8,000 people were employed full-time catching sea fish in Scotland. In the United Kingdom, over 19,000 people were employed full-time catching sea fish, while nearly 80,000 were employed full-time in ancillary industries such as selling and processing fish and in working in fish and chip shops and fish restaurants. Those figures take no account of the number of people employed in building boats, in manufacturing nets and other equipment and in repairing and servicing them. Indeed, it is estimated that for every fisherman fishing at sea eight shore workers depend on fish for their jobs. In 1991, we exported nearly £470 million-worth of sea fish (fresh, frozen or processed) of which £224 million-worth was white or pelagic fish.
I have bored your Lordships with these dreary figures in order to demonstrate that sea fishing is an important industry—smaller perhaps than farming or coal-mining—but nonetheless a large industry on which a large number of people depend for their livings and which contributes substantially to Britain's exports. Nearly half of those people live in Scotland, which has only about one-tenth of the total population of the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will therefore have realised that the fishing industry employs a much larger proportion of the total population in Scotland than in England and is of correspondingly greater importance to the Scottish economy and the Scottish people.
In recent years, diminishing stocks of herrings and more recently of haddock and cod have made conservation measures and a reduction in the size of catches a very necessary part of European Community and United Kingdom fishery policy. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation is keenly aware of the importance of conservation measures to the future of the industry. The problem lies in ascertaining which measures will be both the most effective and the least damaging to the industry. The federation believes that a combination of the licensing of all fishing boats—not just of those over 10 metres in length, which is the good thing in the Bill—combined with a decommissioning scheme, the introduction of a one-net rule, the use of nets with a square mesh window, a ban on certain forms of industrial fishing and the licensing of all salesmen and buyers of fish would be the most effective way of conserving fish stocks while preserving the industry and would make tie-up periods unnecessary.
The research that has been carried out into the effect of using a purse net with a 90mm diamond mesh, with an 80mm square mesh window to facilitate the escape of small fish from the net, is interesting. Some of your Lordships may have seen a video showing how that works. The use of such a net would greatly reduce the number of small fish being caught and discarded. As the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said in his excellent and interesting maiden speech, the practice of discarding fish, mostly by then dead, is the greatest enemy of the conservation of fish stocks, besides

951
polluting the fishing grounds, and may ultimately lead to unhealthy or diseased stocks and possibly even to no stocks at all.
One of the disadvantages of total allowable catches is that fishing in a mixed stock fishery, such as the North Sea and the west of Scotland white fisheries, may have to be halted because the quota of one species has been used up. That is what has just happened. Our quota of haddock is finished until next year. So the fishermen have two options: one is to cease fishing until January if the Government cannot negotiate an increase in the quota and the other is to continue fishing for other species such as whiting. But, as several noble Lords have said, when you are fishing for whiting you cannot prevent some haddock entering the nets. Under present rules you have a choice. Either you throw them back into the sea, mostly dead, or else you sell on the black market and risk a huge fine, besides taking business away from the legitimate markets, which of course depend financially on selling as much fish as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in a most distinguished maiden speech, has given us a marvellously clear and lucid outline of decommissioning versus tie-up. A properly worked out decommissioning scheme, such as the European Community operates, for which grants of 70 per cent. are available from the EC, would result in a sizeable reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet. The arguments Ministers have used against it are simply not valid. They have said that they do not believe it represents value for money because it would not necessarily secure the withdrawal of the right vessels. They also say that, because of the way the United Kingdom contribution to the Community budget is arranged under the Fontainebleau Agreement, the Chancellor would end up paying around two-thirds of the Commission's 70 per cent. contribution to a scheme plus the remaining 30 per cent., which would produce a 70: 30 per cent. ratio instead of a 30: 70 per cent. ratio. This takes no account of the revenue from tax that will not be collected from fishermen who have gone bankrupt, as many of them will if the 135-day tie-up continues for long, or the cost of paying them the dole.
In the September before last, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposed to Government Ministers an alternative approach to decommissioning to that provided under European Community regulations. I have read the federation's proposals and they seem to me eminently sensible and workable, although I should like to know how the crews of the decommissioned boats will be cared for. The proposals are to be found on pages 36 to 39 of the evidence in the report which we are also debating today. I understand that the European Commission would be prepared to pay the grants towards the cost of this scheme. However, the Government will not accept it and have offered one of their own for which they are prepared to make available only £25 million and which will only reduce the catching capacity by
952
about 5 per cent. When one takes into consideration that a large purse-netter can cost up to £5 million, this really is quite ludicrous.
At present, fishermen are obliged to accept the 135-day tie-up rule, with an alternative of using 110mm mesh size nets and half the number of days tie-up, or 120mm mesh size nets and no tie-up. On the east coast of England, where the principal fishery is for cod, this may be a viable alternative, but in north-east Scotland, where the fishing is mainly for haddock and whiting, this is not a viable alternative because they are smaller fish than cod and with 110mm mesh nets you would catch few haddock and no whiting. Thus they are forced to opt for the 135-day tie-up scheme. As a result, they are obliged to fish not only in all reasonable weather, weekdays or Sunday, but often in dangerously stormy weather on the remaining days in order to meet their commitments.
Fishing boats are expensive: a large purse-netter costs up to £5 million; a herring drifter around £1.5 million; a 60-foot trawler from £600,000 to £1 million. In order to purchase their boats the owner or owners will have obtained a considerable loan from the bank, and those loans have to be serviced and repaid, whether the boat is fishing or tied up. In the same way fishermen often have a mortgage to service as well. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has spoken of the cost of hiring Decca navigational equipment. Where the boat belongs to a person or a company who engages a crew, the crew still have to be paid during the time the boat is tied up if their services are to be retained. If they are not, then if they can find other employment they may very well not be available when the tie-up period expires. Most usually, the crew do not receive wages but have a share in the proceeds of the catch. If there is no catch they get nothing; and as they are self-employed I am not sure whether they get unemployment benefit. I think they do if they pay a special stamp. Perhaps the Minister knows the answer to that.
I hope I have now explained why it is that fishermen will find it necessary to go out in bad conditions to make up for lost income, however much Government Ministers blithely say that they are not obliged to. Of course the result is that the catches are not really being reduced much; they are just being caught in more dangerous conditions which put men's lives and equipment at even greater risk than they usually run. That is not in the interests of conservation. It is also a cause of great concern to their wives and families, who are very unhappy about it. It has occurred to me, having listened to speeches earlier this afternoon, that a further result of this will be that the occasions on which the crews of lifeboats have to risk their lives to rescue the crews of fishing boats which have got into difficulties may well increase considerably.
As well as introducing the licensing of boats under 10 metres in length, the Bill seeks to perpetuate the tie-up regulations and impose draconian penalties on anyone who infringes them. I think it is a bad Bill and I am sorry that any Scottish Member of Parliament voted for it in another place. It is tempting to defy

953
convention, vote against it and ask the Government to think again. Although I shall not do that, I shall certainly try to amend it at Committee stage.
Mr. Alex Salmond, Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan, leader of the Scottish National Party, wrote an article about the present plight of the fishing industry in Scotland in the Scottish supplement of The Sunday Times yesterday, which is for the most part excellent and explains the situation very clearly. I do not think the Library here has the Scottish edition, but I can give any noble Lord who is interested a copy of it. I am not a Scottish Nationalist; I never have been. It is a sad day for me when I find myself in agreement with their leader. But I have to say that unless the Government put far more money and effort into producing an adequate decommissioning scheme so that the limitation on fishing time can be phased out very soon, they can forget all about reforming local government and other measures designed to make the Union more acceptable to the people of Scotland, for it will be too late.
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I have no particular connection with the fishing industry and therefore I speak with not nearly as much authority as others who have spoken this afternoon. However, I was privileged to sit on Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne and so perhaps I learnt a little then. I do not have my fingers on a great many statistics and therefore simplicity in this case may be advantageous in that it may lead us to one or two conclusions which are perhaps less distressful to the fishing industry than those that are suggested in the Bill.
The seas around our shores are shared by vessels from all Common Market countries. I heard during the committee's proceedings and at other meetings that a net in the North sea is allowed to be two and a half miles long. That was news to me. I asked what such a net could contain. Mr. Holden said that it could contain whole shoals of fish—and certainly the Houses of Parliament. It is a very large net indeed. One could get quite a number of Houses of Parliament in it. The way in which the problem has been tackled has obviously not worked because the stocks are going down.
I visit Billingsgate frequently because I am a fish farmer—which has nothing to do with sea fishing. It is amazing to see the number of foreign fish at Billingsgate. One sees no big cod at all. All the traders will state that there used to be great cod there. I can remember well—and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will probably recall—Folkestone in the days when monstrous cod were caught from the end of the pier. That is no longer the position. Speaking from personal experience, I believe that there is now only one transport company which carries fish in my part of England up as far as Grimsby and Hull, because there are not the fish to be carried any more.
We should look at what has gone wrong so that we can learn what to do right in the future. The matter has been dealt with by total allowable catches—a quota system. There are two fundamental faults with
954
that system, and possibly three, if one adds in the discards, a waste which I find it disgusting to think about. I should like to mention the least important point first, which concerns policing, ensuring that people do not cheat, black fish and all the matters that have been mentioned this evening. That is a serious fault and it makes forecasting the numbers of such massive species into the following year extremely difficult.
The most important fault is that, however good the scientists are and however clever they are at Lowestoft and Weymouth, or wherever they forecast on the Continent, there is no way whatsoever that the forecasts can be considered to be accurate, except by luck, given that they are taking information from catches. That is an awkward area to forecast. Very often it must produce the wrong answer. As we know, the only calculation attempted is on the main species and the other limits are precautionary TACs which I would describe as complete guesswork in scientific terms.
The Bill is an enabling Bill which enables the Government to lock in, tying up restrictions to licences. That appears to be the major complaint of the fishing industry. I admit that I have a great deal of sympathy, having received a certain amount of post and listened to the fishery federations, but there are all kinds of difficulties attaching to a system of reducing the effort for catching fish. Such a method achieves the worst of two worlds. If vessels are tied up long enough to help fish stocks recover and become sustainable, then the fishermen will not make enough money to survive. If the vessels are tied up for a short enough time to allow the fishermen to survive, then the fish will not. We are the losers whichever option is taken because, if there are no fish, there will be no communities, there will be unemployment and there will be all the downstream difficulties that will arise from that.
That brings me to the subject of decommissioning. It must be a matter for regret that we did not join in what I call the multi-annual guidance party and take benefit from the Community budget when it was available. I should like to ask my noble friend whether we can still join in and obtain funds to help us with decommissioning. I believe that, in order to achieve sustainable fisheries, a reduction of 25 to 30 per cent. should be aimed for. As many noble Lords have stated, licensing throughout to below 10 metres is absolutely vital. Otherwise, as some person put it to me in a letter, decommissioning takes place and the skipper or the owner has the opportunity to enter the industry by another door. Obviously that door must be closed.
The Bill is an enabling Bill. All the other powers are already incorporated in the 1967 Act. We cannot throw the Bill out or do anything dramatic. I suggest that the Bill should be kept as an enabling measure but not used; that we should use Clause 10 of the 1967 Act to activate a thorough decommissioning scheme with any bonus or money that may be available from the Community.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, noble Lords may think it rather fishy to find my name on the list of speakers in the debate. I confess at once that I have no piscatorial qualifications. My sole reason for detaining your Lordships quite briefly is that I have been written to by fishermen from fishing communities which are otherwise unrepresented in the debate and on the Select Committee—the small fishing communities of South-East England. Having failed to get their case accepted by another place, they thought perhaps that a Peer living in the area might be a suitable vehicle for their views.
What are those views? I am speaking of representations that I have received from Dungeness, Hastings and Norman's Bay. The latter two concern small boats that launch from the beach. These are not fishing ports such as the ones we have heard about in Scotland and the North East of England. However, they have provided a livelihood for many years for a number of individuals and families. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the fact that the services of lifeboats may be required more often if fishermen have to go out in stormier weather. They also provide the lifeboat crews which are very important in one of the most crowded shipping areas of the world. In war time they have had other uses. If people of that kind state that the proposals—and once the tie up is extended to smaller boats it will cover them all—mean the
destruction of their livelihood, we ought to take the matter very seriously.
These fishermen are concerned with conservation, a point that has been made in relation to other fishing communities. They admit that there must be conservation if the fishing industry is to survive. However, they feel that to limit the fishing capacities of our own fleet is to give freer play to the fisheries of other countries. They claim—and I thought that it was an extravagant claim—that this is the only country that seriously polices adherence to the targets laid down by the fisheries policy. However, on reading the Select Committee's report I find that the Commission itself admits that Britain is the only country which carries out a full inspection. The fishermen of the South East feel that there are constant violations of the limits on mesh and the other technical ways in which greater catches than are allowed for can be taken. Both our maiden speakers, to whom we have listened with great interest, made that point in one form or another. This is not unusual in our relations with the European Community, because we know that Britain takes a totally different view of its obligations under community law. Other countries have Ministers who, as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, pointed out, defend unashamedly their refusal to do things which might damage their own producers—fishermen or
even farmers who take part in the burning of our lambs when we export them to France.
We believe that we are in honour bound to fulfil every letter of our obligations. Their Ministers go to meetings to defend their national interest. Our Ministers appear to go to meetings to bring back what the Commission would like us to do. Therefore there is no level fishing ground. That explains why those
956
who have protested about the Bill are so bitter about it. If there were a general understanding; if there were equal monitoring of restrictions in respect of conservation, they might feel differently, but, knowing that the monitoring is ineffective—that appears in more than one place in the Select Committee's report—they feel that they are being singled out to sacrifice their livelihood, and to sacrifice small communities of fishermen who have been there for centuries, for matters which are beyond their reach and against which, apparently, their own government are not prepared to protect them.
If those fishermen had heard, as I and some noble Lords have heard for the first time, the appalling story of the discards and knew that, at a time when fish prices for our own people are rising and the world is in great need of protein, fish is being destroyed in the name of some kind of conservation policy, they might feel that there was no point in protesting because the kind of people who produce the regulations might be beyond reason.
I have said what those fishermen would like me to say. I hope that those who are more expert in these matters than I am will find amendments to limit the impact of the Bill upon the fishing communities in the South East as well as in the other parts of the United Kingdom that have been mentioned, and, if they do, I look forward to supporting them.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, f apologise for the fact that I will not be present for the end of the debate due to a prior commitment. It is the first time that I have had to leave a debate, and I hope that it will be the last. The number of speakers taking part shows how worried noble Lords are about the issue, and rightly
so.
I welcome the fact that the Bill is being debated with the ECC report although I shall confine my remarks to the Bill. It is important to look realistically at the state of fish stocks when tackling the problem of fishing because without fish conservation there will be no fish industry. Fish are a finite resource. Competition for that resource will not increase it. I listened with interest to noble Lords' complaints of European fishermen taking our stocks. I agree with them. However, if we go to Europe and say that we are doing something for conservation, we may be able to force them to do something also.
Over-fishing in European waters has reached such an extent that stocks are seriously threatened. That has a profound impact upon the marine ecosystem and, if not addressed, will fundamentally change the animal community of our seas. To date, conservation measures have been insufficient, often because they are unenforceable. Much faith has been placed in technical measures such as special net designs and ever larger mesh sizes. However, fishing with sieves does not go far enough to safeguard our precarious stocks. Technical measures are no substitute for a reduction in the total fishing effort and that is what we need urgently. Enforceable and extreme controls need to be placed on the fishing effort now. Restricting access to vulnerable stocks—the proposal for limiting days at

957
sea contained in the Bill—is a means of keeping fishermen away from fish. It is enforceable and controversial but it is likely to put fishermen out of business.
The Bill may warrant our support merely because of the urgency of the situation. But it is a short-sighted approach and a had Bill. The only long-term solution is a reduction in the size of the fleet. The UK has been slow to adopt a realistic decommissioning scheme. It is as if the Government see the crash in fish stocks as a temporary problem and believe that the fish will return in a year or two when they will be able to release the fleet again. The fleet is too effective. No foreseeable stock recovery will be able to support the present fishing effort. There is no magic recovery of cod in sight without a long-term commitment drastically to cut the size and effectiveness of the fishing fleet.
The crisis in our fishing industry needs to be addressed urgently, but I do not believe that the Bill provides a suitable long-term solution. The motivation behind the Bill seems to be a desire to avoid the expenditure necessary to tackle the root problem—the over-capacity of the fishing fleet. No doubt the bankruptcies which will result from the Bill will reduce the fleet's capacity to an extent, but that will inevitably inflict hardship on many families and decimate many fishing communities.
A major, well-founded decommissioning scheme has been called for widely. That seems to be the sensible long-term solution to the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, pointed out, it is estimated that the £25 million decommissioning scheme that the Government propose will reduce the fleet by approximately 5 per cent. I have been informed that a 25 per cent. reduction is needed five times that which
the Government are offering. If further decommissioning is the answer, when will it be done?
That brings me to another flaw in the Bill. It will allow the Minister a free hand to impose further restrictions on licence holders. The Minister will be able to tighten restrictions on the number of days boats may fish, so leading to more bankruptcies. In order that the fleet size is not cut by creeping restrictions, the Minister should be required to report annually to Parliament on the state of the fish stocks and what effect our EC partners are having.
If stocks are low and the restrictions are clearly not working, Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the options, decommissioning being the obvious one. Such an annual review would avoid our setting in train fleet reductions through bankruptcies rather than a reasonable decommissioning scheme. For those small fishing communities where unemployment is predicted as a result of bankruptcies the market in fishing licences poses a worrying long-term threat. How will they compete for licences against those able to raise large sums of capital? Surely they will not be able to do so. Are we not in danger of seeing the concentration of fishing rights resting in fewer and fewer hands?
For those boats that remain viable under the restrictions there are many problems. Not least among them is the short notice on which the annual restrictions are given. In a period of slim margins for
958
many fishermen, that makes planning even more vital. A three-month warning, which has been suggested by fishermen, seems reasonable. I reiterate the need for an appropriate decommissioning scheme to deal with the over-capacity of the fleet head on. The problem of over-capacity will clearly have to be dealt with at some time as there is not a sufficient increase in fish stocks on the horizon.
I hope that the Minister will look closely at conservation of the more vulnerable members of the marine ecosystem. The fishermen who cannot fish for stocks such as cod and haddock may turn to more vulnerable members of the marine ecosystem such as sharks and rays. Those fish have not been properly studied and the effect of fishing on them may be devastating. I hope the Minister will consider those species carefully and will limit the numbers that fishermen can take before irreparable damage is done.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, there is a desperate need to conserve our fish stocks. However, in common with many noble Lords, I find it difficult to support the Bill. It will not conserve our fish stocks, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart. Further, it will disadvantage and demoralise our fishermen, as has been ably pointed out by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It will also increase the risk of accidents. A number of noble Lords have pointed that out.
I believe that we have the best maritime rescue services in the world, but it is best not to tempt providence. The Bill will encourage law breaking because its provisions will not be enforceable. That is the most important aspect of the Bill. I believe most noble Lords have referred to the matter.
The law has been broken with regard to the common agricultural policy. The law is being broken and will continue to be broken in the fishing industry. The way forward—as has been proposed by your Lordships' Select Committee and other noble Lords—is a comprehensive decommissioning scheme and the phasing out of industrial fishing. Unfortunately, I understand that a decommissioning scheme would cost five times the amount of money the Government have pledged. I suspect the main reason for the Government's reluctance to adopt as comprehensive a decommissioning scheme as that of other countries is the Fontainebleau Agreement, which, I believe, will claw back approximately 80 per cent. of the 70 per cent. EC grant.
The Fontainebleau Agreement may have been hailed as a victory for the United Kingdom; I doubt that it will he so proclaimed by British fishermen. This Bill, aided and abetted by a so-called common fisheries policy, will do for British fishermen what the so-called common agricultural policy has done for the British farmer and indeed for the British housewife. It will wreck the fishing industry in more ways than one. Noble Lords cannot throw out this impractical Bill on Second Reading—I repeat it is impractical—but I hope that they will do their best to amend it in such a way as to mitigate its worst effects. I feel sorry for my

959
noble friend Lord Howe who has to steer the Bill through the House against what I hope will be a force 10 wind against tide.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the hardest part of fishing used to be finding the fish and fighting the weather. Now the greatest threat to the livelihood of fishermen is felt by them to be the blunt and bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Government and the EC.
To conserve the stock of fish the EC introduced the quota system. That was intended to be a convenient distributive arrangement. However, it was never intended to be the primary means of conservation. That was to be fulfilled by technical measures such as the shape and size of the mesh. The industry has supported a range of conservation initiatives which, allied to decommissioning, would address the conservation problem without forcing boats to the wall.
Then the EC introduced a decommissioning scheme by which many Danish, Dutch and Belgian vessels were scrapped. The scheme offered 75 per cent. of the cost of reducing the UK fleet provided the British Government offered the balance, which they for long refused to do. The Government have at last done so, but the grant is linked to tie up days. The UK fleet is about 30 per cent. over capacity for the available stocks. That figure includes Spanish owned British registered vessels, mentioned already in the debate, fishing our quotas and landing in Spain. But while the measure is damaging to the British fleet, lack of enforcement in Spain means that there will be no effect on its flagships. That point should be addressed by the Government as it constitutes a glaring anomaly in the system.
The latest EC proposals aim to reduce fishing days by up to 30 per cent. on the 1991 base which would allow only 140 fishing days. As an example the average Scarborough vessel fishes some 200 days in the year, the remainder of the time being taken up with repairs, maintenance and holidays. All crews are self-employed and their pay is based solely on the value of the catch less expenses. There is no doubt that crews could not live on the earnings of 140 days at sea, nor could ships be maintained.
The fittest to survive in the industry would be those with older vessels which are now paid for. Those with newer vessels would be unable to fish enough to repay loans to the very government who issued the loans in the first place to build the vessels. That imbalance of ship ages would spell trouble for the future and it is due to the failure to limit the size of the fleet early enough. It would be a tragedy if the British fishing industry were to be decimated while other nations fish and laugh at the British tied up in their ports.
Redundancy is rife throughout industry and farmers and fishermen must, and do, expect to suffer their share. Fishermen do not want charity: they recognise the need for conservation. In recent years they have increased the size of meshes to avoid catching immature fish. They have pleaded in vain for
960
the closure of the central North Sea spawning grounds. They would like to see a ban on industrial fishing by which the Danes take at least 100,000 tonnes of immature white fish. I do not believe that the Bill provides the solution to the problem. It is fundamentally flawed; in particular it does not deal with the main problem of conservation. And it does not apply to other EC states. That is a highly emotive point particularly as the French and Spanish do not adhere even to existing conservation rules.
The Bill will encourage fishermen to abandon selective methods in order to fill up their ships in the shortest time. It also undermines the climate of opinion necessary for conservation to work by creating antipathy between government and fishermen. That is a difficult matter to quantify but even the Minister has admitted that it is important.
Amendments were proposed at various stages of the Bill in another place in an effort to improve the Bill. However, all those amendments were rejected. Therefore the industry now has to hope for the complete rejection of this Bill. In another place the Minister, under pressure from Members, agreed to lay before the House an amendment to ensure that the restrictions on the EC countries would be as stringent as those imposed on the UK fleet. However, in a letter to the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations the Minister stated that he would not introduce the amendment unless the UK was satisfied that member states which share our stocks were taking effective steps to meet their fleet capacity targets as defined by what the EC calls the multi-annual guidance programme.
The assurances given to MPs and the NFFO's chairman are not the same. Thus the industry does not have much confidence that the government amendment to be tabled at Committee stage in this House will be adequate. It is strongly resented that the UK fleet should be subject to more stringent regulations than our Community partners fishing the same stock which place our industry at a competitive disadvantage.
The UK fishing industry is ancient and traditional. It has provided the seafaring experience which manned the navy and shaped British history. This is not the time—and the time will never come—for it to be cast out of existence.
7 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the sub-committee which conducted the review of the common fisheries policy we are considering today. It was, in my view, a timely and important inquiry. It was certainly a very thorough one, during which all of us learnt a great deal. I know that I did. I pay tribute to our admirable chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to our very knowledgeable and helpful specialist adviser, Mr. Boyd Gordon and our excellent clerk.
Our recommendations are set out clearly in the report. I hope that the Government will consider them carefully because I believe that they point to a very necessary reform of the CFP and are realistic and constructive. We know from the Parliamentary

961
Secretary's Written Answer of 21st October (Official Report,21/10/92; col. WA90)) that the Fisheries Council has had a first discussion of the new draft regulations. I hope that we can be given some more information about that discussion and about the way in which policy is likely to develop.
I subscribe to all the conclusions of the report. I should like simply to draw attention to one or two points which seem to me particularly important. First, I believe that our recommendation that the CFP should have a new additional objective—namely, to protect the whole marine environment from damage caused by fishing—should be taken very seriously. This was not mentioned by the noble Earl in his opening speech.
It was clear to us that at present some fishing practices, especially beam trawling, are often very destructive. Page 17 of our report spells out the concerns of conservationists. I for one had no idea that the entire bed of the North Sea was trawled every year and that of the Irish Sea three times a year, or that, according to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for every kilogram of commercial fish caught by beam trawlers, which scrape up the sea bed in an appallingly destructive way, between two and four kilograms of dead and damaged fish are thrown back into the sea.
I think it essential that, as the sub-committee recommends, more use should be made of closed conservation boxes and marine protected areas. That again was a matter not mentioned by the noble Earl. The Shetland box must be maintained and perhaps extended, and other conservation boxes should be established.
Everyone agrees that the Community has far too many fishing boats and that fishery effort is excessive, resulting in enormous pressure on fish stocks, especially cod and haddock. Our recommendation was for decommissioning as an essential long-term measure. We need something much stronger than the scheme announced by the Government last February. Tie-up restrictions should, as we said, be only a short-term solution, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, explained earlier in the debate. Against that background the tie-up proposals in the present Bill seem to me unfair and unsatisfactory. I have been impressed by the eloquent letters I have received from trawler skippers and their wives about the serious effect on them of a permanent tie-up scheme. However, I think that it is right that Ministers should have powers to revoke the licences of those who persistently break the rules.
We came down in favour of reforming rather than abolishing TACs, and I think that that is right. Since monitoring and enforcement are clearly far stricter here than in countries such as Spain, we argued that the Commission's inspectorate should be given powers to carry out spot checks, followed up if necessary by infraction proceedings.
I should like to lay particular stress on our recommendation that industrial fishing should be phased out. I know that Mr. Gummer has raised his voice against that practice, and I found what the noble Earl said on the matter reasonably encouraging.
962
However, against the background of the serious situation in the North Sea, we must demand that the Community addresses the problem more vigorously. It is not acceptable that half the tonnage taken from the North Sea should be tiny fish, the basis of the food chain for many important species—birds and mammals as well as fish—and including many juvenile cod and haddock, all destined for fish meal factories or even, in Denmark, to provide oil for power stations. The problem must be addressed urgently.
I think that all of us were horrified by the fearful waste of fish produced by the practice of discards at sea, which is described in paragraphs 48 and 49 of our report. The quantities of fish killed in that way are scarcely credible. I very much hope that we can investigate alternative policies, as proposed in paragraph 116 of our report, although I fully understand the difficulties which the noble Earl described.
In present circumstances it is clearly important that technical measures should be strengthened, as recommended in paragraph 119 of our report, to enable more young fish to survive. The Government should press vigorously for the compulsory introduction throughout the Community of square mesh panels, not merely for nethrops but for all fish.
Good research is clearly essential if we are to come to sensible and realistic conclusions about fisheries policy. I was impressed by what we saw and heard when we visited MAFF's research laboratory at Lowestoft but I was struck by the fact that, because of limited resources, that laboratory was unable to do any research on some species—for example, turbot and lemon sole, which are important in the market. I believe that the laboratory ought to be given the modest extra resources necessary to enable it to look at the state of stocks of those species. I hope that the Government will address that point.
We have all heard of the problem of quota hopping and the consequences of the Factortame judgment, which will allow 100 or so essentially Spanish boats, manned by Spanish crews, to fish our British quota, and now a dozen or so Dutch beam trawlers to operate out of Aberdeen. The Government tried manfully to avert that situation but lost the battle and seem now to think that nothing more can be done. I do not believe that we can leave the matter there. The CFP, rightly or wrongly, is based on national quotas and the coming of foreign boats to fish our limited quotas makes nonsense of that policy. The Government must roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem, difficult though it may be, in Brussels. The present situation is clearly not acceptable.
As vice-chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, I should like to draw attention to the memorandum from that trust submitted to the sub-committee and printed on page 178 of the written evidence. The sub-committee addressed the problem of industrial fishing but the other points made in the trust's memorandum—the lack of a Community policy on wild Atlantic salmon, the acceptance of the principle that wild salmon should only be taken in their rivers of origin and their estuaries and that interceptory fishing for mixed stocks should be banned, the need

963
for more research, the better control of illegal high seas fishing and the introduction of carcass tagging on a Community basis—are important. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, whether the Government will encourage the Commission to introduce a policy for salmon. It is badly needed.
In my view the CFP is not nearly as bad as the common agricultural policy, but it is very important that Western European countries should act quickly to reduce their fishing fleets to a size which will enable fishing effort to be substantially reduced—by at least 30 to 40 per cent.—so that the fish can survive and reproduce and a sustainable fishery, giving a secure living to a reasonable number of fishermen, can continue. If the stocks are destroyed the fishermen will lose their jobs anyway. The Commission has, to its credit, recognised the seriousness of the problem, though some European countries have not. It is essential that we should play our part in securing a realistic and sensible policy for European fisheries. I believe that our report indicates how that objective may best be secured.
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, the Bill addresses a difficult problem. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Howe on his clear exposition of how the Bill intends to tackle it, although I am not happy about many of its provisions.
As other noble Lords have said, there is no dispute about the need to conserve fish stocks. British fishermen accept the necessity to reduce the capacity of European fishing fleets if fish stocks are to be conserved in the long term. They also accept that the UK fleet must play its part. But they rightly insist that inevitable restrictions and sacrifices should be shared as fairly and equitably as possible. In particular, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, they want level fishing grounds for all EC fishermen.
At this late hour many of the points I had intended to raise have already been well made and I shall not repeat them, but I would like briefly to draw attention to ways in which the Bill seems to me to need amendment. It has several objectionable features. First, it gives the Minister very wide powers under delegated legislation. There is virtually no indication of how he will use those powers or of the criteria on which his decisions will be taken. Those decisions are subject only to an appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal, the members of which are appointed by the Minister. How will the boats be chosen for restriction of the days at sea? Will all of one type have the same restrictions or will all boats in specified areas have the same restrictions? How will restrictions relate to the principle of total allowable catch? How will days at sea be defined? All those are matters which should be more clearly indicated in the Bill.
Secondly, the Bill will cause a major increase in bureaucracy. It will require fishermen to provide much detailed information, again at the Minister's discretion. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has
964
indicated, that is most unwelcome to fishermen. It is difficult for them to carry out bureaucratic processes in the conditions under which they work.
Thirdly, the Bill is excessively draconian. Licences, which represent the fisherman's livelihood, will be revocable at the whim of the Minister not only, as now, to regulate fishing but in future also for breach of the new days at sea limitation regulations rather than, or perhaps as well as, punishment in the courts.
Fourthly—and worst of all—the Bill does not attack the basic problem of too many boats—that is, the size of the fleet—unless, as fishermen fear, it is the intention to make fishing so unattractive by the restrictions of days at sea that they will have no alternative but to accept decommissioning at knock-down, inequitable prices.
We must look closely during the Committee stage at several points, particularly the Minister's accountability to Parliament, how he will use his powers and what reports he will have to make to Parliament to indicate how the scheme is progressing. We must ensure that there is a provision in the Bill that advanced warning is given to fishermen of the restrictions which will be imposed upon them about days at sea. We must ensure that proper compensation is paid for loss of earnings due to being tied up in harbour. We need to look at the composition of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal which is set up under Clause 2. I do not think it is entirely satisfactory that all the members should be appointed by the Minister when they are going to have to judge the decisions taken by the Minister. Finally, there should be a date set after which the Act will cease to have effect.
The fact is that the Bill is widely and intensely disliked by British fishermen. Their concern must be recognised and not ignored, as must the effect on local fishing communities so well put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Fishermen fear that the major new restrictions on days at sea will put them at a serious disadvantage compared with their foreign competitors and so will destroy their livelihood. There is also concern that the restrictions will make fishing so unprofitable that they will be forced to decommission and sell out at unfair, depressed prices.
I could not quite understand the logic of my noble friend Lord Howe. He seemed to be saying that since days at sea would be maintained at the 1991 level, there was nothing much to worry about because it would not unduly affect the economy of the fishermen's activities or their livelihood. But how does that line up with the objective of reducing their catch? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord in his reply can explain that apparent anomaly.
Fishermen have served their country well in peace and war. They are not whingers. They want to go on doing a hard, difficult and often dangerous job, and we must listen to their views. Some 50 years ago I had the privilege of serving with the fathers and grandfathers of today's fishermen, catching mines. They earned our gratitude when we had our backs to the wall. There is no doubt that today's fishermen are no less courageous, hard-working and deserving of

965
our gratitude and support, which I hope we will demonstrate in our treatment of the Bill at its subsequent stages.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I have no connection with the sea fishing industry but I consider myself to be lucky to have served on Sub-committee D under the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne. Our problem today is lack of stocks of most species of fish. The only way to allow them to recover is to reduce the number being killed. That can be achieved only by legislation, and this Bill may be part of it. However, the fact remains that our fishing fleet, not the numbers of vessels but the fishing effort available within it, is too great by over 25 per cent. The types of measures contained in the Bill may be used in the very short term but even in the medium term decommissioning should be used to reduce the fishing effort. Measures such as those in the Bill should then be used for fine tuning towards achieving the TAC targets.
I do not feel that the arguments for the Government's reluctance to bring in a large decommissioning scheme in the near future are sustainable. I am not ignoring the welcome announcement recently made of the £25 million decommissioning scheme which will begin next year and go on for three years. Before we applaud that we must put it into perspective. As can be seen in the evidence, the natural increase in fishing effort due to technological advances is slightly over 2 per cent. a year. That is not an increase in the number of vessels. Therefore, the size of the proposed scheme will only halt that increase. It will do nothing to reduce total effort. Effective policing of measures such as those before us today will be almost impossible. Discards at sea—which are always dead fish—will continue or even increase as fishermen throw away one species in favour of another. As we see on page 57 of the report, globally the discards are horrific, often exceeding the numbers of fish actually landed. There are obviously problems with the tie-up scheme. Those have been illustrated in the report and by other speakers.
We come back to the basic problem: why will the Government not introduce an effective large-scale decommissioning scheme? We and the Republic of Ireland are the only two nations in Europe which seem to shrink from doing it. Now that boats of under 10 metres are to he licensed it removes the one practical problem of decommissioned boat owners transferring their fishing effort to unlicensed boats of less than 10 metres. It is accepted that it would cost a large amount of money to decommission and that it would go to the fishermen. The fishermen seem to be all for it. We could not find any who were not. As Mr. Curry said, so would everybody about to be given money by the taxpayer. But do we not already compensate farmers for conservation measures left, right and centre?
There is some doubt about the effectiveness of certain measures, such as mesh size and tie-ups. However, there can be no doubt about the effectiveness of a 25 per cent. reduction in fishing effort by decommissioning. There is not much policing to be
966
done if the vessels do not exist. The mechanics of decommissioning the right vessel capable of catching certain species in certain areas is obviously complicated. But it looks as if the fishermen would co-operate. So it is possible that it would he successful.
The setting of a price at which fishermen would go is difficult. There are a number of suggestions in the report as to how it might be done. However, in answer to question 429 on page 141 Mr. Curry talks about having to change rules within the European Community if the tenders are above those grant aided by the Community. He seems to be at odds with Mr. Van Depoele, head of the task force from the European Commission, who points out in answer to question 547 on page 170 that there is only a limit to the pay back from the Community. If the tenders are low, then the Government and the Community save money; if they are high, government would be allowed to top them up. That does not involve a change of rules, as I understand Mr. Curry to have suggested.
In the final analysis, too much dependence by the Government on measures such as tie-ups will entail an inefficient fishing fleet. Boats will go out of business because they will not be financially viable. Fishermen will lose their jobs without special provision being made for them. That would be uncontrolled and quite uncaring of our hard pressed fishing communities, especially the outlying ones in Northern Ireland and the islands of Scotland. Decommissioning could take care of those problems by virtue of targeting and compensation.
I hope that it is not too late for the Government to realise that, although decommissioning on its own will not work, it must be the basis for future management. The measures in this Bill, though necessary, should be used for fine tuning and further control. I hope that amendments placed at a later stage will be accepted in order to make the Bill much more user friendly.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Saint Levan: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long this evening. I came ashore yesterday from an island off the west coast of Cornwall in a force 9 gale and I plan to return tonight, leaving on the midnight train.
For many years I have been on the council of the Fishermen's Mission at Newlyn. As noble Lords will know, if there is a disaster at sea it is always the man from the mission who has to tell the families. It is the mission which, for many years afterwards, looks after the welfare and the spiritual needs of the fishermen and their families. I know that the fishermen in Newlyn fully accept the need for conservation and are fully aware that difficult and unpopular decisions have to be made. However, they want to have more consultation and very much hope that the Bill will be amended in this House.
There are many families who have fished for generations. They might be forced into bankruptcy and leave the industry which they love. Fishing is part of our Cornish heritage and tradition. There is enormous sympathy for fishermen in every part of the Cornish community. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, even

967
with restrictions on the days at sea, many fishermen will have to carry on with the only way of life they know. That will be despite economic hardship and the enormous capital and repair costs of the boats and fishing gear, and with the worry of incurring bank loans which it may be impossible to repay.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, reminded noble Lords that 50 years ago he served on a minesweeper. I was First Lieutenant and then Captain of a minesweeper for some years during and after the war. Trawling for mines seemed much the same sort of life as trawling for fish. What I remember most about those days was that we were not nervous about being blown up by mines but we had the constant strain, worry and responsibility of working at sea with powerful high-speed winches and strong steel wires which could cause a terrible accident if they parted. A lapse of concentration from any man for a moment, either because he was tired or sea sick, could lead to death or being maimed for life.
I wonder whether decommissioning could be targeted at the particular types of vessels which extract valuable stocks of fish from parts of the seabed which other fishing boats cannot reach. Perhaps more compensation might be paid to gill netters or beam trawlers. The present decommissioning scheme seems to the industry to be little more than a competition to see which vessels will take less money.
I do not know very much about the technical problems of fish conservation. However, I wonder whether other boxes and sea areas free from fishing could he established while fish could spawn. Perhaps scientists could designate the fishing grounds which might be chosen. Off the coast of Cornwall there might be a fishing free zone of 70 square miles off the Lizard and another 70 square miles off the north coast. I know that there are difficulties in policing. It would be necessary to have the agreement and co-operation of other European states.
Last week I received a letter from the skipper of a fishing trawler. It was written while he was fishing five miles off Land's End at intervals between his other duties of keeping watch, hauling and stocking. Certainly his biro ran out and I only received half the intended letter. He said, like every other fisherman who has written to me about this Bill, that he felt very strongly that most of Britain's fish had been given to Europe and the pittance that was left was being swallowed up by flags of convenience vessels of other countries.
I hope that this Bill will be amended along the lines suggested by the fishing associations. The port of Newlyn used to be a very prosperous fishing port. Only a few years ago Her Majesty the Queen opened a new pier so that more fishing boats could berth alongside it. One of the main reasons for building the Penzance bypass was so that Newlyn fresh fish, with an excellent EC grade, could be transported to other ports for export. Also, many fish are brought from the smaller Cornish ports to Newlyn for sale.
It is estimated that in the port of Newlyn there are about five ancillary workers behind each fisherman. About 5,000 people could be affected by any serious
968
decline in the fishing industry. I hope that more money can be found to pay for other methods of conservation which might even be more expensive. Newlyn used to be a prosperous fishing port.
Finally, I should like to endorse what has already been said about the compensation which should be paid on decommissioning to the crews of fishing boats as well as the owners and skippers. Many fishermen will have left school at the age of 16 and will have only a few GCE qualifications. West Cornwall is one of the most depressed areas of the country. It would be very sad to see so many excellent English seamen join the tin miners on the dole.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Iddesleigh: My Lords, I came from Devon today because in the past month I have received between 30 and 40 agonised letters from fishermen in the South West. I have listened to the debate and have learnt a lot. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put most succinctly and well the points which I wanted to make. I shall therefore concentrate only on the one message that came from the many letters that I received. That is the problem of all our fishermen who are forced to keep their boats tied up in port knowing that fishermen from our EC partners are happily fishing sometimes even in sight of our coasts. I have every possible sympathy with such a complaint.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly to us his reasons for the need for such an arrangement. I must confess that I am only very slightly happier now than I was when the debate started. I hope that the number of days that our West Country boats have to be tied up will not be too numerous. I fear that we are almost giving the Government a blank cheque in that respect. To my mind the tie-up scheme is an iniquitous arrangement.
As has been said already, it will make very little difference to the conservation goals if the number of days that one has to tie up one's boat is small. I should have thought that a combination of an agreed increase in the size of mesh, perhaps additional special panels to allow through immature fish or even more areas of conservation boxes would be a happier arrangement and certainly far easier to police.
We know that the French are or soon will be compensating their fishermen for laying up their boats. I wonder whether we could be told, perhaps at the end of the debate, the amount of money that has been allocated by the French for that and perhaps the maximum sum that they are giving to their fishermen. It may be that those figures are not available but I suspect they are.
I appreciate that individual EC countries are at present being allowed to do their own thing. To my mind that is a great pity. When it comes to fishing, this is such a very important issue to so many individuals as well as local communities that I feel it must be highly desirable for all the EC fishing interests to come closer together. We badly need the level playing field, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already said.

969
I can add nothing to the debate that has not already been said. I only dread the additional letters that will arrive on my desk from Wednesday onwards.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I confess that I have to catch an even earlier train than other noble Lords—at 8.35. I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not remain to the end of the debate.
I congratulate the Minister on his presentation of this difficult Bill, parts of which I am glad to support. Even the most partisan will confess that it has some imperfections. However, they are as nothing to the imperfections in the fishing industry which the Bill seeks to regulate.
The fishing fleet capacity has expanded enormously in response to technological advances. Together the combined fleets of the European seas are able to fish out beyond the level of natural recovery the whole of the Western Approaches of the North Sea and West Atlantic fisheries in the course of two years.
The fishermen agree on the vital need for conservation. However, they find a conflicting interest in their traditional rights to fish home waters while we have granted such overwhelming rights to our European partners to fish our own waters. Some believe that all we obtain in return is poaching and disregard of Community rules, as many other noble Lords have stated.
Fishermen have responded to approaches from the Ministry with demands for decommissioning grants. Noble Lords from all sides have supported the suggestion that decommissioning should be adopted. However, the fishermen are under the impression that the European Community will apply a 70 per cent. grant. As we have been told, as a result of the Fontainebleau Agreement that grant is reduced to only 25 per cent. for the United Kingdom. It makes decommissioning much too expensive for the British Government in the present circumstances. There must be some other way; or we must modify the Fontainebleau Agreement.
Your Lordships' committee, which produced an incisive report of great clarity and depth—for which we thank noble Lords—rightly concludes that the effort put into fishing needs to be controlled. The Bill sets out to achieve that objective in the light of the fact that decommissioning is considered by the Government to be too expensive, although no one doubts that it is the most desirable.
I also greatly admired the evidence in the report of Mr. Holden and the ideal of a quota per boat. That has limitations. Whole quotas can be snapped up in early days, with a devastating effect on stocks. It also has disadvantages since today's boats are highly specialised and designed to fish in only one configuration.
However, perhaps I may dare to make a suggestion to your Lordships. There may be a way of granting licence quotas not to one boat but to a group—a flotilla of four boats, each one designed to fish with its own specialised gear, and fishing from and landing at designated ports. Each boat would be granted its own
970
quota in the activity of fishing for which it was designed. There would still be a required reduction in effort. But that would be achieved by allowing a limited nominated crew complement for the flotilla, sufficient perhaps to provide three crews for four boats. Thus with limited crew levels the boats would effectively be decommissioned for a percentage of the time. Fishermen would have flexibility of choice of boat and catch according to the markets and the season. The reduction in manning levels would require heavy compensation. It would be a reduction of perhaps 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. But that is intended, and is necessary. Presumably there may be EC help for that.
The fishing industry is largely a family and community affair. I suggest that such a plan fits the need. Those employed would enjoy higher catches and wages and fuller employment. Any plans for conservation of fish stocks require the agreement and co-operation of owners, skippers and crews—people who are rightly renowned as fierce defenders of their way of life, which is hard and dangerous, as noble Lords have pointed out, and as I know from my own experience.
I suspect that the plan to fit boats with transponders would be received with considerable scepticism. However, the Monicap system may also be seen as the thin end of the Brussels wedge. Nevertheless in the important area of safety at sea, especially in the crowded waters around our coasts, the Monicap system deserves serious consideration so that all ships navigating those waters may have access to vital information about neighbouring activities in their immediate vicinity. This is an international maritime need as well as a means of fishery control and should be costed accordingly. Obviously it would also give us the opportunity of monitoring fixed boxes designated at specific times of the year to allow fishing to be prevented in areas where spawning was taking place.
The plan is largely based on statistics. The fish stock levels, as quoted through landings, are irrelevant, as has been clearly pointed out. They cannot take account either of discards or of illegal, unnotified landings. It is only if there is seen to be a fair and effective control system that we shall receive the essential co-operation of fishermen which is needed to achieve the preservation of the species so that we may have a vital, natural resource and continue to answer the country's daily needs.
At present there is great suspicion that foreigners, supposedly our partners in the European Community, are cheating. As noble Lords have said many times over, that is used by our own men as an excuse to bend the rules. Unfortunately we, the British, are seen to be more effective at controls and that exacerbates the resentment. Controls are more and more disliked. I am very glad to hear the Minister's affirmation of the intention to use the intervening time—a whole year until 1994—to reassure the industry that a level playing field, or fishing ground, will be enforced.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Harvey of Tasburgh: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence because, although I wish to speak about the impact of the Bill on the Cornish fishing community, I do not pretend to be an authority on the fishing industry. Nor am I a Cornishman. I lack the credentials of my noble friends Lord Falmouth and Lord Saint Levan. However, I have lived in Cornwall on the waterfront for 30 years or so. Having been part of the sailing community I see a good deal of the fishing community. It is a measure of the intensity of their feeling against the Bill that they should urge a foreigner to stand up for them. At first I thought that they were really scraping the barrel in looking to me for help. But then I realised that few of your Lordships live permanently in Cornwall. I hope that among them we may number the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, who spoke so eloquently about the problem of Cornwall. I also thought that, if an outsider spoke for the people concerned, he would not be suspected of special pleading. Therefore I concluded that I should be failing in my duty to this House as well as letting down my friends and neighbours if I did not try to express their anxieties.
As has been well described by many noble Lords, the principal concern is the restriction on days at sea, the tying up, backed by very severe penalties, when there are no restrictions on foreign fleets. I consider that a form of rationing. I believe that any rationing damages competition or creates the wrong competition, such as black markets for smuggling. Even worse is to have rationing imposed unilaterally on our own fishermen while others are left free, or their misdeeds connived at by their authorities. Aggravating that situation are the foreign-owned British-registered boats whose catches come out of our quota even if landed abroad.
The time restriction might be acceptable if it were applied and were seen to apply to all nationalities. But rightly or wrongly that is not believed to be the case. Even if it were, it is not regarded as the most efficient or fair means of conservation because it would encourage a scramble for the higher-value fish and lead to the dangers vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst. I know that the following is not a true parallel but I ask how farmers would react if they were ordered to restrict their harvesting to 10 days a month in August and September. Would anyone suggest protecting the pound sterling by limiting only British foreign exchange dealers to a three-day week?
I do not wish to give the impression that the criticism is purely hostile and destructive. On the contrary, for obvious reasons the fishing community is entirely persuaded of the need for conservation. There are constructive ideas floating around which are considered to be safer, fairer and more efficient. I am not qualified to explain them technically but many have been described by other noble Lords this afternoon. For instance, there is the box system, or closed ground, where, in order to protect spawning grounds, there is an absolute prohibition on fishing in designated areas during particular periods of the year. That is fair, effective and easily enforced. Another idea
972
is the specification of minimum limits on mesh size and the shape of nets; for example, the box and diamond. Of course, in the background is the necessity for a proper decommissioning scheme such as was carried out some years ago by the French. The best method of conservation is that adopted in my area, the Fal Estuary, where the working boats are allowed to dredge for oysters only under sail. Regretfully I admit that that cannot be applied to the offshore fleet.
Speaking again as a detached outsider, I do not wish to imply that all fishermen are saints. They have a tough life and they are a forceful lot, as they must be in their profession. They are often at loggerheads with each other and with those around them. In fact, it is remarkable how strongly this Bill has united the fishing interests and aroused the sympathy of the rest of the community. The fishermen are vigorous and courageous characters. In this context "the salt of the earth" is an inappropriate phrase but "the salt of the sea" does not seem right either. I shall only say that there are not many people these days whose main complaint is that they are prevented from working as long as they want to. I know that they try to bend the rules when they have the chance, as do many people today. However, they believe that the theme of the Bill, as they understand it, is, "Find out what they are doing and tell them to stop it! "
I noticed with amusement that the Bill was passed in another place on Bastille Day, the quatorze juillet. Certainly it seemed to tilt the balance in favour of the other side of the Channel. But many circumstances, and in particular our relations with the European Community, have changed dramatically since then. Surely that justifies a new look at some of the provisions of the Bill, a new study of alternative methods of conservation and a new attempt to urge other EC countries the need to impose comparable restrictions and disciplines on their own fleets. The Minister has given me some reassurance on all those points. I shall try to convey that to my friends in Cornwall.
It would have been pleasant to have restored the balance by Trafalgar Day, which was a couple of weeks ago. Personally I would plump for St. Piran's Day, as I am speaking from a Cornish point of view, but no doubt that would be too parochial. Perhaps I may say without being chauvinistic—on the contrary, with genuine European unity and co-operation in mind—that I hope the Bill, which is an enabling Bill with admirable objectives, will no longer drift by accident into becoming a British Sea Fisheries Disabling Act and that we shall have in place a real Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act by St. George's Day.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Falmouth: My Lords, I congratulate the two excellent maiden speakers who spoke to the point and showed great knowledge of the subject. I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill fully and I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for the excellent report of the committee which he chaired successfully. I too come from the fringe or end county of Cornwall. It is a fishing county; therefore, I have a certain experience of fishing problems in that area.

973
The hour is late and I shall not detain your Lordships too long. Perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two points that have not yet been mentioned. My noble friend Lord Saint Levan mentioned Newlyn. That is an important port which has the highest value of landed fish in England. It is not, therefore, a negligible part of the country. In Cornwall there are about 1,300 fishermen who have craft of all shapes and sizes; for instance, potters, toshers, trawlers, beam trawlers, long liners, those with nets and so forth. I shall not elaborate on the county; I shall return to the principle of the Bill.
Everyone in your Lordships' House and elsewhere is agreed that fish stocks must be conserved. We have before us the dreadful example of the North Sea where large species such as halibut, ling and turbot are rare and the size of cod and haddock are much smaller. Whatever else we may say or think, conserving fish means killing fewer fish. All methods of conservation, therefore, affect the incomes and earnings of fishermen, especially when they are first introduced. Fishermen in this country are to be congratulated on being united in realising the importance of conservation. I shall not deal with the various methods of conservation which have been explained eloquently today; for instance, large mesh nets and blocks controlling spawning areas which are difficult to enforce. It is clear that we are concerned with the limitation of fishing effort; that is the number of days at sea. It is the hook on which we are all attached today.
Like noble Lords on all sides of the House, I too have received a large number of letters expressing the fears of honest and upright fishermen, in particular those from the west of England. They fear that fishing effort will be substantially curtailed. It springs from what the scientists have said—that most fish stocks in the North Atlantic are over fished. In some cases stocks are believed to be close to the point of collapse. The need for reduced effort is evident.
The choices for management produced by scientific advisers focus on the progressive reduction of fishing effort, usually in the region of between 10 and 30 per cent. The figure of 30 per cent. has stuck in the minds of fishermen. Perhaps I may quote from a letter that I received from the wife of a fisherman based on Newlyn. She said:
"He owns a 36 ft fishing vessel… We employ one man. A reduction of time spent at sea would result in a drop of income as our income is solely dependent upon the amount of fish we catch… The effect of a 30 per cent. reduction to our income would be disastrous. In today's climate we are struggling not to become one of the numerous small businesses going bankrupt each week".
The figure of 30 per cent. has frightened fishermen tremendously. If the fisherman I have mentioned has to stand off his one crew member, the fear expressed—the English Channel being one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world—is that with one less crew member on board to take a shift on watch the possibility of collision is increased.
Another extremely valid point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, is that it may be necessary
974
to put to sea in weather conditions in which one would not normally sail were the restriction on days at sea to be carried through.
The Bill is spoken of as a means of conserving our fish stocks. In reality, we do not have exclusive rights over fish stocks. So while the Government force the UK fishing fleet to stay in port, any of the EC countries, in particular the French and Spanish who have no such restrictions, will be able to fish without competition from the United Kingdom.
The letter from the fisherman's wife goes on:
"Daily we encounter the French and Spanish fishing fleet. Their vessels are larger, more modern and better crewed than Ours".
It is feared that when our fishing boats are in port, our seas—the common seas—will be fished by our European partners all the more, with scant respect for the fishing laws and quotas of their own countries, and with no restrictions such as we have on their fishing effort. That will make a complete nonsense of our attempts at conservation by limiting effort. That fear has been expressed to me time and time again both in the fish market at Newlyn and in a wide range of letters which I—and I am sure other noble Lords—have received.
I shall give two examples to explain the grounds for those fears. The first is the obvious one of quota hoppers. In July there were about 77 such vessels, mostly large craft from other countries in the Community. They are landing in ports on the Continent their fish and probably our fish beyond quotas. This country does not even receive the benefit of the exchange which might be won from the fish which they land.
Let us look for a moment at the staffing of the inspectorate of fisheries in Europe. It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, who mentioned Spain which has 17 inspectors to cover a very large seaboard. Those inspectors are all based in Madrid. What could be a more inefficient way of managing an inspectorate? Presumably, they ring up the port to say, "We will be arriving to inspect the fleet on Tuesday. Be ready for us." We know how they would be ready for them. Therefore, can anybody in our country have faith in the way in which fishing laws are enforced in other parts of the Community?
My noble friend, who made an excellent speech in introducing the Bill, may think it a very good thing to set an example in paving the way for conservation in this manner. However, I suggest that he should beware of giving away too much—perhaps giving away everything—at the start of any negotiations because there is then absolutely nothing left with which to bargain. It is perhaps naive to believe that where we lead, others will follow. Our fishermen believe that other member states will take full advantage of our absence. The Bill will do nothing to conserve our stocks. When those other countries have fully trained inspectors of integrity on the scale that we have, then perhaps it will be possible to control fishing effort to conserve stocks. I am glad that Government have undertaken in another place to introduce no resolution under the Bill unless they are

975
completely satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance targets.
I do not believe that such a provision will do much to satisfy the industry that other member states are really playing their part. But it is a step forward. To reduce fishing effort there is a long voyage ahead of us. We must see whether our European partners can change their attitude as regards obeying laws which do not suit their interests. It is a great fear, which goes right through the fishing industry, that our European Community partners will not obey the fishing laws and that it will be a long time before they do so.
I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will do everything that they possibly can to protect the interests and efforts of our fishermen. If fishing efforts are kept down for a few years, some benefits may accrue, but the scientists advise that those benefits may not be permanent. However, benefits will arise only if all states keep down their fishing efforts and if laws are enforced. If that is not the case and only one country—Britain—restricts its efforts, and no conservation will result.
As has been mentioned before in your Lordships' House, the importance of fishermen to this country is considerable. We are still an island race in spite of a tunnel. A very wise Member of another place said a long time ago in a fishery debate—indeed, he was a seaman of great distinction—that if you give up the fishery, you lose your breed of seamen. Conservation of fish stocks must sail side by side with a proper and fair administration of a common law for the common seas. That law must be made and kept by the members of the EC and not made and kept by one country only. Otherwise this Bill can have no hope of success in its long term objective of preventing the seas around Europe from being fished out.
8 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this has been one of the most interesting debates that I have heard in the House for a long time. There may have been some feeling that there was repetition in the debate, but it is important to note that everyone was giving experience from their own areas. I have seldom taken part in a debate and heard people speaking about Orkney and Shetland and others speaking of Cornwall, the North-East of Scotland and the Western Isles all with the same basic argument in regard to the specific problem of conservation of fish.
Perhaps I should first say something in regard to the noble Lords who today made their maiden speeches. Both were extremely interesting and thoughtful. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, could not be described as non-controversial. I should prefer to call it inquisitorial. He expressed a great deal with which I agree.
Around 20 years ago I took part, with others, in a couple of radio programmes debating the EC in which I confessed that I was not an authority on fish but felt in my bones that the Scottish people would not do well in the EC in relation to fish. I am glad that that is on
976
record so that it can be seen that I am not inventing something or trying to raise a point that was not true. The comments of the noble Lords, Lord Amherst and Lord Moyne, fully justified my early fears.
The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, raised a point which I hope to mention later; that is, that it is an enabling Bill with powers that are far too wide. The references made by the noble Lord to some aspects of European legislation would be funny in an Ealing comedy script. But in the situation where British fishing communities are at stake they are anything but funny.
Perhaps the most pertinent point made by the noble Lord was that in Cornwall he found that the fishermen were not so much against the Bill but more against the possibility of it ever being properly policed. In other words, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said earlier, we are back to the level playing field. I am sure that the House will be privileged to hear from both noble Lords in the future. I am hopeful that we shall hear from them during the Committee stage of the Bill.
From what has been said today I know that we are all well aware and concerned about conservation. Having met the Scottish and Northern Ireland fishermen last week, I am convinced that they have an even stronger sense of the importance of conservation than the rest of us. They see at first hand the depletion of stocks, the lowering of their catches and the threat to their standards of living or even their very livelihoods.
No one could claim that fishermen, or for that matter farmers, are easy for governments to deal with. There is always uncertainty in the work of both groups of people and their incomes can vary greatly. When legislation comes before the House they will always try to include in it a belt and braces protection. The Government's proposed scheme contains neither of those. I believe that it would have been apparent if before drafting the Bill the Government had had meaningful consultations with the industry. Perhaps the Minister can say just how much consultation with the industry there was. Our information is that there was very little. Many people who have spoken in the House today also seem to take much the same view.
The Government proposed a decommissioning scheme and that is where I find it difficult to see a thread of logic. The proposed scheme is rather pathetic in terms of the problems of conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, said that around 5 per cent. of the fleet would go on the basis of £25 million compensation. I believe that that is correct. That will not make a great deal of difference. However, even that is compounded by the proposal that fish producer organisations may be given the power not merely to buy up the boats of those wishing to quit the industry—which would be logical—but also to buy up the fishing track records of those boats.
Unless I am totally misinterpreting the situation, we will have a decommissioning with no element of conservation. If fishing effort is to be curtailed boat by boat, the judicious purchase of track records would logically mean that the blank fishing days of one boat could be filled by the fishing track record of a purchased boat. That may be wrong. but that was my

977
interpretation of the Bill. Thus the whole effort of a most complicated bureaucratic scheme would be nullified. I hope that the Minister will be able to help by answering that point.
Can the Government give any help in trying to assess the viability and economics of the British fishing industry? Has an overall picture ever been produced which includes the effect of what the industry calls "quota hoppers"—that is, people who come into British waters, catch the fish and then go to another port? I believe within some of the European rules that is permissible. I can see that we cannot keep people out of our waters when they are registered. But in order to preserve our stock they should at least land the fish in a British port to enable us to learn how much fish has been taken out.
I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, in his place. A point was raised in another place and not satisfactorily answered. It referred to foreign fishing vessels coming into our waters. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to look at the point raised in another place where there appeared to be a loophole in the 1976 Fishery Limits Act. It did not seem to contain any sanctions against foreign vessels entering and fishing in UK waters. The Minister will he aware that that defect was first pointed out in 1983. But in June of this year, just before the Bill went to Second Reading in another place, the charge against a foreign vessel was found not to be viable at Stornoway sheriff court. There was a technical flaw in the 1976 Act. I was asked by people from the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland to ascertain from the Minister whether that loophole has now been closed.
Perhaps the most important feature of the Bill—a subject of importance to us all and vital to the fishing industry—is the fact that it is basically an empowering Bill. A number of noble Lords referred to this in the debate. It gives the Minister and the Government great powers to do by regulation what could be more difficult to do by a more comprehensive and better thought-out Bill. The House should be told what scope the Minister proposes to give to the proper discussion of licence conditions which may become part of a licence before they are enforced.
It is a great pity that the Government felt unable to await the publication of the report of your Lordships' committee under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. It was published a matter of only a week or two after this Bill was given a Second Reading in another place. The report is very comprehensive and it is one of the best that I have ever read. A very large volume of evidence was taken. Thirteen groups gave oral evidence and about 30 gave written evidence. I believe that noble Lords will agree that the report has a great deal more behind it than the Bill before us. That would appear to be so from this debate and the speeches which we have heard from people who know a great deal about the industry.
As is frequently the case, the report is exhaustive, authoritative and most thoroughly researched. It is long, with evidence which runs to about 300 pages. Its recommendations should give the Government food for thought and perhaps the incentive to think again
978
before implementing the more controversial aspects of the Bill. I recommend to any Member of the House who has not read the report and who is perhaps not totally immersed in the fishing industry merely to read the summary and the conclusions. If those are read, when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill there will be a great many more people supporting the amendments which have been promised will be put down by a number of those who have spoken in the debate. They are amendments which people wish to be incorporated in the Bill. This is not really a well-received Bill either in this House or in another place. Perhaps the correct amendments could be tabled in order to make the Bill more acceptable to the fishing community and the nation as a whole.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, this has been a long but very interesting debate. I believe that there have been about 25 contributions to it, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not respond to each and every speech that has been made. I also trust that I shall be forgiven if I do not answer, or attempt to answer, the many questions that were put to me—about 30 or 40 during the course of the debate.
At the outset I join with other noble Lords in first paying my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst and my noble friend Lord Moyne for their distinguished maiden speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, may not have been entirely without the tinge of controversy, but nevertheless it was not only direct but showed a deep and clear knowledge of the subject. I am sure that his contributions on this matter and on others will be very much appreciated by your Lordships. I extend the same compliment to my noble friend Lord Moyne who exhibited the same degree of knowledge and lucidity in the presentation of his arguments. I am particularly grateful to him that he has found one fisherman in the West Country who seems to be in support of the Bill as it might begin.
The only other person I wish to compliment at this stage, and it is obviously a compliment which reflects on others, is to congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Selborne for the report of the Select Committee over which he presided. There seems to be some indication that those who are interested or knowledgeable about fishing matters will find this report interesting and useful. I would go further than that. Those who have little understanding of the complexities and problems of conservation affecting our fishing industry at the moment have a great deal to learn from this very well set out summary of the problems and the various approaches which might be suggested. I am very grateful to all concerned.
In my time in another place I recall the time when herring was a principal part of the Scottish fisheries. Because of the extensive over-fishing there had to be a period of seven years when the herring fisheries of Scotland were simply closed down altogether. Until that happened there were great arguments that it was unnecessary and that fish were still available so that we could carry on. The reality was that, in time, the

979
herring industry had to be closed down completely. I am relieved to say that, subsequent to that, herring fishing in Scotland has improved dramatically. That of itself would appear to be encouraging. The difficulty is that during the period when there was not the opportunity to fish for herring the daughters of housewives (who knew exactly what to do with the silver darlings) have forgotten how to use them. A significant problem in the marketing of fish is that the herring has never been restored to the place which it rightfully held among the great foods of the United Kingdom.
It is against that background that we have to look at conservation not only in the short-term sequences, but in the longer-term. We have to see that we do not get unnecessary or unacceptable peaks and troughs. If that were to happen similar damage would be done to the market. We believe that the CFP is essentially sound although there is, of course, as always, some room for refinement. It is essential that the system of total allowable catches and quotas remain at the heart of the CFP and that relative stability and Hague preference arrangements should be maintained.
Since the Select Committee report of your Lordships' House was published earlier this year and since we sent in our response to it in September, it might be useful if I briefly outline that there have been some developments in Brussels which would bear on the debate which your Lordships have engaged in this afternoon and this evening. One is a replacement of the overall CFP Regulations (EC Regulation 170/83) and includes provisions which time extend the local access provisions and the terms of the Shetland Box which was a matter of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
In addition that proposal includes some new ideas on how to agree fishing TACs and quotas, suggesting that the EC Council of Ministers agree an internal framework every three to five years for stocks and thereafter allow a Commission-chaired group to agree simply the annual TACs and quotas within that framework. We are still looking at this. The Commission proposal needs to be explained in more detail by the Commission. We shall be striving to obtain an agreement which balances the long-term conservation interest of fish stocks with a decision-making process where member states' interests can be taken into account.
In addition the new framework proposal has put forward the prospect of an EC fishery licensing scheme. That too, for obvious reasons, requires to be very closely analysed bearing in mind that at the present time in the Community if there is any issue which concerns us it is how the principle of subsidiarity should be applied. The question then arises is whether the Community itself should be running such a scheme.
The other proposal from the Commission concerns enforcement. Almost without exception your Lordships have raised individual concerns on that point. It is recognised in the Commission's report on the CFP and by member states that there needs to be a better and more uniform standard of enforcement
980
throughout the Community so that all fishermen from all member states are subject to strict control and monitoring rules. This new proposal aims to do that, extending the enforcement provisions to all elements of the CFP including structures and marketing. As some of your Lordships have remarked, and following on what was said to the Select Committee, there is even a proposal to introduce satellite technology so that boats can be monitored more efficiently.
Negotiations on that proposal will be difficult with some member states, as has been observed, having significantly less rigorous powers of enforcement activity than the United Kingdom itself. The observation has been made that in some way we have lost out over the common fisheries policy. While that is a point to bear in mind when we are looking again at the CFP, we are not in a position to renegotiate the common fisheries policy that was agreed in 1983, under which the United Kingdom received 37 per cent. of the quotas for the seven major white fish species. My recollection is that at that time the agreement was well received by the industry and was regarded as a fair and proper settlement.
There is, however, one area on which there continues to be real concern, possibly because it is an area in which we as a nation have little fishing interest. I refer to industrial fishing in Community waters. The argument has been advanced during the debate that over the next 10 years or so we should look to phase out such industrial fishing. I entirely agree that it is time for the Community to look again at whether additional measures should be taken to control industrial fishing operations. The European Commission was due to report on industrial fishing in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak by the end of August. That has not as yet been done although we are pressing the Commission on it. We hope to take forward discussions on that matter as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that he hoped that the Government might re-open the Hague Preference—notwithstanding what I have said—to remedy a particular unfairness in relation to Northern Ireland. That issue was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. As my noble friend Lord Howe said in opening the debate, the Hague Preference is an integral part of the relative stability of the common fisheries policy. It needs to be appreciated that Ireland is seeking to re-open the Hague Preference to increase its share, which would work to the detriment of the United Kingdom's fishermen. Although we would seek to help the Northern Ireland fishermen as much as we possibly could, re-opening the Hague Preference would be a dangerous course to take.
I have been asked a number of questions about decommissioning schemes—in particular, about whether other member states have such schemes. The answer is yes, all except Ireland, as was observed. The problem about the schemes is that although they are expensive they have not succeeded in reducing fishing effort. Although they may help to rationalise the structure of the internal fishing industry of any particular country, they have not reduced fishing

981
effort. Stocks have not benefited as was intended. That is why we regard a restriction on days at sea as being a necessary complement to decommissioning.
I believe that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who asked whether a generous decommissioning scheme might not be the way forward, reducing fishing effort by some 25 per cent. I fear that reducing the number of fishing vessels does not of itself reduce effort. An increased effort by the remainder—not least as a result of technical developments—could well leave the fishing effort at its original level or, indeed, higher.
As my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston stated, I once represented Arbroath and, like the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I understand the distinctive character of fishing communities and how important fishing is to the fringes of Scotland. While I was a Member of Parliament—and since then—I have noticed a significant decline in the size of the fleet fishing out of ports such as Arbroath. However, when one looks at some of the boats that remain, at their traditional expertise coupled with some of the most elaborate and sophisticated technical aids, my firm suspicion is—but I would not like to quantify it too accurately—that literally a handful of boats achieve the same effort, and probably more, as was achieved when the fleet was three or four times its present size.
Decommissioning schemes in other member states have too often had the effect of restructuring the industry rather than reducing total numbers. I was asked a specific question about France. The figure that I have—I shall correct it if I am given an updated one—indicates that the French decommissioning scheme is costing about £16 million and the effect of that has been nearly to reach their target of a reduction of just 10 per cent. in the fleet. Perhaps I should add, going round the other Community countries, that the Dutch operate a strict tie-up regime for most of their vessels. Their days at sea have remained frozen, but they may well be reduced in the future.
Although the position of the Government is that a single reliance on decommissioning is not the way forward, we have considered carefully what the Select Committee said. In particular, we noted its recommendation that if decommissioning is to be carried out tendering would be an appropriate way forward because it would ensure the best value for money. We believe that tendering is the best way to determine levels of decommissioning payments and we are at present in discussion with the European Commission on that point.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy put some questions about the emphasis that we have given to research in relation to fishing. I thought that that was a slightly churlish point for him to make given the evidence that was provided not only to the Select Committee but also in the memorandum in response. I entirely agree with him that research is a very important element in determining the future of fishing. Co-ordinated research should continue under the present arrangements. We spend around £15 million per year on research and monitoring relating to marine fisheries. Our research is particularly directed towards the assessment of stock size and at what is
982
described as "recruitment"—that is, young fish growing up—for the fish stocks which are of considerable importance to our industry. Research is also focused on the design and selectivity-of fishing gear to promote conservation. The square mesh nets that were introduced recently by the EC stemmed from research that was commissioned by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me a number of questions about designated ports, public auctions, and the licensing of fish buyers and the like in an attempt to control what are described as "black fish". Perhaps I may say immediately that all parts of the House share a real concern about the problem of black fish and there may, indeed, be solutions in some of the noble Lord's ideas. I cannot say that we have any immediate plans to follow them through, but it is a matter that should be kept under review.
The noble Lord also asked about the timing for the extension of controls below the 10 metre mark. We shall be using the licensing system to build up data on the under 10 metre fleet. This will then enable us to decide what controls are needed. It is unlikely that we would want to extend the days at sea controls in the first two or three years.
Finally on this part of the debate rather than specifically on the Bill, we were accused on a number of occasions of standing back and fighting the battle on behalf of British fishermen with our hands tied behind our backs. Perhaps I may say that we should approach carefully the argument that all other member states break the rules with impunity. All member states will be subject to the 1996 MAGP (multi-annual guidance programme) targets. I must remind your Lordships that the United Kingdom failed to reach its 1991 target. Perhaps we had better put our own house in order before we too vigorously attack other members of the Community on this point.
Just last week we joined the French in calling for more modest reductions in what are described as our MAGP targets. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about bringing salmon within the EC regime. The Community already participates in the North Atlantic Salmon Organisation which is concerned with the proper management of these migratory fish.
I turn briefly to what has been said about the Bill itself. For the sake of brevity, I invite noble Lords to look carefully at what my noble friend Lord Howe said in opening the debate. Although the Bill is concerned with taking time out and requiring fishermen to stay in port, that should not be seen as the only part of our approach. What will be appreciated is that earlier this year we put forward a fairly extensive package, including decommissioning and other measures. What is different is that this is the only aspect of it which would require primary legislation. The extension of licensing to vessels under 10 metres has been very much welcomed by the industry as a necessary move to halt further expansion in this sector of the fleet. The industry has also rightly placed great emphasis on the role of technical conservation measures—in mesh sizes and net design. Here too we have succeeded in securing agreement

983
over the introduction of a range of new Community measures, as well as taking additional unilateral action following consultation with the industry. There is no question but that technical measures have an important part to play in an effective conservation policy, but they are not in themselves sufficient to redress the current imbalance between fishing effort and available stocks.
We have announced changes to the rules on licence transfers between vessels and are considering further changes to allow producer organisations greater flexibility to help their members in restructuring the fleet. All these measures will contribute towards reducing capacity.
Then there is the decommissioning scheme and the £25 million of public money going directly into the industry. The benefits from the decommissioning scheme and the other measures are clear, but those benefits would be rapidly undermined if the remaining fleet was simply allowed to increase its effort. The imbalance between the capacity and capability of our fleet and the stocks available to it is clear. We need to have the ability to contain fishing effort if the industry is to reap the benefits of the other conservation measures. The powers in the Bill do just that—allowing us to freeze fishing effort at last year's level.
I understand the very real concerns of the industry, but it is essential that this Bill and the powers contained in it are seen in perspective. The industry knows, as we do, that action must be taken to protect fish stocks if we are to protect the long-term viability of the industry itself. As my noble friend emphasised in his opening remarks, the intention in the first instance is simply to freeze effort at the level which many will have chosen themselves last year. The fishermen will retain maximum flexibility to decide when they go to sea, as in the past. With fish stocks at their current levels there is no question of the fleet being unable to catch its full quotas. Regrettable as it may have been, the west of Scotland haddock fishery was closed to all United Kingdom vessels on 7th October. Equally regrettably, the North Sea haddock fishery was closed on 16th October to the two biggest groups of fishing vessels in Scotland. It needs to be recalled that those fishing vessels are at present subject to schemes that involve a degree of tie-up. What we are introducing in the Bill is not an EC scheme but a freestanding United Kingdom one.
We are establishing an appeals tribunal which will give any fisherman who is concerned over the level of his initial allocation of days at sea the right to appeal to an independent body. I appreciate that some noble Lords will wish to return to this point at the Committee stage.
In future years it may prove necessary to reduce days at sea allocations for some sectors of the fleet if we are to meet our MAGP targets. But again, as my noble friend has assured the House, while this is an enabling Bill we intend to introduce an amendment to the Bill at a later stage which will ensure that there is a further parliamentary debate before there are any overall reductions in days at sea allocations.
984
It is unclear at this stage what, if any, reductions may be needed in future years. That will depend on the extent to which the other measures I have referred to are successful in reducing capacity and fishing effort. But what is clear and remains beyond doubt is that there is a very significant imbalance between the capacity of our fleet to catch the fish to which it is entitled in terms of the common fisheries policy and the fish available to it. That imbalance threatens the very existence of those stocks and therefore the future of the industry. We must take action and take action now. The package of measures presented by the Government will go a long way towards readjusting the balance between fleet size and available fish stocks, but the other measures are not enough on their own.
I trust I will be forgiven if I have not responded to all the detailed points raised in the debate. They are points to which we shall be able to return at the Committee stage if they remain points of concern. The powers in the Bill are needed if we are to secure real conservation benefits and the long-term viability of this important industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Common Fisheries Policy: ECC Report
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (2nd Report,1992–93, H. L. Paper 9).
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (2nd Report,1992–93, H. L. Paper 9).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Domestic Violence
8.36 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report on domestic violence by the inter-agency working party formed by Victim Support.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask this Unstarred Question I very much welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth is going to make his maiden speech.
The issue I am raising tonight is concerned with violence. It relates in particular to attacks by men on the women with whom they live. It is for a variety of reasons a crime which has received far too little public attention. In the past women were often far too frightened to come forward and complain to the police about what their men were doing to them. Indeed, in a number of cases that remains true to the present day. When they did come forward they often refused to give evidence in court. In those circumstances it was perhaps inevitable that many of the social agencies involved, including the police, gave a relatively low priority to cases of this kind. They certainly did their

985
best to calm things down but they were heavily extended in other areas. If the victims persistently refused to give evidence against their assailants, what more, the police sometimes asked, could they do about it.
There has undoubtedly been some improvement in the recent past concerning this general approach. There are two fundamental reasons for this. First, fewer women are now prepared to tolerate repeated acts of domestic violence. As a result of that more cases are being reported. Secondly, there has been a significant alteration in police attitudes in many forces. They are not only prepared to record episodes of domestic violence but many forces, including in particular the Metropolitan Police, arc now making substantial resources available to help women who are prepared to report attacks by their husbands or partners.
Perhaps I may deal first with the scale of the present problem. Just about half of all homicides of women are killings by a husband or partner. One-third of reported crimes against women result from acts of domestic violence. As the report that we are debating points out, domestic violence is far more frequent than violence against women in the street, the pub or the workplace.
It would be useful to illustrate the effect of some new police procedures in relation to the numbers of reported acts of domestic violence. In June 1987 a new Metropolitan Police policy was laid down in a force order. It addressed the intervention role of police officers who are called to such incidents. Henceforth, there would be a positive arrest policy. Instructions were laid down as to the support to be given to the victim, on follow-up action and on liaison with other agencies. Domestic violence units have now been established. There are 62 such units in divisions in the Metropolitan Police. They are staffed by 126 officers.
The effects of the new policy have been striking. Last year the Metropolitan Police received over 30,000 calls from people stating that they had been subject to domestic violence. A 66 per cent. increase in such offences was recorded. In the first six months of this year there has been a further 34 per cent. increase.
I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the fact that more women are coming forward to report such crimes, although they represent a most disturbing commentary on the character of our society. In the main we are talking about repeated assaults, not isolated acts of violence. We are talking about punching, biting, blows with weapons and sometimes far more sadistic attacks.
In Canada research indicates that on average a woman is assaulted on over 30 occasions before the police are called. In this country it is probable that the figure is also a disturbingly high one.
The problems facing a woman in such a situation cannot be overestimated. It is often difficult for her to contemplate a life outside the relationship. What is she going to do? She may have no means of earning money and in the current economic situation she may find earning a livelihood of her own impossible, even if she has some form of qualification. If she has children, she will often have to take them to temporary
986
overcrowded accommodation. If she fears that a vengeful husband will try to follow her, she may have to go to an area with which she is not familiar, finding new schools for her children and often being compelled to live in the direst poverty. If she comes from one of the minority communities her situation is, if anything, a great deal worse.
The police and other agencies involved clearly face formidable problems in dealing with women in those circumstances. First, if the man is arrested, arrangements have to be made, sometimes at extremely short notice, to deal with the bail application the following morning. Obviously in cases of most grievous assault the man will almost certainly he remanded in custody. However, in other cases it will be necessary for applications for bail conditions to be imposed, in particular for a special condition requiring the defendant not to return to the family home or to seek either directly or indirectly to make contact with either the woman or her children. In other cases the woman and the children will have to be moved out of the family home and lodged in a hostel, run perhaps by a women's group, or she may have to go to some form of local authority accommodation which may be a significant distance away. The police will have to continue their support until the eventual trial.
I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with a number of officers of the Metropolitan Police who are involved with this work. I have been deeply impressed by their quality. I found them to be caring and compassionate people, wholly committed to the distressed women with whom they deal. I have no doubt that the burden which they carry is a very substantial one, and I find it hard to believe that there are any officers more dedicated in the police service. However, they, I am sure, would be the first to recognise the difficulty which confronts us all when we endeavour to establish a clear set of priorities when dealing with this issue. The working party has performed a most useful service in setting out an agenda for action. It is to the recommendations in the report that I now turn.
I should like to deal first with the criminal law. I have already dealt at some length with the policy of the Metropolitan Police. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us what discussions are taking place with ACPO and the Inspectorate of Constabulary as to how the issue is being handled by forces outside the major conurbations which would not necessarily be able to replicate the precise arrangements that exist in London. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could deal with that matter. I am well aware of the existence of the Home Office circular and I am also aware that many chief officers now attach a high priority to this form of crime.
I should now like to deal with the probation service. The working party, which included a representative of the probation service, has recommended that its management should promote good practice when supervising an offender to ensure that staff do not collude with the perpetrators in minimising the seriousness of the violence. Clearly, that situation has very substantial implications as far as training in the

987
probation service is concerned. Probation officers will have to bear in mind that they have a direct responsibility to ensure, in so far as they can, the safety of the abused woman. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us what can be done by the Home Office and the probation inspectorate in dealing with that recommendation.
The Crown Prosecution Service was represented by observers on the working party. It is suggested that the CPS should publish its policy guidelines on the prosecution of these offences to ensure that such cases should not be withdrawn too easily. I am sure that all noble Lords would like to know whether the CPS is prepared to accept that recommendation.
I now turn to the position of the civil law and the courts, which are the responsibility of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The working party suggests that if evidence would potentially justify adding a power of arrest to an injunction, then an undertaking should never be seen as an adequate substitute. It urges that a power of arrest should be added as a general rule whenever there has been actual bodily harm.
The working party makes another significant recommendation—that the powers of the magistrates' court and the county court should be brought into line so that, whatever a woman's marital status or living arrangements may be, she can get a protection order under the same legislation in either court. We should like to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on that matter.
The issue of housing is of critical importance to the abused woman and her children. I have been told by the police that a number of local authorities handle these distressing cases in a sensitive and intelligent manner, but inevitably that is not always the case. The working party urged that trained women staff should also be available within homelessness sections to interview those women in private; that bed and breakfast provision should be used for a limited period only, preferably in women and children only accommodation; that there should be a specific refuge liaison officer in each such section; and that information should be made available about the existence of Women's Aid as well as other local support services. Those are important recommendations. They are part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I shall be pleased to know what action that department is taking to discuss those matters with the local authority associations.
Finally, there are issues involving other government departments. Some abused women obviously still do not report such offences to the police. They may, for instance, go directly to the outpatients' department of a local hospital. As the working party points out, many of those departments do not have social workers assigned to them. It is obviously desirable, whenever possible—I understand the constraint on public expenditure—to have such social workers available so that the women involved could have their problems referred to the agencies which exist to assist them. I should be grateful if the Minister
988
would tell us what is the position of the Department of Health in respect of that recommendation. There is of course another important issue—the financing of women's refuges, many of which are woefully underfunded. Again, I recognise the problem of central government expenditure and the financial problems facing local authorities, but it is most unsatisfactory that many of the refuges experience the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. I know that we are all interested to know what action can be taken to deal with that matter.
Beyond the working party's recommendations to which I have already referred and the many others on which I shall not touch because of the time limitation, there is one issue of central importance to which I hope the Minister will apply himself. It is that there should be a clearly defined department willing to accept the responsibility of taking the lead on domestic violence. I have already mentioned four separate government departments, each with its own responsibility and each to some extent working in isolation. I hope that the Minister will tell us, at the very least, that officials from all the departments involved will be brought together, preferably under Home Office chairmanship—the issues we are discussing are primarily matters involving the criminal justice system—to formulate a response to the working party's recommendations and all the issues which will undoubtedly be ventilated during the debate.
I have no doubt that the Government are as disturbed as any of us about the extent of domestic violence in this country and about the thousands of frightened women and children who as we speak are suffering from the conduct of violent men. We require an assurance that, despite the country's present immense difficulties and the inevitable public expenditure implications, speedy action will be taken to implement many of the report's important recommendations.
8.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation. It seems incongruous that a maiden speech should concern itself with domestic violence. I am also aware of the lateness of the hour when bed begins to beckon. I hope, however, that I shall not imitate the bishop who dreamt that he was addressing your Lordships' House and when he woke up found that he was.
The publication of the report marks a significant advance in raising public and political awareness of a problem which has for long been with us but which has, until recently, been treated as one of the unmentionables of our society. So I join those who welcome warmly the work done so thoroughly and comprehensively by Mary Tuck and her working party. It is not of course the first or only exploration of this especially nasty form of human behaviour. The Churches have, for some time, recognised the need for study and action. Their ministers and pastoral workers are only too familiar with incidents of domestic violence since it is to them that many victims

989
naturally turn in their distress. It is also by them that the horrid secrets of an apparently tranquil home may be discovered and confronted.
So it is perhaps surprising that there is no reference in the report to the experience of the Churches or other faith communities. Nor is consideration given to their potential as partners in combating domestic violence. It is of course true that the Church itself has not and is not always free of wrong attitudes of behaviour by men towards women, although a distorted patriarchy is a betrayal of the Christian gospel, for that points towards the relationship between the sexes which is based upon mutual respect and service and true equality of status in the eyes of God. It is that that Christians uphold and proclaim when they are true to their founder.
But domestic violence cannot be confronted by the Churches alone, and the role of the statutory and voluntary agencies rightly features large in the report. I look forward to a positive reply from the Minister on behalf of the Government in respect of the report's recommendations, for those who commit acts of domestic violence should be held properly accountable to society for their actions. The law must provide adequate protection for those who are their victims.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, there is a serious inadequacy which is highlighted by the working party. It is the patchy and underfunded provision of refuges. That requires the Government's urgent attention. The need for refuges is not confined to urban areas. An archbishops' commission, in its report Faith in the Countryside, indicates that special difficulties are experienced by women and families in rural areas where undue domination by the male seems to be more marked than in cities.
Another group, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, for whom help is required is the black and ethnic minority group. The needs of those women who are especially vulnerable can be met adequately only by specialist provision which is sensitive to the background and specific needs of the group. Some of those are spelt out in the recommendation of Southall Black Sisters to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
Much more important than dealing with the results of domestic violence is to work for its prevention and to establish conditions in our society which make it as unthinkable as slavery. One of the most urgent practical means towards that end is the provision of adequate, permanent, safe and affordable accommodation. The case for that is well made in the report. Its lack creates the conditions in which overcrowding and impermanence lead easily to violence in the home. Closely related to that is the frustration of those who lack security and a sense of self worth because of their being unemployed. Add boredom and the circumstances are just right for men to take out their feelings on those who share their homes. No matter what legal measures are provided to deal with physical abuse in the home, they will not in my view significantly reduce its incidence until there is much greater employment in this country, as well as the additional housing which I have mentioned.
990
I spoke earlier of the Church as a potential partner in combating violence. I believe the Church has a peculiarly important contribution to make, not solely or even primarily in the socio-political sphere but in its fundamental task of proclaiming the Christian Gospel for this teaches the infinite worth of every individual person as one created in the image of God; body, mind and soul. Therefore, respect, even reverence, is due to each one regardless of gender, age, race, nation or creed.
There is surely a great need to recover a sense of reverence or respect in this generation. Nothing seems to be held sacred any more and religion, royalty and reticence in matters to do with sex are all equally open to public debunking and the pillory of the media. How can young people in particular learn a proper awe for the mystery of life when Jesus Christ is presented as a hippy puppet? How can they develop respect for the time-honoured institutions which give stability to this nation when members of the royal family are at the mercy of peeping Toms? How can they have respect for a woman when her body is so exploited for titillation and commercial gain? Moreover, it has become fashionable to debunk authority of every kind and an unhealthy delight seems to be taken in some quarters in revealing the failings of politicians, officers of the law, teachers and clergy. In this way confidence is undermined as many people find it difficult to distinguish between an important public office and its all too human holder.
As Churches and other religious organisations are founded upon reverence for the Creator they are in a good position to contribute to society something of their sense of reverence and so help people recover that proper respect upon which all healthy human relationships depend. The Church already has some opportunity to do this in the education, training and formation of its own members as well as in the important work of preparing couples for marriage. However, even that is an uphill task given the influence in every home of both the press and the broadcasting media.
Much that one reads or sees seems to encourage rather than discourage domestic violence. Those who are responsible for portraying gender roles, particularly on television, perhaps need to be asked whether we are presented with enough positive images of men positively caring for their wives, partners and children or whether we are presented with images of women who are sufficiently confident and competent to negotiate their way in the trickier and more demanding aspects of relationships.
How far does prime time viewing depend upon crude macho-style stereotypes of men or equally crude victim-style stereotypes of women to improve ratings? There are, of course, other ways in which some attitudes, assumptions and practices of western society undermine respect for the individual human being and are inimical to Christian and religious values. I conclude by quoting from a submission by Church leaders to the Canadian panel on violence against women which stated in March this year:
"We believe that churches, sensitive to spiritual and other dimensions of human relations, can contribute to the solution of violence against women. Many abused women turn to

991
clergy and pastoral care workers, not only for practical help but also with questions about self-esteem, their personal dignity and their relationship with God. Our people are becoming better able to respond to those needs and to offer comfort and healing to all involved. Together with medical, legal and other community resources, the churches can contribute to an effective and integrated response".
I hope we shall encourage them to do so.
9.5 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent and informative maiden speech. I do so because my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley is not able to be present today although his name appears on the speakers' list. Normally he would have congratulated the right reverend Prelate. However, it is appropriate that I should congratulate the right reverend Prelate because a 17th century forebear of mine contributed to debates upon episcopacy at a time when there was a strong movement to remove the bishops from Parliament.
My ancestor coined what I believe is the only quotation to be found in the dictionary of well known phrases which can be attributed to a member of my family. He was a well educated man and the phrase was quite simple. It was, "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". That dictum has become axiomatic in political life and I am glad to say that in respect of bishops my forebear's advice was heeded and the right reverend Prelate is with us today making his excellent speech.
On behalf of the whole House I must say I hope to hear him speak on many occasions in the future. I have read the right reverend Prelate's potted biography in Dod and I note he is a man of many activities. He is about the same age as I—1935 was a good year. That was probably because those of us who lived then had to endure the rigours of wartime food and we did not sit in front of television sets. We both look well for our age.
However, I do not feel quite so cheerful as regards this report. I have read it through several times. I do not know whether it is the report's colour, general printing or tone that does not please me. I find much of the contents interesting but the foreword was somewhat daunting. It concludes in a rather bold way:
"The essence of this report is that it is a statement of consensus from all the major organisations both voluntary and statutory who helped to produce it. It provides a clear, agreed and practical way forward in dealing with this huge social problem. Now all that remains is for its recommendations to be acted upon".
I found that foreword daunting and I was disappointed to find that not a great deal was said in the report about the causes in society of this appalling problem of domestic violence.
The report is quite clear about its definition of domestic violence—that is, that domestic violence, as it figures in this report, is violence by males to women in a relationship—obviously a heterosexual relation-ship—whether it is marriage or some other relationship. It was felt that to include violence to children would unbalance the report. There is scant reference to the effect on children of violence in the home. I suppose that it is taken as read that we
992
understand that children suffer, but I do not believe that sufficient emphasis is placed on that aspect. The report suggests that it is not a happy arrangement that social workers or others involved in these matters should deal with both abuse to children and violence towards women. Apparently that is too much for one expert to deal with.
I feel that it is not good enough to suggest that the reason for violence to women is that we live in a male dominated society. We all know that we live in a male dominated society and we understand the historical and cultural reasons for that. However, I am sure that there are male dominated societies in which violence of the kind we are considering does not necessarily occur. I do not say that it is not a strong contributory factor, but surely pressures of work, shortage of housing and other problems which the right reverend Prelate mentioned must play a part. In particular, I believe that the right reverend Prelate was right to mention the effect of the media and television and especially the crude stereotypes portrayed during prime time viewing. That is an equally powerful contributory factor to the violent behaviour that we see around us.
I am not speaking in this debate because I have a general interest in violence, although in London I have lived next door to a family in which very unpleasant violence occurred. It was predictable, usually occurred on a Saturday night, and usually resulted in the police being called. It was disturbing, to say the least, especially for residents new to the area. Unfortunately, one grows used to such disturbances.
The main reason why I wished to speak in this debate is that there is in the report no mention of alcohol except in one line of a section giving potted case histories of women who have suffered at the hands of males. One girl—I think her name is Sandra—thought that the man involved in her case might have had an alcohol problem but was afraid of raising the subject because she feared that he would beat her up.
I have met a number of alcoholics who have been treated both outside residential care and in residential I care. A high proportion of those people who have alcohol problems have been involved in domestic violence of this kind. Indeed, they have been encouraged to undertake residential care, whether publicly or privately funded, by concerned families. It seems that where there is an alcohol problem there is often also a problem of violence. I find it very strange that there is no mention in the report of alcohol as one of the causes of violence in the home. I feel particularly strongly about the matter because the Government have made certain changes to the community care arrangements in this country—your Lordships will be debating these on Wednesday—under which it seems possible that residential care for alcoholics and drug addicts will be hard to come by because the funding will not be available.
If groups such as the people who produced this report do not mention the part which alcohol has to play in the social problem which they deal with—and that applies also to other groups who deal with other social problems which can involve people suffering

993
from alcohol related problems—is it any wonder that the Government do not appreciate the problem and have to be persuaded of its importance by those of us who are involved with the results of alcohol misuse? We have spent endless hours in your Lordships' House and in another place trying to persuade the Government that it is essential to reserve funding for the treatment of alcoholics in residential care and outside local authority control because local authorities have other priorities. Inevitably those people get left out.
If we allow most of the residential care centres for alcoholics in this country to close there will be an increase in violence in the home. I have spoken to Turning Point and Alcohol Concern on that very point. There are very few statistics, but they estimate that between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of all cases of violence to women in the home involve alcohol. The same percentage applies in the case of child abuse.
I shall not weary your Lordships further on that point at this late hour, but I take a rather jaundiced view of the document, not because of its style, which is typically and necessarily brief and bureaucratic, but because it does not mention one of the most important factors involved in violence—alcohol. It is much more important than it ever was in the case of football. We went on endlessly in this House about football. We spent large sums of public money on a pointless examination of violence and football. The involvement of alcohol in domestic violence is much more profound than it ever was in football violence.
I hope that in future anybody who is dealing with domestic violence, whether it be the worthy bodies which have contributed to this report or others, will take on board the fact that alcohol is a very important factor in the whole problem.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, from the Cross-Benches I too would like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I think that for women it is good that they have a good shepherd to speak on their behalf. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important report on domestic violence.
First, I should like to pay a tribute to the late Baroness Phillips who was perhaps the greatest supporter in your Lordships' House of the victims of crime. Had she been alive today I am sure she would have been speaking in this debate. She will be greatly missed by many people, especially the women's groups for which she did so much.
The report states that the seriousness of domestic violence has not yet been sufficiently addressed by society. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for bringing it to the notice of your Lordships and giving us the chance to hear the Government's response. Some time ago in your Lordships' House I asked what the Government were doing to lessen the likelihood of rape. I had an amazing amount of letters and telephone calls from women who had had terrible experiences. Many had found that the help they needed was not always
994
forthcoming. So often when people have been shocked and revolted they do not want to relive the experience. Often domestic violence takes place behind closed doors and children are involved who will bear the scars, perhaps for ever. Very often neighbours who may know something violent is going on do not want to get involved.
The working party consisted of inter-agency experts. To solve any difficult problems it is important that both statutory and voluntary agencies work together. When funds are short it is likely that the unfortunate victim who seeks help will be pushed from pillar to post. Domestic violence is perhaps the most difficult position in which the unfortunate individual can find herself. To leave home and perhaps find herself homeless with young children must he a very difficult decision to take. I applaud the recommendation in the report that some women should have sole rights to the occupation of their current home. To uproot children from their homes and friends can have long-lasting effects.
In present day society there seems to be a trend for many women to live with men without marital status. That complicates the woman's legal rights when the relationship ends in violence. She can lose her home, possessions and financial security. She feels guilty about uprooting the children and may remain homeless or in temporary accommodation for an extended period.
The report states that the whole matter of domestic violence is very complicated and can affect all aspects of a woman's life. Women need information about their rights and continuing support to overcome the many legal, practical and emotional hurdles that they face. One of the many recommendations of the report is that more resources should be made available to women's aid groups and refuges to provide out-reach services and drop-in centres to help support women in temporary accommodation.
What I do not feel the report covers adequately enough is the problem of alcohol abuse relating to domestic violence. I feel that if there were more detailed research undertaken on the causes of violent offences against women and children in the home alcohol would be found to play a substantial part in many of the cases. There should be far more places for treatment available where the abusers could be treated and rehabilitated should they agree to it. If not, most likely they will go on to abuse and beat up other women and the cycle of violence will continue. I echo the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, but it is of great importance to emphasise the point.
It is of great concern to many people working in the field of alcohol and drug abuse that the Government have said that the existing residential rehabilitation services will not be ring-fenced within the outer ring-fence of local authority social services departments. Alcohol and drug services feel threatened, as those services are so often at the bottom of local political priorities. But I consider that disruption and violence in the home can contribute greatly to the break-up of family harmony.
I come from a rural area and am pleased that the report has not forgotten women living in rural places.

995
The report states that such women might find it extremely difficult to obtain effective help. There are fewer services and they have greater isolation and visibility to their abuser. In order to remain safe women in rural areas often need to be referred to refuges outside their local areas. There may well be a lack of choice, funding problems and stronger pressure not to take into the refuge women from outside the area.
The report highlights the lack of recognition by local authorities of the need for a truly national network of refuge provision and housing services as well as the vital importance of reciprocal arrangements and understanding. There is no statutory duty on local authorities to fund refuges. Therefore there will be a wide variation in services.
The report has not forgotten disabled people. Along with other women, disabled people sadly have the same or higher levels of breakdown and violence in their domestic life. One of the recommendations clearly states that funding should be identified to improve disabled access to existing refuges and full wheelchair access should be included in all future developments. What is suitable for a disabled person is suitable for anyone else to use. So often doors are too narrow and the lavatory is inaccessible. It is easy to have some ground-floor accommodation.
With so many women as members of the national inter-agency working party on domestic violence, I was surprised to find that mine was the only female voice in this debate. More and more women are standing up for themselves and will not tolerate domestic violence. But there are still many women who for many reasons, as stated in the report, cannot do so. I am pleased that Victim Support has addressed the issue. I hope that we shall receive a hopeful and helpful reply tonight from the noble Earl.
9.25 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is my pleasure as it is my privilege to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on a truly excellent maiden speech, carefully thought out and full of food for thought. It was excellently delivered and continued a contribution which the Church has made to increasing public awareness of the subject and changing the climate of opinion—a contribution which has been in progress for over 300 years. I thank him for his speech.
My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will appreciate that it is conventional to thank the noble Lord who introduces an Unstarred Question. Some thanks are more heartfelt than others. I was once thanked for introducing an Unstarred Question by a noble Lord who promptly added, "When I first saw it on the Order Paper I confess that I did not feel particularly grateful." However, on this occasion I feel most grateful.
The importance of the subject is only just beginning to be recognised. The report is valuable. I take the points that my noble friend Lord Falkland made. I shall come to why gaps exist, but overall I believe the report to be excellent.
996
It is a pleasure, especially in these exciting times, to be discussing a subject that is not a matter of any profound party disagreement. I wish to express my appreciation of the responses that I have had from a number of people in the Government on this subject: from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper; the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she was at the Department of the Environment; and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Our hearts are all in the same place on this subject. It is useful to remember that.
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said, it is also a subject that continually crosses the boundaries of ministries. I support what my noble friend said about the need to bring officials together. A number of cases in the report cross the boundaries of ministries. I hope that the noble Earl will consult my noble kinsman Lord Henley about the influence of housing benefit on this subject, and also his honourable friend Sir George Young on low-cost housing and the transfer from council housing in one local authority area to another. A good deal of the material in the report also crosses the boundary of the department run by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The report has some interesting comments on the interaction of the subject with policies laid down under the Children Act and with the provisions for the matrimonial home made under the Child Support Act. I do not ask the noble Earl to answer those points which are outside his brief. However, I ask him to ensure, if he can, that there are consultations between ministries so that people can bring those points to each other's attention.
The subject divides into two areas: first, the problem of the woman who does not wish to leave the man; and, secondly, the problem of the woman who does wish to do so. Of the two, the first problem is a great deal thornier. I do not believe that we have clear ideas about what we wish to do with regard to that problem because we have not met the traditional army test of identifying our objective. That is because in such situations the woman herself has not yet identified her objective. She has a choice in front of her which she hopes will go away. Therefore she has not made up her mind what she wants to do. As a guiding principle for that part of the problem, I suggest that the wishes of the woman should be paramount. The reply might be that the woman is sometimes too cowed to be in a good position to form her own wishes. That is true, and we must address the problem of making it easier for her. However, I am not a believer in the nanny state.
I am always reluctant to set up the state as knowing someone's mind better than she knows it herself. I entirely agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about prevention; and with what my noble friend Lord Falkland said about causes. I agree entirely with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the crucial importance of alcohol in this issue. That has been recognised for more than four centuries. It would be useful if more could be

997
done about it. Many men involved in these acts have a psychiatric problem and need treatment. I should like more to be done in that respect.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Falkland about the crucial importance of knowing causes. But, on a subject that is as underground as this, it is difficult to obtain a controlled sample for any research on causes. That is one of many ways in which a changing climate of opinion may help. Above all, the woman who has not decided to go may be helped if there is a climate in which she is freer to decide to go if she wishes. We have all heard of the Stockholm syndrome. A possible way of treating that is to shift the balance by opening the door so that the woman and indeed the man know that there is a way out.
For that reason I am concentrating my remarks on chapter 4 of the report which deals with what should he done after the woman has decided to leave home. First, I draw attention to the recommendation at the end of chapter 3 for a 24-hour help line. These problems do not arise at the most convenient moments. They have a knack of happening late on Friday evenings or on bank holidays. A 24-hour help line, including a list of solicitors prepared to deal with the problem, could be of great value. It could help vitally to assure the woman that she has freedom of choice about whether to go or to stay.
When the woman leaves home she is covered by the code of guidance on homelessness. That is a good code but the situation would be helped if it could be given statutory force. Many local authorities—by no means all—prefer not to notice the subject; they prefer to sweep it under the carpet. They go to peculiar lengths and produce the most ingenious arguments to avoid doing anything about it. I have not forgotten a particular councillor in Brent who objected to refuges, saying that they were discriminatory because they did not admit men.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, there is a key loophole in the code of guidance. It creates an obligation to house the homeless woman but not to have a refuge. Therefore, it tends to result in women being placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which is more expensive for the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stressed strongly in a letter to me on 11 th March, that is also a great deal less suitable for the woman and the children.
The difficulty is that it is of the essence of the provision of refuges that it must be possible for the woman to go outside her own borough. Fear of pursuit is often well-founded—often dangerously well-founded. Therefore, in order for the woman to feel safe she needs to be a long way away. But the whole of the training and conditioning of a local authority is in favour of providing help for its own poll tax payers, ratepayers, council tax payers or whatever. As it does not come naturally to them, local authorities need constantly to be reminded that they have an obligation to house people from outside their own areas. They need constant reminding when it comes to permanent rehousing for the women that
998
they may not—and this is already in law—send women back to their own boroughs if by sending them back they put them at risk of domestic violence.
Attention needs to be paid to the tendency of some local authorities to wriggle out of that obligation, as they would see it, to foreigners by offering women unsuitable housing. I recall one case, again in the London borough of Brent, where a woman was offered a council flat which had no lock on the door. Of course, that is not what one feels like accepting in that situation. She had also just been given a £600 community care grant from the Social Fund which was stolen on her first day in the flat, every last penny of it. If local authorities have adequate dwellings, they must make an effort to give women from outside the borough as good a deal as they give to women from inside it.
There is also a strong case for looking again at legislation to see whether we should extend the right to local authority housing outside the borough to childless women who, while in shock, may find it as difficult to re-establish themselves as do women with children. In fact, they sometimes find it more difficult because they do not have the need to look after the children to force them to keep going. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, we should consider the plight of women who are not legally married. We should also pay attention to women harassed by ex-partners. It may seem outrageous—indeed, it does seem outrageous—to talk about a woman needing to leave her own home because of harassment from a man who has been thrown out of it and has no right to live there. But sometimes, unless the police can provide 24-hour around-the-clock protection—and I am sure that the noble Earl will tell us why that cannot be done and I understand that—the woman has no other option. She is simply not safe any other way. For that reason, we should consider statutory protection for women threatened by ex-partners.
If we can do all those things, if we can pay attention also to the problems of legal aid, on which the report makes some sensible comments, we may perhaps begin to break the perpetuation of that problem. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has made us familiar with the cycle of deprivation. That is an extremely important point. However, there is also—and research is beginning to show this—what one may describe as a cycle of maltreatment. The abusers are those who were themselves abused and the violent are those who have themselves been the victims of violence. Therefore if, by taking women and children away from the danger point, we can break that cycle, we may be doing something to prevent that problem going on from generation to generation.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by expressing my admiration and congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on the speech which he gave us this evening. I thought it was not merely informative, as it was described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but thought-provoking, especially his remarks on the effect of the media. I am sure that it

999
will cause controversy which will no doubt be aired in this House and other places, but perhaps happily that will be on another occasion. I sincerely congratulate him on the quality of his maiden speech. From these Benches I can say that we look forward greatly to hearing from him often on future occasions.
Secondly, I offer what I hope are not merely the customary congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Once again, not for the first time, he has aired a topic in this House which needed airing, at perhaps the precise time at which it needed airing.
It has been a helpful and useful debate. It has also been a somewhat strange debate—echoing the words of the noble Baroness—in that the participants are almost entirely male. I should have thought that on this occasion, when we are discussing in effect violence concerning women, for we males to rise to pontificate upon the effect it has upon women, while inevitable given the fact that we were the only ones who wanted to speak in the debate, leaves the whole thing slightly lopsided.
I should also like to take issue, gently I hope, with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Of course alcohol is important when one is considering the causes of domestic violence. However, the terms of reference of the report were not to consider the causes of domestic violence. As the foreword says, they were,
"to review the type and extent of service provision currently available to victims of domestic violence and to produce recommendations as to how these could be co-ordinated and extended throughout England and Wales and Northern Ireland".
I suspect that if it was looking at the causes of domestic violence the working party might have been differently constituted and the report might indeed have looked completely different. In looking at the terms of reference it occurs to me to inquire what happens in Scotland. Does it have its own report, or is that perhaps an unfair question to throw at the noble Earl at this hour of the night? I see his junior Minister nodding furiously in agreement.
However one looks at the issue, first, it is important; secondly, it has been neglected; thirdly, it deserves to be better understood; and, fourthly, it deserves more action by the Government. I commend the report. I thought it was a useful document. I particularly commend the last chapter, pages 89 and 90, where the authors set out five major principles which underline and sum up all the detailed recommendations. When one looks at those five principles, which I shall outline briefly in a moment, one sees that most of the debate tonight fits conveniently into them.
The first principle set out is that:
"Domestic violence is an extremely serious matter … It is a long neglected issue and the Working Party welcomes the higher public profile and better place on the political agenda that it is currently receiving … There is a need for continuing public education on the issues".
I believe that everybody in the House accepts that. Secondly, it sets out that:
"All initiatives to address domestic violence should have as their primary aim the provision of services that are appropriate, effective and adequately resourced".
1000
We can all agree with that. The Government may not be quite so happy with the next sentence, which states:
"Current provision of refuges is underfunded, patchy and scandalously inadequate".
That is expressed modestly and moderately in that paragraph of the report and I shall return to that later. The report goes on to say:
"Priority should be given to improving funding for refuge services … Domestic violence should be treated by all criminal justice agencies with the same degree of seriousness as other forms of violence … All statutory and voluntary agencies should be called upon to develop their own formal policies and working practices on domestic violence, which will also include training programmes. Inter-agency understanding and co-operation is crucial".
Those seem to me to be five basic, sensible principles upon which all discussion of this issue can be based.
What is the scope of the problem? Is it possible to analyse it and be at all certain as to its extent? We know, because the figures are available, about the worst kinds of domestic violence—they result in homicide. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out, almost half of homicides of women are killings by a partner or ex-partner. That is domestic violence taken to its most extreme and dreadful conclusion.
The figure we were given was 48 per cent. in 1990, and that compares with 9 per cent. of male homicides in which the man was killed by his partner. Therefore 48 per cent. of women who are murdered are killed by their partner and only 9 per cent. of men who are murdered are killed by their partner. I am not sure what precise conclusion one can draw from a comparison of those figures. It certainly seems that the violence within the domestic situation goes inevitably from the male towards the female and not vice versa. One-in-four of all murder victims is a woman killed by a partner or an ex-partner. One-quarter of all reported assaults take place in domestic circumstances. One-third of all reported crimes against women are assaults in domestic circumstances. I hope that the House will find it unexceptionable and unarguable when the report says:
"If society is serious in wishing to prevent violence against the person, it must put domestic violence at the centre of its concerns".
Are we doing that? What is the law actually doing to protect women now? Should it be reformed to ensure equal protection under the law for both men and women?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I wish to pay tribute to the enormous improvement in police services over the past few years. As the noble Lord pointed out,62 domestic violence units have been set up in London with 126 officers. Similar schemes are now operating in other areas of the country. Since they were set up it is interesting to note the way in which the figures for reported domestic violence have escalated. In 1986, the year before the units were set up,860 cases were reported. In 1987 that figure rose to 2,320. In 1991 the figure rose to 8,000, which is a ten-fold increase on the 1986 figures. I do not for one moment believe that domestic violence has increased ten-fold. What I believe has happened (the police authorities also feel this) is that just as rape is a crime which has, to coin a phrase, come out of the closet in the past decade or so, domestic violence is in

1001
precisely the same category. More people are now prepared to report circumstances which in former times they would not have reported or, if they had done so, perhaps the police would have dealt with it not as a crime but as some kind of domestic disturbance that was not really a proper or fit matter for interference by the law.
Women's recourse to law needs to be improved. Women have to feel that they have a right to protection under the law. I believe that now many women in circumstances of domestic violence do not feel that. Assault in the home and in a private relationship is just as much a crime, and should be viewed as such, as assault on the street or elsewhere. As the report states:
"Indeed it is arguable that partner assault"—
that is a somewhat awkward phrase which is used although I suppose it is fairly clear what is being said—
"is even more destructive of the bases of society".
I believe that women must have support so that they feel they can proceed with a prosecution. It is worth examining the report's suggestion that the decision to prosecute should be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than by the woman herself. That would at least prevent intimidation of women in the run-up to a trial. She would not be able to decide whether or not the trial should go ahead.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, emergency legal aid needs to be more widely available so that the woman who is abused can leave and seek a lawyer straight away. The longer the gap before there is proper legal intervention the more vulnerable the woman is at precisely the most vulnerable point of what is sometimes a terrible history.
I believe that ex parte exclusion orders should be more easily available. Exclusion orders themselves and non-molestation orders should be available for more than three months. Where power of arrest is granted that should apply to all the powers of an injunction and not just to assault or returning to the home. In that way the woman feels supported.
Perhaps I may make one plea to the Government; namely, that they recognise the importance of the availability of interpreters who are trained in issues relating to domestic violence. They can offer increased help to women in domestic minorities who do not speak English. Frequently women from ethnic minorities who have been abused find themselves in the most sensitive and difficult position if they cannot even make themselves understood in order to make a complaint.
Finally as regards the law itself, there has to be an urgent review of it as it relates to murder and the interpretation of the defence of provocation. I know that every case depends on its own facts; that no two cases are the same and therefore one cannot really compare two sentences. A situation has occurred recently in this country where two daughters killed their drunken father when he was beating one of them. They stabbed him. They were each sentenced to three years' imprisonment. On the following day, I believe at the same court, a man who murdered his wife when she asked for a cup of tea was given two years'
1002
probation. On the face of it, that seems a ludicrous comparison and I totally accept that one cannot make such crude comparisons. Nevertheless, the law on provocation is in a mess and I hope that the Government will be able to do something soon to remedy that position.
If possible, women should leave the violent abuser. I am not suggesting for a moment that murder is the proper way out. Women should leave. But the report shows how difficult it can be for women to do that. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, one of the main problems is rehousing. If she is lucky enough to get local authority housing a woman will probably be offered bed and breakfast accommodation, which is cramped and which, in itself, may well put pressure on the woman to return to the very person who has been doing the abusing. Again, as the report states:
"Her sense of isolation can leave her wondering in the face of all these new problems and enormous odds whether she can really make a go of things, and she is often driven back by despair".
It is also unfortunately the case that more battered women are murdered by their partners once they have moved away than when they are living with them. If a partner traces and follows the woman there is frequently an extreme degree of violence.
Local authorities often do not have housing stock that is far enough away from ex-partners. There is some evidence to suggest that women from ethnic minorities are rehoused in particularly bad accommodation. Refuges have been mentioned. Pressed for cash as they are, local authorities often do not give priority to refuge funding. Perhaps I may give the House the figures on this because I do not think that they have yet been given in the debate. Twenty-seven per cent. of local authorities have no refuges; 11 per cent. have one, and 5 per cent. have more than three. It emerges in the report that research has indicated that refuges cannot meet the demand. A report from London, for example, indicates that following 5,000 calls only 40 per cent. of the required places could be found. More assistance must be given to women who have to leave joint homes so that they can find a way out through the jungle of the law on joint ownership and set up house again in a place of safety.
I should like to make just one other point before concluding. A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police has said that many of these women are also vulnerable because their partners will accuse them of being bad mothers. "Your children will be taken into care if you leave me" is one of the commonest accusations. A woman may be so cowed that she believes that. If she is to take her children into almost certain economic deprivation, away from their friends, school and familiar surroundings, she must have enough confidence to feel that that will be better for her children than the situation in which she currently finds herself. A woman may feel, for example, that her children need a male role model and a father even if that father is beating up their mother at the same time.
For me, at any rate, the report illustrated not only the scope of the problem, but some of the steps that need to be taken to try to deal with it in a more humane and sensible fashion. I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. Of course, this is not a party

1003
matter. It is a matter of bringing the light of research onto a problem which has been hidden and neglected for far too long and then of applying sound common sense to what emerges. I commend the report to the House and especially the five principles to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. They seem to me to encapsulate a sensible approach to the problem and I hope that the Government will be able to accept them.
9.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this important debate. The final few sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, encapsulated what we are discussing—the tragic aspects of some parts of family life. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, set the scene in a graphic way by making it clear what a terrible and not isolated business family violence is. I find it astonishing that so much family violence takes place. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we are just beginning to understand it. It is a terrible indictment if we are only just beginning to understand it. It is a terrible indictment that there should be such a previously unthought of aspect of life.
I found the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth a great asset to the debate. It was a speech of enormous thought and understanding and one in which he showed great care and great philosophical insight. He said that it is right for the Church to play a leading role in this area because women turn to the Church for their self-esteem, their personal dignity and their relationship to God and that churches can contribute to reverence. It is the reverence of individuals and of women which is required and which is such an important part of this scene.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the fact that everyone nowadays is debunked. He struck a chord with many of us when he said that it does not matter what the person is—whether a politician, a member of the Church, a member of an authority, a teacher or even indeed a wife—it is all too easy for them to be debunked. It is a matter of great sorrow that children should be brought up in that kind of atmosphere.
The Question asks for the Government's response to the working party's report. I can tell your Lordships that our response is one of gratitude, both to Victim Support for having convened the working party and to the working party itself for the care, thoroughness and common sense with which it has approached its task. The working party states early in its report that,
"the seriousness of domestic violence has not yet been sufficiently addressed by society".
That was echoed in many of the speeches today. It may well be that it has not been sufficiently addressed by society. But the Government are in no doubt at all of the seriousness of the problem. We have taken action on it, and we are continuing to do so. The right reverend Prelate said that these people should be accountable to society. I agree with the right reverend
1004
Prelate and with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. We take the view that assaults within the home are just as much crimes as are assaults by strangers. We also know that domestic violence is a pervasive problem. It exists throughout the whole of society, and it can cause very considerable pain, suffering and distress.
The policy of the Government is, first, that action should be taken to bring the perpetrators of domestic violence to justice; secondly, to provide the victims of it with the necessary support; and thirdly, to ensure that steps are taken, through education and other means, to prevent the violence in the long term, a point made by the right reverend Prelate. The working party examined the range of responses to the problem of domestic violence and then made a large number of recommendations, not all of which were directed at the Government but which will be taken into account as we continue to try to tackle this problem.
Very many of the concerns of the working party—and some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords today—have been acknowledged in action taken in recent years. By that, I do not mean to say that all which needs to be done has been done. Of course not. Much still needs to be done. The problems cannot be resolved overnight. But we should not overlook the steps already taken. There is concern that domestic violence should be treated by the various organisations in the criminal justice system with the same degree of seriousness as are other forms of violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the scope of the problem. It is difficult to provide categorical figures, not identified recently in recorded crime figures. However, we know from research and the British crime statistics that domestic violence is a widespread problem. It is a greater threat to women than any other kind of violence. That is why we have taken the steps that we have and why we shall continue to do so.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, stated that much of the problem is caused by alcohol. We share the view of the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness that it is not possible to identify a single simple cause of violence. Alcohol is often associated with domestic violence, but the research evidence is inconclusive as to whether it is the cause or sometimes an excuse. The Government pursue policies to discourage alcohol abuse, including the treatment of offenders with alcohol problems.
In July 1990 we issued guidance to all police forces in the United Kingdom. That guidance was designed to ensure a quick and effective response to the incidence of domestic violence. It took account of the overriding need to protect the victims. Information which was collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in force inspections indicated that within a year of that guidance all police forces in England and Wales had clear policies on domestic violence. That is quite an achievement. Most forces had introduced specific improvements in their response to incidents of violence in the home. I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Harris found that the Metropolitan Police officers were so dedicated and caring. He stated that he could not have

1005
found more caring officers. That is a wonderful accolade to receive. However, he was concerned as to whether that was a universal response.
It is not only the Metropolitan Police who have made great strides in improving response to domestic violence. The initial work of the new Home Office research study indicates that there is a considerable amount of activity throughout the country. Her Majesty's inspectorate is monitoring the inspections. In Nottinghamshire an excellent inter-agency forum has been developed for dealing with domestic violence. In Staffordshire a positive action policy has existed since the 1970s. In South Yorkshire a sophisticated alarm system has been developed which links the victim directly with a local operations room. Two pilot schemes are in operation in Merseyside, one looking at domestic violence and the other looking at alarm systems. Both systems are being fully evaluated by academic researchers. In the West Midlands there are 11 domestic violence units in operation and programmes are being researched in relation to men who batter. In West Yorkshire there are eight domestic violence unit alarm systems in the form of Vodafones and a highly developed inter-agency forum. Therefore, a great deal is going on in other forces.
The report of the working party suggests that the new policies and improvements may not yet have filtered through in the practice of every police officer on the ground. That is one of the drawbacks of any large organisation. The Government are concerned that the new policies should lead to real changes. That is why we in the Home Office have put in hand a research study which will assess the impact of the guidance, how it is working in practice and what changes forces have made in the light of that study. The findings of the study will help us to decide what further action should be taken.
At the same time as guidance was issued to the police in England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service issued guidance to all chief prosecutors as to how they and their staff should deal with the causes of domestic violence. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether guidance could be made public. The guidance which is given to the Crown Prosecution Service is not usually made public. However, I shall consult on that point and consider it. One of the consequences of the increasing seriousness with which the criminal justice system is responding to incidents of domestic violence should obviously be that more of those crimes are being brought to the notice of the system.
There is some evidence that such a trend may already have begun. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the number of reports was increasing and that the Metropolitan Police had had some 30,000 calls about violence last year. That is a terrible figure. The British Crime Survey found that in 1981 of those who had suffered domestic assaults only one in five had reported the offence to the police, whereas in 1987—six years later—the proportion had increased from one in five to one in two. One fact which seems to emerge is that there is more of that type of violence than there used to be, but also that more people are
1006
prepared to come forward and to report it when it happens. The results of a new British Crime Survey which will measure crime as it was in 1991 will soon be available and seems likely to suggest that that trend of increased reporting is continuing.
Another of the report's principal concerns was the provision of a range of services for the victims of domestic violence. Again, that approach to the problem is similar to the Government's. The guidance to the police emphasised the importance of ensuring that victims of assaults were put in touch with the various support services. The Government recognise the importance of providing the victims of domestic violence with immediate support, with places of safety and with sources of advice.
There are now over 375 local victim support schemes throughout the country and this year they are benefiting from some £7.3 million from government funds. The four Women's Aid Federations also receive grant-aid from central government.
The provision of good local support services, including women's refuges—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and a number of your Lordships referred—is obviously a matter for local organisations. We shall look at whether existing levels of funding can be improved. The Government believe that there is a need for professionals who work in the health and social services, housing and other agencies to learn more about the totality of the services available. We are not convinced that all those people know exactly what is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the civil law. The Government recognise that the provisions of the civil law which cover domestic violence and occupation of the family home form an important part of the response to domestic violence. We acknowledge that the law as it stands is too complicated and that there may be gaps in the protection afforded to the victims of family violence. The Law Commission's recommendations in its report on the law and domestic violence and occupation of the family home are being considered carefully by my noble and learned friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was also worried about housing. The Department of the Environment will be considering what changes in local authority and housing association practices and legislation may be needed. A working party on relationship breakdown and housing will be reporting shortly. The noble Lord was also interested in the Department of Health. It is for local health authorities to decide whether to provide social workers in out-patient departments. They will take careful note of the report's recommendations. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is currently considering the Law Commission's report on the civil law as it applies to domestic violence.
We share the working party's view that a good way of improving the local response to domestic violence would seem to be to set up a local forum which involves all the organisations which are involved both with helping those who are victims and with trying to prevent the violence occurring in the first place. In that way there would be a cross-fertilisation of views and

1007
knowledge. The Government's role in all this must be essentially to encourage effective local action and the use of what has been found to be the best approach.
Over 100 safer cities schemes for tackling domestic violence have been given government grants. Derby, Hull, Islington and Tower Hamlets are all funding staff who are dedicated to helping the victims of domestic violence and particular schemes have been set up with safer cities funding in Coventry, Wandsworth and Leicester.
In Coventry a co-ordinating group called Domestic Violence Workers for Change has been set up. Research on women's safety in the city has been started through this group, and a seminar was held on 30th October of last year with local authority support. A report is being produced to promote improvements in policy and practice on domestic violence and to develop new services.
The Wandsworth project is funding a crisis telephone helpline for women and girls. It has provided alarms for particularly vulnerable groups such as nurses, night shift workers, Asian women's groups and the elderly. The Leicester project has set up a major undertaking which will fit emergency alarms to the homes of women who are at risk from their husbands and similar schemes are in operation in Bradford and in Islington. A further aspect of the problem is being addressed by the Coventry and Hammersmith and Fulham projects through schemes which will help the children of women who experience domestic violence.
The Home Office Programme Development Unit, which was set up last year to fund innovative local projects in the field of crime and criminal justice, is also funding five programmes which are aimed at tackling family violence. Two of the programmes, in Islington and Leeds, are concerned with increasing and improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence and they are backed up with an increased range of services to support women and to meet their welfare needs. In Islington a domestic violence crisis intervention team will be attached to the police at the police station. The skilled civilian team will operate on a 24-hour basis. The project is modelled on the well-known and successful scheme which operates in London, Ontario. The purposes of the project are to improve the responses of the police and other local agencies to help to prevent further incidents of violence and to provide immediate support to victims.
The civilian team will undertake counselling. It will provide information on matters such as legal remedies. It will also act as a bridge between the police and organisations such as the Crown Prosecution Service, emergency and long-term housing providers, sources of income maintenance and those who provide support to victims. The team will encourage prosecution and it will promote the awareness of domestic violence within the community so that knowledge about it may lead to prevention.
In Leeds the programme consists of a number of projects. A civil court and criminal justice forum will
1008
be established in order to encourage the understanding of the needs of victims in both civil and criminal courts and to provide a legal service to support women through the court processes. Specialised counsellors will also be attached to two local GP surgeries in an area of Leeds. Women who are victims of domestic violence often seek help not only from the Church but also from their doctors. However, doctors, although they are mercifully trained in a multiplicity of medical problems, are rarely trained in how best to deal with the non-medical aspects of domestic violence. The counsellors will provide specialised help and information on other sources of advice and support.
Both programmes will be monitored and evaluated over their three years' duration. The results of the evaluation will be disseminated widely so that other areas can benefit from the lessons which will have been learnt. I think that the variety of work which is being done and the experience which has been and is being gained will set a very good precedent for the future.
As the right reverend Prelate said, steps must also be taken to prevent domestic violence. One form of prevention involves work with offenders to try to shift them away from reoffending in future. The Home Office and the Scottish Office are jointly funding a research study which will evaluate two projects which are aimed at changing the behaviour of men who abuse their wives. One is the CHANGE project, as it is called, in the Central Region and the other is the Lothian Probation Project.
The Association of Chief Probation Officers recently issued a document which depicts the seriousness with which it is approaching the task of encouraging probation officers to respond to various aspects of domestic violence, ranging from their civil work to intensive work with violent offenders. The Victim Support working party also saw a need for,
"continuing public education on the issues surrounding domestic violence, throughout the community".
Schools of course have a very important part to play here. The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health education suggests that by the age of 16 pupils should be aware of the problems which can arise in family life and of the help and the support which are available from statutory and from voluntary organisations.
Two of the projects which the Home Office Programme Development Unit is funding are aimed at the development of educational programmes which can be used in schools and youth clubs. These are the Leeds inter-agency project, to which I have already referred, and a youth education programme which will be undertaken by Keighley Domestic Violence Forum. That programme will also undertake the training of school teachers and youth workers.
I hope that I have been able to provide some flavour of the range of activity against domestic violence which is in hand and that I have been able to assure your Lordships that the Government share the concern of the working party and of your Lordships that this problem needs to be tackled—and tackled with vigour.
One of the principal concerns of the working party was that the duty and the objectives of central

1009
Government should be clearer. It recommended—and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked today—that there should be a lead department which would have the task of drawing up and of implementing a national policy. I hope that I have demonstrated that some significant steps have been taken in recent years and that that has taken place against a background of close co-operation and consultation between departments. We intend to continue with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both referred to consultation between government departments. We recognise that the response to domestic violence involves a number of departments as well as a range of local agencies. Home Office officials are arranging to meet with officials of other departments, including the Departments of Health, Social Security, Environment, Education, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service in order to ensure that future action is both grounded on a shared understanding of the nature of the problem and co-ordinated. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the Home Office would consult with the Department of Social Security
1010
and the Department of the Environment. As he will have understood, I have given an assurance that that will be done.
The noble Earl also asked about a 24-hour help line. The Department of Health is funding, by £45,000 this year, a Women's Aid national help line.
The noble Earl also asked about the obligations of local authorities. I shall certainly consider that matter in the cross-departmental discussions, including the need for cross-borough provision. Legislation and so forth will be under consideration in light of the relationship breakdown working party.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked that there should be a lead department. I can tell him that the Home Office will be the lead department, and we shall pay particular attention to the recommendations of the Victim Support agency working party as the work progresses.

King's Cross Railways Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.