My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government are aware of the articles and the problems to which they refer. They are committed to maintaining and modernising Britain's infrastructure and will continue to do so within affordable levels of public expenditure.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether or not he thinks that the scale of the problem as revealed in the articles referred to is really beyond the scope of local councils and should receive serious attention from central Government? Secondly, does he not think that the implementation of a large-scale scheme of remedial action in these areas would bring relief to probably the most hard-pressed area of British industry; namely, the civil engineering construction industry, where unemployment at the moment is running at about 25 per cent.?

My Lords, I think that the problem generally goes beyond merely that of local government itself. If we look carefully at the various headings that the articles cover, we see that they cover a wide range of matters many of which are the responsibility of central Government, the nationalised industries and other bodies. To answer in detail one would have to enumerate all that is being done—and there is much that is being done—because quite clearly one recognises that the problems presented by the articles are very fairly put and one should not try to get away from dealing with them. However, if the noble Earl would wish me to do so, I should be glad to send him the lengthy list which I have before me as to exactly what is being done to try to deal with this particular problem.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the first article in The Times that whatever has happened in the past, the causes of decay lie in successive Governments cutting back on building and repair programmes? Will he also agree that, in this terrible economic decline, when everyone except the Government sees the need for increasing capital investment, the Government should be taking steps—indeed, very strong steps—to stimulate the construction industry, which is the single largest employer and in which, as the noble Earl pointed out, unemployment is 25 per cent.—almost double that in any other industry? Would that not generate the industrial activity and employment that is so absolutely urgently needed in this country?

My Lords, I think that one really cannot suddenly decide that all the problems of the construction industry can be laid at the door of the Government. They have been leading up to this situation for a long time. However, I think that what is perhaps noteworthy is that the latest figures for new orders for the construction industry are encouraging and they raise considerable hopes of recovery in 1982. Total new orders for the June to August quarter are up 21 per cent. on the same period last year and 17 per cent. on the previous three months; orders for private and industrial work have risen by 8 per cent. compared to a year earlier and by 33 per cent. over the previous three months; commercial orders are up 34 per cent. and 23 per cent.; and public orders, excluding the new Heathrow terminal are up 17 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively. There is no attempt in giving these figures to deny that the industry does have problems that are a matter of concern, but I hope at the same time that it will be felt that the figures that I have just given are encouraging.

My Lords, when the noble Lord saw this Question on the Order Paper, did it ever occur to him to wonder, or even to indulge in a bit of research, about what the grandfather of the noble Earl who has asked the Question would have said about "Crumbling Britain"? Did he take the same line when he fought the war as perhaps Winston Churchill fought it, in order to gain victory? Would the noble Lord agree that our problem is not crumbling Britain, but grumbling Britishers? Why do we indulge so much in stinking fish? Are we the only country in the world suffering from recession? Are we the only country in the world suffering from high interest rates? Are we the only country in the world which has to suffer from letters written to The Times by people who seem to think that they have knowledge on military matters? Is that not our real trouble?

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance in the matter, and I entirely concur with everything he says.

My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the first Lloyd-George of Dwyfor fought a general election with the support of J. M. Keynes as a candidate and many others, of course, including me, on the necessity of keeping full employment very largely through road development in 1929? Will he also bear in mind today that one of the tragedies in the urban areas concerns the interconnections beneath the roads, which are getting into a state of real danger?

My Lords, we certainly bear in mind the last point that the noble Lord has made. As to his earlier comments, I thought that he was about to give me something of a lesson and was willingly looking forward to learning something new, as I do each day.

My Lords, if the Government are to tamper with local government—and there was a hint of it in the noble Lord's original reply—will the Minister please take care to ensure that local patriotism is not destroyed?

My Lords, I am not quite sure how far that question, in fact, relates to the original Question. However, I think I know what the noble Lord means.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for employment hopes to be able to make an announcement about the future of individual boards early in the next Session.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply as regards timing, which I am sure will be helpful to the industries concerned. In those cases, if any, where the Government are considering the abolition of a training board, will they give the industry concerned the opportunity and the time to suggest alternative arrangements for training?

My Lords, as regards further time, I do not think that I can go much further than my original Answer, because I understand that comments on training arrangements were to be submitted by the end of September. I think that at present my right honourable friend is considering all the comments that have come in from the many boards, and no doubt he will have the final say in the new Session.

My Lords, whether in future industrial training is to be done under statutory boards or by voluntary arrangements, if programmes such as the New Training Initiative and the Open-Tech are to succeed, is it not essential that there should be some overall statutory framework providing adequate local, national and cross-sectoral links?

My Lords, the Government's overall view is that the objectives of adequate industrial training are best achieved by voluntary methods, be that on any local or, indeed, any overall basis.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in industry there is the feeling that a large number of these industrial training boards should be abolished? However, is he equally aware that in the service industries and in the high technology industries it is very important to preserve these industrial training boards, as there is an urgent need to give, in particular, young people the higher skills, which are so badly needed in industry?

My Lords, to both the questions asked by my noble friend, the answer is, indeed, Yes.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not the Government intend to publish their reaction to the Manpower Services' Commission's board by board industry survey and, if so, when?

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the noble Lord a precise answer. Perhaps I could write to him about the matter.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that in the present economic state of the country to think of either abolishing or reducing the powers of the industrial training boards is completely against the interests of the country? This is a very serious matter. We shall certainly monitor any replies that he may give and watch developments in the future, because this is a very critical issue.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord and, indeed, the House, will agree that there is no single blueprint or, indeed, single track for any training arrangements, be they voluntary or otherwise. To insist that all training arrangements should conform to any set pattern would not help industry, nor, I believe, the economy.

My Lords, in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said, will my noble friend agree that this is a good moment for a review of all the arrangements, even if no change is made?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. My right honourable friend is considering all the views that have been expressed to him and he will be giving his views very early in the next Session.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the western participants in the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions (MBFR) remain committed to progress. The principal obstacle is the dispute over the size of eastern forces in Central Europe and the unco-operative attitude of the East towards resolving this. The western participants made new proposals intended to break the deadlock on 23rd July 1981. We hope that the East will respond constructively in the current round of negotiations.

My Lords, have not these talks been going on for eight years? Does the Minister agree that there is extraordinary ignorance, both by Members of Parliament and the public, at what is happening? Can the Government issue periodic reports so that we may know, and do not have to rely on the frequent Soviet Union reports, which naturally are biased? May I ask this: have principles been agreed for the draft agreement? Have the countries involved been West Germany, the Benelux countries, the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, but has no agreement been reached about the volume of reductions?

My Lords, as for wider publicity of the proceedings at this conference, the Foreign Office do of course publish the Arms Control and Disarmament News Letter, which I know the noble Lord receives and reads. I must confess that over the seven or eight years that the conference has been in progress there has been precious little to report because so little progress has been made. I agree that wider dissemination of this unfortunate fact might be useful and might bring some pressure to bear upon the other side to adopt a more co-operative attitude, but I have to say that there is no basis for agreement at the present time.

My Lords, is it not a fact that, even if there were complete nuclear disarmament, there is such a preponderance of conventional Soviet bloc forces in central Europe that Europe would then be at the mercy of the Soviet bloc?

My Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right. It is also the case, of course, that these particular talks to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has referred are specifically concerned with conventional forces.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that a major difficulty has been the Soviet reluctance to accept effective measures of verification? After years of discussing verification with the Soviet Government, have the Government reached any conclusions about the reasons for this obsession with secrecy?

My Lords, the problem of verification is certainly a major problem in the context of disarmament talks generally. It is not the specific problem in the MBFR talks at Vienna, where the principal problem remains the so-called data problem. That is the problem of establishing the relevant existing levels of our respective forces before we commence the question of reductions and subsequent verification.

My Lords, may it not be the case that the Russians are reluctant to reach agree- ment since they have some reason to suppose that if they go on being obstinate long enough this country and her allies will disarm themselves unilaterally?

My Lords, that may be the view of the Soviets, but so far as this country is concerned they are mistaken.

My Lords, is it not the case that what has actually happened in the eight years is that, while the discussions have been taking place, armaments have proliferated and increased on all sides? Is it not the case therefore that if a discussion goes on and on and on, eventually the inevitable nuclear explosion will occur in which we shall all be destroyed? Will the Government take no action designed to break through the impasse?

My Lords, the Western participants to the MBFR talks in Vienna are continuing to make efforts to break the impasse by various presentations and proposals which are made to that conference from time to time. I suspect, however, that the apocalypse to which the noble Lord referred is best averted by means of the nuclear posture which we adopt.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one would take the Soviet Union's ideas more seriously if they had not increased both their conventional and their nuclear capability every single year over the last eight years, until such time as they now far outweigh both in conventional and nuclear terms what the free world can operate against them? Would it not be a gesture for them to stop deploying SS20s, which are targeted on every major city in the free world in Western Europe, at the rate of one every three weeks, so that we now have 250 of these mobile reloadable weapons, each missile having three warheads, deployed in Western Europe? Is this the action of a Government—the Soviet Government—which is really sincere about reducing the tension and reducing armaments all round?

My Lords, I cannot of course answer for the motivation behind the actions of the Soviet Union, butt have to agree that the main thrust of my noble friend's supplementary is correct.

My Lords, arising from a question on the other side of the House may I ask whether the Minister can confirm that at Vienna the Soviet Union proposed a withdrawal by the United States of 13,000 servicemen, and that the USSR should withdraw 20,000 plus the 20,000 unilaterally withdrawn from the GDR? Arising from the question from the Liberal Party about verification, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the charges on both sides of increased military power, the Government would consider the appointment of an investigation by a neutral authority, for example the Stockholm Institute, or representatives of unaligned Governments who would not be likely to be charged with spying?

My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting some new form of verification, certainly the Government will be prepared to look at that along with our allies, but of course it would need to be acceptable to the Soviets as well.

My Lords, in the meantime would the noble Lord confirm that the only assessment of Soviet conventional forces and nuclear forces in Europe which has ever been used by any Soviet spokesman is the assessment made by the Institute of Strategic Studies in London?

My Lords, I do not know about that, but the fact remains that, whatever assessment is used, the Soviet strength in conventional forces and tanks and other weapons in this theatre is very substantial, and vastly exceeds that of the Western allies.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority tell me that during the six months April to September of this year, 15 small air taxi operators surrendered their air operators' certificates because they had ceased operations. During the same period the CAA issued 23 new certificates to operators of this type. Both these figures exclude short-term certificates issued to operators who work seasonally. It is not possible to assess the extent to which the price and availability of AVGAS has influenced these figures.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he not agree however that there is at present a bizarre position in the duty on aviation fuel where the fuel efficient piston engine aircraft using AVGAS are charged 62·8p a gallon and the thirsty jets 3p a gallon? Is this not a monstrous burden on the more efficient aircraft? Will the noble Lord take urgent action to respond to the requests of the general aviation interests that a unified fuel tax be brought in? Is he aware that 98 per cent. of AVGAS is used in business and training and only 2 per cent. in sporting flying? Is he aware that the view from official quarters that reduction of duty on AVGAS might result in use by motorists is nonsense, since if the whole of the duty were removed the price of that fuel would still be higher than that of motor fuel.

My Lords, in my former position in the Department of Trade I became very well aware of the views of the air taxi industry in this matter. As the noble Lord will appreciate, my right honourable friend the Chancellor always keeps his cards fairly close to his chest in these matters, but he has said that he would ensure that the case for a change in the duty on AVGAS was properly examined.

My Lords, without going against the desirability of reducing the duty on AVGAS, may I ask whether my noble friend can say whether he has anything further to report on the use of MOGAS?

My Lords, the use of MOGAS continues to be studied carefully. However there are, I understand, a number of safety problems. One of the other aspects causing difficulty is the understandable reluctance of the engine manufacturers to allow their engines to be re-rated for a type of fuel where the quality control might be less stringent than for AVGAS.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that some of us will be pleased that he has refused to support this idea, this retrograde idea, this potentially dangerous idea, that MOGAS should be used instead of AVGAS? Will the noble Lord, with his previous knowledge in the other department, with his past experience, make the effort to get hold of those cards which his right honourable friend is holding too close to his chest? Will the noble Lord look at them and tell his right honourable friend that there is reason for the Government to do something to help not only the air taxi people but general aviation?

My Lords, there is a good deal in what the noble Lord says about this, but as for my getting hold of the cards close to the chest of my right honourable friend, I doubt whether I should have much more success than the noble Lord did with his Chancellor in his day.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the price of aviation petrol in most countries in Western Europe is approximately £1·75 a gallon compared with over £2·50 in this country, and does he agree that this is a scandalous situation?

My Lords, I agree that different Governments approach their fiscal problems in different ways, which is doubtless one of the matters which affects the price of AVGAS in this country.

rose to move that the order, laid before the House on 28th September, be approved.

My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for outlining the Government's reasons for introducing the order, and he has clone so with his usual clarity. But I should be less than frank with the House if I said that I was grateful that the order itself had been introduced. It is, I believe, regrettable that the Government have decided to ask Parliament to postpone the repeal of this Act—the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980—for 12 months, and to keep it in being for another year. It is regrettable, first, that Parliament is being asked to retain legislation of this kind now by order and, secondly, that the Government consider that the situation in our prisons is such that this step is necessary and justified.

Let me try to deal with those points. The Act was passed a year ago in circumstances of the most acute crisis in our prisons, and at the height of the prison officers' dispute. The Bill was brought in to help to avert a complete breakdown within the prison service, and to avert a breakdown in the criminal justice system itself. That was an unprecedented situation. It had to be dealt with. The Government accordingly decided to bring in emergency legislation. It was right to do so. The Opposition did not oppose it. Indeed, as the Minister and the House will recall, we facilitated its passage through Parliament, and the Bill was passed in one day in your Lordships' House.

Parliament is very jealous of its rights and duties, which exist to safeguard the rights of everyone in this country, and which include the right and duty to scrutinise most carefully any legislation that is introduced. Parliament has always been ready to act swiftly in an emergency, as we have seen, and the Opposition was ready to respond and indeed did respond last October, just as Oppositions have been ready traditionally where there has been clear need and justification.

When it was introduced as a Bill, the Act was acknowledged on all sides to contain some draconian powers, powers which, when used, would curtail the liberties of the subject; and that was acknowledged also by the Government themselves. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances it was right to bring in the powers, as we ourselves agreed, and as a temporary measure—I stress those words. But there were qualifications which we all had, not least the Government themselves. They had to have such qualifications to justify the exceptional action that they were proposing to take. The first of the reservations was that the powers were needed in the circumstances, which themselves were unprecedented.

In my submission, it cannot be claimed that there exists today the same situation as existed a year ago. It is of great importance for the well being of Parliament and the public that procedures of the kind used a year ago are reserved only for the most urgent, pressing, exceptional and—if one may make a rare, but proper, use of the word—extreme needs. Parliament has been seen to be able to act with great speed, and, if it could be argued that a situation like the one last year had arisen again, then the proper course would be to bring in a new Bill.

As the Minister has explained, it is true that the powers in the Act will not themselves actively be in operation after the passage of the order. Another order under the Act would be needed to bring them into effect; and indeed, as the noble Lord has also indicated to your Lordships this afternoon, the Government cannot see any reason for activating Part I—I quote the words that he used—" within the foreseeable future''.

But, as we know, one difficulty about orders is that they cannot be amended. We can only take them or leave them, or, by rejecting them, leave the Government with the option of bringing them back in a different form. It is true that by its very nature this Act does not invite much scope for amendment. It is very tightly drawn and, if I may say so, in the circumstances, well drawn, as was the case last year. But that is all the more reason for subjecting its provisions to the fullest possible examination and scrutiny.

Of course it is also the case that the prison population is still at a level which some would readily acknowledge to be a crisis level, but it has been so for some time, regrettable though that is. Last Thursday it was stated in another place that on 20th October the figure was 43,837. And the figure, bad though it is, as it was last year, was not advanced as the reason and justification for the exceptional step in Parliament to meet an unprecedented situation. The Minister has already referred to the use of police cells. As we have heard and understand, they are no longer being used for these purposes, nor indeed is Rollestone Camp, though the Minister has explained that it is being used as a designated prison at the moment. Frankland prison, which was brought into service for these pur- poses, is, I think, empty at the moment. So it can be said that there are not pressures in those directions as there were last year.

It is true, too, that the prison officers' dispute has been only suspended, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has mentioned to your Lordships. But Ministers have also said that negotiations are proceeding. Indeed, the noble Lord has said that this afternoon to your Lordships. I quote one Minister, who has said that he is,

"certainly hopeful that those negotiations will have a satisfactory outcome".

A representative of the Government has also said that they,

"do not think it likely that there will be any recurrence of industrial action on a large scale, or that difficulties will arise from any other cause with which the present system will be unable to cope",

though,

"it plainly remains a possibility".

My Lords, the situation is quite different from the circumstances of last year, and if some of these powers did not have to be used then (and thank goodness they did not!) they are clearly far less justified now. Moreover, the fact that the Act was to be temporary—indeed, it says so in its very Title—caused it to be more acceptable last year and caused potential criticism of it then (I think it is right to say) to be far less than would otherwise have been the case.

I confess I was somewhat disturbed to find that, in justification of this order, it was said in another place by the honourable and learned gentleman the Minister of State, Mr. Mayhew—for whom I have a very great deal of respect—that:

"If that dispute had now been resolved and had been out of the way for some time, we should be in a different position".

My Lords, I wonder how long "for some time" is meant to be. I also wonder, and am bound to ask: How long now does the Government regard "temporary" as being likely to be? I do not recall words quite like that being used last year in putting the case for the Act, when the situation was at its most serious.

Clearly we all want to see the seal put on a final and satisfactory agreement with the prison officers, and clearly we want to see vast improvements in the often appalling conditions which have to be faced by our prison officers—who, with very few exceptions, do an outstanding job in immensely difficult circumstances. And, of course, we want to see conditions for prisoners improved as well. But part of the longer-term solution must lie—this is in part, at least—in the introduction as rapidly as possible of suitable and effective alternatives to imprisonment and other measures to reduce the prison population.

Many of these have been put forward and discussed over a long period now, and I will not go into details on this occasion, but I will just note that, for example, there were many useful proposals in the Fifteenth Report of the Expenditure Committee of another place entitled The Reduction of Pressure on the Prison System, which was published in July 1978 and the considered response to which, I might also mention, had reached an advanced stage when the last Government went out of office in May 1979. There were also the proposals referred to in the May Com- mittee's Report on the Prison Service, which came out in October of that year, 1979; and the report of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, called Too Many Prisoners, which came out in June 1980, with their supplementary report, which came out this September, called Still Too Many Prisoners. Then, again, there were the Fourth Report of the Home Affairs Committee of another place, which came out on the 20th July this year, and other valuable reports from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

So there has been no shortage of ideas over a long period covering more than one Government. These include—and, again, I will not go into details, but will mention just a few of them—such proposals as extending the parole system, extensions of remission, shorter sentences (there have, it is true, been some improvements there by the courts over this past year), partially suspended sentences, alterations in the attendance centre system, including proposals for the day centres, more extensive use of community service orders, intermediate treatment for children and young persons, proposals on probation and so on. There has been no shortage at all of ideas and proposals for alternatives to imprisonment and for reducing the pressure on the prison system and the number of the prison population.

My Lords, I know that the Minister and his department have been considering and pursuing many of these matters. There is, for instance, the Government's document Review of Parole, which was published in May of this year. But if they have been pursuing them (as I believe they have, some of them) then there is even less case for this order. Of course, if they have not been pursuing them quickly enough, then that is even more reprehensible, but it would be wrong and unfair of me to use this occasion to seek to explore that possibility.

My Lords, I am not going to invite my noble friends to divide on this matter, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge the very real concern there is that measures like this Act shall not remain on the statute book one moment longer than is absolutely necessary, and that they should be there at all only in the most exceptional and grave circumstances.

My Lords, I have listened with great care to everything that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has said about this subject, but at the end of it I am afraid I do not share his alarm at the extension of this Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act for a further 12 months. He said, as I understood it at the beginning, that he thought that under this temporary Act the Home Secretary was taking to himself what he called, I think, draconian powers which were a threat to the civil liberties which we in this country enjoy. With one exception to which I will make some reference in a minute, I do not know of anything which has been done under this Act which has infringed anybody's liberty at all, and I cannot see any reason why in the next 12 months, if this Act is given a further extension for that period, what has not occurred during the last 12 months should occur during the next 12 months.

It is on that account that when I came here this morning I was rather thinking that the debate on this Motion would be something of a formality. I thought it would go through almost "on the nod". But there is one matter contained in the Act to which I should like to make some reference, and that is the provisions in Section 2, the remand in custody provisions. Those provisions have of course a special significance, because last June, in a Written Answer to a Parliament ray Question, the Home Secretary said that it was his intention, in the light of the experience that we had had under Section 2 of this Act, to introduce permanent legislation upon the matter which is dealt with in that section.

Of course, what Section 2 does is to abolish what has been long the law of the land; that is, that where a person is remanded in custody by a magistrates' court that person can be remanded for only eight days, and at the end of those eight days he must be brought back if it is desired to remand him again—or, indeed, he must be brought back in any event. That has been the state of the law, as I understand it, for well over a hundred years. The draconian power that was taken by Section 2 (and here the adjective is, I think, appropriate) was to provide that that should be scrapped, and that for the future it would be possible for a magistrates' court to remand a person in custody in his absence.

Indeed, if one reads Section 2 with care one sees that the magistrates can, if they wish, remand a person in custody for successive periods of eight days indefinitely, without his ever being brought before the court which is making those remand orders. As a result of that, he has no opportunity to apply for bail; he has no opportunity to make inquiries of the court as to how his case is progressing; and he remains in his place of confinement waiting interminably for the day when he will be brought up for the committal or other proceedings.

That was indeed a major change in the law, and that was acceptable, in my view, only because it was a temporary measure to deal with an emergency situation. The emergency situation arose, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench has said, because prison officers refused to take into custody people remanded by the magistrates' court if the numbers then in confinement were greater than the proper establishment figures. Also, of course, the prison officers were refusing to bring these people to the courts. They said, "We are not going to take them to the courts. We are not going to take them every eight days, as the courts require". The reason why the provision making that draconian change in the law about being remanded in custody is of particular significance today is that last June the Home Secretary said that in the light of that experience he was proposing to introduce permanent legislation along the same lines.

I have only this to say. I recognise that there are very great advantages to be gained if one can get rid of this business whereby people have to be brought to the courts every eight days even if it serves no useful purpose. It is obvious that anybody who wants to be brought back to the court every eight days wants to renew an application for bail. In many cases an application for bail is not made because it is hopeless. In other cases the application is made but it is hopeless because an application has previously been rejected and there are no new facts to put before the court. So many of the journeys to court which are undertaken under the supervision of prison officers and policemen every eight days are quite unnecessary and impose an almost intolerable drain on our limited resources of manpower and finance, as we all know.

If one could eliminate the unnecessary, fruitless and pointless applications for bail and visits to the courts every eight days, there would be great advantages. At a stroke one would reduce the demands upon the already overstrained resources of the prisons and the police. Based on figures produced by the Justices' Clerks Society, there is good reason to believe that the provisions of Section 2, since the appearance of the person concerned every eight days was no longer necessary, have eliminated about one-third of the remand applications. That is a very considerable figure. I believe the criminal statistics for 1979 show that the number of remands in custody was something like 250,000. The figure which the Justices' Clerks Society have provided give reason to believe that under this provision in Section 2 we have eliminated perhaps 80,000—something like one-third—of those applications. To my knowledge, no one has yet worked out the average cost of taking a prisoner to court every eight days in terms of travel, police time, prison time and the rest. But the cost must be very considerable, and if it were only £10 every time, one is up to a figure of something like £1 million. In fact, it must be very much more expensive than £10 and therefore we are talking about a potential saving running into millions of pounds. That would obviously be a great gain if one could achieve it.

The problem is, can one arrange matters so that the remand system is altered without infringing the basic rights of the person who is being held in custody? Obviously no administrative saving should be preferred to, or allowed to take precedence over, the rights of the individual. The problem which arises here—and it is one which has been discussed over a number of years—is how one can safeguard the rights of the person remanded in custody and at the same time achieve this large gain in administrative expense.

There has been a great deal of discussion on this subject and in the statement which the Home Secretary made in June he made it clear that he was going to ask all interested bodies to advise him on how they believed this objective might be accomplished. I believe that it can be done. Something like 10 years ago in this House I had the temerity to propose that the period of remand by a magistrates' court in future be 21 days unless the person concerned objected and said that he wanted to come hack to the court in eight days. I also suggested in an amendment to a Criminal Justice Bill that was going through Parliament at that time that, if one set up such an arrangement with sufficient safeguards and ensured that the person concerned was legally represented and had been properly advised, and that he could not be detained for longer than eight days except with his express consent, one could achieve all the gains without any of the comparative disadvantages.

Unfortunately, everyone was against me. I believe that I managed to scrape up eight people in the Division Lobby when I took the amendment to a vote. It was mainly thrown out because it was very powerfully opposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He brought his great authority to bear and said that he thought my suggestion was altogether too dangerous. Since that time some proposal of this kind has gained support in all sorts of different directions. The Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks Society and other bodies have come out in favour of some reform of this kind.

I want to use this opportunity to say to the Government that I certainly hope that they will, as Mr. Whitelaw foreshadowed, introduce this amending, permanent legislation at an early date so that it will supersede Section 2, and will give to the person remanded in custody a real safeguard that his basic rights are not going to be infringed. I hope that we are going to see notice of that legislation in the Queen's Speech when the new Session begins; I shall be very disappointed if it does not appear. I do not suppose that the noble Lord can possibly tell us that is going to be in the Queen's Speech, but he might find a form of words to indicate whether something of this kind will be included.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Foot, sits down, and although I hesitate to cross swords with him because I agree with him on so many legal matters, I did wonder, in his general approach to the order before your Lordships, whether his attention had been drawn to the remarks made by his honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, Mr. Stephen Ross, in another place last night, when the order was debated there. Mr. Ross said that he bitterly opposed the renewal of this legislation; he opposed it when it was first introduced and he always felt that Section 1 was the only part of it which was necessary.

My Lords, that is only another illustration of the fact that the people in my party disagree very often; and now we have the additional advantage that we can fall out with the SDP.

My Lords, The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made the most useful and constructive speech and I am sure it has commanded a lot of attention from your Lordships. May I say that I believe the Government are fully justified in asking for this Act of 1980 not to be repealed, for two main reasons: First, because, as has been said, the prison officers' dispute has not yet been resolved and it is better to be safe than sorry. But the second reason is one on which I should like to dwell for a few moments. It is that the difficulties of prison administration have been increasing steadily year after year for nearly 30 years. Even if the prison officers' dispute had not taken place, provisions of the kind included in the Act which is not to be repealed would in my opinion sooner or later have had to be introduced. The granting of an extra year for considering those matters and for making some of the provisions permanent, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, seems to me to be quite essential. There is an almost permanent dilemma with regard to the prison administration so long as crime continues to increase and the courts continue to feel that they must send people to prison.

Our prison system is mainly based, so far as numbers are concerned, upon the situation that prevailed round about 1950. There simply has not been the will on the part of Governments or of Parliaments to provide the rapidly increasing funds to enlarge the prison system. There has been so much competition for expenditure in other fields—in health, in education, in roads; in any kind of public expenditure you can think of—that the need to keep pace with growth in the prisons has necessarily had a poor priority. That is the situation which still prevails and I do not see any easy or probable way of its being overcome for some time.

That is why the difficulties within the prison system itself make it essential for the Government to be given yet another year to consider whether these provisions, brought in perhaps accidentally as a result of the prison officers' dispute, should not be made more permanent. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Belstead—and I warmly endorse the tribute paid to him by the noble Lord, Lord Boston—is fully justified in asking the House for an extension of these powers.

My Lords, when, sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, I supported the emergency provisions on that Bench, the things which interested me chiefly were two or three provisions in this temporary Bill for which we had been pressing for years to become part of our permanent penal legislation. One of them has been discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I agree with all that he said. The only point about that, in relation to this Bill, is that it is faulty as things stand and there is no limit under this Bill to the number of weeks that a man can be held on remand and there is no specific demand that he should give his waiver to his right to go every eight days. I was hoping that, by this time, we should have at least this provision put forward in some permanent way so that these additions could be made and we could discuss any of the further difficulties about civil liberties. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the Howard League are opposed to this and I would only say that the Inter-Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group has made the recommendation specifically; and we all hope (as does the noble Lord, Lord Foot) that it will be contained in the Queen's speech. If it is, we will support it from these Benches.

The second thing is Clauses 3 to 5 which were never used. They contained some powers which we think the Home Secretary should have anyway and not only in an emergency. They give him the right to release certain categories of prisoners in certain circumstances—those awaiting trial or serving the last six months of their sentences—and to prevent magistrates from committing people to prison for not paying fines. We believe that the second thing—after extensive discussion, because there are great difficulties about it—should probably become part of our legislation, as should, certainly, the first. So that my disappointment is that instead of getting down to the problems which have been well illustrated by the operation of the emergency powers, the Government are rather lazy in asking simply for extension. But they must have the extension. I hope that before we meet again on this subject there will be some serious proposals for adding to the existing legislation these very important items, one of which at least in Clause 2 has shown itself to work extremely well. We shall not oppose the order.

My Lords, I should like to support the Government in their wish to prolong this order. None of us who is in a position to send or not to send someone to prison does so or does not do so as a matter of convenience for the administration. It is a matter for the protection of the public or of the degree of seriousness of the crime. It is not an administrative convenience to send someone to prison or to remand in custody. Getting back to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, it has been my experience in Pentonville Prison that the workshops have suffered considerably due to the escort duties carried out by prison officers, which means there are not enough staff to man the prison workshop. This means that the workshops are closed and the prisoners remain in their cells. This has been given officially as one of the reasons for the closure of many workshops in prisons.

There are two types of prisoner to my mind (there may be others) on remand. There are those who wish to be on remand in custody because they know that their period of remand in custody will count toward their sentence and their eventual release when and if they are found guilty by the courts. There are others who may have served time on remand and, being found not guilty, are released; but that time can never be given back to them.

I wonder whether the Government will be able to give me an answer to the question of whether boards of visitors, many of whom are magistrates, could take on the duties within the prison walls of the eight-day appearance of a chap on remand; so that the administrative difficulties are put to a minimum and the innocent person does not stand in risk of remaining inside for many weeks or months before their case came up before the court. I have often known of cases of people being released on bail who had been on remand in custody. I wonder whether the Government would consider boards of visitors taking on this duty.

My Lords, I think that it would be fair to say that the solution to this particular problem relating to the overcrowding in our prisons depends entirely on having a policy to deal with delinquents. I am a little surprised to hear that this particular order may only be resolved if the pressure on our prisons can be released. I speak with something like 11 years' experience in the probation service—albeit a good many years ago—and 36 years as a magistrate sitting in magistrates' courts, quarter sessions and crown courts. I feel that the Government must look carefully into this matter as to whether or not there is a real alternative to prison.

What we are faced with at the present moment is a parole system out of which we created a virtue from a necessity. I go so far as to say—and I know I shall be contradicted—that not enough time was given to creating a parole system to meet the needs of individuals. The overriding claim was that we had to reduce the prison population and so the idea of parole was conceived and we made a virtue out of a necessity. My noble friend Lord Donaldson says that he hopes that there will be provision whereby it will be impossible to send people to prison for non-payment of fines. But they are not paying their fines now. I do not know how many millions of pounds in the Metropolitan area alone is not collected each year. To have a judicial system that imposes a fine, and when the fine is not paid nothing is done about it, is quite disastrous.

I do not want to take up time because your Lordships may feel, with some justification, that this is not really relevant to the order before the House, but I urge the Government to look carefully at alternatives to prison. I dislike intensely the Executive, the Home Secretary, having the right to say: "We will release this group of people regardless of what they have done, and we will release them six months earlier in order to reduce the strain on our prisons". Our magistrates and judges are not so uninformed, ill-informed and misinformed that they do not know what they are doing. They have before them probation and social reports related to the needs of the individual. I do not think that overcrowding can be dealt with by somebody in the Government saying, "We will reduce this and that". It is an interference in the judicial system which I do not altogether like.

We have to look at the alternatives. We know that community service orders have worked, and worked very well. We know that there are many other things that can be tried. What appals me—and the noble Lord the Minister will expect me to say this—is that the year before last the Home Office gave approval to the training of something like 400 probation officers who completed their training within the past few months. A hundred of them have been informed that there will be no work for them, after we have gone through the expense of training them. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Home Office to say, "All right, we will introduce various alternatives and we can use these 100 probation officers". I do not know how much it costs to maintain a probation officer for one year, but I do know how much it costs to maintain somebody in prison.

All I want to do is ask the noble Lord—and it may be irrelevant so far as this order is concerned—whether his department will get down to the task of thinking of alternatives to prison? The Government should bear in mind that in the last analysis prison serves a very useful purpose so far as some individuals are concerned, because there may well be no other way of dealing with them.

My Lords, if I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in what has become a rather wide-ranging debate—and I make no complaint about that—on the criminal justice system, I do not think that we have a large number of opportunities to direct our attention to this particular series of issues. It is by happy accident that we find ourselves in a position to do so today. I speak entirely for myself and I support the order moved by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, for two reasons: first, as the noble Lord pointed out, the industrial action taken by the Prison Officers' Association has only been suspended. In a situation of that kind it would be very remarkable were the Home Secretary of the day not to ask for renewal of the powers which are set out in the order. Secondly—and we cannot possibly ignore this—we are facing a most dangerous crisis in our prison system.

I am well aware of the fact that in the past few years that particular form of words has been used by people speaking on both sides of this House and on both sides of another place. But the fact is that the situation month by month and year by year is becoming more serious. It would be the height of folly not to have powers of this sort available to deal with a very serious situation. Let me explain what I mean by a crisis in the prison system. I have had the opportunity, both as a Minister and more recently, of visiting a number of our local prisons. Taking the point made by the noble Baroness a few moments ago about the position in Pentonville, it is right to say that the crisis situation which we face does not operate throughout every prison in this country—in fact that is not the position at all. In a number of prisons there is no serious overcrowding problem. The real difficulty faces us in the local prisons where people are serving short sentences, where there are fine defaulters of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and where there are a very substantial number of remand prisoners.

The problem is that there is a risk of a breakdown in one of these local prisons of something absolutely basic such as the mains services or the sewerage system, which cannot cope with the sheer pressure of numbers of people who are having to be maintained in custody in those establishments. I am well aware of the fact that there are many who say: "In that situation it is the responsibility of the Government to build more prisons".

Unfortunately, it takes somewhere around 10 years to build a prison. First one designs it; then there have to be the prolonged local inquiries that take place in order to get local approval of the scheme. When people hear that a prison is about to be built they do not normally greet this news with unrelieved enthusiasm. There is parliamentary pressure on the Secretary of State of the day and then subsequently there is the building programme. Of course there is always a risk that there will be some financial crisis and a cutback in the capital expenditure of the Prison Department of the Home Office. The fact is that we cannot deal with a crisis situation in our local prisons on a short-term basis. Therefore I repeat that this is the character of the problem that we face at the moment, and it is right for us to recognise where it lies.

There are only two other points that I should like to make. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that he thought it was the duty of the Home Office—and of course I agree with him—to look for alternatives to imprisonment. There has been no shortage of enthusiasm in the Home Office through Governments of different political persuasions to looking at alternatives to imprisonment. The Conservative Government of 1970–74 took the power to create community service. They launched six experimental schemes which proved their value. As a result of that, the Labour Govern- ment after 1974 extended community service to cover the whole of England and Wales. Undoubtedly that has had a dramatic effect in terms of turning people away from prison. In making some form of very rough calculation as to what would have happened last year if we had not had community service, it is possible that up to 10,000 additional people would have found their way into our grossly overcrowded prisons. That is an indication of the scale of community service and the value it has been as a means available to the magistrates' courts and to the Crown Courts; so I do not think there is a lack of interest or enthusiasm in looking for alternatives to imprisonment.

Again, there has been a great deal of parliamentary argument about getting out of prison some people who are mentally ill, who should be in regional secure units. There has been a fair amount of argument between the Home Office and the DHSS as to how quickly one can get such people out of the prison system altogether; but again that has public expenditure implications for the DHSS and also as regards getting trade union approval and the agreement of local communities to the creation of regional secure units.

The only other point I would make is the very important one made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and referred to also by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. It is an important point and I hope that the Government will have the opportunity to look again at the question of remands in custody and the fact that at the present moment one has to produce people, for perfectly understandable reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reminded us, at eight-day intervals. This has a devastating effect upon the régime in local prisons. The noble Baroness referred to Pentonville, where there had to be regular closure of workshops. That happens in many other Prison Department establishments throughout this country, making the régime in those establishments even more intolerable than it is in any event. Therefore it seems to me that the proposal made by the noble Baroness is quite right, though I can well imagine some of the objections that may be made, for example, to getting the magistrate members of boards of visitors looking at some of these remand cases in some judicial or quasi-judicial framework. I can understand the arguments which will be used against the proposal. It will be asked: will this be a court and, if so, are the public and the press to be admitted? But the fact is that she is quite right; the sheer pressure of numbers of those who appear week in and week out, in many cases with no apparent benefit to anybody, is having the most serious consequences on the prison system and the sooner we can move to some more satisfactory system, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the criminal defendant, the better it will be for all of us.

My Lords, I have listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Belstead has said, and also to what has been said by other speakers. Not for the first time, I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, particularly arresting. He raised a fundamental constitutional point which I believe to be of the greatest importance, for the Act to which this order refers may be called "an Act of Parliament pending". In other words, the implementation of this Act depends solely upon the whim of the Executive. It hangs like the sword of Damocles over those directly involved in the implementation of the Act. By such parliamentary means, I believe that the Executive are using, not for the first time, a device which converts Parliament into nothing more than a rubber stamp. My noble friend might well suggest: "Some rubber stamp that talks back to one for over an hour!" However, it is a device which I believe should be used as rarely as possible, in emergency situations. This is the key—where is the emergency? The conditions have changed during the period of more than a year ago and I find this practice is unfortunate. I quite appreciate the reason for it, namely, that it is extremely convenient for an Executive to use Parliament in this way. Nevertheless, abuse of this device does worry me.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said he had expected that this order would be taken formally. All I can say is that it ill behoves any Government spokesman to come to your Lordships' House and to expect any piece of business to be taken formally—for, as we have seen this afternoon, this order has led to an extremely important and interesting debate, with contributions being made by your Lordships from various parts of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Boston, recalled the extremely difficult circumstances of October last year when the Opposition, and indeed your Lordships' House generally, facilitated the passage of the Act, the repeal of which for a further year would be postponed as a result of approving this order. The noble Lord said in essence, I think, that while the passing of the Act a year ago was justified then, he was less happy about the postponement of repeal at a time when the criminal justice system is not subject to disruption of a kind that occurred last winter. That view was also echoed in the final speech by my noble friend Lord Morris.

However, the position is that the order before the House does not actually bring any of the provisions of Part I of the Act into force at all. We are dealing only with a contingency provision because, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is better to be safe than sorry. My noble friend said that bearing in mind first of all that the industrial action which necessitated the bringing in of this legislation is still technically only suspended and not ended. There would need to be, if any of the provisions of Part I were to be brought into effect, an entirely separate order made under the terms of Section 8(2) if circumstances were to develop which made the activation of Part I appropriate. If I may say so with respect to my noble friend Lord Morris, this separate order would have to be separately approved not only by another place but also by your Lordships' House. The Government sincerely hope and trust that the activation of any of the provisions of Part I will not be needed, but my right honourable friend believes it would be premature at this stage to allow the ability to do so if necessary to be wholly removed. I am extremely grateful to those of your Lordships who, either enthusiastically or perhaps not so enthusiastically but with understanding, have felt that the order ought to be made.

Having said that, if the House will forgive me, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, down the road of debating alternatives to custody, enormously important though they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us. Nor will I follow my noble friend Lord Renton down the road of the need for new prisons, although I am glad to say that we do have at last, even in these difficult days, a building programme for new prisons which will enable us to start, beginning in this financial year, six new prisons in the next three years.

However, I think I owe the House the very briefest explanation of the present stage of negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association, on which so much of what I am bringing before the House is based. Very briefly, consultation with governors and the Prison Officers' Association has shown that the original proposal which was brought up after the industrial action of the winter, that there should be a single common attendance system, lacked the necessary degree of flexibility when we look at the range of different establishments that there are in the prison service. It is now proposed that discussions should be directed towards producing a single common working agreement covering a variety of different shift patterns. But the Prison Officers' Association take the view that such a change requires the approval of their members.

I thought your Lordships might be interested to hear that tomorrow a delegate conference of the Prison Officers' Association is due to be held to decide whether further negotiations should be conducted on that basis. On the assumption that the outcome of tomorrow's conference is favourable, negotiations on the detail of such a working agreement can then proceed quickly. I understand that the POA will wish to seek the approval of their members to the final form of the agreement, and its implementation will need to be preceded by a period of local discussion and training. But I hope that this process will be completed with all possible speed.

Incidentally, considering the interest which has been taken in the order, I ought just to say that in the interim, between the ending of the industrial action of last winter, which caused such grievous disruption to the prison service, and today, the Prison Department of the Home Office has been seeking, and is continuing to seek, measures to improve industrial relations generally within the prison service. It has submitted proposals to the POA for revising the Whitley structure and, also, the department has made it clear that it wishes to discuss with the POA the possibility of a procedural agreement, with a view to improving consultative arrangements. It is hoped to put proposals to the Prison Officers' Association shortly, as a basis for discussion on that as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Foot, and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Trumpington and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, all referred to one part of the Act which I am asking should not be repealed, and that is Section 2. I think it is fair to say that all three said, in essence, that, provided the right arrangements are made, herein could lie very real advantages for the future. Again, very briefly, may I simply reply in this way: As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reminded your Lordships, Section 2, as it is incorporated at the moment in this Act, is not a very satisfactory piece of drafting. It has relied upon a little guidance which was given by the Home Secretary to the courts, in order—of course, within the discretion of the courts—that the attention of the Judiciary could be drawn to some of the needs of Section 2.

The main point which my right honourable friend ventured to make to the courts was that he thought it highly desirable that defendants should be legally represented, if their remand hearing took place in their absence. He asked the courts to give the most serious consideration to the grant of legal aid on the first occasion when the defendant appeared before the court, if the court decided to remand the offender in custody. Experience of the working of Section 2, when the industrial action was on, suggested that it did work well and that the normal arrangements for producing remand prisoners before the courts every eight days might be relaxed.

It is a fact that on 18th June this year, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from my honourable friend Mr. Ivan Lawrence, the Member for Burton, the Home Secretary indicated that he intended to bring legislative proposals before the House at an early opportunity, to enable remand hearings in magistrates' courts to take place in the defendant's absence, subject to certain conditions being met. These conditions would be that the court should be satisfied that the defendant consented to further remands in absence and that he, or she, was legally represented.

That is the situation as it stands at the moment, and although, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, rightly said, it would not be possible for me to anticipate what is in the gracious Speech—I think we must await a further move from my right honourable friend on this matter—I hope that the few facts connected with Section 2, of which I have reminded the House, may lead your Lordships to feel that perhaps my right honourable friend's expressed intention is along the right lines.

May I come to the specific question which my noble friend Lady Trumpington asked. My noble friend asked about the possibility of boards of visitors acting as alternative courts for remand hearings. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, immediately saw, boards of visitors' proceedings in prisons could hardly be open to the public; and, at least, when a prisoner was remanded in absence under the emergency provisions, the court proceedings had to be open to public scrutiny.

Additionally, courts already have powers to remand a prisoner to an alternative court nearer to the prison in which the offender is detained. This power is largely used for dangerous prisoners, but could reduce the problems involved in escorting remand prisoners back and forth in ordinary times. I do not think that I would, or should, make any further comments on my noble friend's suggestion on this matter, because I have tried to indicate in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, the direction in which my right honourable friend's mind is working on this matter.

Finally, I return to a fundamental question which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me. The noble Lord asked: How temporary is temporary? None of us can today foresee how future circumstances may develop. But, for the purpose of our proceedings in your Lordships' House this afternoon, I think it is sufficient to observe that the order before us postpones the repeal for 12 months and no longer. If there were any proposal 12 months hence to provide for further postponement of repeal, then that proposal would itself have to be embodied in a further order needing to be approved by this House and by another place. That is the effect of the order which I have brought before your Lordships' House this afternoon and to which I now, again, ask the agreement of your Lordships.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the increasing difficulty of administering the salmon fishing industry of Scotland and of the dangers which face the industry as a result of the failure of successive Governments to bring forward the up-to-date legislation which the industry urgently needs.

My Lords, those of your Lordships who are interested in the Atlantic salmon and Scottish fisheries—and indeed that interest of course spreads further afield—will be greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for marshalling the facts which illustrate so clearly the steep decline in the numbers of salmon that have entered Scottish rivers in recent years, to which I would add that the average weight of salmon caught has also steeply declined.

The anglers and the net fishers who operate in Scottish rivers can all testify to these facts and many will agree with the conclusions reached by the noble Viscount, not only in dealing with the actual cause of the decline but also as regards the proposals that he has made about the improvement of the administration of the Scottish rivers through the district and river boards.

There is still a great deal to learn about the habits of salmon as they move from the rivers in which they were born to the feeding grounds and back again, but this much is certain: the damage to the stocks of salmon is not due to any change or convulsion in nature. It is man-made. Man has been totally responsible for the decline in numbers. And if that is so, man's mistakes can, at any rate partly, be remedied.

I want to deal very shortly with the priorities of the situation and the ways in which I believe that at any rate part of the situation can be saved. Once the salmon feeding grounds off Greenland and on the fringe of the ice-cap were discovered and over-exploited by netting, the spring and summer run into the Scottish rivers was drastically curtailed. When the scale of the casualties was understood, the Danes and the Greenlanders were co-operative, and what would have been a total disaster was partially averted. I should like to ask my noble friend who is going to wind up this debate about the Greenland agreement. I wonder whether he can tell the House whether the ceiling on catches to which the Greenlanders agreed still operates, and whether the agreement, which I think is due to come to an end about now, is to be continued. Further, if the damage done is not to be permanent, it is also necessary to obtain an agreement with the Faeroes. So if we can achieve agreement with the Faeroes and also continue the Greenland agreement, then at any rate the damage will be mitigated.

Of course, a complete international convention for controlling the catching of Atlantic salmon would be best, but I know from my personal experience that law of the sea brings the worst out of everybody; there is never any agreement in that body, or very seldom. So we should proceed with bilateral agreements, and I put the bilateral agreements with Greenland and the Faeroes at the top of the list necessary to protect the salmon coming into the Scottish rivers. But that has to be supplemented by action to prevent the netting of salmon in the high seas. The noble Viscount is entirely right to call attention to the nylon nets, the monofilament nets. They have converted what used to be a reasonable commercial catch into a massacre. And the effect of these long nylon nets, virtually invisible, has transformed the situation for the worse.

As the noble Viscount has said, in Scotland drift netting is prohibited in the sea. It ought to be prohibited all over, but that would take an international agreement and I think that would be very slow in coming. But the English ought certainly to co-operate and act in the way Scotland does. When we have limited, as I hope we shall, the netting by these means in the high seas, I would like to see the waters within the three-mile limits managed by the district and river boards concerned in partnership with the angling and netting interests. Such a policy would have the great virtue of concentrating all commercial netting on the approaches to the estuaries of the rivers concerned, where the netters, the anglers and the ratepayers have a common interest in conservation because they need a breeding stock for the future, and it means profit to all of them. If England would cooperate, it would make a great deal of difference in the banning of netting in the high seas.

I am bound to say—I have said this often before and I have said it to those responsible in Northumberland—that I think they are very shortsighted not to do this, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will press them to agree in the future to abolish this netting in the high seas. I have no doubt at all that if they were to do so, rivers like the North Tyne and the Coquet in Northumberland would very rapidly return to their previous excellence, so that everybody concerned with the rivers, and the ratepayers, would all profit. So I very much hope that legislation is in the offing which will bring the position in England alongside that of Scotland.

The noble Viscount mentioned seals, which is always a hot subject. I can only give one illustration as to how conservation when it runs mad can upset the balance of nature. The National Trust, who own the Farne Island, with the best will in the world, no doubt, were influenced by the conservationists; so they did nothing about culling seals for years. Where there were 800 seals in the natural condition, there are now 8,000, with the result that the fishing within that area round the Farne Islands has been very adversely affected. Again, I hope, therefore, that public bodies concerned with conservation will not let it run mad, because seals must be culled if the fishermen are not to be very much damaged.

My Lords, I do not think there is any more that I have to say. I have to apologise to my noble friend: I have an engagement inside this House which I cannot miss, and it is just possible that I might have to miss part of his reply; I hope not. But if the Ministry can achieve the agreements with Greenland and the Faeroes, and if we can gradually eliminate the netting by these new means in the high seas, then I think we can look forward to a better future in the Scottish rivers.

My Lords, after the very powerful speeches from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, there is little for me to say. What I wish to say will be brief and largely on one point which I have raised a good many times over recent years in your Lordships' House. There is no need for me to speak of the value of the salmon industry to Scotland, to England and to Northern Ireland. But what I feel is most important is what was touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, a national policy which is absolutely essential as a first step, and as a second step a policy wider than national in order to embrace other countries that use the high seas.

I think that the key words of salmon policy should be "conservation" and "management". To my regret, all conservation and management is unstandardised, even within the frontiers of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Salmon laws, salmon regulations by order at present in Scotland, at present in England, at present in Northern Ireland, remain different and completely uncoordinated. For example, the drift netting which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned must be phased out. But, if you look at the regulations and laws in Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom, in Scotland, you will find no standardisation, but different regulations in each particular territory. All Governments have taken and patched up salmon legislation and fishing legislation. None of them have tackled it firmly and as a single purpose. All Governments have promised to do something and all Governments have done virtually nothing.

I sometimes think that in a democracy the trouble is that salmon have no votes. Within 250 yards of where your Lordships are sitting today you can see in fresh water great big succulent trout swimming. Those trout have no votes at all; they have no voice in your Lordships' House and they have very little representation in your Lordships' House. However, it is they who have to be conserved both as regards management and preservation.

There is a large measure of agreement in the territories of the United Kingdom which I have mentioned as regard rods and nets. There is no real rivalry between rods and nets because conservation and management are a common requirement to both rod and net waters. I think that the Government can forget the Hunter Report and start again on a national salmon policy for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Once we have got that and put our own house in order—and until we have put our own house in order we shall be rather weak when we go to the EEC and ask for restrictions and regulations—then we can tackle the EEC depredations by various countries who do not produce any fish themselves but only consume those which have been produced in our rivers. When that comes about with a national policy first, for the United Kingdom, and then succeeded by a firm EEC policy which would have the goodwill of all countries who have seen us put our own house in order, then I believe that there is a greater hope for the preservation of salmon than there is at present.

My Lords, there is increasing concern over the growing threat to the survival of the Atlantic salmon. That threat is, in the main, threefold, as has already been touched on. First, the wholesale netting of the sea off Greenland and the Faeroes. Secondly, the depredation by the large seal population. Thirdly, the wholesale and now commercial poaching in the estuaries and rivers. The poaching of the odd salmon by rod and line and the small net for "one for the pot" is of no concern. The pressures on the salmon are such that if the situation is allowed to deteriorate beyond a certain point the time could come when the total numbers of breeding fish in the rivers will not be high enough to sustain breeding and to produce the enormous numbers of young fish needed to cope with natural wastage, without mentioning the catch by man.

Already the salmon runs at certain times of year have been drastically affected. As salmon rivers deteriorate so will the angling fishing industry decline. Taking everything from tackle supplies to hotels, travel and so on into account, game fishing accounts for a turnover of something around £200 million per annum. It also, of course, attracts a lot of foreigners who bring in foreign currency. Game angling is of particular importance to the economy of rural Scotland. It is a favourite sport of the Scotsman and peculiarly enough of West Midlanders. It is lesser a sport for the Northern, Southern and South-Eastern region people.

Over a third of game anglers are professional, managerial or white collar workers, but manual occupations are increasingly represented and it is of particular value as a recreation for the middle aged who are no longer prepared to undertake more active sports. Nevertheless, one in three game anglers is under 25 and there is considerable recruitment now from the 12- to 15-year old age group. Indeed, 15 per cent. of all households have at least one angler of which 20 per cent. are game fishermen—that is, there are about 676,000 game fishermen of which 223,000 are estimated to fish once a week. Game fishing is an important and financially valuable recreation.

I turn first to drift netting which has already been covered. It is, of course, prohibited off Scotland, but fish tour the sea and the coasts. Yorkshire and Northumbrian drift netters, apart from spoiling the English rivers, take salmon of which it is estimated that 90 per cent. are fish going to Scottish waters. Evidence of drift net damage exists in Ireland. Since the 1960s when Irish inshore fishermen were encouraged to fish for salmon, drift net licences increased from 363 in 1962 to 1,048 in 1974 and the total catch went up from 2·8 million pounds to 4·4 million pounds. During that time estuary net catches fell from 416,000 pounds to 79,000 pounds and drift netters were estimated to take 80 per cent. of all salmon caught in 1977. The Irish Salmon Research Trust showed that from 1975 to 1978 the spawning stock had become inadequate to be self-replenishing. Only severe restrictions rectified the situation in 1979. Drift netting is also wasteful due to many salmon escaping the nets and dying subsequently from the damage inflicted. Even those that survive can be so damaged as to make them less valuable when they are subsequently caught. That damage could contribute perhaps to the incidence in recent years of salmon disease.

As regards seals, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when opening the debate gave the great figures of the increase and I shall not repeat them. There is still a lobby, feeding on uninformed public opinion, trying to stop culling and seal control and we heard about that this morning on the radio. However, if organised culling with carefully selected marksmen is prevented, sooner or later it will be undertaken by exasperated fishermen with no humane safeguards and with no limits. Firm action is now imperative despite the objectors who are no longer supported by informed conservation bodies.

As regards the poaching of estuaries, that has now become a highly organised affair with groups of men netting thousands of pounds worth of fish a night and substantially stripping rivers of fish for anglers and for breeding. As regards estuary and river poaching, salmon catches in the rivers have been greatly reduced and in some cases the rivers have been totally stripped of fish and will not be re-stocked owing to the efficiency of the poaching. That has led to lodges, once hosting a succession of recreational anglers and bringing employment and income to Highland settlements, actually falling into irrevocable decay through disuse through lack of fish. In certain parts of Scotland poaching has become a local industry particularly in the Western Isles and often poached salmon are processed in Government sponsored HIDB fish processing factories. Needless to say, some of the worst culprits are men already drawing the dole. The stakes are so high that violence is not ruled out to maintain the illegal trade. Let there be no doubt that this is big business.

Anarchy exists in salmon rivers at the moment with illegal netsmen at every estuary, and the same applies to some English rivers. The great succession of rodsmen pay dearly for their fishing and are deprived by the few but effective commercial poachers who strip the rivers. The same story goes for Norway where erstwhile famous rivers no longer yield fish except on rare occasions and rural economy has started to suffer. Yet poachers put nothing back and when the river is empty they move on to the next one.

If salmon fishing is to be preserved as an outdoor sport, then the Government must act to ensure the survival and return of the salmon to the rivers of their origin in adequate numbers. It is the anglers who pay the river ghillie and who stock the river. Drive off the angler and off goes the ghillie and the salmon cannot survive the influx of free for all fishing. Salmon legislation is extensive and comprehensive, but varies as regards Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—this point has already been made—each area having a different policy for the conservation of salmon.

As has already been said, too many anomalies exist in present United Kingdom salmon legislation, and a national salmon policy is now needed and needs to be backed by new law. The national policy should include the condition that drift net licences for salmon should be gradually phased out and drift netting for salmon stopped. Likewise, monofilament nets should be prohibited. Monofilament nets damage fish and have already been prohibited in the South-West and North-West United Kingdom water authorities. The Government have accepted the view that salmon escaping the monofilament nets are now more likely to be injured and to die subsequently of dermal disease than if braided nets are used.

There is a need to establish district boards, with finance other than by rates, in order to finance conservation. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, went into this matter in detail. Also, rod licences should be enforced and the submission of an annual return should be mandatory. A much higher fee for a dealer's licence would also help to finance the administration and deter the small-time poacher from taking out a dealer's licence.

The alternative to the licensed dealer scheme is the salmon tagging scheme, such as that instituted by the province of New Brunswick in 1980. Their fishery officials have been satisfied with the results and the scheme has, first, given a measure of the commercial catch of salmon along the shores of the province and, secondly, reduced the wholesale poaching of salmon in inland waters.

Northern Ireland has a comprehensive and legally enforceable scheme for the control of salmon sales, as has the Republic of Ireland. The Irish scheme makes it unlawful to possess an illegally caught salmon, the onus of proof lying with the defendant. Anyone, other than a fisherman or fish farmer, needs a licence to possess or sell salmon. Salmon dealers have to keep registers recording all purchases and sales of salmon. Even hotels have to account for salmon in their possession if they are required to do so.

The registrations on the sale of salmon have not stopped illegal netting, but the Acts have been a great deterrent and have made handlers of illegally obtained fish run greater risks, and have made it more difficult for wholesale poachers to dispose of their fish. The Irish scheme is not so expensive, as time spent checking dealers is equated with time spent on river patrols. But I believe that river owners would be happy to contribute further in a levy to cure the poaching problem. There is no reason why the Northern Irish scheme should not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and this should be done before it is too late.

Finally, there is the high seas fishing by foreign nations using satellites to spot the salmon. The lack of a unified British salmon policy detracts from efforts by the United Kingdom Government to influence the EEC in seeking the protection of salmon on the high seas, and the control of salmon fishing in the Faeroes and Greenland areas.

My Lords, I think that we have had a fascinating debate and the House should be duly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for initiating it. He certainly told us about his interests, and that spread of interests certainly gives him a very considerable knowledge of the subject. It was one of my trials and tribulations at the Scottish Office to have to deal with the subject of the Hunter Report. The noble Viscount made it sound so easy. He never mentioned trout at all. But perhaps he will recollect that one of the great central themes of the Hunter Report was that the trout was to be given the same protections as salmon. According to the number of suggestions that arrived from all the varying interests—some welcoming the report and some suggesting the nationalisation of rivers—it was not so simple as he suggested. It was quite wrong of the noble Viscount to say that nothing at all was done.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, suggested that salmon had no votes. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, told us how many anglers there were in the country. In proportion, I think that there is a far greater number in Scotland than in England and Wales, and I can assure noble Lords that nearly every one of them wrote to me on the subject of the Hunter Report; and they have votes, if not the salmon or the trout. So it is not quite so simple.

Of course, when we look at the point that has been raised by all the speakers, that we have no common law in relation to the protection of freshwater fish in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, we can appreciate the difficulties. I was the Secretary of State who banned the use of the drift nets off the east coast of Scotland. I was not popular in that part of the country at that time. As I recollect, it was just before a general election, but I felt that it had to be done. It involved a change in their fishing habits; they had never done such a thing before. I think that they were shut out of other areas and then they realised that off their coast was to be found a fortune. But, of course, it would affect the estuarial fishing; it was quite legal on Tayside and elsewhere, and it would seriously affect the whole rod and line industry and the sport of thousands of people. However, their complaint to me was, "Why stop this in Scotland?" In Cumbria and Northumbria they can do it and it is legal. There, what was a small industry has now become a large industry. It will probably be much more difficult for a Government to interfere with it now than if they had sought to do so 10 or 20 years ago.

There is no doubt that salmon breed in Scottish rivers and English rivers but feed elsewhere, thousands of miles away. So the salmon run, subject to all the dangers of the taking of them by various means at various stages of their life. The matter can only be dealt with on the basis of international action. I think the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, in relation to Greenland and the Faeroes, that it had been suggested that present arrangements were to end soon. I understood—and if I am wrong perhaps the Minister will correct me—that negotiations affecting Greenland were successfully completed between the EEC and Canada; I think that the allowable catch has been increased from about 1,170 metric tonnes to about 1,200 metric tonnes. However, with the changes in fishing, they are allowed to catch bigger fish, so they will not be catching any more fish, but the weight of fish will be greater.

A few years ago the Faeroes catch was about 70 metric tonnes and it is now five times that figure, and growing. I do not think that the illegal drift net is quite so prevalent as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, thinks because in Scotland we took action a long time ago to make it easier to catch poachers and those acting illegally. It is one of the few areas in Scotland where you do not require corroboration for a person to be found guilty in the Scottish courts; indeed, I think that it is about the only area. If a river baillee finds someone on his own it can be a very expensive business for the poacher, because all his engines are taken, even a vehicle if he has one and is caught. Therefore, while I do not think that this is so serious, it goes on.

But the greatest need is for an international convention, an Atlantic convention, for salmon. Until we get that, the bilateral negotiations must go on. Could the Minister confirm that there have been successful EEC negotiations in respect of Greenland and of the Faeroes? From the Faeroes' point of view there is still further arrangement to be made so that there can be proper inspection and scientific research done in relation to all that is happening there.

I am glad that the question of seals was raised. If you are in the hot seat when the conservationists in respect of seals get at you—and they include powerful people in this House as well as elsewhere—then I can assure you that it is very difficult to get the balance across to the public that the conservation of fish—not just salmon—which is important for the livelihood of the particular people concerned, is also at stake. I am grateful for what has been said today so that people might get in balance the need to do something sensible about this matter.

I noticed in the last report by the Secretary of State that he was suggesting that he was looking at the latest scientific evidence before he introduced a new management plan in relation to the cull. Are we any nearer to a decision by the Secretary of State in that respect? I hope we can be given some information in respect of that matter. It is important. It is a valuable fish. I just checked the cost of it to the consumer; it is £3·50 per pound. There are not many of the 3 million unemployed spending much money on that. But at that price it is valuable to those who are getting it. You cannot get a great sense of national feeling about this matter until the price comes down for the ordinary public to enjoy it.

But who are the people who have the interests? They are not without influence, may I say to Lord Balfour. The riparian owners—many of them sit in this House—have an interest here. They have not been unsuccessful in getting legislation against poachers, and in respect of other matters of protection. There is this lack of agreement by the various interests, the riparian owners, those who let out fishing, and of course the whole thing will disappear if there are no fish there. Therefore, they all have a common interest in conservation, and in ensuring that international action is taken to ensure that the fish come back to the rivers in which they were bred.

There is one other little matter I should like to take up with the Government, and maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could give me some information about this. Our universities are doing quite a bit of work in respect of aquiculture. I do not know whether the House realises, but in 1980 there were 610 tonnes of salmon produced in our fish farms in Scotland. That figure is growing. It is something to be concerned about.

A lot of work has been done in one university in Scotland, Stirling, in respect of research, nutrition, and the whole hatchery business, the engineering side of it. I should like to know whether or not the Government are aware of the practical importance of this, not just to our own country but to the overseas development administration which has been supporting the work that has been going on there in research, and it has an information service that serves the whole world. I should not like to think that recent events in the university world are going to affect the research work that is going on at Stirling or elsewhere, in other universities.

When there is such demand for fish, and fish stocks are being overfished and people are being foolish about it, then we have not only to look after our own interests so far as the salmon are concerned, getting a national policy, getting an international policy, but to go into the question of research to see how we can increase the stocks on which we can draw for food. It is not going to be easy to get that legislation that was spoken of, but quite a number of ideas were given. Arising out of some aspects of the Hunter Report, I think it was in 1976, we had a Scottish Act. I do not think that it has been all that successful, judging by what I hear in respect of where you can take a river by river approach to it. It may well be that the Government need to look at this. If they look at the wider aspects and bring their influence to bear on the Minister of Agriculture south of the Border to see what can be done about the drift netting off the east coast of England, then that itself would be helpful.

The financing is always the stumbling block. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has recently read the Hunter Report. One of the things that went through my mind as I read it was that all the financial burdens fell on the Government. Now it is a profitable industry, and could be even more profitable. The question of finance really must be faced up to by the industry itself, as to how properly it should raise the money for all the new suggestions that the noble Viscount and others have put forward, and that the burden should not be on the taxpayer. If they can be convinced of that we are much more likely to get legislation by the Government. I would rather see legislation on this subject from the Government than go along the paths that we traversed last time in respect of legislation that certainly Scotland did not want. It may well be that all those thousands of angling voters would welcome legislation, whereas many millions will not welcome the kind of legislation that we hear might well be coming.

My Lords, it falls to me to express on behalf of the whole House the gratitude that I am sure that all of us will feel to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for asking the Unstarred Question that stands in his name and has covered such a fascinating variety of subjects. Indeed, it has unearthed tremendous amounts of expertise from all round your Lordships' House. As always, I find that on past occasions when we have discussed salmon and salmon fisheries it seems that always the mover of the debate, and indeed any Government spokesman at least in this Government's lifetime, has to declare an interest. The noble Viscount declared his interest. I shall be far briefer and declare my interest in that I am a riparian owner in one of the rivers on the east of Scotland. I am far more a keen than an expert fisherman, to which my noble friend Lord Cullen will bear witness, as the hooks fly around not often in the direction of the fish but quite often in the direction of the humans. Even so, the pleasure I have always felt I am sure will also be felt by your Lordships' House and by everybody who has spoken this evening.

Questions and debates on salmon and salmon fishing are not unusual in this House. Of course, it would be right to commend the noble Viscount on the timing of his Question. I understand—I hope that I am correct—that the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards recently asked for a meeting on this subject with my noble friend the Minister. I do not know precisely whether the noble Viscount is using this evening's occasion as a preliminary canter over the course. I hope that I may be able to alleviate some of his fears and indeed some of the fears that have been expressed by my noble friends, by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and indeed all round the House.

The last time that there was a major substantive debate which included issues that we have been discussing this evening, particularly fisheries and salmon, was on the Motion by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, on 23rd January 1980. Of course, that particular debate was on a much broader canvas than the Question that has been asked this evening by the noble Viscount. The issue before us this evening is the narrower but certainly important question of the legal and administrative structure for fishing of salmon in our rivers in Scotland. Certainly I, and I am sure the rest of your Lordships, took the opportunity of reading that particular debate. It gave me great amusement to read what the noble Viscount said at that particular time. I must not tease the noble Viscount too much. It certainly fascinated me that at one stage in the debate he said:

"No longer can one leister a fish—

I think I have the word right—

"on the redds to pickle for winter use"—(Col. 501.)

That, I think, was the noble Viscount referring to some interesting piscatorial activity in or around the Thurso. However, he had some other more general points to make, and it all showed that the noble Viscount is no mean expert in this sphere.

As the House has heard from this evening's debate, the problems of Scottish fish and Scottish salmon are not new. The noble Viscount recognises this in the terms of his Question by referring to the failure of successive Governments to bring forward the proper legislation. Be that as it may, this Administration has not been unmindful of the need to face up to the question of legislation. Progress has not been as rapid as we should have liked, but we could not accept the suggestion that we are open to the criticism of "failure" as contained in the Question.

I shall not recapitulate the recent history of events in fishing legislation; the experts who have been speaking in the House this evening will be well aware of all such recent events. We are largely concerned with a central conclusion of Lord Hunter's committee, which recommended in 1965 that the existing system of administration of salmon fisheries by district salmon fishery boards set up under the 1862 and 1868 Acts should be replaced by larger and more widely-based area boards. Lord Hunter further recommended that these larger boards should have responsibility for freshwater fisheries, and I shall return to this later; it was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. The noble Viscount, in his speech during the debate on 23rd January 1980, went so far as to commend "the caution which legislators showed" in not following the Hunter Committee. I do not want to quote the noble Viscount out of context, but, taken with his earlier remarks in that debate—about making sure you knew where you were going (he quoted "a better 'ole to go to")—we took it that he was advocating making haste slowly and above all getting the legislation right.

The next attempted step forward after Hunter was taken by the previous Conservative Government who, in November 1971, published a White Paper proposing legislation. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his attempt to grasp the nettle. Briefly, the White Paper proposed the setting up of 14 area boards appointed by the Secretary of State with responsibility for both salmon fisheries and freshwater fisheries. The boards were to be financed by fishery rates, both on salmon fisheries—at present levied by district boards—and on freshwater fisheries, as well as by rod licences and salmon net licence fees and, initially, by Government grants. The expectation then was that income from rod licences would build up over two or three years to make the boards self-sufficient. For reasons, I suppose, of parliamentary time, those proposals did not attract a Bill before the next change of Government.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will forgive me if I make a brief but relevant aside about the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. It is probably fair to say that this Act has few supporters who are wholly committed to its every provision. Nevertheless, it does provide the opportunity to obtain protection for freshwater fisheries as, so to speak, a reward for increased access for anglers. I do not wish to be drawn into the merits of that Act, although the House may wish to be reminded that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently asked the chairman of the reconstituted Consultative Committee on Freshwater Fisheries to suggest how procedures under the Act could be made to work more speedily and smoothly. It is, however, the opportunity which now exists to obtain statutory protection for freshwater fisheries that is important in the context of a debate about future legislation, and I shall point out why shortly.

That is the background against which my noble friend put in hand the current review of legislation and administration of salmon and freshwater fisheries. In a sense, he sought to take up these issues where our predecessors in the last Conservative Administration had left them. In December 1979—that was just before the 1980 debate on the noble Duke's Motion—the Government issued a consultation paper which drew very largely on the proposals first made in 1971. There were, of course, some differences; a smaller number of boards was proposed, for example, 10 rather than 14, and there was no reference to the question of Government assistance.

I mentioned earlier that I commended the noble Viscount's timing in asking his Question this evening. My noble friend is hoping shortly to conclude the review he put in hand. He has not, however, yet concluded it and it would seem fair to make some broad comments on how it has gone so far. In some ways it has been disappointing, at least so far as the question of boards with responsibilities for both salmon and freshwater fish are concerned. I hasten to say that the association of which the noble Viscount is president has been most constructive in its approach. While it may be true that that association has most to gain, it is to be commended for the effort it has put into this review. It has prepared its own papers for discussion with Government officials and has held informal discussions with freshwater interests. The association has also sought, much more recently, to gather together the views of the various Scottish salmon interests. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is widespread and robust resistance from the freshwater interests at club, area and national association level to the question of area boards with responsibilities for both salmon and freshwater fish.

That opposition of the freshwater interests is based on several points of principle. First, it is argued that area boards seem to them unlikely to bring obvious benefits to those anglers who do not fish for salmon. It is felt that the restocking of rivers in the circumstances is more obviously a matter for angling clubs, and they point to the success that many such clubs have had in this respect, particularly in recent years. The second main concern of the freshwater fishery interests is the cost of the boards, which will fall in part on the freshwater fishers through rod licences at a time when other costs are going up. Moreover, it is feared that the imposition of what is perceived could be unnecessarily bureaucratic régimes would soak up money which many of the freshwater fishers would prefer to see invested directly in their sport.

A third consideration, which cannot be ignored, although it is often not explicitly stated, is that they fear that salmon interests will prove more powerful in a clash of view on particular issues between freshwater and salmon. Lastly, the very existence of the 1976 Act means that area boards could have no obvious role in the making of protection orders for freshwater fish. This has been a major consideration and may well have explained the measure of support which the 1971 White Paper appeared to obtain at the time from the freshwater interests. I should like to stress that these arguments are not just from what some may see as politically motivated angling groups, but from a wide range of freshwater angling interests, often speaking from the knowledge and experience of owning and running their own fishings. All these views tend to discount the opportunity that area boards would bring for co-operation between fishing interests, the coordination of management systems, the broadening of the income base of boards, and even the scope that some system of rod licensing might provide on its own account for the better regulation of angling and freshwater fisheries. The Government for their part, while not yet having reached a final conclusion, are bound to ask whether the imposition of what may he seen as an ideal but, for the reasons that I have given, unwelcome structure, would be appropriate or wise.

There is another possibility, and this one has arisen in discussion with the salmon interests. It would be to create a formal permissive right for freshwater interests in district salmon board areas to obtain a seat on the boards in circumstances where the local interests all felt that this would be appropriate. Some areas in Scotland already have what I understand are known as improvement associations, where both salmon and trout interests try to work together. Clearly in these circumstances there would have to be some financial arrangement affecting both freshwater and salmon interests—but mainly the freshwater interests. However, this idea merits very serious consideration.

I am very aware that one consideration which inevitably lies behind the salmon interests' concern to see some improvement in the present arrangements is that of finance. Much comment has been made about the financial difficulties that some district boards are facing, with the associated risk of a decline in the standards of stocking and management of various rivers.

Salmon have a very important role to play in many parts of rural Scotland, and this is well understood by the Government. On that account, we would not rule out the need for some way of widening the base of the income for the boards. But that would need to be considered against the background of our commitment to containing public expenditure and reducing the burdens on local authorities.

The vexed question of the number of district boards is very important, as is their incomplete cover over Scottish rivers as a whole. The noble Viscount earlier mentioned the great gap between, I think, Cape Wrath and the Clyde. We heard earlier today about these administrative gaps, and we would very much agree with the noble Viscount on that particular point. I am not entirely sure that a poll of your Lordships' House would be likely to come up with any single, agreed figure for a new pattern or number of boards—whether such boards were to be for salmon alone, or were to cover both freshwater fish and salmon. Perhaps, therefore, your Lordships might consider it unfair to look purely to the Secretary of State to impose a pattern of amalgamations. On the other hand, amalgamations of existing boards in appropriate circumstances could well lead to considerable administrative savings. One possibility might be to encourage voluntary amalgamations, subject to the Secretary of State looking for a rational pattern developing through local discussion. But current legislation rules out complete amalgamations of existing boards, even when each party is willing. Here then is an area where legislation might well he helpful, and it is certainly one of the matters that the Government are actively considering.

There is also the need to consider the question of possible new powers for the district boards. I well understand the wish expressed by some of the boards to see an opportunity to change close times for salmon fishing, amend estuarial limits where these are no longer relevant, remove obstructions by compulsion, and to have other such powers. What must be remembered is that the creation of larger area boards as the Government had envisaged them would have meant the appointment of members representative of a broad range of interests. District boards, even if larger than the present boards, which were representative only of salmon interests, might not be seen by Parliament, or indeed the public, as appropriate recipients of powers which were too widely drawn. That does not mean that the Government see no scope for change, but there is a need for detailed discussion of this aspect in the light of wider decisions which we should have to take on both structure and finance.

The noble Viscount's Question is very relevant. I am sure that he and others will be impatient to see change. The Government, for their part, have an open mind on this, but we would stress that we wish to see any changes receive the broadest possible support. In this context the Government have noted that the real pressure for change is from a number of the main salmon interests, and of course we are bound to take account of this.

I shall try to answer most of the questions that have been raised by all the very expert and distinguished speakers who have taken part in the debate. If I miss any of the points, I am sure that the expertise of your Lordships will reach through to me and I shall have to make amends by answering at a later stage, or possibly in written form.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough, raised the vexed problem of drift netting. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, also raised the problem of drift net fishing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already indicated that he is to consider making permanent the ban on drift netting in Scottish waters. That that has not yet been done in no way detracts from the existing order, which keeps the present ban in force.

The question of the Northumberland drift netting is a source of constant irritation to those concerned with Scottish salmon, including those who wish to fish them, but, in the light of the document of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Scottish interests, it is now open to press for changes. The document already suggests that the Government are prepared to look at change in this particular aspect.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I think other noble Lords, also raised the question of seals. I am sure that the Scottish salmon interests and those who fish for salmon have for a very long time been the main proponents of action by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to manage—and in using that term I shall be quite blunt and say to reduce—the seal population. The House will have been fascinated to hear the figures quoted earlier by the noble Viscount. We think of the world's human population rising sharly, but the seal population around the United Kingdom, and in particular around Scotland, is moving at such a pace that I am sure the House would agree that my right honourable friend should take necessary and, above all, swift action, which I am sure he intends to do.

My right honourable friend has done his best to license people to take seals in order to protect their nets, but the wider question of proper seal management, as well as the whole problem, is under review. The licensed Orkney pup hunt is not necessarily a matter that I should want to go into this afternoon, apart from considering it as part of the wider issue of managing the entire seal population. On that wider issue, my right honourable friend has set up a consultative process and is looking for further research which he hopes will enable progress on an agreed long-term scientific basis towards reducing the population of the seals; but I am afraid that agreement as to the precise levels of seal population have not yet been reached. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised a question on research in relation to seals. Certainly research into the population, and indeed the conduct, of seals has been commissioned by the Natural Environment Research Council, but this research is not yet complete and certainly we would estimate that it will take more than a year.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I think mentioned that he would look for a detailed list of the powers of boards. I would not want to go beyond the generalised comments I have made so far in my speech, and I hope the noble Viscount will accept that I would not want to go further this evening. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel raised a point which was of interest to, I am sure, the whole House, but especially to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, concerning Greenland fisheries and, indeed, the Faeroe problem. On 29th September this year the European Commission agreed to arrangements for reciprocal fishing rights with the Government of Canada. These included limitations on the salmon fishing around Greenland by way of quotas, on mesh sizes and on the date of starting fishing, as well as on one or two other detailed considerations. The arrangements have not yet been agreed by the Canadians, but this year's salmon fishing around Greenland is being operated as if the agreement was in full force.

In the view of the Government the quota fixed represents a realistic compromise between the needs, certainly of the Greenlanders, who depend on this particular fishery for their livelihood, and of the states of origin, such as Canada and ourselves. I understand that the quota this year around Greenland is 1,270 tonnes—that word is spelt "tonnes", it is metric tonnes—so the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was very accurate in his preliminary strike at a figure in the question he was asking. On the question of the Faeroes, your Lordships will be pleased to learn that next week, through the European Commission, the Government will be participating in talks with the Government of the Faeroe Islands with a view to reaching a definite agreement on the limitation of that particular fishing of salmon—and I think the concept of interception fishing is particularly relevant so far as the Faeroes are concerned.

I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Home, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as well as to other Members of your Lordships' House, who will see that the Government are confident that an agreement on the limitation of the interception of fish, both around Greenland and around the Faeroes, can be reached.

My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised the question of the need to co-ordinate policy on fishing. We regard it as very useful and very helpful that he made this point at a time when legislation on salmon is being examined in depth both by my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, by other noble friends who are responsible for fisheries south of the Border. I also appreciated very much the comment of my noble friend about the fact that salmon have no votes, and, indeed, the trout that pass not 250 feet from where we stand now. We appreciate his expertise in fishing both south of the Border as well as north.

My noble friend Lord Gisborough raised the problem of dealer licences. Indeed, dealer licences have provided an old chestnut of a problem. Certainly this has been raised off and on for about 100 years. The main purpose of a dealer licence is to obtain a back-up to the existing bans on poaching. Certainly the difficulty has always been one of finding an effective method which is not far too complex administratively or, indeed, too expensive to operate; but I would stress to your Lordships that the possibility is again under active consideration both by Government and by those bodies with an interest in this particular field.

The question of rod licences on their own is a matter of controversy in Scotland, though it may be that licences for salmon anglers would be less controversial than the introduction of rod licences for trout. Salmon catch statistics in Scotland are already returned to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State; these are given in statutory returns already.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised one more point on research into fish farming. The Government are indeed well aware of the very great importance of fish farming, and, indeed, research is going ahead very strongly in universities and in Government laboratories, as well as under the auspices of private enterprise. One of the points made in my right honourable friend's recent consultation paper is the need to ensure that all the results of research are made generally available, but this is certainly something which needs regular contact with both the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the scientists. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, spoke about the team at Stirling University. I think it is Dr. Robert's team; I hope he is the right gentleman.

Yes, my Lords, but the point was: Have the Government cut back on the finance available to him? Half of its finance comes from elsewhere. It comes from the ODA, it comes from commerical interests and it comes from the likes of the FAO and UNESCO. But I have a fear that there may well be a cut-back in research because of what the Government are doing.

My Lords, I am afraid that at the moment I have not got the breakdown of the financing of research at Stirling or, indeed, over a wider field. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord with such statistics as I can find and as might be relevant. Perhaps I could cover that point by letter.

My Lords, I would apologise for such a lengthy wind-up speech but I am sure that your Lordships would agree that the Question which has been asked by the noble Viscount is fascinating. Certainly I wondered quite what kind of speeches would be made this evening, and in every case I have been fascinated and have learned something. I am sure your Lordships have been impressed by the expertise in all fields of both salmon and freshwater fisheries that we have witnessed this evening.

The Government fully recognise that the salmon industry is very important, not just to those who are directly concerned as lovers of the sport of angling salmon, or indeed who make their living from the commercial salmon netting industry, but also to all of us who are concerned with the conservation of what is, after all, our national heritage. Some of the existing legislation on salmon is over 100 years old, but some of it is ripe for chance. I would assure your Lordships that the points which have been made so succinctly this evening all round will be considered very carefully by the Government before final decisions are taken about the content of any new legislation.