Lords Sitting of 17 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Salisbury.

Common Agricultural Policy Costs
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost to the British taxpayer of the European Communities common agricultural policy in the current year; and whether this figure will be reduced in future years.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, planned Exchequer expenditure on common agricultural policy measures in the UK is about £1.9 billion for the 1991–92 financial year. In addition, the Exchequer pays towards CAP expenditure elsewhere in the Community through the UK's net contribution to the EC budget. The cost of the CAP in future years is an issue that will be considered in forthcoming negotiations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer, and for the horrific figure that she gave. Is it not a little disappointing that after it has been the commonly expressed view throughout this country that the common agricultural policy requires to be cut down to size, my noble friend is still not able to announce a reduction for next year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government's firm view is in total agreement with my noble friend that the costs of the CAP must be kept under strict control. A legally binding guideline ceiling on expenditure will therefore continue to be essential. The Government will also aim to ensure that CAP reform reduces overall costs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what is the purpose of the common agricultural policy? What good does it do Britain?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all farmers benefit from the market support system provided by the CAP. Therefore UK farmers benefit.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, why do we have to suffer the import of terrible apples such as golden delicious while our own marvellous apples such as cox's and others are restricted in growth? What common sense is there in that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is not my understanding that our delicious, superb cox's are restricted in growth. However, it is a free market.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how can the noble Baroness state that the common agricultural policy benefits British farmers when their net incomes in real terms have gone down? Many have gone out of business. Is it not a fact that on present trends, the cost
1856
of the common agricultural policy to the British taxpayer, far from reducing as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wishes, will increase over the next few years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the trend in the UK net contribution to the cost of the CAP, it is not possible to give separate figures for the UK contribution to the costs of the CAP. However, Government policy is to limit that as much as possible by pressing for restraint on the overall costs of the CAP and maintenance of budget discipline and by opposing CAP measures which would discriminate against the UK.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in her characteristic way, will the noble Baroness candidly ask the Commission to spend a little more time dealing with these agricultural matters rather than looking around for every other aspect that they can harmonise and new schemes to introduce?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that my colleagues spend an enormous amount of time and do a very great deal of work on the agricultural policy and on maintaining Britain's fair share.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are vast opportunities for the export of British food products throughout the European Community? Would it not be a good idea if farmers started marketing and packaging their excellent produce in order to take advantage of that factor rather than encouraging consumers in this country to import from other European countries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can only say "Hear, hear" in answer to my noble friend.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that at present in order to contain the costs of the common agricultural policy in future years, Commissioner MacSharry has tabled proposals for the restructuring of the CAP which, if implemented as they stand, will neither save the British taxpayer money nor confer any benefit whatever on British agriculture.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Commission approved the MacSharry paper setting out the broad principles and framework for CAP reform on 31st January. The paper was published on 1st February and was discussed at the Agricultural Council on 4th-5th February. At discussion in the Agricultural Council it was clear that a significant number of other member states shared UK reservations about the Commission's ideas. The Commission is considering those views. Discussion on the reform paper is likely to resume in the summer after the 1991–92 price package has been agreed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I' use the Minister's words. She stated that the Government are continually trying to restrain the costs of the CAP. That may be correct. However, we have heard that stated many times. Will she give the House details

1857
about exactly what is being done with regard to that restraint, bearing in mind that the CAP costs every family in this country £18 a week.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the 1991–92 price fixing proposals have been discussed three times by agriculture Ministers and once by finance Ministers. Discussions at all those councils have revealed that the majority of member states would prefer to see the guideline raised to accommodate the costs of German unification, thereby removing the need for savings in 1991. The Commission, with full support from the UK and the Netherlands, is resisting any change to the guideline. The next meeting is scheduled for 20th-21st May, when the presidency is expected to table compromise proposals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the Common Agricultural Policy and its effects are a major stumbling block to the negotiations of the Uruguay Round of GATT? What can the Government tell the House about a possible reform of the policy to allow that round to succeed, which is desperately important?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the EC offer is part of a complex negotiation. Changes in the CAP will depend upon the final agreement. There is no question of dismantling the CAP or of completely abandoning particular policies. They should lead to freer market conditions but not to complete exposure to world market forces. That should lead to lower expenditure which in turn would be in conformity with GATT proposals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend go a little further and give the House some encouragement by indicating that for the good reason advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and from the point of view of the control of public expenditure, the Government will make a determined effort in the near future to enforce a reduction in the expenditure on the CAP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, negotiations are proceeding. I cannot give my noble friend any more encouraging remarks while those negotiations proceed.

London Taxis: Seat Belt Regulations
11.15 a.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have calculated the effect on the United Kingdom's balance of payments of the impending imposition of fines on foreign tourists who fail to wear their seat belts correctly in the rear seats of London taxis.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, no.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief Answer which was fairly predictable. Is he aware that prospective tourists from the United States—otherwise known as the land of the free—will not spend their hard-earned dollars travelling to a country
1858
which is rapidly being turned into a collectivist nanny state? Is the Minister further aware that annually an average of only three people are killed throughout the whole of Great Britain in the rear seats of taxis and only 2.2 within built-up areas? That compares with 19 people killed annually as a result of falling from trains, 30 people killed while tending their gardens, almost 300 people killed by falling down the stairs and 1,000 who die as a result of exposing their skin to the harmful rays of the sun. Do the Government intend soon to ban sunbathing, rail travel, gardening and the construction of houses more than one storey high?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's aspirations for liberty. I hardly think that the prospect of safer travel in London will deter foreign visitors. Indeed, many states in America have the same provisions. I am aware of the statistics quoted by the noble Lord in respect of traffic but not about sunbathing. If passed it is probable that the new regulations will prevent 100 deaths and 1,000 serious injuries each year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has struggled to hide the fact that there is a serious side to the Question? If a person travelling in the rear of a taxi does not wear a seat belt there may be a reduction in the damages to which he or she may be entitled in the event of an accident. Does the Minister agree that to denigrate the use of rear seat belts is demonstrably silly and dangerous?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raises an aspect of the Question that I had not considered. The House will be grateful to him. Wide consultation was carried out. It is significant that important organisations including the AA, RAC, BMA and RoSPA, and also the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford is a member, were enthusiastic about the proposals.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the matter comes before this House it will have the full support of Members on these Benches? Anything that can be done to eliminate what has been called the flying mother-in-law syndrome—namely, that the rear seat passenger kills the passenger in front and usually the mother-in-law is sitting behind—will have our support. Will the Department of Transport examine the suitability of the fittings in the rear seats of taxis because in my experience they are often awkward to fit?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The matter will be debated in this House next Thursday. We are addressing the problem of fittings because in some London taxis they have been tucked under the seat.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I declare an interest because my amendment originally introduced seat belt legislation in another place. Is the Minister aware that some people are worried that the existing law is not being effectively carried out? Does he agree that some

1859
people are becoming lax because there are so few prosecutions of those who do not fulfil the law of the land?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are not many prosecutions. In 1989, 7,275 convictions were secured and 100,000 penalty notices were issued. The effect purpose of the law was to encourage what was already sensible, and it has had just that effect.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, does the noble Lord agree that flying mothers-in-law are incapable of killing the drivers of London taxis, who incidentally do not have to wear belts, because a partition screens them from the passenger? The argument is nonsensical as regards taxis.
The point remains that only three people annually are killed in taxis: the argument for cars may be rather different. Does the Minister agree that this morning's by-election result seems to indicate that when faced with a choice of three major parties, all of which are now adopting collectivist policies on matters of this nature, the general public feel that they may as well vote for the party most closely associated with collectivism?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, must pursue the matter about flying mothers-in-law with the noble Lord, Lord Tordofl I am aware of the statistics. In London, in the years 1985 to 89, the smallest number of people seriously injured in taxis was 22 and the highest was 34. I believe that the regulations have some relevance to road safety.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, on behalf of mothers-in-law and speaking as one, may I lodge an objection to the use of such a phrase in such a serious matter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is not for me to prevent the noble Baroness from lodging such an objection.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure us that this issue will be discussed on its merits, along the lines of the various questions which have been raised? The balance of payments has nothing whatever to do with it. The matter is to do with safety and correct behaviour. I take it that the Minister's original Answer demonstrates that that is how the Government will pursue it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we believe that in this matter the balance of payments is an irrelevancy.

Albania: Diplomatic Relations
11.21 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects for improving relations with Albania.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we hope to be in a position soon to respond to the Albanian offer to restore diplomatic relations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Although the loss of more than 40 British lives in 1946 from the mining of the Corfu Channel and the tyrannical regime of the late Enver Hoxha have made good relations impossible, will the Government, in view of the new climate in Eastern Europe, now take the opportunity to start to bring Albania out of its present isolation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we welcome the progress which has been made to date in bringing Albania out of the cold deep-freeze situation which it was in. We wish to encourage that process. My noble friend referred to what has been the stumbling block for the Albanians. That is certainly a problem which still needs to be resolved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Earl said and also the meeting held over the past few days between Mr. Douglas Hogg and the Albanian Prime Minister. What were the objectives of those talks and was any real progress made? Does Albania qualify for assistance from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development? If my memory is accurate, there was a great argument at one stage about so-called Albanian gold. Is that still current, what is happening to the gold and where is it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have the gold. We have always maintained the position that we should restore diplomatic relations and then discuss, first, the case as regards the Corfu Channel, which my noble friend raised, and then the return of the gold. However, first, we should settle the Corfu Channel dispute. When discussions took place with my honourable friend Mr. Hogg, it was put to him that it may now be a good idea to have diplomatic relations without any conditions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me what is the gold worth?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no I cannot.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, when my noble friend considers this matter will he make quite sure that the ordinary rules of navigation are agreed to as between Albania and ourselves? It may no longer be necessary for anybody navigating a ship, as I have done about eight times in the past 20 years, through the straits to Corfu to go 15 miles out to sea in the middle of the night with fear and terror in their hearts that an Albanian gunboat may stop them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall draw the remarks of my noble friend to my honourable friend's attention. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn's question, the gold is worth about 18 million dollars.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that tourists are now going to Albania from this country? Bearing that in mind, does he not agree that my noble friend's question is urgent and that

1861
there will be opportunities for the construction industry to build new hotels there if the tourist industry really takes off?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there certainly is potential for a tourist industry and we hope to announce soon a decision on diplomatic relations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the gold to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred was the subject of a decision taken after the Albanian government of the day had refused to accept the findings of the Hague court and, therefore, to pay compensation? Therefore, the gold has been held since about 1949 until that problem is resolved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right.

China and Tibet
11.26 a.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the Chinese celebration on 23rd May of 40 years occupation of Tibet.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our view of the relationship between China and Tibet is well known. We shall not be represented at any celebration of the anniversary of the signing of the 17 point agreement between China and Tibet.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Effectively he has anticipated my next question because I wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would be represented at the celebrations. I am pleased to hear that they will not be.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted that I have pleased my noble friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the occupation of Tibet by China is completely indefensible and is against United Nations Resolution 1723 of 1961? Do the Government still hold firmly to that view? Can the Minister tell the House how many political prisoners there are at present in Tibet?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. We continue to hold to that view. The Chinese authorities say that between September 1987 and March 1989 following rioting in Lhasa, 1,025 people were detained; of those, 807 were released, 121 sentenced and 97 received re-education through labour sentences.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government intend to make even a mild protest about the holding of those celebrations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall not be represented at any of the celebrations. If one country wishes to hold celebrations, it is wrong to interfere.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Government believe that Tibet is autonomous and deplore those celebrations, why do they continue to refuse an official meeting with the Dalai Lama?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a question different from that on the Order Paper and is a subject which has been well discussed in your Lordships' House.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the Minister accept that his reply that we shall not be represented at the celebrations will give widespread satisfaction? Will he confirm, particularly in the light of the question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that we are maintaining our protests about the conduct of China as regards Tibet and will take advantage of the celebrations to renew those protests?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall leave no stone unturned when it comes to making representations about human rights not only in Tibet but in the whole of China. I did that when the vice foreign minister, Tian Zengpei, was here in November as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on his recent visit to Peking.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that there are a number of political prisoners and that his information is derived from the Chinese Government. Can he say whether the definition of a political prisoner is the same in the eyes of both governments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot. I shall try and write to my noble friend on that point.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as president of the all party parliamentary group on Tibet perhaps I may express my thanks to the Minister for his firm and forthright reply in regard to this very cynical action of the Chinese Government in seeking to celebrate 40 years of cruel occupation. The Minister said that the Government recognise that Tibet has autonomy. It is blatantly clear that Tibet does not have autonomy but is in a state of slavery. Does not the Minister therefore feel that it is appropriate that the Government should review what they mean by "autonomy" and accept the generally accepted international principle that these separate people have a right to self-determination?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in regard to the noble Lord's first question, no, he does not; he represents his own views and his views may happen to coincide with those of the all party group on Tibet. With regard to the second point, we have made our position perfectly clear and continue to do so.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, in view of the widespread deforestation of Tibet by the Chinese and the consequent climate change, landslip and flooding in countries downstream of Tibet—for instance in

1863
Bangladesh—can my noble friend see his way to urging the Chinese to make a sizeable contribution to famine relief in Bangladesh?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend puts forward an interesting point. We have all been guilty of deforestation in this country, elsewhere in Europe and throughout the world. I take note of my noble friend's point.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Minister reminded the House of the Government's policy on recognition or not of Chinese rule in Tibet. Can he say whether over the years that policy has given rise to any inconvenience in the case of commercial litigation between firms based in Tibet and firms based in Britain? I have in mind the passage through this House yesterday of two stages of the Foreign Corporations Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question.

Deer Bill [H.L.]
11.32 a m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As I explained to your Lordships at Second Reading the Bill is consolidation with amendments to give effect to Law Commission recommendations. No points on the Bill have been raised by the joint committee. Perhaps I may mention that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who is unable to be present today, told me informally how much he appreciated the quality of the consolidation in respect of a subject in which he has a particular interest.
I need say nothing further about the Bill except to remark on the speed with which it has passed through your Lordships' House. That is another indication of the quality of the draftsmanship. I am sure that I have the support of the House in expressing appreciation for the work of the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel in preparing the consolidation.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks and I hope the thanks of the House as a whole to the members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills for the sterling work that it does, not much of it in the public eye but nevertheless extremely important. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches we join in the congratulations and the appreciation.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bil [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a statute law revision measure which applies only to the Isle of Man. It stems from an initiative by the Isle of Man Government to modernise their law.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove an anomaly whereby a large body of obsolete Westminster statutes continue to form part of the law of the Isle of Man although they have been repealed for the United Kingdom. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, the anomaly arose for technical reasons connected with the form of statute law revision Acts before 1973. Most of the earlier Acts of this type contained an express provision excluding the repeals from having effect in the Isle of Man or in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom. The later Acts were silent on the point but the effect was the same.
In both cases no machinery was provided for extending the repeals to the island following local consultation. The practice since 1973 has been to provide such machinery. Accordingly the Bill simply extends the relevant pre-1973 repeals to the Isle of Man. It also takes the opportunity to repeal for the island the 30 or so statutes listed in Schedule 2 which are also obsolete there, although they are not caught by Schedule 1.
It is therefore a technical measure and the details will fall to be considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills when the Bill is referred to it. Detailed notes have been prepared identifying the statutes proposed for repeal and the grounds on which they are obsolete. Those will be considered by the committee which will report back to the House in due course.
I should perhaps add that the Bill has been prepared and drafted at the Law Commission in conjunction with the Isle of Man authorities. I take this opportunity to thank all those involved for their painstaking work in producing the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
11.36 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in joining with the thanks expressed by the noble and learned Lord to others, may we also thank him for his lucid explanation of the Bill.
I wonder whether your Lordships and the citizens of the Isle of Man realise that until the noble and learned Lord took an interest in this matter and brought the Bill before the House, the following Acts had been binding upon the Isle of Man and its citizens: the first fruits and one-tenths Act passed in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Henry VIII; more insidiously, the Marriage Act of 1540, which was in the thirty-second year of the reign of Henry VIII; the Crossbows-and-Handguns Act, which was brought

1865
upon the statute book in the thirty-third year of the reign of that worthy monarch; the Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants &c. Act which was passed in the first year of the reign of James I; the Observance of 5th November Act which was enacted in the third year of the reign of James I, and finally the corn duties Act which was passed in the fifth and sixth year of the reign of the good Queen Victoria.
I am sure that the citizens of the Isle of Man will be relieved to know that we are about to lift from them those rather burdensome enactments of which I am sure they have been completely unaware certainly in this century.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I say that I believe there is reason to rejoice that the historic and unusual constitution of the Isle of Man will be unaffected by this measure.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I join in the rejoicing both in respect of the matter mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton and also in respect of the variety of matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

County Court Remedies Regulations 1991
11.38 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these draft regulations mark another step in the intricate process of reforming the machinery of civil justice set in motion by the report of the Civil Justice Review Body in 1988, which was set up by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone when he occupied the office which I presently have the honour to hold. Your Lordships will recall that the aim of the review body was to recommend ways of reducing delay, cost and complexity in civil litigation.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is now on the statute book. It provides the statutory framework for those of the review body's recommendations that must be based on primary legislation. The recommendation that we are concerned with today is that the same remedies should be available in the county courts as in the High Court—subject to safeguards. Section 3 of the Act gives effect to that recommendation by substituting a new Section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984. It empowers me to make regulations specifying what safeguards there should be and dealing with procedural matters.
Because the new Section 38 also empowers me to include in the regulations provisions amending or repealing legislation as may be necessary, known to some of your Lordships as a Henry VIII power, subsection (7) requires affirmative resolutions in both Houses before any draft regulations are made under
1866
Section 38. However, I can assure your Lordships now that I have not sought to use the Henry VIII power in the draft regulations now before this House.
Before I explain the provisions of these draft regulations, let me briefly set them in context. Your Lordships may recall debating some two months ago the first order under Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act which establishes new arrangements for allocating proceedings between the High Court and the county courts. In addition to removing from 1st July this year most of the financial limits that have been placed on the jurisdiction of county courts, the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 gives the High Court jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in, or in anticipation of, county court proceedings where the county court has no jurisdiction to do so. I said in this House on that occasion that I intended to make regulations restricting the county courts' power to grant some of the more draconian remedies. These are the regulations I had in mind.
Let me then start at the heart of the matter with Regulation 3. With some exceptions, it precludes a county court from granting those remedies which the Civil Justice Review described as draconian. They are known as Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions and they are defined in Regulation 2 under the phrase "prescribed relief". An Anton Piller order, as many of your Lordships will know, enables a party to enter premises and seize property in order to preserve evidence. A Mareva injunction freezes the assets of a party, usually pending the determination of a dispute.
I return now to Regulation 3. Your Lordships will see that it precludes a county court not only from granting such relief, but also from varying or revoking the relief when granted by the High Court. Paragraph (2) deals with the first of the exceptions. A High Court judge or a judge of the Court of Appeal sitting in a county court is not precluded from granting, varying or revoking the prescribed relief. Nor is a judge of the Patents County Court, in view of the specialist nature of its work. That court is an important development. It is important that it should have that power.
The second group of exceptions is that given under Regulation 3(3). Here a county court may grant Mareva injunctions but not Anton Piller orders. Sub-paragraph (a) safeguards the present jurisdiction of county courts in granting Mareva injunctions to prevent the dissipation of family assets. Subparagraph (b) allows a county court to order a party not to dispose of property which forms, or may form, the subject matter of a dispute; for example, where there is a dispute about the ownership of the property. Sub-paragraph (c) allows a county court to grant a Mareva injunction after judgment has been given and when there is a risk that the defendant might remove the assets out of the court's jurisdiction. The basis for that last exception is that the matter in dispute has already been decided and a debt proven.
Paragraph (4) of Regulation 3 makes clear that the restrictions placed on county courts in respect of prescribed relief do not affect provisions in any statutes expressly empowering county courts to grant such relief. Paragraph (4) (b) adds a further exception

1867
to the restrictions; that is, that a county court may vary, but not grant or revoke, prescribed relief already granted where all the parties are agreed on the terms of the variation. This helps parties to avoid incurring the additional costs of making application to the High Court in those circumstances.
We now move on to important procedural matters which ensure that the safeguards provided by the regulations do not unnecessarily inconvenience the parties or delay proceedings. Where it is necessary to apply to the High Court for an Anton Piller order, Regulation 4 enables the matter to be dealt with in one go. By that I mean that it will not be necessary to apply separately for the proceedings to be transferred to the High Court, but that the application for relief will be deemed to include an application for transfer.
However, where the proceedings and not just the application are transferred to the High Court, Regulation 5(1) provides that they must be transferred back to the county court unless the High Court orders otherwise. That regulation applies not only in the case of proceedings transferred for the purpose of an application for an Anton Piller order, but also where actions have been started in the High Court when they should otherwise have been started in a county court. Apart from certain statutory exceptions, that will initially cover only personal injury actions for less than £50,000 which, under the jurisdiction order, should only be started in the High Court if they involve matters of complexity or raise important public issues. Otherwise, that order requires that they be started in a county court.
The final provision of these regulations is designed to prevent proceedings in the High Court being transferred to the county court before an application is fully disposed of. Regulation 5(2) addresses the case where prescribed relief is granted in the absence of the defendant and where the action has to be transferred to a county court. In such a case the transfer will not take effect until the party affected by the Anton Piller order has had an opportunity to apply to set aside or vary the order.
I commend these draft regulations to your Lordships as a necessary piece of the jigsaw constructed by the Civil Justice Review Body. They fit into the picture neatly between the allocation and transfer arrangements already approved in the jurisdiction order and the provisions for common remedies made in Section 3 of the parent Act. The draft before us today has benefited very considerably from the constructive comments received during the consultation period. I am, as ever, indebted to the judiciary and to members of the practising profession for their help in getting them correct. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
11.48 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as usual, the noble and learned Lord has put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in a clear way and explained them to your Lordships' House. I know that the legal profession
1868
will appreciate the words that he has used in thanking them for their co-operation in the negotiations that led up to the order now before the House.
In his remarks the noble and learned Lord mentioned personal injuries in a certain context. I am taking the opportunity to raise a question which is of great importance especially to "little people", if I may so call them, who suffer personal injuries. On 1st July an order will come into force which raises the limit of the small claims court from £500 to £1,000. If there is a reference to arbitration under the small claims procedure, under the county court rules there is the very inconvenient Order 19, Rule 6. That rule restricts the award of costs between party and party in respect of matters referred to arbitration, except for the cost of the summons, the cost of enforcing an award, and any further costs that the arbitrator may direct, but only where there has been unreasonable conduct on the part of the opposite party in the proceedings.
There are two dangers which face especially the little man who suffers personal injury. He may find that the claim below £1,000 makes its way to the small claims court. He will be faced with the difficulty of having to disburse very large sums if he is to fight his case. He will have to pay for the necessary police and medical reports and matters of that nature. It will be very difficult for him to raise the money. He will be unable to recover the costs because of the wording of the rule which I paraphrased for your Lordships.
There is another danger. The answer is that most of these cases are negotiated and they need not go to the small claims court. I am using careful language: insurance companies are not precisely known for paying more than they have to. The opportunity may well be taken by them, in the course of the negotiation of claims which are settled for under £1,000, to say, "If this claim had gone to the small claims court we would not have had to pay any costs. We are not going to pay costs in this case either. The amount that you would recover in a small claims court is £750, and that is it". I know there has been communication with the Lord Chancellor's Department showing this concern from the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association. So far there has not been a very helpful response. I ventured to raise this matter because of its importance way back in March of this year. On that day the noble and learned Lord said:
"The question of whether personal injuries cases should be included in the small claims jurisdiction, and if so whether special conditions should be made, is one that I am still considering. We shall be developing a small claims regime, and in that consideration I shall take account of the points made by the noble Lord tonight. As yet, I have not reached a concluded view".—[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 492.]
I appreciate that that was in March of this year and I am now talking in the early part of May. However, the matter is considered to be of great urgency and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would consider making an amendment forthwith while this consideration is taking place to Order 19 Rule 6 so that there could be an exemption to the no cost rule in respect of personal injury cases in excess, say, of £500. I hope these remarks will commend themselves to the noble and learned Lord and that we can have a helpful reply.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on 1st July this year the limit for automatic reference to arbitration will be increased to £1,000. As claims for personal injuries are invariably unliquidated, plaintiffs will continue to have the option of bringing action for damages for more minor injuries either under a small claims arbitration procedure or to a court hearing. The question that the noble Lord has raised is whether, first, there should be compulsion to bring claims for personal injuries up to £1,000 into the small claims and, if so, whether the rule as to cost should be different in the small claims procedure for personal injuries from what it is at present generally.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was good enough to have an inquiring look on his face which invited a reply. I mentioned two dangers; one that he absolutely correctly stated and the other that if this is not altered one does not get a court hearing; one does not get an arbitration in spite of the fact that there is an unliquidated claim. However, the insurance company answers by saying, "We would not have had to pay any costs if this had gone to the small claims court. We are not going to pay any costs now". That is of great disadvantage to the person concerned.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that as an anxiety, but I do not think it is separate from the issue I mentioned. The real problem is one that has two sides to it, as is so often the case. The object of the rule about costs in the small claims procedure is not only to give costs but also to protect against costs because the little person, as the noble Lord called him, is often anxious that if he takes a case to court he may have costs awarded against him.
That is an unpleasant situation that faces a person of moderate means. It is a highly important feature of going to court at all, as the noble Lord knows only too well. Therefore, there is an element of protection in the costs rule to the small plaintiff against the situation where he loses the claim and ordinarily would have to pay costs. It is not the easiest problem to resolve. I have some ideas as to how it might be done. However, it is quite difficult to do it in a way that is fair to both sides. If one specifies the kind of costs which a plaintiff would incur, but which a defendant might not incur, one might be able to assist to some extent. On the other hand, I have some doubt just how fair that is.
The problem is important and we shall keep it in mind. At present all we are doing is to increase the limit. The personal injury claim, as I have already said, does not come within the scope of an automatic reference to small claims unless the plaintiff voluntarily limits the claim to a sum of £500. When the sum of £500 was fixed in 1981 there was no special provision for costs for personal injury cases. The increase to £1,000 does no more than keep pace with inflation and it follows that there is no need at present for a separate cost provision for personal injury cases above £500.
The point is an important one and I certainly have it very much in view. Just the other day I issued a consultation paper in connection with claims up to £2,500 or thereabouts for minor road accidents with
1870
the proposal that we might be able to deal with that on a no fault basis. These are cases where the size of the legal costs incurred in determining whether or not there has been fault is large in proportion to the sum at stake. There seems sense—and this is what I have been trying to achieve—in diverting these legal costs from legal inquiries into contributions to damages. One can perhaps give a better service in that way than is presently available. On the other hand, when one gets to larger sums of damages the balance shifts and it is not so easy to achieve. Therefore, I have the problem of the small plaintiff and a personal injury action very much in mind. The noble Lord may take it that we shall not forget the problem which he has kindly again brought to my attention in the course of these proceedings.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Mining Subsidence Bill
11.57 a.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Coal Mining Subsidence Bill represents the culmination of a process of practical reform over a number of years, aimed at improving the arrangements for dealing with subsidence damage arising from the extraction of coal in deep mines.
Your Lordships will be aware that subsidence occurs when the overlying geological strata collapse into the void created by the removal of coal. This can result in damage to land and buildings located above such undermining. It has long been recognised as one of the inevitable adverse effects of mining deep coal.
Present arrangements for dealing with coal mining subsidence damage—whether by repair or by the payment of compensation—have two distinct kinds of origin. On the one hand, there were the private agreements between the original land owners and coal mine operators. These might involve a variety of arrangements to deal with the effects of subsidence, as it suited the parties at the time.
When the freehold of coal was later taken into public ownership, existing obligations to land owners were preserved. But otherwise the National Coal Board, now the British Coal Corporation, was required either to make good any subsidence damage or to pay compensation. This is the origin of the provisions dealing with coal mining subsidence in the Coal Industry Act 1975.
On the other hand, because many land owners had sold the right to extract the underlying coal without any compensation for subsidence damage, considerable hardship was experienced by householders and others who had acquired or built properties on such land at a later date. The resulting sense of grievance led to the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act of 1957. This legislation extended the statutory rights of compensation or repair to owners of all land and buildings damaged by coal mining subsidence, even if a land owner originally sold or leased the coal without any

1871
right to compensation or repair. For this reason the 1957 Act is sometimes referred to as "social" legislation.
The position at present therefore is that an owner-occupier or tenant can seek remedy for subsidence damage either through the 1957 Act or the 1975 Act. This results in a degree of confusion. We therefore want to consolidate this legislation into a single statute and, in so doing, take account of the good practice that has grown up in recent years.
Because the existing legislation was judged over time to provide inadequate compensation, British Coal adopted in 1976 a voluntary code of practice which provides for compensation for damaged chattels and for home loss payments where as a result of subsidence damage a person permanently loses his home. It also provides for payments to farmers for farm and crop loss and for payments to tenant farmers.
Subsequently, the corporation undertook to contribute to the costs of professional advice needed to prepare a claim, to make payments on account of residual tilt or structural distortion to repaired buildings, and to make payments to occupiers who endure prolonged inconvenience and disturbance while their homes are being repaired.
Nevertheless, in the early 1980s there were many who still regarded the operation of the subsidence repair and compensation arrangements as unsatisfactory. In 1983 the Government therefore appointed a committee to review subsidence compensation under the chairmanship of Lewis Waddilove, to whom we are all indebted. The committee carried out a thorough examination of the position and made 65 recommendations in its report published in 1984. It concluded that the main thrust of the existing provisions, both statutory and voluntary, was right, although some significant gaps needed to be filled.
Most of these recommendations were accepted by the Government in the White Paper of 1987. The Government issued a consultative document in 1988 on the content of new legislation and much useful advice was received in response. The present Bill is the result. It will repeal existing legislation and replace it with a comprehensive new statute, which incorporates British Coal's voluntary undertakings and introduces some new provisions.
I now turn to the content of the Bill which I shall describe as briefly as I can. After the wide definition of subsidence damage in Clause 1, Part II of the Bill sets out the remedial action required in response to such damage. Clause 2 imposes an obligation on British Coal to take appropriate remedial action, whether by executing repairs, by paying for repairs, or by making payment in respect of any depreciation in value of the damaged property. As with the existing subsidence legislation, this fundamental duty is placed on the British Coal Corporation as the owner of virtually all the coal and coal mines in Great Britain. Where the corporation issues licences for deep mining, it remains responsible for any resulting subsidence damage, although the corporation can recover the cost of remedying such damage from its licensees.
1872
Clause 3 requires a prospective claimant to serve a damage notice on the corporation, describing the damage that has occurred, within six years of the first time at which he ought reasonably to have been aware of this damage—to repeat, not six years from mining, nor even six years from when the damage occurred, but six years from when the claimant ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. The clause makes clear what under existing legislation has been rather unclear. I believe that six years should be an ample period of time within which to allow the householder to make his claim. Any longer simply encourages unnecessary delays and can make repairs and the resolution of disputes more difficult.
Clause 6 requires the corporation to provide the claimant with a costed schedule setting down the works necessary to make good the subsidence damage, as far as is reasonably practicable, to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant.
Clause 8 specifies the circumstances in which British Coal may elect to make a payment in lieu instead of executing remedial works. These include situations where the claimant wishes to carry out the work himself, or to use his own contractor, and where it is proposed to merge other works with the works arising from the subsidence damage or to redevelop the property. Such payments in lieu are not intended to result in cash compensation in place of repairs. This is one of a number of areas where the Bill has been improved following consideration in another place. As amended, Clause 8 will ensure that, apart from in the specific circumstances in the Bill, the claimant will have the clear right to have repairs carried out by a contractor of his choice.
Clauses 10 and 11 set down the particular circumstances in which British Coal may make a cash payment corresponding to the depreciation in value of the damaged property caused by subsidence. So far as housing is concerned, these circumstances are tightly defined because, in agreement with the Waddilove Committee, we wish the primary duty placed on the corporation to be the repair of subsidence damage, in order to minimise deterioration of the housing stock and general dereliction in mining areas. Where full repairs are not reasonably practicable, Clause 11 requires the making of a supplementary depreciation payment to reflect the depreciation in value as a result of the effects of subsidence. One example would be where a building remains somewhat tilted after repairs are completed.
The other clauses in Part II complete the arrangements for remedial action to properties damaged by subsidence. I mention in particular the new rules governing the operation of "stop notices" served by British Coal in cases where further damage to the property is likely. The corporation will be obliged to review the need to continue a stop notice within a year of the notice being given and to settle claims if no further ground movement will affect the property in the next 18 months. As originally drafted, however, the Bill did not stipulate an absolute time limit for stop notices. In theory, even with annual reviews, stop notices could continue in force for many

1873
years if continued underground mining meant that there was not the necessary 18-month period of stability.
As a result of the deliberations in another place, the Government have amended the Bill to introduce a three-year time limit for stop notices. If, after three years, British Coal is requested to undertake repairs it must do so to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant, even if these will be undone by future subsidence. In the event that further subsidence does occur, British Coal will remain under a duty to repair the damage to the claimant's reasonable satisfaction; the execution of repairs after three years will not in any way diminish the corporation's final liability once ground movement has ceased. The amended clause also empowers the Secretary of State to amend the three-year period should experience suggest this desirable.
The Bill was also amended to ensure that, while a stop notice is in force, the corporation will have to undertake such interim works as are necessary to ensure that the property is reasonably fitted for use.
Part III of the Bill makes provision for additional remedies, over and above remedial action in respect of damage to land and buildings, and places on a statutory basis for the first time obligations voluntarily assumed by British Coal and recommendations made by the Waddilove Committee. Provision is made for home loss payments to people who may lose their homes on account of exceptionally severe subsidence damage; and to make available temporary alternative accommodation if this is necessary for repair to be carried out.
There is also provision to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the corporation to compensate householders for inconvenience and disturbance which may be caused as a result of repairs being carried out while the householder stays in the house. This would enable British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements for compensation for exceptional inconvenience or disturbance to be placed on a statutory basis, with improvements should that seem desirable. If these and other voluntary arrangements by British Coal work well, regulations may not be necessary, but the reserve powers will exist.
Part III of the Bill also provides for different forms of compensation to farmers arising from subsidence damage to their land; namely, farm loss payments, crop loss payments, and payments to tenant farmers. Perhaps I should mention that I hope to bring forward a government amendment later in the course of the Bill which will increase the scope of compensation available to tenant farmers by bringing the provisions more into line with the compensation paid in the event of compulsory purchase. Part III also provides for compensation in respect of moveable property, or chattels, damaged by subsidence, and likewise as regards personal injury.
Finally, following amendments in another place, Part III contains two important new clauses dealing with blight and consequential loss. In order to prevent hardship, British Coal will consider buying houses damaged by subsidence damage or, in some cases, in
1874
imminent danger of damage. In the past three years, for example, British Coal has bought more than 80 houses so as to avoid hardship. The Waddilove Report considered British Coal's policy towards house purchase to be "wholly reasonable".
Clause 29 enables the Secretary of State to put these arrangements on a statutory basis by making regulations specifying the actions to be taken by the corporation to alleviate hardship suffered as a result of damaged property being blighted by subsidence damage or the possibility of such damage. At present these arrangements appear to be working well and it is not the Government's intention to introduce regulations at this stage. Should it become clear that these arrangements are no longer operating fairly, or do not go far enough to avoid hardship, this clause will give the Government the power to make regulations to improve matters.
Clause 30 introduces provisions for consequential loss. The Waddilove Committee, which considered the matter carefully, did not recommend that statutory provision should be made in respect of consequential loss arising from subsidence damage, except in specific instances such as crop loss experienced by farmers and expenses incurred by householders who had to move home.
However, the Government recognise that consequential loss experienced by businesses may give rise to hardship and, in such circumstances, compensation would be appropriate. Indeed, British Coal at present aims to deal sympathetically with such hardship cases. For example, where a corner shop loses trade while subsidence damage is being repaired, and the proprietor experiences hardship, British Coal will pay compensation for consequential loss on a discretionary basis. On the other hand, a supermarket chain which loses trade in similar circumstances, is unlikely to experience hardship because of the geographically diverse nature of the business.
Hardship in this context is difficult to define in legislative terms. As a proxy, therefore, we have prepared a new clause which allows compensation to be paid to small firms which experience consequential loss as a result of damage to their business premises. The underlying thought is that it is small firms who are most likely to experience hardship, while larger enterprises generally have the resilience to weather all sorts of ups and downs in the course of business.
Part IV of the Bill deals with preventive works to existing buildings designed to reduce the impact of subsidence damage, with precautionary works to new buildings, and with measures to deal with damage to land drainage systems.
Part V of the Bill makes a variety of supplementary provisions, including a requirement on British Coal to reimburse any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a claimant in the successful preparation and prosecution of a claim. I would draw attention in particular to Clause 43 which allows the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to prepare and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration.
One long-standing difficulty associated with the present statutory arrangements has been the lack of

1875
informal and accessible means whereby disputes could be resolved speedily and inexpensively—a concern recognised by the Waddilove Committee. The Lands Tribunal will remain available to deal with disputes. However, the average value of a settled subsidence claim in respect of domestic property is under £3,000. It would not in general be justifiable to take disputes over sums of this order to the Lands Tribunal.
Recognising that difficulty, British Coal has helpfully and commendably arranged for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to operate an arbitration scheme tailor-made for householders in dispute with British Coal over subsidence damage. The householder need only pay a £50 registration fee, refundable if he wins. The rest of the costs of the scheme are met by British Coal. The scheme has been in operation since the start of the year and I look forward with interest to seeing how it operates in practice. British Coal is also in discussion about extending the scheme to non-householder disputes on a normal cost-bearing basis.
It is our objective to allow all disputes that might arise under the Bill to be resolved by means of arbitration, as far as possible. However, if the present arrangements prove inadequate, Clause 43 would enable the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to submit to him such a scheme for his approval, with such modifications as may seem desirable in the light of experience. An approved scheme would oblige British Coal to offer, and be bound by, arbitration for disputes of the kind specified by the Secretary of State. I should add that, in the event of a dispute, the onus of proof will remain on the corporation to show that any dam age is not subsidence damage.
Perhaps I may also mention Clause 45. This would allow the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to establish a further scheme for the investigation of complaints of unfair treatment or maladministration in connection with the way the corporation carries out its duties under the Bill. Again, this is a reserve power which can be used if necessary.
In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to Clauses 46 to 48. These clauses require the corporation to provide information about future and past coal mining and subsidence damage to occupiers of property likely to be affected, to prospective purchasers of such property, and to local authorities in mining areas.
Subsidence damage can be a traumatic experience for the property owner or occupier. The Bill sets out the obligations of the coal operator and the rights of the property owner. It is the result of long and careful consultation and brings together several Acts of Parliament and codes of practice into a single Bill and introduces important improvements. I believe that it is a good Bill which has become a better Bill following amendments in another place. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
12.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the Bill. It is a useful measure and one which we shall do our best to help pass into law as rapidly as possible. It has already been subject to scrutiny in another place where the Government have shown an excellent willingness to listen to good suggestions. In so far as noble Lords in this place will have further suggestions to make in due course, I believe that it is fairly obvious that the Government will respond in a similar way.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that until a month ago I knew absolutely nothing about this subject. In fact, I am not certain that I know very much about it now. However, I can say that, from an economics standpoint, it is actually quite a fascinating area for discussion. The problem of subsidence is serious, although it is not new. Clearly the basic principle is that if coal mining creates problems for houses, land and so on, then those costs are part of the costs of coal mining and therefore must be borne by the industry. There is no difficulty about knowing the basic principle: such costs should not be borne by the owners of property or anyone else; they are the costs of production of coal.
Of course, the difficulty arises in two areas. One area is where there is uncertainty about cause. Here I am bound to say that, on my first reading of the Bill, it seems to me that the legislation goes as far as it can to be helpful to the sufferer rather than the possible causer. However, we shall look at that aspect in more detail in due course. That is the uncertainty question.
The second question which complicates matters is that referred to by the noble Lord as "blight"; namely, that a property or land can suffer in value because it is thought that it might be subject to subsidence, or a potential purchaser is worried about subsidence and therefore the value falls. That is an extremely complicated matter. However, it seems to me that the Government are trying as best they can in the Bill to cope with the problem. But, again, it may be a matter at which we shall look again in more detail in Committee. I recognise the fact that the crux of the problem is, as it were, uncertainty as to cause and effect.
Another aspect of importance, although not as basic as the point that those who impose costs must bear them, is the question of efficiency. I should like to say immediately how much I welcome Part IV which refers to precautionary and "preventive works". It seems to me to be overwhelmingly the case that if we can act to prevent such things happening, or at least to limit their effects, then that is as good a point of departure to limit costs as any of which I can think. Again, I shall look, as no doubt will other noble Lords, rather carefully at that section. But my immediate response to it is that it deals with the point about us being efficient by preventing as much damage as we can before it happens, rather than simply saying that we shall be extremely generous in compensating people for damage which occurs.
I welcome the Minister's announcement about possible government amendments. Assuming that I understood him correctly—obviously I shall read

1877
carefully what he said—the Government desire to be as helpful as they can be to small businesses, by not imposing excessive costs should they become involved in this type of action. To enunciate an obvious principle, we should like to do all this as simply as we can with as little fuss as possible. It is obviously better not to become involved in the courts unless other action does not work. In that connection, I have been advised—I shall raise the point again in Committee, and I gather the matter was discussed in another place —that it may be helpful if at least one so-called advice centre were introduced. It might help households and small firms.
The centre could ensure that those involved were well informed about what goes on—there is a duty to keep them informed—and about practical experiences. That might be a matter to which we shall return. I shall not dwell on the subject of the environment at any length, because I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is down to speak. There is no need for the same speech to be made twice, at least on this occasion. I know that on many occasions the same speech is often made twice in your Lordships' House, but on this occasion I defer entirely to the noble Lord's greater expertise on the matter. We all accept that we must take the environment seriously. There can be no free ride for any firm or industry, not just British Coal, to enable it to damage the environment without bearing the costs.
There is one last matter to which I shall return, because it is obvious that one needs to think a little more about it. The Minister talked about the timescale in which certain things must happen. I should like to consider further whether the basic six years is the right time. It is not a fundamental matter, but it is one upon which I should like to reflect. If I feel that there is room for a possible increase in that timespan I might raise the matter with your Lordships directly, or with the Government, to see whether I can persuade them further.
I did not intend to end on a critical note. The Opposition's general view—I am sure that it will be the view of all your Lordships who take an interest in the matter—is that it is a Bill that deserves to pass into law. We may well amend one or two parts of it; but to reiterate my main point: we welcome the Bill.
12.23 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I support the Bill. I read with care, as I know he did, what went on in another place. I am glad to note that the Bill was uncontested and that many improvements were introduced there in Committee. It may be that when it goes through this House we may be able to introduce some further improvements.
As the Minister pointed out, the Bill is an attempt—after considerable thought and consultation—to put the position on subsidence damage and the meeting of subsidence claims into the right perspective and to produce a much fairer arrangement than has existed hitherto. The situation has been complex for many years, as I well learnt when I was at the Coal Board. We had the 1957 and the 1975 Acts to which
1878
the Minister has referred. It was during my time as chairman of the Coal Board that in 1976 the voluntary code was introduced. We felt that there were numerous shortcomings in the legislation. Even that voluntary code was subsequently found not to be good enough. There was the Waddilove Inquiry to which the Minister referred, followed by the White Paper, and the consultative document, and the Select Committee on Energy of another place also had a go at the subject. Rarely has legislation been so assiduously prepared. The Bill has benefited from that preparation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, subsidence is unfortunately a consequence of modern mining methods. The long-wall mining system which we generally adopt for deep mining in this country is one that inevitably leads to subsidence. We have to ensure that there is a fair and effective system for dealing with the consequences of that subsidence and, at the same time—here I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston—adopt as many precautionary measures as possible. They may be achieved by safeguarding buildings, especially new buildings in areas subject to subsidence, or by an adjustment of the mining methods themselves.
First, there is a serious social issue, costly to the occupier, and one that causes a great deal of personal worry. No one likes to live in a house which suddenly shows signs of crumbling. Secondly there is the effect subsidence has on the cost of coal. A fair balance must be struck between those two factors. In my replies to the numerous letters that I received on the subject, I was always torn between accepting the social problems with which the sufferers had to contend, and the proper concern, on my part, to ensure that the industry was not financially penalised too greatly.
The compromise that has now been reached is a fair one. Let us not minimise the size of the problem. British Coal presently deals with about 10,000 cases a year. The average cost of putting them right is in the order of £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000. I notice that British Coal has made a provision in its accounts of no less than £243 million to deal with current and future subsidence claims. Incidentally, I wish we could have some legislation on how to pronounce the word "subsidence".
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have looked the pronunciation up, and it turns out that both subsidence and subsidence are acceptable, and so we shall have to live with the problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that elucidation. Subsidence is a big problem. It has been dealt with reasonably in the legislation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, a number of points require further consideration. No doubt we shall return to them at a later stage. I should like to refer to some of them.
The first point is that of arbitration. It took up a great deal of time in debate in the other place. It is important that there should be an acceptable, inexpensive and speedy arbitration system. I have looked carefully at the voluntary arrangements that British Coal has now produced. They sound

1879
attractive. They seem to meet the various points made. The cost to the complainant would be minimal. If the complaint were successful, it would not involve the complainant in any expenditure. The procedure would be speedy. It would be handled in the best way possible by the appropriate professional organisation. The Government are right to say that while they have reserve powers under Clause 43 to cause to be introduced an arbitration procedure, they are waiting to see how the present system proceeds. For the time being at any rate, that scheme has introduced a satisfactory solution to the problem, which has been a serious one in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston referred to advice centres I know that this was also debated in the other place. It is important that people who suffer or think they will suffer from subsidence should have access to advice. Whether or not there should be separate advice centres in areas where this is likely to occur is a matter we could and I am sure we will debate. I inquired about this from British Coal and I understand that its feelings are against it because it would add considerable extra cost. I am not sure about the legal validity of the advice that might be given. British Coal tells me that it is providing full information to local authorities in the areas likely to be affected to citizens' advice bureaux and other advisory centres. It is keen that people should be able to obtain the advice they need and no doubt we shall return to the subject for further consideration.
In addition, there is the time limit to which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, referred when he took us through the Bill. It has been a vexed question in the past, the argument as to the length of period during which one should be able to make a valid complaint about subsidence and seek compensation. What is now proposed in the Bill seems fair: a period of six years beginning at the first date when any person entitled to give the notice had the knowledge enabling him to do so. I have no doubt that there could be argument about that. Nonetheless, it is not six years from the time when mining started; it is six years from the time when one could reasonably have been expected to notice that the mining was having an effect on one's house. It is well worth trying out, and we hope it will avoid too much argument. I understand that there is a further limitation of three years after the submission of the damage notice. I feel that the complainant is reasonably protected by these measures.
Blight was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The experience of what British Coal has done seems reasonable. It has bought no fewer than 80 houses in the past year because of the blight problem. I accept that Clause 29 goes in the right direction, giving the Minister the powers to formalise the corporation's present practice of purchasing houses which could be said to be affected by blight.
A number of the issues that caused anxiety in another place have been dealt with, although we may well be able to refine on them later. It is also satisfactory to see the emphasis put on repair rather than on financial compensation. It is important that if a claim for damages for subsidence should be
1880
successful, the repair should actually take place. There have been many cases in the past where a financial settlement was made; the house was then sold and the new owner of the house discovered the subsidence damage and found that he had no way of getting matters put right because the previous occupant had received the benefit of the claim. This would be avoided under what is proposed in the Bill and it is a move in the right direction.
I previously referred to the precautionary measures. Much work has been done here. There is what is known as the CLASP system of building, the Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme, which makes provision for new domestic premises in areas prone to subsidence. There are also ways in which larger buildings such as schools, hospitals and so on, even those already in existence, can be protected against subsidence. I hope that these proposals will be effectively and positively pursued.
The modification of mining methods which is the most effective way of all of avoiding subsidence is pretty costly to the coal industry. It means that one has to leave large reserves of coal in the ground. I remember that when we were exploring the Selby area, we had a problem with Selby Abbey. The last thing we wanted was for people to wake up one morning and find that Selby Abbey had fallen into the ground. We had to make very costly special provisions for that.
As it happens, there is a lot of mineable coal under York Minster. I should have thought that for some time at any rate anyone mining coal in that area would be careful about causing subsidence there. There are ways of avoiding it and no doubt under the provisions of the Bill the expert mining engineers in the British Coal industry will continue to watch the problem. The best way of dealing with subsidence is not to have it at all or minimise it. I believe that from the way in which the Bill has been drafted and from what I know has been British Coal's response to it, this point is fully recognised.
The Bill is very much in the interests of those who are now suffering or are likely to suffer from subsidence. It is fair to all parties and I very much hope that, with perhaps a few positive suggestions for amendment, it will have a speedy passage through the House and quickly get onto the statute book.
12.35 p.m
Lord Norrie: My Lords, encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I wish to broaden the discussion by raising the general issue of British Coal's environmental duties. This is clearly relevant to the Bill, as subsidence is one of the key environmental effects of deep mining.
The 1981 Flowers Commission Report, which remains one of the most comprehensive reports on coal and the environment, stated that the two most important environmental impacts of deep mining,
"are subsidence and soil disposal".
The Bill provides an invaluable opportunity once again to address the relationship between coal mining and the environment.

1881
Your Lordships may recall that last year the Government accepted a Coal Industry Bill amendment that I moved to introduce an environmental amenity duty on private opencast coal operators. Its acceptance marked an important step forward in bringing the coal industry into line with modern environmental expectations and concerns.
The amendment included a reference to deep mining as well as to opencast operations. However, when I met the Minister and his officials, it was explained that because of the shortage of time available for consideration of the Bill as a whole, I should delete the reference to deep mines in the amendment, as it would be possible to bring forward an amendment specifically referring to this at a later date. The later date has arrived in the form of the Bill today. I hope that I can persuade the Government that it is important to complete the job by introducing a general environmental duty on British Coal's deep mine operations.
The environmental damage caused by deep mining over the years is only too apparent in coal mining areas. Happily, environmental standards of deep coal mining have increased substantially in recent years, but I doubt that many people would claim that deep mining is environmentally neutral, let alone benign.
I therefore propose to introduce an amendment to the Bill that would impose a statutory environmental duty on British Coal's deep mining operations. This would parallel its existing duty relating to open-casting, and would bolster its existing commitments and its duties under the planning system.
It might be asked whether the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill provides the best opportunity to introduce such a duty. I believe it does for two main reasons. First, it is uncertain when the coal industry will next come under parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we should act sooner rather than later on the issue. Secondly, it is possible that the next parliamentary scrutiny of the coal industry will consist of its privatisation. It is therefore of the utmost importance to secure a statutory environmental duty on British Coal's deep mining operations. This would bring it into line with the opencast sector and would clearly indicate to any successor company or companies the seriousness with which the Government take the environmental effects of the coal industry.
There are two possible objections that could be raised against the inclusion of a general environmental duty on British Coal in the current Bill. The first is that the scope of the Bill is too narrow, either in letter or spirit, to allow such an amendment. I suggest that while the Bill undoubtedly has a fairly specific focus, the Long Title would allow for the inclusion of a general environmental duty if the Government thought such a step were desirable.
After all, the Government are keen to amend Bills, often significantly, in order to improve them once they have entered Parliament. I believe an amendment along the lines I am proposing would bring about just such an improvement and that it would be possible to include it in the Bill.
1882
A second possible objection to a statutory environmental duty is that the environmental effects of deep mining are already adequately taken into account through British Coal's obligations under existing legislation and the requirements of the planning system. But I find it hard to believe that the Government have an objection in principle to supplementing and bolstering British Coal's existing environmental commitments. Those commitments are stated in documents such as British Coal's Framework Policy on the Environment.
A statutory environmental duty would provide an invaluable backdrop to the whole range of the company's activities right through from long-term strategic planning to day-to-day site operation. There is an impressive array of precedents for environmental duties of the kind I am proposing, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Water Act 1989, the Electricity Act 1989 and, of course, the Coal Industry Act 1990. British Coal's deep mine operations are very much the exception to the rule. I believe it is time to correct this anomaly.
British Coal's Framework Policy on the Environment indicates that the company is now well aware of the environment. I suggest that this awareness can only be heightened by the establishment of a general environmental duty similar to those that exist in other industries, hence my proposal to introduce such an amendment in Committee.
12.41 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put down my name to speak. I was not certain that I could be present this morning. However, as I have a long-standing relationship with the coal mining areas of South Wales I thought I should say a few words on the Bill. I believe that in most respects the Bill is an admirable piece of legislation. It arrives on the statute book—or it is almost there—just as deep mining in South Wales is vanishing altogether. In my early childhood there must have been about a quarter of a million miners in the South Wales mining areas. There are now hardly any as the pits are all closed. There is a little deep mining being carried out in North Wales but in South Wales the whole emphasis and interest is turning to opencast mining.
I wish to make two points. One is to support in general terms the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. However, I cannot say that I have studied them in detail. I hope there will be ample opportunity to consider them. I express the gratitude of those who are concerned with environmental matters for the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who has done a great deal of work in this matter.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to my second point either now or at a later stage. What is the position in regard to mines which have been closed, and for all practical purposes abandoned? I believe that it is not impossible for subsidence to occur in an abandoned mine; for example, if flooding occurs. That may have a geological effect which would bring the matter within the folio of this legislation. Who will be responsible for that? Under the present arrangements

1883
British Coal would be responsible, but if privatisation came about who would be responsible for continuing inspections of conditions in mines which may lead to subsidence?
While the arrangements suggested in the Bill for the continuing deep mining areas seem to me on the whole admirable, what kind of arrangements will be made in areas where deep mining has come to an end? It is only fair to raise that matter so that the Government may enlighten us on what is to happen in closed and abandoned mines, particularly in South Wales.
12.44 p m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with permission I wish to respond to at least some of the points made by noble Lords in the well-informed and concerned debate that we have had this morning. I thank noble Lords for giving this Bill such a welcome and for wishing it well in its passage through your Lordships' House.
I remind the House that this Bill represents the end product of a process of review, consultation and reflection which started with the report of the Waddilove Committee in 1984. Many people and organisations have made constructive contributions and, as I indicated earlier, I believe that the amendments which were made in another place have made a good Bill even better.
It would also be right to refer to the British Coal Corporation which has voluntarily taken on a considerable number of obligations, partly in anticipation of this new legislation, which have eased the lot of those affected by the corporation's mining activities. This is a good example of combined public spiritedness and sensible commercial behaviour on the part of a major industry, which I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend.
It is sometimes implied that British Coal is in some way acting negligently or irresponsibly in causing subsidence damage. That is quite mistaken. British Coal is exercising its legal right to extract coal and subsidence is an inevitable consequence of modern deep mining techniques. The only guaranteed way of avoiding subsidence damage is to leave the coal in the ground. If we are to have a successful and economic coal industry—to which this Government are committed—British Coal must be allowed to continue to exercise its lawful right to extract coal. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that people whose property is damaged as a consequence are properly compensated.
I shall now respond to one or two of the matters raised in the debate.
The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, mentioned advice centres. Under the provisions of the Bill information about undermining, making claims and resolving disputes will all be provided automatically. I am not clear that an advice centre would have a real role to play. The Government agree with the energy Select Committee that the main problem for most claimants has not been the lack of advice but the lack of t suitable disputes procedure. We have discussed that. This is why we have provided a statutory basis for British Coal's arbitration scheme.
1884
We hope this will be sufficiently accessible and well publicised in order to remove the need for advice centres.
Local authorities are free to provide advice to householders if they wish. British Coal has said that it will he happy to provide assistance and information including copies of its new training video and the new manual on procedures that will be prepared in the light of this legislation.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, raised the matter of blight. As I have already said, the Government introduced a new clause on blight on Report in another place. We believe that our clause strikes the right balance in that it avoids British Coal becoming a major property dealer, while ensuring that hardship is alleviated. At present British Coal will consider buying houses damaged by subsidence or, in some cases, houses in imminent danger of damage. It is, however, necessary for the owner to demonstrate hardship; for example, the need to move because of going to work in another area. This qualification is reasonable given the temporary nature of subsidence blight.
My noble friend Lord Norrie raised the matter of a general environmental duty. I wish to stress that I am completely committed to the importance of British Coal taking full account of the environmental impact of its activities. There is nothing between us in principle on that point. However, I do not feel that an environmental duty of the type my noble friend envisages is the right way forward. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be counter-productive.
The effective way to safeguard the environment is through the planning process. British Coal knows full well that it must satisfy the planning authorities as regards environmental consequences. That knowledge will influence the way in which it draws up its proposals. I can give your Lordships two examples of the planning process in action. At Selby, planning permission has been granted subject to strict conditions on the level of permitted subsidence. At Hawkhurst Moor, the application for planning permission was rejected because of the corporation's failure to address properly all the environmental aspects.
It might be argued that this environmental duty could do no harm but I am not sure that that is correct. If the Government were asked what would be the effect of this duty, we should have to reply that in practical terms it would have no effect. Rather than emphasise the importance of environmental duties, I feel that this can only trivialise them. Protection of the environment is too important a subject to be discredited by being made to appear as an empty gesture.
I should need notice to deal with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I understand that subsidence in the terms in which we are talking of it is an immediate matter. But I shall be very pleased to look further into the noble Baroness's point and I shall write to her.
With hindsight I think we can see the Waddilove Report as a key event in prompting the reform of the arrangements for dealing with subsidence damage. It

1885
would be right to pay tribute to Lewis Waddilove and the members of his committee. The present Bill brings a period of evolutionary adaptation, so to speak, to a fitting conclusion, subject of course to the approval of Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
12.51 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order is to amend the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which I shall refer to as the 1966 Act, some of the equivalent provisions in the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, and one provision of the Diseases of Fish Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, to improve the development and protection of fisheries in Northern Ireland.
Article 4 expands and modifies procedures for developing derelict waters, that is to say, waters where it is impossible to establish or trace the owners of the fishing rights. The amount and quality of angling in Northern Ireland could be considerably increased if such waters were brought under effective control and management. The new provisions empower the Department of Agriculture to develop derelict waters or to authorise an approved developer to develop the waters in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the department.
New procedures related to fish farming and the issue of fish culture licences are provided by Article 6 following representations made during the consultation period on the order that all applications for fish culture licences should be published and for mandatory public inquiries to hear objections to proposed fish farm developments. The article provides that these public inquiries will be held by the Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland.
The new procedures, which also apply to shellfish fishery licences and the new marine fish fishery licence introduced by this order, will enable those concerned about fish farming developments to make their views known and, I believe, effectively overcome the concerns of those who were, in the past, critical about the level of consultation taking place.
Article 11 deals with the restocking of polluted waters and the recovery of the costs for such work by the Fisheries Conservancy Board from the person convicted under the 1966 Act for causing the pollution. Any disputes about proposed levels of restocking or the cost to be recovered will be referred to arbitration.
Increased protection for migratory fish in the vicinity of dams and mills is provided by Articles 13, 15 and 16. Article 13 provides inter alia for additional situations in which dam owners may be required to
1886
install fish passes in dams built before 10th August 1842, which are currently largely exempt from this requirement. Mill sluices are required to be closed at weekends and when the mill is not in use; and Article 15 clarifies that these requirements also apply to disused mills. Such mills are increasingly being brought back into use for electricity generation which tends to be a continuous operation, and under the 1966 Act this is a good defence for not closing sluices. Under the new proposals this defence will be removed where in future the use of a mill is altered, such as for electricity generation. Article 16 reduces the spacings of gratings at the point where abstracted water returns to a river or lake, although it will not affect gratings in place before the commencement of the order.
Most of the remaining provisions of the order are aimed at providing improved protection for fisheries and the enforcement of fishery legislation.
The amendments to the existing legislation brought about by this order will play an important part in improving the development and protection of fisheries in Northern Ireland and easing public concern about consultations on fish farm developments. The order has been generally welcomed by local interests but where valid concerns were raised during the consultation period the Government have endeavoured to accommodate them as far as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for explaining the provisions of the order. Most of the main issues touched upon by the order are very much in the mind of anyone who has a love of inland waters and wishes to see the public enjoying wider access to the rivers of the Province. After all, they are a part of the national heritage of Northern Ireland.
I am glad to see that the order has been well tested by consultations over the past two or three years. We often criticise the orders from the Northern Ireland Office because of inadequate consultation but that charge cannot be made of this order. As a result many concerns have been identified. We are pleased that the original draft was changed and modified in many respects in order to overcome many of the problems or fears expressed. It is right that we should express our gratitude to the department for having listened to what was said.
Nevertheless, I should like to ask for clarification on a few points and seek an explanation from the Minister about one or two missing provisions. I apologise for raising such details early on a Friday afternoon but, given the restrictions imposed by the Order in Council procedure, alas, this is the only opportunity that the Minister will have to enlighten us further. I have given him notice of about half a dozen questions which I want to ask.
In paragraph (3) (e) on page 4, I wonder whether the notice of claim to fishing rights should not be a notice in writing. It is a small point and I have no doubt that any wise claimant would ensure that he delivered written notice of his claim. Nonetheless I

1887
was surprised to see that there was no reference to the need for a written notice. The Minister will, perhaps, refer me to the Interpretation Act.
Secondly, the phrase "vexatious, frivolous or insubstantial" which is used on two occasions in the order is very wide. Is it too wide to be acceptable? I should be interested to know how the word "insubstantial" will be interpreted in the context of the order.
Thirdly, I should have thought it wise to have given the department the power to acquire an easement. It is given a power to acquire an estate in land but it may well require an easement—an easement of way or an easement of drainage. I notice that that is missing from the order.
Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that a scheme of development under Article 4 cannot be amended after it has been published or, if it may be amended, that it will be republished in accordance with the procedure set out in the order. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm the position.
Fifthly, again under Article 4, the department and the approved developer will pay compensation to the owner of the fishing rights in the circumstances that are spelt out in the article. However, why will the department be liable to pay compensation only from the date on which it began to undertake the development while the approved developer will have to pay compensation from the date on which the development was authorised? Will the Minister tell the House what is the justification for that anomaly? I notice that the compensation will be equal to the value of any development of the waters for angling. That is the technical phrase. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is a well-tried and well-tested formula in Northern Ireland?
Sixthly—this is more than a point of technical detail—should there not be a requirement that a notice of application for a fish culture licence should be published in a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the proposed fish farm? In his opening speech the Minister referred to the fears and concerns expressed about fish farms. I should have thought that the notice should surely be published in at least one newspaper circulating in the area. That seems to be missing and I am a little surprised about that.
I come to my final two questions. The draft order makes no reference to compensation payable by the person who pollutes the waters where the owner or occupier of adjoining land suffers loss or damage as a result of the pollution incident. The Minister will no doubt tell me, "Well, he has his right at common law"; but will he confirm that the riparian owner, or the owner or occupier of the adjoining land who has suffered loss, has a speedy and cheap remedy against the person who has caused the pollution? On the question of pollution, perhaps I may also ask whether it is intended that the scheme of development will also address the question of litter on river banks.
Finally, there is considerable concern in Northern Ireland that the essential character of a river or parts of a river may be changed by the removal of substantial amounts of sand and gravel from the river bed for commercial purposes. That issue has been
1888
raised with me by one or two people from Northern Ireland. The sand and gravel has been accumulating on the river bed for generations and its removal in huge quantities for commercial purposes might affect the river and the fish life as that part of the river becomes deeper and no more than a slow-moving pond. Has that concern been addressed, or will it be addressed in the future?
I have no more questions for the Minister, but I shall listen with great interest to his response. Meanwhile, on behalf of these Benches, we welcome the order and thank the department for having listened so carefully to the fears that were expressed when the draft order was published.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his reception of the order. I agree with his opening remarks about the value of the order as regards its effect on fishing in Northern Ireland. I thank him also for his recognition that the consultation period was a meaningful period which has led to some considerable changes in the order. He asked a series of questions of which he gave me notice. I should like to thank him for that extremely helpful approach because some of the questions are of a detailed nature, but each is important and relevant.
The noble Lord's first question relates to the duty of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland to publish in a local paper —the Belfast Gazette —before undertaking or authorising the development of any waters. He asked whether the notice of claim to fishing rights in paragraph 3(e) on page 4 should be a notice in writing. I can assure him that the published notice will make clear that a notice in writing is required from a claimant. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, I do not think that that will mean redrafting the order because we are not talking about an assurance for someone. This is a sensible piece of administration for the claimants. The noble Lord has hit the nail on the head. That is what will be done. I hope that my assurance on the Floor of the House is good enough on that point.
The noble Lord raised an interesting point about the phrase,
"vexatious, frivolous or insubstantial"
appearing first in subsection 6 on page 5. He asked how the word "insubstantial" should be interpreted. We have not attempted in interpretation to define the term "insubstantial", which obviously means that we shall be wary about objections which have no substance in them. However, I should like to assure the noble Lord that it is not intended to use the term in order to dismiss objections lightly. To prove that that is a genuine reply I point out that, as the noble Lord knows, a good deal of care has gone into the order in providing for objections to be made.
The noble Lord's third question refers to the occasion when the Department of Agriculture undertakes the development of any waters for angling. He asked whether, with regard to subsection (11) on page 6, it would not be wise for the department to have been provided with the right to acquire an easement as well as an estate in land. The answer is already in the order. Again, the noble Lord is right. Where the department owns fishing rights, it already has the right

1889
to acquire easements under Section 2(3) of the principal Act. The noble Lord will find that in Article 8(1) of the order, which provides that the department may do all of the things that it is empowered to do under Section 2(3) in respect of developing derelict waters.
The noble Lord's fourth question related to whether, under subsection 4.3, the department can amend the scheme of development after it has been published and, if amended or made subject to new conditions after publication, whether it will mean republication. The answer is yes. Any significant change from the published scheme would require republication before approval could be granted.
The noble Lord's fifth question related to subsection (4) on pages 8 and 9. He asked why the department will pay compensation to an owner of fishing rights from the date on which the department began to undertake the development while the approved developer will pay from the date on which the development was authorised. That is apparently an anomaly. An approved developer will enter into possession of a fishery under the order from the date on which the development is authorised, but the department's occupancy would commence from the date on which it began to undertake the development.
The noble Lord's sixth question asked whether there is a well-tried and well-understood formula for assessing the value of any development of the waters for angling, pursuant to subsection 4(8) (b). There is no standard formula of assessment. We are talking here about having to go to the Lands Tribunal if the occupier wants to become involved. He would need to produce evidence to the Lands Tribunal of the value of his development works while in occupancy of the fishery.
The noble Lord's seventh question related to whether there should be a requirement for a notice of application for a fish culture to be published in a newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the proposed fish farm. That is perhaps one of the most important questions that he has asked because, as he well knows, a great deal of objection and concern was expressed about the establishment of fish farms in Northern Ireland from the point of view of the need for consultation. That is provided for here. Hence the noble Lord's question. However, I should point out to him that the grant of fish culture licences can be of concern to a wider area than the immediate vicinity. It may be necessary to publish the notice in newspapers which have a wider circulation. I can assure the noble Lord that the department will ensure that it is also published in at least one newspaper circulating in the vicinity of the proposed fish farm. We take the matter very seriously indeed. I hope that that undertaking will suffice.
In his penultimate question the noble Lord asked whether we are satisfied that when the owner-occupier of adjoining land, or the riparian owner, suffers special damage when a river is polluted he can achieve a satisfactory remedy against the person guilty of the act of pollution. Again, that is important territory. So far as concerns that article, the order addresses only
1890
the question of making good depleted fish stocks following a pollution incident. Any other damage would continue to be dealt with through negotiations between parties or by civil action.
The noble Lord asked about litter on fish banks. That is being addressed separately by legislation promoted by the Department of the Environment. Finally, the noble Lord asked me why the order does not attempt to control the abstraction of sand and gravel from river beds for commercial purposes. Under Section 48 of the principal Act it is an offence to injure or disturb any spawning bed. The wider aspects of gravel removal would, we believe, be inappropriate to this order and would probably have to be addressed in the context of drainage legislation.
I hope that those answers to the noble Lord's questions will be sufficient. I thank the noble Lord for the great care that he has taken and for the kindness that he showed me in giving notice of the questions that he would ask.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1991
1.12 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a draft of the order was laid before the House on 15th April and was debated and approved in another place on Tuesday. Despite the length of its title, the order is short but because the background to it is rather complex, and the processes that have led to the order have involved a good deal of time and consultation, the House may find it useful if I go into a little detail.
Houses in multiple occupation are found in a number of Scottish towns and cities, but in particular in cities and in areas where there are many single people—often young—needing accommodation. University and college students are one of the largest of these categories. HMOs for that reason are prevalent in areas such as the West End of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Stirling. The existence of HMOs in large numbers, and the fact that landlords find it worth their while to provide them, clearly indicate that they are giving a service for which there is a real demand. It is not our intention to interfere with that or to prevent that demand being met.
However, in recent years there have been increasing indications that many HMOs are falling below—sometimes well below—proper standards. We are anxious that local authorities should be enabled to tackle the problem. Local authorities have powers under various Acts, going back to the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, to control HMOs. The largest and most important group of these powers is in Part VIII of the 1987 Housing (Scotland) Act, and the 1964 regulations for the management of houses and

1891
buildings in multiple occupation. Those enable local authorities to register HMOs in their areas, obtain information about them, ensure that work is carried out to keep them in proper repair, and, if all else fails, take over management of a HMO.
To understand how much use local authorities made of their powers and whether they thought that they could be improved, the Scottish Office in 1988 asked all local authorities for returns showing how much use they made of their Part VIII powers. It followed it up with a consultation paper setting out the problem in detail and inviting comments. The results of that exercise showed that authorities found Part VIII powers somewhat difficult to use. However, they would very much welcome action by the Government to draw up and issue guidance on the various Acts and regulations which apply to HMOs, in order to set out clearly local authority powers and duties. They were also generally strongly in favour of a scheme which would require the operator of an HMO to be licensed.
We do not at present have a legislative opportunity to revise the statutes which apply to HMOs. But we have taken steps to deal with the other two points. A guidance document setting out the variety of powers and duties which are available to local authorities is being drafted. Should the order be approved by the House today, it will give guidance on the use of the new powers. It will be ready for issue very shortly at about the same time as the coming into effect of this order.
The order will increase the powers and effectiveness of local authorities in dealing with HMOs. They will be able to impose conditions which must be met before an HMO licence is issued. If a landlord does not comply with those conditions he commits an offence.
The order has three effects. First, it adds the use of a house in multiple occupation to the activities for which a licence may be required under Part II of the Civic Government Act. That means that where a local authority resolves to make a licensing scheme, every person wishing to carry on that activity must have a licence. But he must comply with any reasonable conditions which the authority attaches to that licence. He must give access to local government officers and provide relevant information on request. He is liable to a penalty if he fails to meet those requirements.
Secondly, the order defines the term "house" and "house in multiple occupation" for the purpose of licensing. The definition that we have chosen of a "house" is one that we consider should cover all the categories and properties within which a house in multiple occupation may fall. For the purposes of the order we had to take a view on what constituted the kind of house in multiple occupation which it was desired to catch. It seemed unreasonable, for example, that the system should apply for a single family who take in a lodger. We therefore decided that on common sense grounds the qualifying level should be a house which is the "only or principal residence" of more thin four people who are not all members of one family or of one or other of two families.
Finally, the order excludes from the conditions which a licensing authority may impose on that grant of a licence any condition concerning rents or other charges. Controls on rents and the relationship of rent control to housing benefit are regulated separately under the Rent and Housing Acts. It would not be appropriate to bring them into a system of control aimed at the physical condition of the premises.
We believe that the order meets a real demand and will usefully strengthen the hand of those authorities which have to deal with poor-standard houses providing a low level of accommodation. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne).
1.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, for his explanation of the order. I am grateful too for the notes that have been sent by CoSLA, Single Homeless and Shelter. I have also read and considered the debate in another place on Tuesday.
What arises from the discussion is that we are attempting a solution to a difficult problem. For a long time in another place, I represented an area that had many districts containing multiple occupancy dwellings. The matter had to be very delicately dealt with. If restrictions were suddenly applied too rigorously one found lodgings officers at universities in a panic with students suddenly discovering that lodgings were no longer available to them. That happened more than once.
I was reassured when listening to the Minister in this House and in reading what was said by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton in another place. He made clear that all the relevant planning and building control requirements would remain operative. The draft order provides an additional power to local authorities if they wish to take it up.
After what was said by a number of Members in another place, and in the light of consultation documents sent to the Scottish Office, I was slightly disappointed by the definition of houses of multiple occupancy. I am not being a carping critic because I know that the situation is difficult. However, there is a genuine belief that specifying four or more persons as being the criterion for multiple occupancy is laying a minefield for the bad factor.
I can do no better than quote from the letter sent by Shelter. It stated:
"Shelter (Scotland) believes that the definition of an HMO must be broad enough to ensure that bad HMOs do not slip through the net. Local authorities need to balance a licensing scheme so that they are able to control bad HMOs but at the same time ensure that they do not discourage landlords from operating well-run, high quality HMOs".
That is the difficulty.
Will the Government give more thought to the representations that have been made on the question of definition? The discussion document is to be issued at the beginning of June. Will there be an opportunity

1893
to discuss the matter formally or informally with local authorities and in the House before the full order is put forward?
We are pleased that the Government are trying to tackle the problem. We hope that ultimately we shall find a formula that will increase the well-being of those who are using HMOs and the good people who are letting out part of their houses for those who require that.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his remarks. Responses to our consultation exercise differed on the question of definition. For example, Glasgow District Council argued that there should be no numerical limit of this kind. On the other hand, other consultees supported the inclusion of the limit proposed, or suggested different limits. At present, on balance we have not been persuaded that the limit proposed in the draft order should be changed. However, I am happy to give an undertaking that if the order is approved by Parliament the effect of the numerical limit will be kept under review. If it appears to be seriously undermining the effects of the licensing power we shall be ready to consider amending it.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the introduction and use of licensing powers is entirely voluntary and at the discretion of local authorities. An individual local authority making such powers could choose, for example, to exempt from its licensing scheme housing provided by an educational establishment for use by its students. Licensing scheme powers are additional to the powers that are already available to local authorities. It is for them to decide which, if any, are required for use in their areas. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (German Democratic Republic Qualifications) Order 1991
1.23 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 25th April be approved. [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order which applies to the United Kingdom is made under the European Communities Act 1972 and amends the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to allow, subject to certain conditions, the recognition of qualifications obtained by veterinary surgeons who trained and qualified in the former German Democratic Republic in order that they can practise in the UK as from 1st July 1991.
Before unification the United Kingdom had not had to consider accepting veterinarians trained in East Germany to work in this country. Following unification the question has now arisen. As the former GDR is now part of the EC, veterinarians who qualified there are automatically eligible to work in
1894
other member states provided that they have commenced training prior to unification; are entitled to practice throughout Germany to the same extent as a holder of the German state examination certificate in veterinary medicine; and can produce a certificate from the competent German authority showing that they have lawfully practised veterinary surgery for three consecutive years during the last five. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other interested organisations have been consulted and are content with the proposal. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th April be approved. [17th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order. I also thank her for the kindness that she showed in giving advance notice of the extent of the consultation process which had taken place prior to the tabling of the order. I have received advice from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association that they were fully consulted and are in agreement with the order.
It is a bonus of sorts for qualified vets in the German Democratic Republic as a result of unification. One cannot say to what extent employment opportunities will present themselves in the United Kingdom but under EC law they now have that opportunity. We on this side of the House accept the spirit and purpose of the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991
1.27 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order seeks to amend Schedule 3 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and will have the effect of, first, prohibiting unqualified persons docking the tails of dogs with effect from July 1993, and, secondly, enabling veterinary nurses to administer any medical treatment or any minor surgery which does not involve entry into a body cavity, to companion (pet) animals, excluding horses, at the direction of a registered veterinary surgeon.
As I see the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his place, perhaps the House will forgive me if I say that part of the order equals sugar and spice and all things nice and that is what little girls are made of while the other part equals frogs and snails and puppy dogs' tails and that is what little boys are made of. I should like your Lordships to deal with the two issues separately. At present the docking of a dog's tail can be carried out by anyone aged 18 or over provided that it is done before the dog's eyes are open. The order before the House removes that entitlement. When the provision comes into force in two years'

1895
time only registered veterinary surgeons may operate to remove dogs' tails. The Government have taken this step after a great deal of thought and for a number of reasons which together have convinced us that the routine docking of dogs' tails has become an anachronism. The breeders of certain breeds of dogs have, for many years, routinely removed the tails of puppies before their eyes are open (at about four days).
We have considered carefully whether it is necessary for any dogs to have their tails removed routinely and have had no persuasive arguments that it is. For instance, it is sometimes claimed that certain breeds of shooting dog need to be docked, on the argument that it can be kinder to the dog to remove its tail soon after birth as this would protect it from damage.
However, we have been given evidence that, even of the breeds which work in close cover, there are some which are not docked and which do not suffer tail damage; and that, in many cases, difficulties with the tail can often be overcome merely by clipping the hair.
There is the further dimension of the Council of Europe Convention on Pet Animals. Article 10 of this convention includes a proposal that member states should prohibit the routine docking of dogs' tails for cosmetic reasons. Although a reservation on tail docking may be entered, only four of the 11 countries which have signed the convention have chosen to do so.
It was as part of the consultation process in connection with this convention that Home Office Ministers with responsibility for animals held a number of meetings with interested bodies, including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Kennel Club and the Council for Docked Breeds. It was following those meetings and a further consultation by my department that Ministers came to the view that steps should now be taken to phase out tail docking.
The routine docking of dogs' tails has been opposed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association consistently and with patience for many, many years. The profession has been supported in this by animal welfare bodies, like the RSPCA.
The veterinary profession is unanimous that tail docking is a mutilation which is cosmetic and serves no useful purpose. The profession is completely of the view that there is no clinical justification for the pain which is invariably caused by docking. Having held puppies in the past who have had their tails docked by cutting with a pair of scissors, I certainly know the operation causes pain.
The Government agree that it is no longer justified to cut off a dog's tail solely to obtain a dog with a stump tail. That is why the order which we are considering today will remove the current exemption in the Veterinary Surgeons Act. It will prevent the removal of a dog's tail except where this is necessary in a veterinary surgeon's opinion.
It would come into effect in two years' time. This should give breeders a breathing space to phase out tail docking. It should allow undocked dogs to be
1896
displayed alongside docked dogs at dog shows for a time and give time for attitudes towards them to change. We have not rushed at this: the original discussions were over two years ago and we are giving a further two years' notice.
The Government are confident that this apparently small change is necessary and will receive widespread public support. The other subject covered by this draft order is the role of the veterinary nurse.
The Page Committee in its Review of Veterinary Manpower and Education, published last year, recommended a number of measures to alleviate the shortage of veterinary manpower. Among these was the possibility of extending the role of veterinary nurses to include tasks currently confined to qualified veterinary surgeons. The Government have accordingly consulted interested parties on the scope of reducing the legal restrictions on the procedures which veterinary nurses can carry out on animals.
All interests, including the RCVS, the British Veterinary Nurses Association and the British Veterinary Association, have agreed that veterinary nurses should be permitted to carry out a wider range of tasks than hitherto, provided they are under the direction of the employing veterinary surgeon, although not necessarily in his or her presence. Those organisations have agreed that it would be best not to attempt to prescribe a full list of such tasks. Instead, a more flexible approach is proposed to allow veterinary nurses to administer to companion (pet) animals any medical treatment or minor surgery which does not involve entry into a body cavity, provided that the task is performed under the direction of a registered veterinary surgeon who is responsible for the nurse. The definition of companion animal excludes farm animals and equines as it is considered that most veterinary nurses are not adequately trained to treat such animals.
To sum up, these amendments, first, represent a significant move towards the phasing out of dogs' tail docking; and, secondly, will extend the role of the veterinary nurse and help to alleviate the shortage of veterinary surgeons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
1.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness for her full exposition of the two main purposes of this order and also for confirming the fact that full consultation with the organisations directly interested has taken place and that they are in support of the order's proposals.
On this side of the House, we welcome the enhanced role for the veterinary nurse with regard to companion animals and totally support what the order proposes regarding the docking of dogs' tails.
As a matter of interest, perhaps I may say also that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, a past president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, was kind enough to write to me expressing his own views which coincide with those of the Royal

1897
College. Unfortunately he cannot be here today but his concurrence is welcome to us as I am sure it is to the noble Baroness. We support the order.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to have a short debate on animals which is not taken in the supper break. Therefore, we are not constrained in expressing our pleasure and affection for the Minister who introduces this order which, I believe, is a happy end to a long controversy.
I am old enough to remember all the arguments which took place about the docking of horses' tails. As a relative of a farmer, we often discussed that when driving to market and looking at the rump of a horse which had a docked tail. It did not seem right.
As regards this order, it is great to be able to establish the right of every dog to have its tail. That can be added to the animals' rights about which we need no longer fight. It is now only a matter of time.
That brings me to a point of view about changes of this kind and how inevitable it is that when we are bringing about change there is always a future date on which it will begin. That is due to the fact that everyone seems to require time to adjust to change. In some sectors of the agricultural and farming industry, some changes must take longer than others because there is expensive capital investment in equipment and it takes time to replace the old with the new. I believe that two years is long enough to become used to the idea that dogs who have not been seen to wag their tails for many years may at last begin to do so. I am sure that that will be a pleasant sight.
Late last night, after a dreary and frustrating day on a wretched Bill, I said to noble Lords who remained for the concluding speeches that they should cheer up because should they attend tomorrow morning they would see a minor success which would lift their spirits and make attendance at the House of Lords this week rather more rewarding. None of them has turned up. I believe that they are too tired! However, those occasions are so rare that one must make the most of them. I am sure that the noble Baroness feels that herself and that makes the occasion all the more enjoyable.
Seriously, this provision is long overdue. One noble Lord who left after what I said last night said, "Oh dear! Some dogs will look silly with tails". I said, "Well, some dogs will cease to look silly and other dogs will cease to look ridiculous". It is a matter of taste in the end. The breeding industry, show business and all the rest must adjust to the fact that mutilation of animals has gone on in all directions for show purposes, for the purposes of hygiene and so forth for too long; now the more basic rights of the dogs will be satisfied.
I fully expected the whole of the camp of the RSPCA to be here this morning, but they take their little victories very calmly. It is only when there are heaps of dead dogs lying around that they seem to get excited. This is an occasion that I welcome. Like many things it will be a change that must be enforced.
In conclusion, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who summoned me to be on duty for the order today, is unable to be present
1898
due to a prior engagement in Cambridge. Had he been here he would certainly have wanted to add his word of appreciation for the tabling of the order. I am glad I came.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I am sure that all my dogs will be wagging their tails in heaven tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Qualifications (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
1.42 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At the outset I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons which is unanimously in favour of this Bill, which seeks to change the title of the licencing diploma of the RCS (Eng) from member of the Royal College of Surgeons to licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons.
Since 1800 the college has had two classes of membership—members and fellows—and two diplomas, the MRCS and the FRCS. The membership is awarded on completion of undergraduate training and, together with the Diploma of Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians makes up what is called the conjoint diploma of LRCP and MRCS. The conjoint diploma is registrable by the General Medical Council under the Medical Act as a licensing diploma.
The FRCS diploma used to be awarded towards the end of surgical training. As surgery has expanded and postgraduate surgical training has become more complex, it is now clearly divisible into two parts, basic surgical training and higher specialist training. The FRCS has evolved into a test of basic training, leaving the college nothing to award as a mark of completion of specialist training. In other words, there are now three parts to training—undergraduate, basic and higher—and we have only two classes of membership and two diplomas. Clearly we need an additional class of membership and a third diploma.
The obvious solution, and the one that will bring the college into line with the other surgical colleges elsewhere in the world and with the Royal College of Physicians, is to call the additional class "licentiates" and, consequently, the licensing diplomas for undergraduate qualification, the licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons (England).
That is the change proposed in the Bill. It is solely a change of name. The training regulations and examinations currently applicable to the membership of the Royal College of Surgeons would be applied unchanged to the new LRCS.
The General Medical Council approves of this change because it is logical and makes the titles of the diplomas of all the colleges—both medical and surgical—similar. The new licensing registrable conjoint diploma would then become licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons and licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.

1899
In the next few years, in unison with our sister surgical colleges in Scotland, we anticipate using the liberated membership diploma to mark the completion of basic surgical training, and the fellowship to mark the completion of higher surgical training. The FRCS will then become the hallmark of the fully trained surgical specialist and together with the Certificate of Accreditation will be the indicator that the General Medical Council will use in its new register of specialist training.
As your Lordships know, the Royal College of Surgeons is a body incorporated by Royal Charter which will require amendment to create the additional class of membership to be called the licentiate. If there proves to be any difficulty in the timing of these changes, I would, of course be ready to table an amendment to delay the commencement order.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the logic of the Bill. The college gives its unequivocal assurance that this in no way alters the purpose, meaning or function of the Medical Act.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
1.47 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it will be known that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I do not always agree, but we do today. I have had the opportunity of consulting with the Royal College of Surgeons, for which I have the greatest respect. Its members have rendered a significant service to the medical community and indeed to the community at large for nearly 200 years.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, surgery has expanded; post-graduate surgical training has become longer and it is clearly right that there should be an additional class of membership with a third diploma. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, spelt it out very clearly. There is no issue of principle here. The amendment brings the college up to date and in line with other surgical colleges, not only elsewhere in Britain but also elsewhere in the world and with the Royal College of Physicians.
I have no doubt that it is a wise move. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on seizing this bit of parliamentary time when we are waiting for other things to happen. We can fill in with useful bits of legislation that help people on their way. It is with much pleasure therefore that I not only congratulate him on seizing the opportunity, but say that from this side of the House we warmly support the Bill.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McColl very helpfully explained the background to this Bill. It is proposed to bring the college's primary qualification into line with those of the Royal College of Physicians, the Society of
1900
Apothecaries and the equivalent Royal colleges in Scotland, all of whose basic qualifications are shown as "licentiate" in the Medical Act 1983. For historical reasons, the Royal College of Surgeons has continued to award the membership, and they feel that the time has come to rectify the position. This therefore appears at first sight to be a simple technical amendment.
However, the matter is not without its complications. I have to say to my noble friend that the Government have some reservations about the way in which it is proposed that we should now proceed. The Royal College of Surgeons is a body incorporated by Royal Charter. I am advised that its charter would require amendment before the college could change the designations of its qualifications. Any petition for an amendment to the charter would, we think, require the support of the college's members. We understand, however, that the college has not yet consulted its membership. The very essence of the amendment which the Bill seeks to make therefore appears to be dependent on an appropriate amendment being made to the charter.
It is therefore arguable that we shall be putting the cart before the horse in going down this legislative route before all the necessary groundwork has been completed, including the consultations required under the college's charter. It will put the college in a somewhat anomalous position. I hope my noble friend will consider these points, and reflect in particular on whether legislation at this stage is necessarily the best way to proceed.
1.52 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their invaluable contributions to the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his support. In answer to my noble friend the Minister I point out that the problem in getting anything of this nature changed, even though it means only changing an "M" to an "L", is that it takes forever. The college feels that we have to drive this matter forward otherwise it may take an inordinate length of time. The council which made the decision is a body elected by the fellows of the college. We therefore feel that we are representative. However, we take the point that it may be wise to have a referendum of all the members as well as the fellows in order to make quite sure.
I.feel that that is not a reason for delaying the Bill at the moment. As I mentioned, we shall be very happy to table an amendment to delay the commencement order. I believe that that would get over the difficulty.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes before two o'clock.