Lords Sitting of 13 March 1992

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

Sheep Dip Compounds: Advice to Farmers
Baroness Masham Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue advice to farmers to avoid the harmful effects of organo-phosphorus compounds used in sheep dipping.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government have already issued advice to farmers on the safe use of these potentially dangerous substances. At the start of the 1991 sheep dipping season the Health and Safety Executive issued a free leaflet entitled Sheep Dipping—protect your health. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate also issued complementary guidance on the safe handling and disposal of sheep dip. Copies of these documents are in the Library of the House. In addition, information on the wearing of protective equipment and the safe use of sheep dips must be printed on the product label.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in recent years many people have started to keep a few sheep of rare breeds, causing a great deal of interest? Some people keep just a few to mow their lawns or to graze in their orchards. These people use other people's sheep dip and may not know of the dangers. Can something be done to provide the information to a wider number of people in the community?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness, especially concerning those who keep only a few sheep. However, it would be highly irresponsible if a farmer or contractor passed on sheep dip not in its container. The labelling on the container gives the required information for the safety of the operator.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as long ago as 1961 the Lancet published an article outlining the dangers involved in these compounds? Why has it taken so long for anything to be done about it? Is he also aware that the effects of the poisoning can be quite disastrous for people? Will he tell us whether the disease which must affect farm workers engaged in sheep dipping is a prescribed disease under the industrial injuries legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have been aware of the potential dangers of sheep dip over a number of years. The sale and supply of sheep dip is controlled by the Medicines Act 1968, so the anxiety has been known for some time.
1490
There is a voluntary scheme for reporting incidents involving veterinary medicines, including sheep dips, to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which is the licensing authority. However, there is also a legal requirement to report confirmed organo-phosphorus poisonings to the Health and Safety Executive. That is under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, on the basis that prevention is better than cure, does my noble friend know whether there are any effective sheep dips which do not contain these dangerous substances? If so, will the Government give encouragement to their marketing? If not, will they give encouragement to the development, marketing and use of such other substances?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. Of the 19 approved sheep dips for the treatment and prevention of sheep scab —because that is what we are talking about—17 have the organo-phosphorus compounds as active ingredients. The other two are based on flumethrin, which, although effective against sheep scab, is not effective against blowfly strike. That is one of the problems that sheep farmers have to face in the summer months.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the difficulties is that sheep dip tanks are very big and hold a lot of water containing the dip. Getting rid of the dip safely is not easy. I have experience of sheep dipping in the hills where farmers used to think, "What harm can it do here?", and they used to tip it out. On one such occasion the dip went down the stream and into the water supply for quite a big area. The problem has been solved to a certain extent by spraying rather than dipping. However, it is difficult to get rid of the dip at the end of the work.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Disposal of the spent dip should be carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner. Another leaflet prepared by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on the safe handling and disposal of sheep dips should be consulted. If the dip is spread on grassland, care must be taken as the substances used in sheep dip are especially toxic to birds, including domestic geese, poultry, ducks and even pheasants. Access by stock should be restricted for at least one month.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it be sensible if both leaflets were combined in one so that everyone who uses the dip could consult it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I simply asked my noble friend whether it would be sensible if one leaflet covered all aspects of advice to users rather than several coming from different directions, some of which may miss their target.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the leaflets cover the various aspects of using sheep dip. However, they mention the two areas I have referred to in some greater detail.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, am I to gather from the Minister's response to my question that the condition arising from the use of these compounds is not regarded as an industrial disease within the meaning of the industrial injuries legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as far as I am aware that is the case, but I shall make certain of that and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the chemical used in sheep dip is similar to the chemical used in nerve gas? Is my noble friend satisfied with the labelling of sheep dip? Is there, for instance, a skull and crossbones marked on each container? Do farmers pay much attention to the labelling?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot tell my noble friend whether containers are marked with a skull and crossbones. Such a marking would indicate the substance was poisonous and the sheep dip we are discussing is certainly not subject to the regulations on poisons. I can confirm that the symptoms suffered by people who come into contact with this sheep dip are similar to those caused by nerve gas in that the central nervous system is attacked. However, the symptoms may not necessarily be severe. Many farmers have called the symptoms "post dipping flu" and have recovered from them quite quickly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some farmers have had to go out of business as a result of the effects of this sheep dip? Some have become paralysed as a result of contact with the sheep dip and others have suffered loss of memory and depression. How does the chemical affect sheep?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am aware that there have been reports in the press which suggest that some people have been affected by contact with this sheep dip and have had to go out of business. Obviously I regret that very much. The Health and Safety Executive carried out a regional survey in the South West in October 1990 which studied the risks of coming into contact with organo-phosphorus sheep dip. The results of the biological tests did not indicate that operators or bystanders had absorbed significant quantities of the substance. I understand that the use of the material at the recommended dilution rates has no observable effects on dipped sheep.

Buchanan Bus and Coach Station
11.15 a.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What requirements have been laid on the Scottish Transport Group in respect of the disposal of the Buchanan Bus and Coach Station, Glasgow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, following privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, the Scottish Transport Group is under an obligation to dispose of all its remaining assets including its leasehold interest in Buchanan Bus Station. Any purchaser of the Scottish Transport Group lease would require planning permission before the use of any part of the bus station site could be changed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has set out the position nicely. Is he aware that the Buchanan Bus and Coach Station, Glasgow is a centre for nearly 2 million people? Coaches depart from that bus station on long distance journeys and they often travel to areas where there are no railways or any other means of transport. There is considerable unease at the auction which will take place under government directions. The correct thing to do would be to transfer the station to the regional council, which is the responsible authority. However, is the Minister prepared to make available the money that is necessary to enable the regional council to take over this vital centre of communication?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware of everything the noble Lord has said. Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive can put in a bid when the property is put up for sale.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware how difficult the situation is in the centre of Glasgow, particularly as the Anderston Bus Station will also be taken away from the city? Buses and coaches are now parking in the streets and that is causing difficulties. This was all pointed out during our debates on the deregulation of these services. We pointed out the difficulties that could arise in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We have seen what happened in Southampton where the bus station was sold to the highest bidder. We need central bus stations in our major cities. Would it not be better to give preference to the Passenger Transport Executive to enable it to take control of the bus station in Glasgow so that the terminal may be retained as a city centre terminal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there may well be a good case for having a central bus station in the centre of Glasgow. However, that is a decision for the Passenger Transport Executive and the planning authorities to take when they decide what their requirements are. If they wish to buy the bus station, it is totally open to them to make a bid.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister did not answer part of my supplementary question. I pointed out the importance of the bus station and the obvious shortage of money available to the regional council. Will the Minister be prepared to look sympathetically at the question of grants to the regional council for this purpose?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to Strathclyde Regional Council to make a bid and to make a case to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the extra funding. There is no reason why the bus station should not be sold to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive as opposed to a purely private bidder.

Citizen's Charter: Motorists
11.19 a.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the Citizen's Charter will protect the interests of motorists.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Citizen's Charter aims to control the dreaded cone, minimise delays on the roads, make better use of available road space and enhance the information available to motorists to inform their journey planning and progress. We also intend to publish service standards where we can, mainly for the department's agencies, and we will be conducting a survey of motorists to find out what they want from the motorway and trunk road network.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he not agree that the right of motorists to information about the cars they purchase, especially second-hand cars, should also be protected? Does he therefore agree that we need some further measure to prevent the practice of clocking which goes on in the second-hand car trade? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the subject of clocking the noble Lord may like to refer to a Written Question which I answered only yesterday or the day before. My Answer set out new proposals to try to deal with the problem of clocking which will be of benefit to those wishing to buy second-hand cars.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not remarkable that the Minister had nothing to say about enhancing standards of car security in view of the wave of car crime which is afflicting this country? Is it not remarkable that he said nothing about the provision of better car servicing standards so that motorists are not so easily duped? Is it not remarkable that he said nothing about the provision of incentives for those wishing to fit catalytic converters? May I recommend to the Minister a document that the Labour Party has published which deals with all those matters and is entitled Quality Motoring? It is good reading.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord can recommend the document to me as much as he likes. Whether I shall read it or take note of it is another matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that any intelligent reading of The Citizen's Charter shows that it gives sensible guidelines to protect the freedoms and well-being of all citizens, and that of course includes motorists?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I hope that the measures which I outlined in my original Answer will be of great benefit to motorists.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House as a matter of information how many cones there are on British motorways now as opposed to the number of cones on British motorways when the Citizen's Charter was announced?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords.

Milk Marketing: EC Interim Measures
11.21 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the effect on the United Kingdom milk marketing schemes of the European Commission interim measures on low fat milk.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is too early to say what the effect on the operation of the schemes will be. That will depend on the exact terms of the interim measures granted.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that implementation of the interim measures in full will effectively mean the end of the milk marketing schemes which are so important to the dairy farmer, the dairy industry and the consumer? Is she further aware that the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation are totally opposed to the European Commission view on the matter? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will oppose the application of the interim measures by the EC with the utmost vigour?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the interim measures are not intended to end the milk marketing boards; they are intended to maintain the status quo until the court reaches a definitive judgment. The Commission does not intend to undermine the milk marketing schemes by seeking to allow all sales of low fat milk outside the schemes while the issue is unresolved by the European Court of Justice. It simply seeks to protect the interests of existing producers of low fat milk in the meantime. We are still considering whether to put up a defence against the interim measures and your Lordships can be assured that, whatever we decide, our objectives will remain the same.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether this is a matter on which unanimity

1495
is required or whether we can be overruled by the majority? Is she aware that many of us regard low fat milk as in the same category as non-alcoholic beer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I like it too! I agree with my noble friend. These are purely interim measures which have been suggested until the European Court of Justice makes a decision on whether the way in which the Milk Marketing Board operates is within EC rules.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case perhaps I may ask my noble friend to bear in mind that what is at issue is a judgment or potential judgment of the European Court of Justice. Will she also bear in mind that Her Majesty's Government have always taken great and honourable pride in their observance of Community law? Would it not be a tragedy if the Government's magnificent record in that respect were brought into question by unfortunate comments which might be made?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am very busy bearing in mind all the points made by my noble friend.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we do have to amend the arrangements for marketing milk in the United Kingdom to take full advantage of our entry into the single market? Will she also confirm that we need stability in the industry and should not take action until the proper marketing schemes are amended by Parliament?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is widely recognised in the industry that change to existing statutory milk marketing arrangements in the UK is necessary. All five milk marketing boards in the UK are working on detailed proposals for their replacement by non-statutory bodies which they have agreed to present to the Government by Easter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the marketing schemes in Scotland are not affected by the interim measures since the Scottish schemes specify milk in all its forms? Would it not be absurd if the schemes were to continue in Scotland while those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were to founder on a bureaucratic argument about the legal definition of milk?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware that the milk marketing schemes in Scotland were extended to cover low fat milk some years ago. The situation there is stable and there is no need for interim measures. The Commission's application, therefore, does not apply to Scotland, but the final judgment would apply equally in Scotland. The situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat different.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
11.26 a.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if a Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament the standing orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session. — (Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
11.27 a.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to begin with an apology to the House in that on the Order Paper the Bill is adorned with a paragraph symbol indicating that the recommended interval between the First and Second Readings has not been observed. At a time like this when we are up against an imminent Dissolution I hope that the House will agree that that is an unfortunate necessity. I ask the House to agree to expedite the passage of the remaining stages of the Bill for that reason. It is a Bill which is immensely worth while and it is also politically non-controversial, or so I believe.
The purpose of the Bill is to extend the law giving statutory anonymity to victims of rape to victims of other sexual offences. It implements, with minor improvements, a recommendation of the Calcutt Committee on Privacy and Related Matters. Incidentally, I am very pleased to see that the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, is in his place because I believe that it was he who gave a welcome in the other place to the report of the Calcutt Committee when he was Home Secretary.
It is, in short, a Bill to give anonymity to alleged victims of sexual offences. That power is given in Clause 1 and the sexual offences are listed in Clause 2.
I must confess that, in order to make the subject matter of the Bill immediately intelligible, I should have preferred to entitle it "Victims of Sexual Offences (Anonymity) Bill". However, like other Members of your Lordships' House I must exercise self-restraint and not propose any amendments. The Bill is a model of the draftsman's craft. I am happy to say that it is free-standing. Perhaps one of the reasons that it is so easily intelligible is that it is not drafted by reference to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. In due course I hope that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act will be consolidated.

1497
In the House of Commons the Bill was most skilfully handled by Mr. Brandon-Bravo. He was supported by six other Conservative Members, four Labour Members and one Liberal-Democrat. Their names are listed on the back of the Bill. That indicates the extent of support in the House of Commons where the Bill had an unopposed Second Reading and remaining stages.
The guts of the Bill are in Clause 1 which confers anonymity on victims who have been subject to the offences listed in Clause 2. There are special rules in Clause 4 for anonymity when the complaint is one of incest or buggery. Clause 3 allows the judge—the House may feel quite rightly—to lift the reporting restrictions imposed in Clause 1 in certain circumstances, which I can briefly encapsulate in the phrase "in the interests of justice". Clause 5 provides for the offence and also for defences and follows the 1976 Act. Clause 6 is the interpretation clause. Clause 7 follows the 1976 Act and makes provision for courts-martial to follow the proceedings which apply in the civil courts.
I am happy to answer any questions on the detail when I reply. At this stage I should say that I am entirely satisfied with the Bill. The Bill provides anonymity where it is absolutely necessary. It also provides suitable safeguards. Undoubtedly it stops the exposure of innocent victims to the public press and the media. Such exposure may ruin their lives in the case of sexual offences. That should be stopped and that is the effect of the Bill. I ask the House to support it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henderson of Brompton.)
11.34 a.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Bill and explaining it with a reasonable degree of thoroughness. Its general principles are to be commended. Ever since 1976 it has seemed to me to be illogical that the protection of anonymity should be confined to the victims of rape. To be a victim of enforced oral sex or sodomy must be every bit as traumatic and humiliating, if not more so. For that reason it is absolutely right that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
However, having said that and despite the explanation given by my noble friend, I feel that to rush the Bill through all its stages in a single day is a different matter. What is the pressing urgency? Where are the impassioned public pleas? Over the past 16 years there have been any number of measures dealing with criminal justice, into which provisions such as those contained in this Bill could have been inserted, after the thorough scrutiny to which the other place and even more so your Lordships' House, with noble Lords' great fund of legal expertise and experience, normally subject any Bill which involves criminal justice. One has only to think of the perfectly justifiable passions aroused very recently in our lengthy debates on the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill.
Yet, in sharp contrast, noble Lords effectively are being asked to rubber stamp this Bill. I know that the
1498
Calcutt Committee made most of the recommendations on which this Bill is based. But it is not the habit of Parliament automatically to rubber stamp recommendations of committees, Royal Commissions or anything else. Perhaps it may come to that eventually but, thank goodness, it has not yet done so. We are being asked to rubber stamp this Bill without considering amendments of any sort, even drafting amendments of an improving nature—your Lordships are quite adept at putting forward such amendments —since any such amendments would effectively postpone the passage of the Bill until later this year, assuming that it were to be reintroduced at the beginning of the next Session, as it almost certainly would be.
But, why not? Why should it not wait for another six months or so? After 16 years will another six months be too long to wait to make sure that the Bill is absolutely right in every detail? Perhaps we should contrast this Bill with the Timeshare Bill which is to be introduced later this morning. The idea of putting through the Timeshare Bill without proper scrutiny —let us not forget that the raison d'être of this House is the proper scrutiny of Bills—to some extent also sticks in the gullet. But at least it helps to remedy a long-standing abuse about which there has been almost continuous public concern and debate over the years. The provisions of that Bill merely bring timeshare sales into line with other forms of salesmanship, such as life insurance and consumer credit, so far as compulsory cooling-off periods are concerned.
Moreover, although I am not sure that this is appreciated, the Timeshare Bill was at least debated for a total of three hours and 25 minutes in another place, whereas the total time given to the Bill now before your Lordships was a mere 35 minutes, of which less than 30 minutes was devoted to the subject matter of the Bill.
This Bill, albeit with the best of motives—I do not doubt that for one moment; as I said, I support the general principles—undoubtedly affects the freedom of the press, the freedom of the media generally and freedom of speech. I think that we were all, when young, taught that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The more that anonymity is extended to those involved in criminal trials, the less demonstrably is justice seen to be done. In other words, it is not simply a question of what some might consider to be airy-fairy abstractions, such as freedom of the press. It is a question of justice for particular individuals.
The kindness to victims or alleged victims that anonymity gives might result in a very substantial unkindness to an individual who has been unjustly accused of a sexual offence, possibly a minor sexual offence. Let us consider the law as it stands. Suppose, for example, that an individual living hundreds of miles away from the scene reads in his morning newspaper that a Mr. Bill Jones has been committed for trial on a charge of indecent assault for assaulting a Miss Sharon Smith. One must remember that for forensic reasons indecent assault is even more difficult to prove conclusively than rape, in the absence of

1499
witnesses. The person who has seen the report happens to know that Sharon Smith is an inveterate liar, inveterate fantasist and possibly an occasional extortionist and consequently he or she may be prepared to give evidence for the defence. Conversely, he or she may happen to know that Sharon Smith is a person of the utmost integrity, truthfulness and virtue and accordingly may be prepared to give evidence for the prosecution. However, neither of those courses of action will be possible if the unamended Bill becomes law.
There is also the question of the definition of indecent assault, which is an extraordinarily wide-ranging offence. It ranges at its worst extreme from forced oral sex to the other extreme of putting one's arm around a fellow employee at an office party against the wishes of the employee. Is it really to be the case that in the least serious of the offences the protection of anonymity should be conferred when the accused person may be pilloried or ridiculed whether or not he or indeed she is found guilty? (Of course a woman can also be charged and found guilty of indecent assault.) I believe that this provision probably goes a little too far in that respect.
There may be perfectly conclusive, good answers to all these reservations but they would take time to develop. Once again, I do not oppose the Bill. However, in the normal way we would have Committee and Report stages and those reservations could be debated; but that is not possible under the procedure that we adopt today. The Bill is well intentioned and admirable but we are being deprived of our right to act as a revising Chamber in this instance. While I thoroughly approve of the Bill being given a Second Reading, I believe it premature and unnecessary to rush it through all its stages today.
11.41 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for explaining the Bill very clearly and making us understand how useful its provisions will be. I agree with him about his preferred title. It would certainly describe the Bill better. However, as he said, we shall have to accept the existing title.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, it is a well drafted Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also made a fair point. However, we on this side of the House do not agree with him. He objected that there will not be time to discuss the Bill's provisions further as it is being pushed through all its stages this morning. But we believe that the provisions of the Bill are useful. Further anonymity has been requested from many in this respect for a long time. We believe it right that the measures should be on the statute book although, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, stated, that means there will be no further discussion.
The Bill makes useful additions to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. We note that it implements a subsidiary recommendation of the report of the Calcutt Committee on privacy and related matters. Equally, we note and fully recognise that the balance between giving anonymity and not
1500
creating a problem for the police in the investigation of an alleged offence is delicate to achieve. However, I believe that that issue is dealt with well in Clause 1 which gives two levels of different protection and seems to avoid that problem.
There is little doubt that the Bill deals with an area of the greatest sensitivity. Indeed, Clause 2, listing the offences to which the Bill applies, makes very sorry reading. However, I entirely agree that it is right that the Bill should include indecent conduct towards young children among the offences listed, although the Calcutt Report did not do so.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will give his opinion on whether the Bill will help in these areas. The anonymity of a victim is sometimes lost because reports in different newspapers pick up different details, but not all of them, and jigsawing (as I understand it is called) then takes place. From such details the identity of the person can be established. One paper might give an address and another might give the date of return home.
Perhaps I may cite examples from the report of the Press Complaints Commission. The Director of Social Services, near Manchester, complained that the Manchester Evening News had published prominently a story and picture likely to lead to the identification of children involved in an alleged gang rape at a children's home. The Director of Social Services said that the council's legal department had asked the newspaper not to publish the name or picture of the home as the children were all wards of court. However, in its first edition the paper published a picture of the home. Two of the boys had been charged with rape and a third with aiding and abetting. But the editor of the newspaper said that it could not possibly be argued that a publication of a photograph of the children's home could lead to the identification of the children. However, the complaint was upheld by the Press Complaints Commission on the basis that the details were sufficient details for the victims of the sex crime to be identified.
I shall not give further examples but there are many borderline situations. A complaint against the Sport newspaper was upheld by the commission. It related to a rape victim. The paper published an inaccurate report of the girl's rape which contributed to her being identified as a rape victim. Such jigsawing effect seems to pose a problem. Will the provisions in the Bill help in some small way towards preventing the identification of certain victims of sexual crime?
We are happy to support the Bill. We believe that it will be useful. We support its rapid progress onto the statute book. We very much hope that the additional anonymity which the Bill provides will prevent the untold suffering which must occur to so many when sexual offences are identified as relating to a specific person.
11.49 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual but happy position of agreeing wholly with the noble Baroness. I hope that your Lordships will decide to allow the Bill to go through.

1501
I make only one further comment in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He stated that if we do not do so the Bill will go through in six months' time. I believe that that would be a very optimistic assumption. The new Parliament will not be opened until 6th May. There will be the usual proceedings at the opening of a new Parliament, with the Queen's Speech and so on. By the time that those are completed there will be two months before the Long Recess. It is undoubtedly the case that if my noble friend's party, to which I belong, is victorious at the election there will be a flow of wise, beneficent and constructive measures. Equally, if the noble Baroness's party succeeds there will be a great many subversive and highly damaging measures. However, on both hypotheses the procedure would take a great deal of time. It is most rash to assume that the Bill will necessarily pass through Parliament in six months.
Most people outside this House, and I am sure most of your Lordships, agree that this is a sensible extension of the already accepted principle of preserving the anonymity of victims of various offences. If that is so, why delay? Why for months and years expose people to this most unpleasant publicity when we can stop it by carrying the Bill? I hope that we will.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I too may say a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has made out a powerful case for the Bill. I have no difficulty with it and I hope that it will soon be on the statute book. I am in favour of proceeding in the way suggested by the noble Lord largely because the Bill is based on the report of the Calcutt Inquiry. The issues involved have been carefully reviewed, and on that basis it is reasonable that the Bill should go through today under the terms of this accelerated procedure.
However, I am bound to make one qualification. This is the first of three Bills with which we shall deal today where this course of action is recommended. I believe that some of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are more appropriately applied to one of the other measures largely because the issues in respect of this Bill have been considered by a serious committee of inquiry. As a revising Chamber the House must be careful about allowing Bills to go through on the nod. I believe that on this occasion the procedure is desirable but I hope that we shall be careful about doing so in the future.
11.53 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on introducing this Bill. Modest though the reform may be, it will provide some much-needed further consideration for victims of sexual crimes and will, we believe, also help to encourage victims to report such crimes to the proper authorities. The Bill is thus good for victims and good for the administration of justice. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships of the
1502
Government's support for the Bill. It comes to us from another place unamended and will, I hope, receive similar broad support in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has already perfectly described the Bill's aims and clauses. I am sure that your Lordships would deplore, as I think do all decent people, the graphic—one might almost say pornographic—reporting of cases of sexual assault, complete with the unfortunate victim's name and sometimes even his or her address. The net effect of such identification is of course to add further suffering and humiliation. Sexual offences are by definition peculiarly embarrassing and intimate. The victim who comes forward should feel that he or she can do so with confidence that the authorities will spare him or her unnecessary public degradation.
Of course the Bill will not prevent salacious reports. But it will prevent the naming of victims. Your Lordships may consider that it would be better additionally to prevent salacious reports altogether. I confess that there are occasions when I too have seen some merit in that proposal. But we are not in the business of censoring the reports of the facts of court cases. The basic principle of open justice which this Government uphold demands that justice is normally to be seen to be done. But the principle, like all good principles, must be tempered with mercy and balanced with the interests of the victim and the administration of justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why it was urgent. I must remind him that the Bill is based on the recommendations of the Calcutt Inquiry published in 1990. It is a simple but important Bill. It has been considered in another place and your Lordships have been able to study it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that if it were lost today there would be no guarantee that it would find a place in the ballot in the next Parliament. If it did not find a place in the ballot there would be no guarantee that it would pass through.
Perhaps I may point out to your Lordships that even yesterday a newspaper reported:
"A self-confessed student-hater was jailed for seven years yesterday for a savage sex assault on a young graduate".
The paper published the name, the age and a picture of the unfortunate victim. We support the Bill; victims need the protection that it offers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may question his remark that the Bill might not find a place among the Private Members' Bills next Session. Is there any reason why the Government, of whichever party, should not introduce their own Bill?
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that that is a dubious proposition? How can the noble Viscount give an assurance for his party, still less for any other party which might form a government, that this Bill, which is a small measure, will find a place at the beginning of the next Session?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining clearly what should have been my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the reception that the Bill has received in this House, even from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who commended its general principles. He was entirely right to raise the question of taking a Bill through all its stages. However, we are under a constraint of time to which we must have regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked what was the urgency. We have waited too long for all the recommendations of the Calcutt Inquiry to be implemented and therefore the Bill is overdue. Secondly, if the noble Lord could put himself in the position of an innocent victim he would say that there was indeed urgency. One has only to think of the disgusting Beck case in which the wretched young boy victims had to give evidence. They are now in their thirties, married and happily living in their communities. The trial resulted in their necessary evidence being made public. The press followed the youths. One in particular who is now in his thirties was photographed in his village and in his home. That is an incident which we cannot afford to allow to happen again. It must be stopped as quickly as possible, and the Bill will do that. Therefore, it is a matter of urgency.
As was said so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, there is no guarantee that the Bill will be reintroduced in a subsequent Session of Parliament, let alone in the first six months. Anyone who has had anything to do with the business of Parliament will know that that is so. But I do not object to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, having raised those points and I believe that he was adequately answered during the debate.
I welcome the favourable reception which the Bill received from the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I recognise the difficulty of jigsawing, as she called it. I may be wrong but I believe that that may be a matter for the presiding judge and that Clause 3 deals with it. If there is a case of the press contravening the judge's decision about anonymity, I imagine that they will be in contempt of court. I have not been able to consult on the matter but I believe that to be the answer.
Having disposed of those few matters I have no need to refer to any other questions which have been raised. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
Midday
Report received.
Clause 1 [Standards of performance]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, moved amendments to require the directors general for telecommunications, gas supply and electricity supply to conduct research into the views of individual customers, when setting standards of performance, in addition to the requirement that customer representative bodies be consulted.
I agree that the views of customers should be known before performance standards are set, if those standards are to be of benefit to the customer.
As I promised in Committee, I have considered further the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have decided that it is right to require the directors general to research the views of individual customers likely to be affected before setting standards. I have therefore tabled these amendments covering such consultation by all four directors general for both individual service standards and overall performance standards. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for listening to our arguments which we put forward in Committee and for bringing forward amendments which meet our case. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that he was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27 to 29 and 34? If he is, we support those amendments.
Lord Reay: My Lords, indeed I was.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. Can my noble friend assure the House that the research will include research into methods of payment, particularly payments by people with disabilities and those who are elderly who often have considerable difficulty in obtaining the right tokens and so on for prepayment meters?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that question should be dealt with by the directors general.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("and
(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be so affected and considering the results.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (6) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 28 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, tabled four amendments during the Committee stage of this Bill with the intention of ensuring that the Director General of Telecommunications was required to state reasons for his determination of a dispute. In view of the strong support expressed by the Committee for those amendments, I promised to give some further consideration to this matter.
I have now done so. As I indicated to the Committee, we believe it is important that the Director General of Telecommunications and the other three regulators should give reasons for their determinations of disputes. I understand that where they have existing powers of determination they do so. Furthermore, a failure by the regulators to give reasons is likely to be grounds for judicial review—a view upheld in the recent case of the Crown v. the Civil Service Appeal Board ex parte Cunningham. Even without any statutory obligation on the regulators to give reasons for their determinations, it is highly unlikely, therefore, that they would fail to do so.
Nevertheless, it became clear during discussion of the amendments that there was a considerable body of opinion in this House which favoured placing a clear requirement in the Bill on the regulators to give reasons for their determinations. I have reflected upon the views put forward and am persuaded that there would be considerable advantage in putting the question of the need for the regulators to give reasons for their determinations beyond any doubt.
I have therefore tabled these amendments, which implement the proposal of the noble and learned Lord Brightman that the Director General of Telecommunications should state reasons for his determinations. It is clearly right that the same requirement should be placed upon all four regulators so I am also proposing that the Bill should be amended to require the Director General of Gas Supply, the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Water Services to state reasons for their determinations. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for reconsidering the amendments which I tabled and for tabling the current amendments.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend's amendments which will be a great improvement to the Bill and I support them wholeheartedly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("may") to end of line 12.
Page 3, line 21, at end insert:
("(2) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

(a) consulting the designated operator concerned and persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and

(b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disputes about discrimination etc. in fixing charges]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (3) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Deposits]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) Except in such circumstances as may be specified in the criteria, no person who is disabled (as defined by the criteria) shall be required to pay a deposit before being provided with any relevant service by the designated operator.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, I listened with some sympathy, to the anxieties voiced by noble Lords that disabled people should not be dissuaded from having the benefit of their own telephone by the need to raise a deposit where this is required by the designated operator.
As I explained to the Committee on that occasion, the Government similarly wish to see a system in place that is fair to the disabled and, despite the commendable action which BT is already taking, we are not complacent about this issue. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who tabled an amendment on this subject, voiced interest in the new steps being taken by BT and withdrew his amendment to consider the situation further.
I too have been giving the issue further consideration. I am anxious to do as much as possible to protect the interests of the disabled, but the Government cannot lose sight of the position of customers as a whole. The original amendment went too wide in that it provided a blanket exemption and did not attempt to define who would qualify as "disabled". Instead of it, I have therefore tabled the amendment now on the Marshalled List. The effect of this will be that the operator will not be able to require a deposit from a disabled person except in circumstances specified in the criteria agreed by the director general; and "disabled" will also be defined in the criteria. Together with the amendment introduced in Committee requiring consultation with bodies representative of those likely to be affected, this will ensure that the interests of the disabled are fully understood and considered in the context of setting deposit criteria. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking on board the anxieties expressed not only by me but also by other noble Lords. This is an extremely welcome amendment which I wholeheartedly support. Perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to ask the director general to let other noble Lords who spoke in Committee and I know what the criteria are when he has had a chance to consider them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we welcome the amendment moved by the Minister. I do not necessarily have the same request as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because I do not wish to be deluged with too much paper. However, I should welcome a statement at a fairly early stage by the director stating

1507
how he intends to interpret the clause and what kind of criteria he has in mind. That will achieve the same objective as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seeks. The matter is rather up in the air at the moment but we hope that that will be defined so that it can be discussed if necessary.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the question of criteria is a matter which needs to be drawn up by the designated operators in the first instance for approval by the director general. The director general has to agree to them and my understanding is that those criteria will be publicised. I am willing to give the assurance that I will ask the directors general to reply to noble Lords who have requested information.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, unless the complaint has been withdrawn or it is otherwise inappropriate to proceed,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Ezra and Lord Hacking, supported an amendment to Clause 7 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill in Committee.
The point at issue concerned the actions of the Director General of Telecommunications if he considered that the criteria for deciding how large a deposit, if any, a person should be asked to pay had been either incorrectly applied or was inappropriate to a particular case. In such circumstances the Bill as currently drafted would allow the director to determine whether a person should have to pay a deposit and, if so, how much it should be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and several other noble Lords, suggested that in such a case the director should be obliged to make such a determination rather than having the discretion to do so.
I agreed in Committee to look further into the arguments of noble Lords. I have now done so and on reflection agree that the director should be obliged to make a determination on the necessity for, and the size of, a deposit when he considers that a designated operator has incorrectly applied criteria for assessing the need for a deposit or where those criteria were inappropriate to the particular case. This amendment will place such an obligation on the director, but will make allowance for cases where it is clearly inappropriate for him to make a determination; for instance, where a person withdraws his request for a phone or, more seriously, where a person has been sent to prison or died.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for raising the issue and ask noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my amendment and for tabling this version of it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 9:
1508
Page 9, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Any person giving a direction under subsection (3) above shall include in the direction his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the complaint.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Enforcement of standards of performance, etc.]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("above") to end of line 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 24A. These are drafting amendments which have no substantive effect. It is not usual to include a description of the section when reference is made to another section in the same Act. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 remove two such descriptions from new section 27K, which is inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984 by Clause 9 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 24A corrects a cross-reference in Clause 37 which is incorrect as a result of the addition of a further subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("(procedure for dealing with complaints)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Standards of performance]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 16:
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("and").
Page 12, line 33, at end insert ("and
(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be so affected and considering the results.").
Page 13, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (6) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
Page 13, line 35, leave out from ("may") to ("from") in line 37.
Page 13, line 45, at end insert:
("(1A) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

(a) consulting the public gas suppliers and persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and

(b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Determination of disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (1) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 18, line 9, at end insert:

1509
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may he specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Research concerning views of customers
(" .—(1) In section 39(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply: performance in individual cases) there shall be inserted, after paragraph (b), "; and
(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results,".
(2) In section 40 of the Act of 1989 (electricity supply: overall performance), the words from "after" to "affected" shall be omitted from subsection (1) and the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—
"(1A) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

(a) consultation with public electricity suppliers and with persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and

(b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 21, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 21:
Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Research concerning views of customers
(".—(1) Section 39 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure for making regulations under section 38 relating to standards of performance in the supply of water) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (d), for "both" there shall be substituted "the summary mentioned in subsection (2) (bb) below,".
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Before making an application to the Secretary of State under this section the Director shall arrange for such research as he considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and consider the results."
(4) In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after "apply" in paragraph (b)—
"(bb) is accompanied by a written summary of the results of the research carried out in accordance with subsection (1A) above;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 22:
Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
Research concerning views of customers
(".—(1) Section 96 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure for regulations under section 95 relating to standards of performance in the provision of sewerage services) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (d), for "both" there shall be substituted "the summary mentioned in subsection (2) (bb) below,".
(3) The following subsection shall he inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Before making an application to the Secretary of State under this section the Director shall arrange for such research as he considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and consider the results."
(4) In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after "apply" in paragraph (b)—
"(bb) is accompanied by a written summary of the results of the research carried out in accordance with subsection (1A) above:".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Determination of disputes by the Director]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 27, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Where the Director determines any dispute under this section he shall give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Inset appointments]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24A:
Page 34, line 28, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments No. 25 and 26:
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("20") and insert ("(Research concerning views of customers: inserted before Clause 20)").
Page 44, line 35, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 45, line 4, leave out ("25") and insert ("(Research concerning views of customers: inserted before Clause 25)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 31:
Page 47, line 23, leave out ("section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989") and insert ("section 23 of the Electricity Act 1989 (determination of disputes), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Any person making an order under subsection (1) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute."
11A. In section 25 of the Act of 1989").
Page 47, line 27, at end insert:
("12A. In section 39 of the Act of 1989 (electricity supply: performance in individual cases), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—

1511
"(5A) Any person making an order under subsection (5) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").
Page 48, line 6, at end insert:
("15A. In section 38 of the Act of 1991 (standards of performance in connection with water supply) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(5) Where the Director determines any dispute in accordance with regulations under this section he shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").
Page 48, line 37, at end insert:
("20A. In section 95 of the Act of 1991 (standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(5) Where the Director determines any dispute in accordance with regulations under this section he shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 49, line 36, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 39(1), the word "and" immediately before paragraph (b).

In section 40(1), the words from "after" to "affected".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
12.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to start by thanking noble Lords, particularly noble Lords opposite, for their co-operation and assistance in facilitating the progress of the Bill in the light of the curtailing of the parliamentary Session. Without it we could not have expected the Bill to reach the statute book within the timescale and in the form now arrived at.
This Bill implements the commitments we gave in the Citizen's Charter to bring the powers of all the regulators up to those of the strongest. It is an important and worthwhile Bill for the 25 million utility customers who will benefit as a result.
Standards of service and choice were central themes of the Citizen's Charter. Building on the basis laid when the utilities were privatised, the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill paves the way for a real improvement in service for the regulated utility customers; and for greater choice for gas and water services customers.
As a result of the Bill all the regulators will have power to set guaranteed service standards for individuals; establish compensation schemes where individual service falls below those standards; set overall performance standards; ensure that the utilities establish and publicise complaints procedures; resolve disputes over standards; and, where the
1512
Secretary of State provides, resolve disputes over billing. In addition, the Bill opens up scope for greater competition in gas and water services.
Although we have not been able to have the usual intervals between the Committee and Report stages, and between Report and Third reading, I believe that we have had most useful debates on the details of the Bill. Important points have been raised and discussed and we have made a number of improvements to the Bill as a result—not necessarily fewer than if we had progressed the Bill at a more normal tempo. As a result of those changes, which I will not enumerate again, I am confident that we shall be returning a better Bill to another place.
I should like to address some issues which were of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The noble Lord was anxious that BT will be required to satisfy a stricter measure of performance in relation to overall standards than the energy utilities. He also questioned the arrangements for telecommunications in relation to the power of the regulator to order an operator who has breached licence conditions to remedy that breach. Ministers take such anxieties seriously and we have therefore reconsidered whether some differences in our approach to BT and the other utilities are justified.
We have looked thoroughly into the matter once again, but I must say to the noble Lord that in our view our policy is soundly based. In the case of telecommunications, the director general is responsible for overseeing a large number of operators— some 130 in all. This is in marked contrast, for example, to the position in gas where there is only one public gas supplier. So the structures of the industries are different, as are the regulatory frameworks for them as already built up through the privatisation Acts and the related licences. It is on those various frameworks that we need to build.
One other point I should mention is that, as a result of anxiety expressed in Committee about the operation of the existing telecommunications advisory committees, which represent customers' interests, I promised that I would ask the Director General of Telecommunications to consider whether a review of their operation is necessary. Your Lordships may wish to be aware that I have now done so.
This Bill exemplifies our dual approach to the utilities. Competition is the best spur to efficiency and value for money. When we privatised the utilities we sought to introduce as much scope as possible for competition. The Bill builds on that with measures to encourage further competition in gas and water. Eventually competition may develop to a point where the role of the regulator can be diminished, but, where competition is not full and effective, we need strong regulators to ensure that the interests of customers are protected and the utilities do not abuse their market dominance. The new powers the Bill gives to the regulators will enable them to carry out their role more effectively.
In closing, I should like to thank your Lordships for the constructive and useful suggestions which have resulted in the improved Bill now before the House. As a result of the Bill, customers will have more

1513
choice, more information, better standards of service and redress when standards are not met, and straightforward procedures for resolving disputes with the utilities. These are very real benefits for customers and will be welcomed by them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for what he has said. We on these Benches are grateful to him for accepting that we did our utmost to make sure that the Bill passed through your Lordships' House in the agreed timespan.
The Bill has been sensibly amended and I am grateful also to the Government for their flexibility in some matters about which we felt strongly. As an improved Bill we welcome it rather more enthusiastically than perhaps we did at Second Reading. I put on record that as far as we are concerned we do not believe that, as yet, the Bill goes far enough. We would like to see it strengthened. It may be that in the course of time we shall have an opportunity to strengthen some of its provisions.
In particular, there are at present two major gaps in the Bill. First, the Gas Consumer Council is not replicated in all the other utilities covered by the Bill. Many noble Lords have paid tribute to the Gas Consumer Council which has operated very effectively. We should prefer to see similar arrangements across the full range of the utilities covered by the Bill.
The second matter which has not been resolved, and which remains to be resolved by a future Parliament, is the relationship between the regulators themselves, Parliament and/or Ministers. It has been called regulating the regulators. As these regulators become more and more important in our national life, as they will if the Bill goes through and is enacted, as we hope, they should be much more responsive to Parliament or some kind of parliamentary body than they are at the moment. Having said that, I accept that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. As half a loaf we believe that this Bill should be enacted. We will support the Government in that effort.
It only remains for me to reciprocate the gratitude expressed to me by the Minister by thanking him very much for his usual courtesy in dealing with this Bill and his willingness to consider proper and rational arguments when put before him. We do not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill and we wish it well.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too express satisfaction that this Bill will be going through. It contains much which will be of considerable value to consumers. It has been much improved by the amendments moved this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I am of the same opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that at some later stage we should like to return to the question of the Gas Consumer Council and also to the point raised in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that we should look once more at the responsibility of the regulators to Parliament or to some other supervisory body. However, that can come at a later stage. In the
1514
meantime, I am delighted that this Bill will be going through so that consumers can benefit from the new provisions.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening, but in view of what has just been said by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra, perhaps I may say right away that I believe that the argument about regulating the regulators is totally misconceived. The whole point of the present system is to protect the regulator from political interference and pressure. The worst possible thing that could be done would be to subject what were intended to be independent regulators to political manoeuvring.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have participated at each stage of the Bill, as I have, became aware at a very early stage in Committee that something was afoot. The Minister said with confidence that he expected this Bill to reach the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said he hoped that the Bill would become an Act. The Minister smiled at the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord smiled at the Minister. I believe that I collected one smile myself from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Then it became more apparent that something was afoot. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has a reputation for tabling reasoned amendments and pressing them at every stage of the Bill with lucid argument. But the noble Lord seemed to lose steam about half way through the Committee stage. Before we reached the second day of Committee the noble Lord had withdrawn 26 of his reasoned amendments.
All has now been revealed. There has been a private alliance between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. It is almost perhaps an unholy alliance. From the position of a Back Bencher one cannot think of a more unholy alliance than that of the two Front Benches gathering together to thwart the honest endeavours of noble Lords on the Back Benches.
My quarrel now is not so much with the alliance but with its result, which is that this Bill has taken a shortened course through this Parliament rather than a more considered one through the next. If there was unity between the two Front Benches, surely that unity could have produced the result of your Lordships giving much better consideration to the Bill. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It remains my case that there is a great deal more work that could usefully have been done on the Bill, as your Lordships so often usefully perform on Bills.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He said that there was agreement between the Front Benches. There was also agreement with the Back Benches on this side of the House and, I believe, also on the other side of the House.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, then I feel even more in the cold on the Cross-Benches. In preparation for Report stage I tabled a number of amendments. I did so because I thought they were amendments that deserved your Lordships' attention. But when it

1515
became quite plain that it was the will of this House to take the Bill through on a shortened course, I thought that the only responsible action was to withdraw those amendments, which I duly did. Indeed, those amendments had been tabled following representations that were made to me and other noble Lords by British Telecom and British Gas. I can tell your Lordships that neither of those two companies has any wish to impede the passage of this Bill.
However, I am intervening at Third Reading because I believe that it is still reasonable to ask both the Government and the Opposition—perhaps on the details of today's poll the Opposition can be described as the Government in Waiting—to continue to listen to the anxieties which have been expressed in this Bill and to keep the door open for further revision. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that if the Opposition become the Government, they would look again at the Bill for certain reasons concerned with strengthening the Bill.
I wrote to the Minister about my anxieties after Committee stage and he has been kind enough to answer some of them in his Third Reading speech. I shall merely put in a marker now and then wish the Bill well as it leaves your Lordships' House. Placed in the marker is, first, the concern that the new regulatory scheme falls outside the established regulatory licensing scheme that exists for all four of the utility industries. On that point, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recalls, he gave me support in Committee. That is perhaps a matter which he may particularly wish to consider if his party returns to government.
Perhaps I may add a further point because I mentioned it to the Minister. There is the position of British Gas and the other utility companies that, as the competition element of each of these industries increases, they are in the rather strange position of not having the right to seek reference to the MMC while the utility directors can. That is merely an additional point. The Minister referred in his speech to the reasonable test as regards the standards of performance. Noble Lords will recall from Committee stage that the position is this: the electricity and gas industries are entitled to the reasonable test while the water and telecommunications industries are not. The case here is that that is simply unfair. Even though there may be different situations in which each of these industries operate, it is still an uneven playing field.
We can consider the 1987 hurricane and perhaps a 1994 hurricane where electricity wires are carried over the same piece of ground as the telephone wires, and where the gas is being carried in pipes underneath that ground, and water too. If the hurricane should hit ferociously at that point on our land all those supplies could be damaged. However, as regards only two of them—namely, electricity and gas —can they fend off suits from their customers whose supplies have been cut off? It is for the electricity and gas industries just to take every reasonable step. The hurricane could not have been foreseen. Why should the telecommunications industry be penalised?
1516
There are three points that I shall now make shortly. The first is on the enforcement of compliance orders. Your Lordships may recall that there was a discretion open to the directors for all the industries except the gas industry when the offending party has taken steps to put the breach right. The second concern is the load on directors of the new quasi-judicial role and the absence of any appeal in arbitration proceedings. That was advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Finally, there is the particular concern of British Gas with the removal of the tariff thresholds without at the same time releasing it from its statutory obligation to provide up to 25,000 therms of gas per annum to its suppliers. That is not parity; that is not fair. It is for all those reasons that I ask both political parties, whoever may be in government after this general election, to keep their minds open.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. Could he amend "both" political parties?
Lord Hacking: All political parties. I am delighted to hear that I have another audience. I ask that "all" political parties, whichever comes back to power and in whatever form of alliance—perhaps we are open to a few surprises on that —keep their minds open. For those reasons I do not press the matter at this stage. I wish the Bill well for its Third Reading but better still for further consideration at another time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of encouraging this Bill on its way at Third Reading. I should also like to thank the Minister and in particular his staff for the very efficient and prompt way in which they have dealt with all the points that I raised in Committee. Had they been unable to satisfy me on those points I should certainly have wanted to bring them back at Report stage. But they have dealt with them expeditiously and well and I have received excellent letters covering those points. Therefore the Gas Consumers Council is very satisfied with the answers given at Committee stage.
The other replies have come since, both from the noble Lord himself and his department and also from Offer. They have done what was required to reassure the electricity industry and, I believe, others as to the billing procedures and meter disputes which apply to gas as much as to electricity—the matter of security of supply and safety of meters. I am most grateful for that.
The point about regulating the regulators, which was the subject of an amendment which I brought forward, is very interesting. But I am a great believer in giving people an opportunity to put their own house in order first. It may be that the very fact that this Bill has come in this way—the slightly telescoped form now—means that there will be an opportunity to see that it will not prove necessary. In which case my noble friend Lord Cockfield will be only too pleased. Certainly points of concern were raised and this gives us an opportunity to take the first dose of medicine

1517
—whether it is our first dose of medicine or half a dose —and see whether we need more. Therefore I welcome the Bill in that way.
I cannot support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Back-Benchers have been thwarted. The Back-Benchers have been treated very well in this matter. In fact I wish we had some way in this House and in the other place of making all Bills process through as efficiently as this one has. When it is seen how rapidly we have achieved the real needs in this Bill compared with the time that we spend in going into all sorts of impossible and impractical amendments, as well as the very necessary and important ones, it gives us an idea of how we could save a little time in the future. With that, I wish the Bill every success.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that my officials will have heard with pleasure the words spoken by my noble friend. I am grateful for what she said. I am also pleased that she made the point that the opinions of Back-Benchers have been listened to during the course of the debate. I strongly believe that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his kind words. Beyond that there is nothing that I can usefully add. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Transport and Works Bill
12.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Parts I and III of this Bill have their origins in the findings of a Joint Committee of this House and another place chaired by my honourable friend the Member for New Forest. The report was published in 1988. The committee was set up because there was dissatisfaction with the way in which the Private Bill procedure was operating; and there was some resistance in the other place to sitting on Select Committees which dealt with matters which these days are mostly subject to planning inquiries. I think it is fair to say that that dissatisfaction is felt by some Members of your Lordships' House, although perhaps it is characteristic of the reflective way in which we conduct our proceedings that there has never been difficulty in persuading noble Lords to serve. Indeed, we have people of some experience who are well capable of making judgments on planning matters. That said, the Joint Committee reported in favour of a new system of ministerial orders based on the procedures for light railway orders which have been with us since 1896 and of changes to the Harbours Act 1964 to enable more proposals to be dealt with by harbour revision or empowerment orders.
This House discussed the proposals on 17th May
1518
1989 in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who was a member of the Joint Committee. The House generally felt that the Government should consult more widely on the issues raised by the Joint Committee and gave us some useful guidance. In particular, some noble Lords thought that Parliament should influence the very largest schemes. The Government duly published a consultation document called Private Bills and New Procedures in June 1990. Well over 100 responses were received. While there were reservations about the details of the new orders system proposed in it, most respondents favoured the sort of changes which the Joint Committee recommended. The Government announced their conclusions in May 1991 and they are embodied in this Bill.
During the work on the new procedures, which included studies of the content of recent Private Bills, it was discovered that legislation on railway and tramway safety matters was inadequate and that, consequently, Private Bills had included powers for the Secretary of State to supervise new works and operations of modern tramways in particular, which are a far cry from the trams which the Tramways Act 1870 sought to control—which were of course drawn by horses. At the same time we had the Hidden and Fennell reports on the accidents at Clapham Junction and King's Cross. Both reports recommended changes in railway safety legislation. Part II achieves this. It also introduces a new code on drink and drugs. Regrettably, there have been a few incidents in recent years of railwaymen who have operated trains while under the influence—or where there was a strong suspicion of it.
I shall now describe the Bill, picking up as I go along some of the issues which arise from it. I shall not attempt to describe every clause but I shall try to deal later with specific questions which noble Lords may have.
Part I of the Bill provides a new order-making power for the Secretary of State in most of those cases where none exists at present; and as a consequence powers have had to be sought by Private Bill. There are two major groups. Those in Clause 1 deal with systems like railways and tramways where vehicles travel along rails or other means of guidance or can work only with external equipment, like trolleybuses. In Clause 3 we cover inland waterways and works which interfere with navigation.
There was a lot of discussion in the other place about inland waterways, partly because the consultation process with waterways interests before the Bill was introduced did not work well. There are positive advantages in this Bill for the restoration of canals and that safeguards now built in—I shall come to them —prevent some of the abuses of the powers which they feared.
Clause 5 deals with the subject matter of orders. It introduces Schedule 1, which illustrates the sort of powers which might be given by order. We thought it right that there should be some indication on the face of the Bill of what might go in orders. The subject matter is of course limited by the broad definition of the objects in Clauses 1 and 3. We cannot hope to be

1519
comprehensive and definitive. Any attempt at complete coverage will run the risk of leaving outstanding minor matters to be dealt with by Private Bill.
In Clause 5(7) we have, by amendment in the other place, provided that the sections of the Transport Act 1968 which deal with closure and other matters concerning waterways should be preserved. This means that if works require the closure of a waterway, that closure would have to be approved under the 1968 Act. An order under this Bill could not displace it. Clauses 6 to 14 provide for procedures for making orders, and the lead clause is Clause 6. It provides that the Secretary of State may make rules about the way in which orders are to be applied for. We have already circulated a first draft of the application rules to interested bodies, and many have responded. A revised draft, taking into account these comments, is being prepared.
The remaining clauses—other than Clause 9 to which I shall refer later—lay out the rest of the procedure to be followed for all applications. After the applicant puts in his draft order, according to the rules under Clause 6, and using model clauses, if appropriate, for which Clause 8 provides, objections will be made under Clause 10. The Secretary of State then decides whether a public inquiry is necessary. The local authority or any person whose land is to be compulsorily acquired may insist on one. But it is as likely as not that a public inquiry will take place anyway if there are lots of objections and one or more come from other statutory bodies whose expertise is particularly relevant. Anyone may object. There will be no equivalent of the locus standi rules. But objectors must comply with the rules to be made under Clause 10.
Clause 13 provides that the Secretary of State may make the order applied for, refuse it, or make it with modifications. If he wants to make modifications he must give persons affected the opportunity to comment. Clause 14 deals with publicity for the order.
Clause 9 is, however, unique. It arises because there were those in both Houses who felt that major schemes should come to Parliament for approval in some form, but they did not want to carry out the inquiry themselves. The clause provides that if the Secretary of State decides that a scheme is of national significance he submits to the House a resolution about it before the local inquiry. The resolution will not approve the order. It will endorse it in principle and may equally endorse some aspect of it. The Secretary of State may not make an order inconsistent with the resolution. But the Secretary of State will still be able to refuse the order after the local inquiry and, if he is minded to, ask Parliament to adjust the resolution if, for example, a particular problem is identified by the public inquiry, a facility built in by amendment in the other place. This should give ample scope for a proper inquiry, but give Government and Parliament an opportunity to make clear what their policy view is. This is a reversal of the proposal in the consultation document, but we were convinced by a number of respondents that the alternative—a
1520
decision after the inquiry—was wrong. Developers said that if Parliament was going to say no, they would prefer to know early rather than late. Perhaps more significantly, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Council on Tribunals also opposed it. The council thought that the local inquiry process might be brought into disrepute if it were overturned by a single vote in Parliament. The RTPI thought that strategic policy issues ought to be decided in advance of a local inquiry. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has been anxious about this. I think that the Bill as amended ought to allay their anxieties about procedure. I know that they think that the principle should be decided after the detail. I think that, in the case of these very few strategic questions, they are wrong.
Before I leave these procedural matters I should deal with timescales. It was almost inevitable that we should come under pressure to build into these procedures on the one hand the widest possible consultation and opportunity for objections and on the other the shortest possible timescale for making decisions. Both have been urged on us, in some cases by the same people! The purpose of this Bill is not principally to reduce timescales, but we have looked carefully at what its effects might be. By way of preface, I should say that Private Bills are now taking longer than they were when the Joint Committee reported. The committee said that between 1979 and 1985 more than 60 per cent. of Private Bills received Royal Assent within 12 months and only 5 per cent. took more than two years. In the years 1986 to 1990 153 Bills were deposited of which only 29 (or 19 per cent.) were enacted within 12 months and 11 (or 7 per cent.) took over two years. Thirty-three Bills were withdrawn or lost and 25 have yet to be enacted. Of those not yet enacted, seven have already taken more than two years and the remaining 18 have been in Parliament for more than 12 months.
Since we announced this Bill in the Queen's Speech some of the more automatic blocking of Bills has ceased, but timescales are still long. We think the new system will be quicker for small schemes and no worse for most others. There were debates in the other place about putting timetables on the face of the Bill, but it is difficult to find an amendment which is flexible enough to allow enough time but also tight enough to be enforceable. We have said that we will put pre-inquiry time limits into secondary legislation and publish guidelines about timetables for decisions. The Secretary of State is, of course, under a general obligation to exercise his functions reasonably. There must not be unreasonable delay; but there must not be unreasonable haste either. The important thing is the right decision.
I come now to harbours—but not yet alas into port —which are dealt with in Clause 63 and Schedule 3. As recommended by the Joint Committee, we have extended the purposes for which harbour orders can be sought and removed the facility which harbour authorities have to come to Parliament for a Bill even if it is not necessary. We have also taken this opportunity to put beyond doubt one or two other

1521
matters which, while they have been included in harbour orders, have no specific enabling provision attached to them.
I turn next to safety and first to the provisions in Clauses 26 to 40 about drink and drugs. It has been an offence since 1842 to operate a railway while drunk. Drugs were not then a problem. But that provision is inadequate now. There have been very few incidents but any such incident is disturbing. The last, the Cannon Street crash, led to the Coroner for the City writing to the Secretary of State to say that in his view the law was unsatisfactory, especially because there were no compulsory medical testing powers. The clauses in this Bill are based on the well tested road traffic legislation. The railway jobs which are to be subject to them are in Clause 27. We have provided for the same breath, blood and urine limits as in the Road Traffic Act. Clauses 41 to 46 provide a new regime for the approval of work on railways and similar systems as regards safety and the reporting of accidents.
This is the first time since 1871 that the legislation in this area has been looked at properly. As I have said the Hidden and Fennell Reports and the work on this Bill have exposed weaknesses in our arrangements. These clauses provide for the expansion of jurisdiction of the Railway Inspectorate to all railways and similar systems. The Secretary of State is given power to make regulations about the approval of new works and rolling stock. The scope of accident reporting is expanded to incidents which may have led to accidents.
This measure commands a wide degree of support. Some will be sorry to see the Private Bill procedure go for railway works. But all those with whom we have been in touch are now anxious to get on with the new system. I hope therefore that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and a speedy passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
12.48 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care he has taken in setting out the purposes of the Bill and for describing in some respects the detail underlying it. Undoubtedly the cross-party support which the Bill enjoyed in another place created the opportunity to ensure that the Bill was improved both at Committee and Report stages. I believe that the Opposition were positive and constructive in that regard—that has been recognised by the Government—and the Government were receptive to the need for some change.
It is possible that further scrutiny of the Bill in this place might have led to even further improvement. There is no doubt that a number of organisations are worried that we are proposing to truncate the proceedings here. Indeed only a moment ago I received a letter from the Inland Waterways Association expressing concern that the matter was not receiving the care and attention that it thought was appropriate. I shall certainly deal with that aspect.
The dilemma that confronts the House, and which has confronted the Opposition and the Government in
1522
respect of the issue, is essentially the following. Having regard to the fact that the House will be prorogued on Monday, were we to insist on the Bill undergoing the scrutiny which this Chamber would undoubtedly prefer in normal circumstances, the Bill would be lost. That is the clear and inescapable truth. On the other hand, should we—as, indeed, we sought to do—seek a compromise with the Government that in consideration of their acceptance of some important amendments, subject of course to the approval of the House, or an undertaking to include other significant matters in the rules under the legislation, the Bill would complete all its stages today so that it has every possibility of being enacted by Monday.
That is not a happy choice. I believe that the Minister will be the first to recognise that fact. It is not unknown for Ministers to decide on second thoughts to introduce their own amendments to a Bill. However, it is a Bill which is essentially technical. While I think that it is right that the House should always be cautious about truncating its ability to exercise its powers as a revising Chamber, I believe that it was right to adopt the second course that I described.
At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for being so prepared to accept the dilemma of the Opposition and for being helpful and forthcoming in seeking to resolve it by accepting two amendments (which I and the noble Baroness, Lady White, have tabled which will of course be dealt with later) and for agreeing to another matter being referred to in the rules. Indeed, other matters may be picked up from those discussions which may find their way into the rules.
The concessions with which I am sure the Minister will deal later are substantive. However, perhaps I may summarise what was at stake from our point of view, as the Minister has already described some of the background.
The Bill responds to proposals made in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, following very considerable study on its part of the issues involved. Private legislation authorising public transport schemes and work support at ports have imposed an increasingly heavy burden on Parliament and on parliamentary time. The queue of Private Bills awaiting parliamentary consideration was outlined by the Minister's honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin who is the junior Minister dealing with such matters in another place. On Second Reading he said:
"Private Bills used commonly to be passed in a single Session. The average time for Bills that have now passed" —
and this point was dealt with by the Minister—
"was 19 months. At the beginning of this Session, no fewer than 23 transport or other works Bills were still before the House from previous Sessions, including one that started in 1988. I understand that some 23 new Bills were deposited last Wednesday"
—that is, prior to the 2nd December—
"16 of which would involve works".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/91; col. 40]
Of course, that is a very serious state of affairs. There can be absolutely no certainty that either of the main parties or—to acknowledge his position—that of the

1523
noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, could possibly give an assurance to the House that the reintroduction of the Bill could be given priority in the new Parliament. There are so many other issues that would have to be dealt with, especially—as I hope it will be—by an incoming Labour Government. Therefore, we face a rather desperate situation in that regard.
The Bill was accorded very detailed scrutiny in another place. It was substantially amended or undertakings were given that significant issues would be dealt with in the rules. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis, although not wishing in any way to diminish its importance, that I believe it is right that tribute should be paid to the work of the rights of way review committee which also made a substantial contribution. Consultations with relevant authorities have taken place albeit, in some respects, rather late. It is right to say that one learns from mistakes. The Government in their dying days are also learning from their mistakes. They now know that consultations have to be meaningful. Of course, as a result of the situation, any party would be prepared to give an undertaking that consultations must be effective if the Bill is to stand any chance of being worth while.
The Minister dealt with Part I of the Bill; indeed, he dealt with it at considerable depth. There is therefore no need for me to go into a number of matters as I would otherwise have chosen to do. In summary, from our point of view, it provides an improved method of examining technical details. It enables inquiries to be held locally rather than in London. One should not underestimate the inconvenience and cost to which the public who wish to petition against Bills may be exposed in attending parliamentary committee hearings in relation to any specific Bill.
The Minister also dealt with some of the objections which were either met or to which he felt answers were appropriate and adequate. I am not happy that the timetabling of inquiry hearings has been appropriately dealt with. But that is a matter that only time will decide and may, as the Minister said, be picked up at least in part in the rules. I am convinced that the Minister has an open mind about that. However, the value of that over the next few days remains to be tested.
The preference for holding the inquiry first and the parliamentary consideration subsequently, rather than the other way around as prescribed in the Bill, continues to give many people some concern. However, at the end of the day it is a matter of fine judgment. Only experience will tell whether the apprehension of some developers such as Eurotunnel and Trafalgar House, who have written to me about such matters, will prove to be accurate or whether in fact the procedure will not, as they feel, slow up the deliberations. As I said, it is a matter which only experience will enable us to judge. We need time to determine how the procedure works and to decide whether it will require review after a reasonable period.
There is then the question of environmental impact assessment and environmental duties. The Government have stuck to the last of their view about
1524
environmental impact assessments. I should have preferred them to be more forthcoming. It is an argument that we have had in regard to many pieces of legislation in this Parliament. Indeed, we are very familiar with the Government's position on the matter. Again time, and above all the law, will indicate whether they were right or wrong. But an important concession is to be made on the environmental duties of harbour authorities. I believe that will be thoroughly worth while.
There is also the question about the criteria concerning schemes of national importance. It is a matter which has given rise, and which continues to give rise, to anxiety on behalf, for example, of the Association of Municipal Authorities and many other organisations. It is not an easy matter. The Government feel that this is not a matter which is susceptible to legislative change. I believe that it requires further investigation.
The question of consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council has proved to be a problem which could have been obviated by the Government. I believe that they recognise the error of their ways. But at least, belatedly, actions were taken by the department which—it is to be hoped—have mitigated those difficulties. I am confident that those mistakes will not be repeated.
I shall refer briefly to Part II of the Bill. By its regulatory provisions, it should materially assist in enhancing the safety of passengers on rail and on other transport systems. The question of levels of alcohol in the blood on the part of train drivers proved to be a problem in another place. However, the Minister recommended that the situation should be left as it is in the Bill and, with some concerns, I agree that that is the right course to take.
It is therefore with some apology to the House that the Opposition felt that it was incumbent upon them to go along with this truncated procedure. It is not something to be recommended and I hope that the Minister acknowledges that. Having said that, however, I hope that the Bill will pass and that it will prove to be an effective piece of legislation in dealing with an issue that has caused great concern to both Houses of Parliament over a long period.
1 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the details of the Bill so clearly and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for filling in some of the gaps. We have heard an interesting double-headed exposition of the Bill this morning. There is no doubt that considerable amounts of thought, consultation and effort have gone into putting the Bill into the state in which we now find it. We all know that there is a problem and that the Private Bill Committees have faced difficulties for a number of years. As the convener of a group considering accommodation in this place, perhaps I may say that not the least difficulty has been finding places in which those committees can meet. Perhaps my task in terms of accommodation will be made easier when the Bill passes.

1525
Nevertheless, there is obviously still a considerable amount of worry in various parts of the transport industry and in related industries about the efficacy of the Bill. I have heard it said that it will prolong proceedings rather than shorten them. There are those who believe that the restrictions in the Private Bill Committees on the locus of the petitioners is much more closely drawn than will be the case when the Bill is enacted. I do not know whether the Minister can give us any reassurance on that point. It is clear that people connected with the waterways still feel that the Bill enables an abuse of power. I am sure that my noble friend Lord McNair will speak on that point later.
My honourable friend in another place, the Member for Southport, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, has made it plain that he is far from satisfied about the Bill's provisions on alcohol abuse. He is concerned that the alcohol levels allowed in the Bill are still too high and that particular responsibility lies with the drivers and with other people working in public transport. The levels should be drawn as low as possible in practical terms. Clearly, however, the moment has gone when we can do very much about that. As I have said, the other place has done an unusually good job on this Bill. Generally speaking, it is now in a workable form.
However, I feel hesitant about the procedure we are allowing in this House today—especially on a Bill that contains 72 clauses and four schedules. It seems to me that to allow such a Bill to go through your Lordships' House, which is supposed to be a revising chamber, in a matter of minutes—or, at most, in an hour and a bit—is an abuse of what this Chamber is supposed to be for. This is a complex and technical Bill. Noble Lords whom one would have expected to be present to participate in our deliberations on this Bill are not present today. I am sure that their contributions would have been valuable if they had had more time to peruse the Bill and to examine some of its more detailed provisions and if we had had more time to deliberate upon it.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said in the last debate that too many amendments tend to be tabled to Bills. Although that may sometimes be the case, there have been many occasions when when this House—in Committee or on Report—has discovered problems in Bills that others have not. Some Bills can be pushed through quickly without any regrets, but the history of Bills that have been rapidly forced through Parliament is not a happy one. The Official Secrets Act is a classic case. It was pushed through by a Liberal government in 1911 and we have regretted it ever since. I do not put this Bill into quite the same category, but the ability of this House to scrutinise Bills should be jealously guarded.
I was not consulted about whether the Bill should be included in the wrapping-up proceedings—that is not necessarily anybody's fault, but I was obtainable if people had looked a little harder than they did. I am not saying what I have just said because I was not consulted but because I feel that, on behalf of the House as a whole, one must protest about this abuse. I hope that when future governments come to their
1526
last year in office they will consider the amount of business for that last year. There has been far too much business in this last Session of Parliament for the Government to have any hope of getting it all through. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the difficulty for the next government, of whatever flavour or mixture, to be able to guarantee that this Bill, if not passed today, could still reach the statute book. However, I imagine that this House would have a fair amount of time in the first few weeks of the new Parliament in which it could deal with a Bill such as this—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, both in this and the previous debate. He referred to a "mixture" government. Is that the level to which the Liberal Party now seeks to ascend?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we shall abide by the decision of the electorate. If the electorate has the good sense to return a Liberal Democrat government we shall be ready to provide one for the country. Apart from that, we are interested in participating in any other mixture in which we can participate. However, that is not a matter for this House or for this debate.
The Bill will pass on its way. I very much hope that it will improve the planning procedures and that we are not throwing any babies out with the bath water. I hope that the environment will not be damaged at any stage as a result of the Bill and that procedures are improved, but I have the gravest doubts about that. Above everything else, I have the gravest doubts about the procedure that we are adopting this morning.
1.7 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for introducing the debate and the Bill so clearly. I was hoping to be able to welcome the Bill absolutely because I thought that it would speed up the procedures governing the very necessary orders that enable the works that are covered by the Bill to get underway speedily.
That leads me to address an issue that is causing considerable concern to many current promoters of Bills in Parliament. This issue relates to the seeming lack of time limits for the determination of an application for an order under the proposed new procedure. Quite clearly, the rules applying to the new procedure will set a timetable for the giving of the relevant notices of application for an order, for the lodging of objections, and so forth. The inquiry procedure will no doubt run along the lines of a highways inquiry and the inspectors will do their job in their usual professional and efficient manner.
It is the period after an inspector has made his or her report to the Secretary of State about which the promoters or, as they will probably be called, the applicants are concerned. Once an inspector has made his report, there is no compulsion on him to make a final determination of the matter. This situation could last a long time.
The promoter's concerns are threefold. First, the Secretary of State acts in a dual capacity. He acts in a

1527
quasi-judicial role in deciding on the merits of the application, having taken into account his inspector's report. However, together with the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, he is or may also be responsible for decisions on the funding of such projects as may be the subject of an application for an order. It is felt that there may be a danger that such financial considerations may interfere with what should be a separate judgment of the merits of the scheme in question.
The second point is that these days one always expects, and perhaps even requires, significant investment from the private sector as well as the public sector. Naturally, a promoter would seek to ensure, so far as is possible, that he has the funding for a project before he embarks upon the costly exercise of applying for an order. He would seek commitments from investors. Obviously those investors would wish to know the extent of their commitment in terms of cost but, what is equally important, in terms of how long that commitment must last. Without an investor being able to have the certainty of knowing when a decision was to be made it will be difficult to get him to commit himself. That applies equally to public bodies which need to be able to plan ahead and to have a clear indication of the level of funding and when it will be needed.
The third and final reason relates to changes in respect of blighted property. Under the present Private Bill procedure and planning procedures, a property is blighted legally only once the Bill is enacted or planning permission is granted. It is recognised that that can cause unfairness. The Bill provides that land is blighted when an application for an order is made. That may well remedy an existing wrong, but it would put bodies such as the passenger transport executives, which are likely to be the users of the new procedures, under great financial strain. They may well have to buy properties long before a decision on their application for an order is made. No scheme funds will be available, and so purchases would have to be funded from the executives' existing resources which, in today's financial climate, are already being squeezed.
The result would be that other sectors of public transport will suffer. That situation could arise in respect of a scheme which may not even be approved, and the executives could well be left with a great deal of property on their hands which they may not be able to dispose of easily. For that reason alone, it is important that decisions on schemes are made as quickly as possible.
I have heard the arguments that aggrieved applicants could always seek redress from the courts by way of an application for mandamus, but why should they have to? Besides which, I hardly see that that would make the proposition any more attractive to investors. It would merely mean greater unnecessary expense. Surely, good government means that decisions are made in a timely fashion.
Finally, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the fact that applicants will be paying a fee for the process
1528
and should therefore be entitled to have the process dealt with expeditiously. I should be grateful if my noble friend would answer those points.
1.13 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I agree that the Bill is a desirable one for the purposes for which it was originally intended: primarily to expedite much needed work on railways and other forms of guided transport, docks and harbours. Despite some of the difficulties adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, there is general support for it. It is not a party matter even in an election period, although my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis does not seem to believe that.
We all recognise the parliamentary stresses of the current Private Bill system and acknowledge, as did the Joint Committee, that some action is required. But the late inclusion, without due consultation, of the inland waterways is another matter, and in my opinion that inclusion was possibly misjudged. Some of the waterway interests are in danger of being sacrificed to the necessities of the railways, docks and harbours.
I am not speaking of the designated commercial waterways. There the problems are comparable with those of other forms of transport and they are concerned mainly with unsuitable or conflicting rights of navigation; for example, which authority is to control river navigation. Should it be the NRA or the British Waterways Board? But the management of the cruising and so-called remainder waterways belongs to another world. They affect a host of personal and highly individualised interests. Unless one has had close experience of it, it is difficult—especially, if I might say so, for civil servants—to understand.
We concluded, late in the evening of 4th March, consideration by the House of a Private Bill promoted by the British Waterways Board. Most of us hoped that that Bill would be taken to another place rather than dropped and subsumed in the Bill now before us. Of course, we appreciate the reasons for pushing the Transport and Works Bill through all its stages today. They were described adequately by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We acknowledge fully the efforts made by the Government, and especially the Minister, to co-operate and so far as possible to meet proposals and suggestions.
At noon yesterday I received a helpful letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It came of course from the Department of the Environment and not from the Department of Transport. Co-ordination between the two departments does not seem to be complete. Her letter was helpful. It had clearly been drafted a week ago, but she has been so much preoccupied by other matters, including education, that I in no way blame her for not being able to send it earlier. Nevertheless, the other place has been working on the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, since 2nd December. A major change in parliamentary procedure is before us. Much of it is desirable but much of it is dauntingly legalistic for any

1529
non-legal person to understand, and that covers the great majority of users of this country's noncommercial waterways.
A number of amendments have been tabled, even as late as today, which indicate some of the general worries that still remain in the minds of noble Lords. This morning I spoke to the senior executive officer of the British Waterways Board at its headquarters in Watford. He had received no information that the Bill was to be taken through all its stages today. He confirmed that the British Waterways Board intended to revive its present Private Bill after the election and to take it to its conclusion in another place. He added that the British Waterways Board hoped that the inland waterways provisions of the Transport and Works Bill would, in practice, be used in a few special situations only where the Bill's provisions could be helpful, but he hoped that it would not be a matter of general administrative application.
It is only right to inform the House that, although this was an off-the-cuff judgment given in a telephone conversation, it is quite clear that the British Waterways Board does not wish to use the provisions in this complicated Bill more than it has to in order to obtain the desirable development. We clearly have to accept the situation today. There is all-party agreement to get the Bill through, but this underlines the belief of some of us with experience of the inland waterways that possibly a more thorough review of the legal position may be desirable. Legislation passed in 1968 or earlier, together with various successive Private Bills, may not adequately meet the changed conditions of today.
The considerable growth of interest in the quiet enjoyment of inland waterways, which I have observed since I first became involved as a Minister more than 20 years ago, is perhaps a response to the increasingly stressful aspects of our modern life. With that, I leave the matter until consideration of the amendments.
1.21 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation and also to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her comments. This is a useful and necessary piece of legislation in respect of roads, trains and tramways. It could also be useful in respect of the inland waterways. However, I understand that the people who framed our timetable for this Bill also prepared the British Waterways Bill with its general powers. In view of all that has gone before on relations between the British Waterways Board and its customers, I am sure that the Government will understand the real fears of the navigational users of the canals when considering the Transport and Works Bill. It appears that it seeks to reduce the influence of those directly involved with the waterways. That seems to be at variance with the Citizen's Charter. The Government must be beginning to wish that they had never invented the charter because it keeps being cast at them.
Nevertheless, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, impressed upon your Lordships last week in the Third Reading debate on the British Waterways
1530
Bill, waterways legislation needs consolidation and clarification. I believe that if the Transport and Works Bill is applied to waterways, it would only serve to complicate matters still further.
This House gave clear markers to the other place last weekend that the general powers Bill would benefit from considerable amendment before it became acceptable to the main user organisations whose constructive views had been passed with considerable emphasis to many of your Lordships. I believe that the process of clarification and simplification should be carried out as soon as possible. For preference, waterways would not be included in the Bill but should be dealt with in further legislation.
As your Lordships know, no opportunity was given to the user organisations involved with the canals for consultation on the Transport and Works Bill before its publication. That was said to be a simple mistake, but canals were not included in the original draft of the Bill. Although the Government have made several concessions, many users still feel that inland waterways do not sit easily with the other operations for which this Bill was originally designed. While the users see some advantages in the Bill in respect of new or newly restored waterways, we need strong assurances from the Minister—possibly stronger than the off-the-cuff remarks to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred—in respect of the waterways provisions in the Bill. We feel that the Bill has not given sufficient consideration to the waterways and certainly the consultation process in advance of its publication was inadequate.
I do not believe that I am allowed to refer to officials by name, but an official at the Department of Transport took part in a meeting where canal user interests were represented. He said that a local public inquiry would be held where the objections were substantive. Who is to say whether the objections are substantive? I can see that this would be fruitful ground for complex disagreements. Ground rules need to be laid down and bodies such as IWAAC should be statutory consultees under a provision on the face of the Bill in respect of works relating to the canals.
An assurance has apparently been given that IWAAC will be involved in drawing up new procedures and rules for applications and objections. However, I repeat that IWAAC should be a statutory consultee.
I refer your Lordships to comments I made in our debate on the general powers Bill, and I apologise for constantly referring to it. On the Motion that the Bill do now pass I mentioned the attitude of the British Waterways Board to consultation. Its tactics and strategy in regard to consultation are quite clearly aimed at downgrading the process of consultation in general and the importance of IWAAC in particular.
I welcome the addition of Clause 5(7) which I am sure will meet some of the anxieties expressed by the navigational interests. But on the subject of consultation in general, both in relation to this Bill and the general powers Bill, it happens too often and in too many policy areas for comfort or confidence that those directly affected are not consulted in

1531
advance of proposals being drawn up. Apart from being more democratic, that would save time, taxpayers' money and effort in changing proposals at a later stage.
If I may be permitted to develop the thought a little further, this unsatisfactory state of affairs is a direct result of the climate of secrecy and the "closet" government that all Administrations have operated since time immemorial. After the election, the new Government will, of course, rapidly introduce comprehensive and effective legislation on the freedom of information.
1.28 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend and Members of the House for not putting down my name but I shall be brief. First, I wish to congratulate my noble friend on the clarity with which he introduced the Bill. I am sure we are all grateful for that.
I am afraid I cannot add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who used the expression "abuse" about 12 times. He was keen to show that this was an abuse of procedure and one understands the argument, but he is an experienced parliamentarian and I am surprised that he does not accept this as a practical parliamentary procedure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I accept that perhaps there was an overuse of the word "abuse". However, I think that the noble Lord will agree that the Minister himself said that the matter had rested unchanged since 1870. Here we are completely revising the statute on these important matters in an hour and a half. That seems to me to be something of an abuse.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for interrupting me since he now says "something of an abuse". I accept that it is an unusual procedure and that this is a sensitive Bill. However, my purpose in speaking on Second Reading is to express the concern which has been put to me.
One could not help thinking, with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he seemed to be happy over the dilemma about whether the Bill should be lost because he won two amendments in association with the noble Baroness. We all await our turn to see whether we have won any amendments or concessions on our amendments.
My purpose in speaking on Second Reading is to express the general worry about the future of the consultation procedure. The Crossrail Bill, for example, involves the interests of something like 1 million people. It is a Private Bill. Would a Bill of that size come under the procedure that is being used for the Bill we are discussing? If that is the case, how can my noble friend be assured that all private individuals will have the same rights of protection as regards consultation as they would receive under the Private Bill procedure?
The noble Baroness, Lady White, is an eloquent speaker on the subject of inland waterways. I believe she is a custodian, in parliamentary terms, of the inland waterways. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, is
1532
also deeply interested in the inland waterways. The noble Baroness mentioned the concerns that have been expressed by the Inland Waterways Association. As she said, there are thousands upon thousands of users of the canals. Those users largely come under the representation of the inland waterways, although in a fairly loose form. I congratulate the representatives of the inland waterways on the work they have done in another place. I also congratulate my noble friend and his department on taking a great deal of trouble to try to allay the genuine fears people have, particularly as regards the consultation procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to environmental assessment in one of his amendments. I hope my noble friend will say whether the duty of environmental assessment in the draft directive which I believe Brussels has issued conflicts with our position.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, regrettably the amendment to which the noble Earl refers is rather more limited than that. I wish it were otherwise. If the noble Earl studies Amendment No. 15, he will see what it spells out.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I was asking my noble friend to clarify the position between the Brussels interest in environmental assessment and the Government's.
1.32 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the general support that this Bill has received in the House. I of course recognise that it is not entirely satisfactory that we should take all the stages of the Bill through the House in one day. It is a large Bill and it changes the Private Bill procedure which has been in place for well over 100 years. However, as I said in my opening speech, the Bill has involved a good deal of consultation and a good deal of work by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which considered this procedure. Therefore it is not a matter of considering entirely new ground.
Nevertheless it would have been useful if this House could have scrutinised the Bill further. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, succinctly described the dilemma we face. I believe that most noble Lords and most Members of another place would like to see this Bill on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the large number of schemes coming forward at the moment which would otherwise have to be dealt with by the Private Bill procedure. This new procedure will be better because it will save the time of Parliament in dealing with those schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that some of the schemes were only of local importance. I believe it is much better that they should be dealt with locally.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said the history of all stages of Bills being pushed through the House in one day has not always been a happy one. I should add, however, that we have lost Bills such as this at the end of a Session. Their loss has been regretted and it has not always been possible for an incoming

1533
government to bring them back into the legislative programme very quickly. Therefore there are two ways of looking at that point.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord McNair, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred to the inland waterways and particularly to consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. As I said in my opening speech, it is common ground that that body was inadequately consulted before the Bill was published. Be that as it may, since the Bill was published the department has met IWAAC and other inland waterway interests on three occasions. On one occasion my honourable friend the Minister responsible for shipping was present. The Bill was carefully explained at those meetings and it was also explained in writing.
Amendments have been drawn up which in effect prevent the closure, or alteration of status, of an inland waterway. IWAAC is among the bodies which are being consulted about the rules to be made under Clause 6. There will be a further meeting with IWAAC about that and other matters as the secondary legislation is developed. The normal process of consultation is taking place and any fears about a future lack of consultation are totally unfounded. I shall deal with the matter of other inland waterway concerns in Committee.
The question of an environmental impact assessment was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I can assure the House that an environmental statement will be required under the rules for all but the most trivial works projects. That is not mentioned on the face of the Bill because the requirement already exists in European law. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will know that directives must be transposed into national law correctly. It would not be sensible to put the whole directive into primary legislation. There is no point in merely stating that environmental assessment is required. We shall therefore he doing what is necessary in the rules under Clause 6. That has the advantage that if further directives arise we can change the rules without disturbing the primary legislation.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, referred to the alcohol limits mentioned in another part of the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, the limits are the same as those in use in road traffic legislation. We gave a great deal of thought to this matter and we concluded there was no evidence that lower limits were justified by the greater level of skill involved in driving a train or a heavy lorry. It would be unjust to discriminate against railwaymen, and in the case of tram operators the relevant personnel would be on the road. Different limits would be quite unjustifiable in those circumstances. We debated this matter during the passage of the road traffic legislation. The limits themselves can be changed by a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses so that if it is decided in future that all limits should be lower, that can be achieved without the need for new primary legislation.
1534
My noble friend Lord Teviot raised several points. As regards timetables, administrative guidelines on timetables will be issued but it is not possible to set hard and fast limits for decisions by the Secretary of State. He must of course make the right decision as otherwise a judicial review might lead to an even longer timescale.
My noble friend also referred to the mix of financial and planning considerations that face the Secretary of State. I take his point. The Secretary of State must separate in his mind financial and planning considerations. I can assure my noble friend that there is nothing new about that.
My noble friend also referred to funding certainty and to blight. We certainly take his point about the certainty of funding. While blight payments do not have to be made when a Bill is deposited, it has become the custom to do so to relieve hardship.
I shall now discuss the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, as regards the British Waterways Bill. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the British Waterways Bill is the Bill of the British Waterways Board and the Government are not responsible for it. This Bill is of course a Government Bill and is framed by different people. The inland waterways were mentioned in the consultation document and they always formed part of the Bill.
The greater part of the British Waterways Bill is concerned with general duties. The Bill we are discussing concerns procedures for approving works and ancillary matters. Orders under this Bill will not be capable of setting aside general powers permanently as Clause 5(3) ensures that orders under the Bill may repeal only local legislation. Therefore the provisions of general public and private statutes such as the constitution and duties of the British Waterways Board and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council may not be changed without recourse to Parliament.
In particular, if the general duties of the board as drafted in the British Waterways Bill which we have just passed become law they, too, cannot be set aside by an order. Equally, if the board wishes to seek the kind of powers provided in the British Waterways Bill parliamentary sanction will continue to be required. Given the Bill's extremely laborious passage through this House I know that that is unlikely to please all our colleagues, but the Transport and Works Bill is very much designed to apply to the consideration of essentially local works schemes.
Finally, I think that I have answered most of the points raised by noble Lords, but I should like to pick up the question raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull as to whether Crossrail, for example, could be dealt with under this procedure. The answer to that question is yes. That is an example of the type of Bill which might very well be dealt with under the procedure. I suggest that it would be the sort of scheme on which Clause 9 would have effect. There would be parliamentary approval in principle for such a large scheme. However, I cannot accept that there would be any less opportunity for the public to make representations than at present under the Private Bill

1535
procedure. In the case of a scheme such as Crossrail there would be a major public inquiry just as there is at present for a major road scheme or power station scheme, for example.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reference to the Crossrail Bill. Can he give an assurance that the Crossrail Bill will proceed as a Private Bill and will not be withdrawn and swept up under this new procedure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that assurance is not for me to give. The Government are not promoting the Crossrail Bill. It is a British Rail Bill. As I understand it, that Bill has started its progress and let us hope that it is completed.
I hope that I have answered most of the points which were raised by noble Lords. Of course we shall deal with others during the Committee stage. In the meantime I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
1.40 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT OF OXFUIRD in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders as to inland waterways etc.]:
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, after ("State") insert ("after satisfying himself that proper consultation with any authority, organisation or individual who will be affected has taken place,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and 5 to 14. The amendments emphasise the need for consultation generally, and I shall not repeat laboriously what I said at Second Reading.
In so far as concerns Amendment No. 2, I am a little puzzled as to why the procedure is established only for tidal barrages. I should very much like to know why that procedure cannot be the same for inland waterways.
Turning to Amendment No. 3, the Secretary of State has the power to dispense with the procedure and simply make an order. I should like to ask the Minister why that is necessary. If one is making rules, surely the point of having those rules is that they should be complied with. Consultation, a vital part of the democratic process, is important and is likely to result in better legislation. I do not wish to speak for long on the amendments, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 13. As we discussed
1536
earlier at Second Reading, the question of consultation under the new procedure of public inquiry is clearly vital to the Bill. Everyone knows and trusts the well-tried Private Bill system which allows a right to attend and allows people to feel that they have been given a good and sensible hearing. What we do not know—and here I speak on behalf of associations—is whether the obligatory rights which the Secretary of State will have under the Bill will cover not only the people who would normally be advised but also those who have a statutory right under the Transport Act 1968. Amendment No. 5 seeks to embody that right and to ensure that the Secretary of State, when he receives an objection, will be obliged to hold a public inquiry. I hope that my noble friend can give an assurance that at least no body will lose its consultation rights as a result of the new procedures.
This was a matter which was discussed in another place, as were the issues raised by my other amendments. However, those who are affected were not entirely happy with the assurance that was given. I hope that my noble friend will be very firm in giving his assurance.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to Clause 15 which deals with assimilation of procedures. That will be more apt when the regulations are published. Once again I am seeking an assurance that no one will lose their right to notification, under the Transport Act 1968.
The final amendment to which I should like to refer is Amendment No. 13 which relates to Schedule 1. The bones of the Bill will be formed by the regulations which will follow. Those ministerial orders will authorise railways, tramways and inland waterways under this fast track procedure. It is a minor amendment, but it reflects the anxiety that it is not clear that land under water is included. The purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification.
Baroness White: Amendment No. 14 is included in the grouping. The only purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to draw attention to the astonishingly wide powers which it is proposed to give to any Minister dealing with the matters falling within Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill. I put down the amendment as an example of a matter which bewilders any lay person reading a Bill of this kind. The 18th item of Schedule 1, which is obviously preceded by 17 other items—or at least 16 other items since the first paragraph is explanatory—concerns:
"The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament".
Surely it is taking matters a little wide to give the Minister such discretion. He might be able to get it within either Clauses 1 or 3 for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the main purposes of the matter. This was an exclamation mark rather than an amendment. I treated it as such. I cannot help thinking that any person with a little boat on one of the canals can suddenly see all this happen. If there is any operation of any kind provided for in Section 3 it might be used as an excuse for altering the powers of any body established by any Act of Parliament.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to noble Lords for their exposition of these amendments. I am also grateful that they have agreed to put the amendments together in a group and to the noble Baroness, Lady White. Perhaps I may deal with them briefly but, I hope, conclusively.
Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary. The requirement to be placed on applicants relating to consultation and notification of draft Clause 3 orders will be set out in rules made under Clause 6. Under those rules anybody will be able to object to a draft order. If there are objections from statutory objectors—local authorities and landowners whose land would be compulsorily acquired—which are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State will have to give them an opportunity of giving evidence to an inquiry or hearing. In practice, an inquiry would almost certainly be held where statutory bodies such as IWAAC oppose the order. However, once the inquiry had been held, and the inspector has presented his important recommendation, the Secretary of State must make a determination on the evidence before him. Further consultation at that stage, whether with the applicant or objectors, would suggest that he is ready to consider fresh evidence. He could not do that without giving other interested parties an opportunity to comment on the new evidence. Otherwise he would be acting contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is unclear what purpose Amendment No. 1 would serve other than to delay the decision-making process.
Turning to Amendment No. 2, the power in Clause 4 to prescribe description of works is limited to orders relating to works which interfere with navigation, because the nature of these works are potentially many and varied and by dealing with the matter in this way we can ensure that all cases can be covered without the need to resort to the Private Bill procedure. This is not a problem with inland waterways, the works for which do not necessarily need to be prescribed in that way. Therefore, I submit that the amendment is unnecessary.
I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend the undesirable effect which will result from Amendment No. 3. By removing subsection 6(6) the Secretary of State would be prevented from promulgating the application rules relating to orders under Clauses 1 and 3. Without such rules we would be unable to implement the order-making system. The omission of subsection 6(5) would prevent the Secretary of State from making rules providing for fees for processing orders.
If subsection 6(4) were taken out, a useful provision enabling the Secretary of State to dispense with certain rules relating to the form of the application or the consultation and notification requirements would be lost. For example, an environmental impact statement would not be needed for penalty fare schemes, nor would it be necessary to consult the railway inspectorate about an inland waterway scheme. But this amendment would mean that both might be required. In exercising his powers under subsection (4) the Secretary of State would be bound to act reasonably because his decisions would be subject to
1538
judicial review. I can give an unqualified assurance that we shall consult about the rules that have been made under Clause 6.
Amendments No. 5 to 7 seek to expand the protection afforded in this Bill to the interests of inland waterway users. I fear, however, that the amendments will not in practice have that effect. I start with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to Clause 15. Following amendments to this clause in another place, it will simply not be possible to do in regulations what paragraph (b) of new subsection 3(A) seeks to prevent. Regulations under Clause 15 will be able only to assimilate two procedures so that the process of giving notice and public inquiries can be run in parallel. It cannot oust the rights of anyone. Paragraph (a) is positively undesirable. It would mean that we could not line up Schedule 13 of the 1968 Act with the procedure under this Bill. We have explained in detail to IWAAC what is proposed and will of course consult them on a draft of the regulations which are subject to the enrolment procedure. There are positive advantages for IWAAC in being able to adapt Schedule 13. For example, we shall be able to provide a longer period for lodging objections. Amendment No. 5 is consequently unnecessary. I might add that it should refer to Section 5(7) and not to Section 5(6).
Schedule 13 of the 1968 Act already gives in substance the rights which the amendments would confer. Since the regulations to be made under Clause 15 cannot displace those rights, organisations representative of waterway organisations will still be able to insist on an inquiry.
Amendment No. 8 runs counter to Clause 3(1) (a), the provision which would enable orders under the Bill to authorise the construction and operation of inland waterways. I can see no good reason why works to inland waterways should not be included in the scope of the Bill. If they were not, they would continue to have to come to Parliament for approval.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 are designed to give a level of protection to inland waterways' land which is not accorded to any other statutory transport undertaking. The effect of these amendments is undesirable, as it would mean that any proposed transport system which intersected with an inland waterway could only be approved by Parliament. I am confident that the Bill already provides perfectly adequately for the protection of inland waterway interests.
Amendment No. 13, too, is unacceptable, the purpose of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 is to make clear that orders under Clauses 1 or 3 can adjust or rescind private agreements or contracts relating to land affected by the proposed works. If the Secretary of State were to sanction a provision of that sort he would be bound by the rules of natural justice to ensure that proper arrangements had been made for protection of the interests affected by this provision and, where necessary, for financial compensation. I can see no reason why inland waterways should be excluded from such provisions. The effect of the amendment could be very undesirable. For example, it could fetter the ability of the Secretary of State to

1539
authorise an order for a new railway under the River Thames, or any other inland waterway for that matter.
The concerns reflected in these amendments have been fully discussed by officials of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment and with representatives of inland waterway users. As my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said, many of them were debated in another place as well. In answer to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, land under a waterway is land by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978. If that is a little legalistic, I am afraid that that is the way things are.
I turn lastly to Amendment No. 14, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord McNair. The purpose of paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 was to put beyond doubt the Secretary of State's powers by order to make small adjustments to an applicant's own or another body's statutory powers in connection with an order under Clauses 1 or 3. For example, an order for a new privately operated transport system might include a provision to extend the remit of the London Regional Passenger Committee to that new system. However, on reflection we agree that paragraph 18 might just be perceived as going too far in its application and that the sort of limited changes that might be required as part of an order can be achieved by virtue of the provisions in Clause 5(3). I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord McNair, after what I fear has been a rather lengthy but I hope a useful explanation, to withdraw his amendment. I hope that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 will not be moved. When we reach it, I shall advise the Committee to accept Amendment No. 14 to which I have just referred.
Lord McNair: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I am particularly pleased that the Government have decided to accept Amendment No. 14. As others have said, we shall look at the way in which the Bill works in practice and reserve judgment on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
2 p.m.
Clause 4 [Description of works for purposes of section 3]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Applications for orders under sections 1 and 3]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Objections to route of certain works
.—(1) Where the objections to the making of an order under section 1 above are to be the subject of a local inquiry, the Secretary of State may by notice served on the persons making such objections or by the notice announcing the
1540
holding of the inquiry, direct that any person who intends at the inquiry to submit that any transport system or proposed transport system to which the order relates should follow an alternative route, shall send to the Secretary of State within such period as may be specified in the notice, being a period not less than 14 days and ending not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the holding of the inquiry, sufficient information about the alternative route to enable it to be identified.
(2) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under subsection (1) above in relation to an inquiry, the person holding the inquiry and the Secretary of State may disregard so much of any objection as consists of a submission in which the direction applies unless the person making the objection has complied with the direction.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill already makes provision for the Secretary of State to ignore objections where they are deemed to be frivolous. However, it seems appropriate that the power should be extended so that the Secretary of State can ignore objections to the principle of a project where that principle has already been debated and approved by Parliament.
There seems no justification for public inquiries in those cases to consider the principles of projects. The ground rules would be clearly established if the principle is written into the legislation. However, although the Bill could be improved on in terms of clarity—if such provision were included in the legislation it would avoid debate on whether or not a particular objection was frivolous—I shall be content for the situation to be dealt with in the rules if the Minister were so inclined. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have some sympathy with the principles that lie behind the new clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The purpose of a public inquiry is to examine the merits of the development set down in the draft order. Certainly it would not be conducive to effective and expeditious decision making if inquiries were to become bogged down in debating the merits of alternative schemes or alignments which neither the inspector nor the applicant had been notified about beforehand. It would be particularly unhelpful if objectors were able to put forward fanciful alternative routes at an inquiry merely as a delaying tactic. Having said that, we think that the noble Lord's objective would be achieved rather more effectively in the inquiry rules. The proposed new clause might make it more difficult for the inspector to disallow evidence relating to alternative routes where the objector has complied with the none too onerous requirement of identifying the alternative route 14 days before the start of the inquiry. That would be counter-productive.
It is our intention to make rules under Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 based on the Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990. These fix a timetable for pre-inquiry procedures. In particular, statutory objectors and anyone else who says that they want to appear at an inquiry can be required to produce a statement of their case within four weeks of being asked to do so. Objectors who produce such a statement are entitled to appear at the inquiry; otherwise the inspector has discretion to

1541
refuse an appearance, although that is not unreasonably withheld. At the inquiry itself the inspector can refuse to hear irrelevant or repetitious evidence.
We are satisfied that these rules provide a useful model for the inquiry procedures for Clauses 1 and 3 orders and that we can adapt them to meet the spirit of the noble Lord's proposals. We shall, of course, consult widely on the rules and they will be subject to the annulment procedure. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Inquiries and hearings]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Assimilation of procedures]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Matters within sections 1 and 3]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 not moved.]
Baroness White Baroness White moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 36, line 32 leave out paragraph 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendment of Harbours Act 1964]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 43, line 31 at end insert:
"("5A. After section 48 (service of documents) there shall be inserted.—
"Environmental duties of harbour authorities.
48A. It shall be the duty of a harbour authority in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under any enactment to have regard to—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest:

(b) the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to places of natural beauty; and

(c) the desirability of maintaining the availability to the public of any facility for visiting or inspecting any building, site or object of archaeological, architectural or historic interest;

and to take into account any effect which the proposals may have on the natural beauty of the countryside, flora, fauna or any such feature or facility.")".
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes the legislation beyond that which was agreed in another place. The amendment speaks for itself. It is an important amendment dealing with the environmental duties of harbour authorities. I hope that it will be regarded as a great improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The amendment seeks to impose on harbour authorities a general duty to have regard to environmental and conservation issues when carrying out any of their statutory functions. It is a theme which noble Lords may recall came up during the passage of the Ports Act 1991. While there is a wide range of measures already in place which impose
1542
environmental and conservation requirements on harbour authorities, we accept that the duty which this amendment imposes could be seen as supplementary to the raft of existing legislation dealing with these matters. In particular, the general duty (which, indeed, some harbours already have in their local Acts) would pull together these various requirements and plug any possible gaps in the existing framework, so as to ensure that these important matters are given proper attention in the way the harbour authorities carry out their functions. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having moved the amendment. I recommend that the Committee accept it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for that concession.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments; Report received.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Transport and Works Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Timeshare Bill
2.9 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In the dying days of this Parliament I hope to persuade your Lordships to pass this long overdue and greatly needed consumer protection Bill. In many ways the timeshare concept is admirable and it is not the purpose of this Bill to criticise it or to interfere with its availability. According to the best estimates, there were by 1990 about half a million timeshare owners across Europe, with a quarter of a million people becoming timeshare owners in this country during the past five years. Surely that would not be the case if thousands of individuals and their families were not happy with the timeshares that they had purchased. However, there is another and darker side to the story.
Regrettably, the timeshare industry has attracted more than its fair share of sharks. It is to their activities that the Bill is directed. Despite its length, which has much to do with ensuring that it is watertight in order to prevent evasion by unscrupulous people, the purpose of the Bill is simple. It compels all vendors of timeshare within the United Kingdom, and in certain circumstances outside the jurisdiction, to allow a minimum 14-day cooling-off period. During that time potential purchasers have a chance to change their minds, thus adding timeshare

1543
to the list of situations in which the consumer can be pressurised and therefore needs a degree of protection; for example, life insurance and doorstep selling.
I am sure that many noble Lords, and indeed most households in the country, have received a circular which appears to announce that they have "won" a glittering prize—perhaps a car or a holiday in some exotic place—and that all they have to do is to attend a friendly holiday presentation in order to collect it. People who fall for that approach either through naivety or optimism are likely to be subjected to anything up to seven hours of hard sales technique. Every trick in the book is used to persuade them to sign the contracts. Many succumb, but in the light of day, when free from the pressure of the salesman, they come to regret it.
With all too few exceptions it is then too late. Some contracts may appear to include a cooling-off period but when that is tested often the assurance counts for nothing. Sometimes release from a contract can be bought by forfeiting the contract or by paying a percentage of its price. Often people are stuck with a contract that they do not want and, even worse, may not be able to afford. It is not surprising that local authority trading standards departments receive some 10,000 complaints a year about timeshare. Approximately one-third of those relate to the absence of an obligatory cooling-off period. Surely that is proof positive that a substantial number of purchasers of timeshare come to regret their purchase. It also says much about the effectiveness of the sales techniques to which they have been subjected.
I now turn to the Bill. Although it is simple in concept, it consists of 13 clauses and one schedule. There are three reasons for that. First, as I previously mentioned, it is to ensure that it is watertight. Secondly, it is necessary to include provision for enforcement. That is inevitably a lengthy process since in creating a criminal offence one must define precisely the nature of the offence and the defences available against it. Thirdly, since many timeshare agreements are accompanied by credit agreements, it is necessary to provide the proper machinery for the cancellation of these.
Clause 1 of the Bill consists of definitions. It defines the contracts to which the Bill applies; that is, any contract which is governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whether made in the UK or abroad. That is important because many timeshare contracts specify that they are not subject to UK law. Isle of Man or Channel Island law is frequently invoked. This measure makes it impossible for timeshare companies to use that as a device to get round the provisions of the Bill. The honourable Member for Basingstoke, who introduced the Bill in another place, told me that a great deal of attention was given to whether the provisions of the Bill may be extended to contracts not signed under UK law but later disputed in the United Kingdom courts. He was advised by some experts that it would undoubtedly prove to be a legal minefield which was best left alone. He accepted that advice and I am afraid that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to argue with it.
1544
Disputes about timeshare contracts not signed under UK law are best resolved in the courts of the appropriate country. If judgment is obtained in a foreign court, it is enforceable in the UK in accordance with the normal principles of private international law as applied under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982.
Clause 1 also defines what is meant by timeshare accommodation, timeshare rights, timeshare agreements and timeshare credit agreements. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is a complex Bill. It is important that it does not inadvertently catch non-timeshare actions such as the granting of leases, student lettings or repeat hotel bookings.
Clauses 2 and 3 are the meat of the Bill. Clause 2 makes it obligatory for anyone selling timeshare by way of business (the "offeror" in the language of the Bill) to make the offeree (also in the language of the Bill) aware of his rights for at least 14 days after the agreement has been made to cancel the agreement. The Bill makes it a criminal offence for the offeror not to do that.
Clause 3 contains parallel provisions for timeshare credit agreements which often form part of the total timeshare package. However, there is one exception: failure to provide notice of credit agreement cancellation rights will not be a criminal offence. The reason for that is that no criminal offence is created under the cooling-off provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It would be wrong to adopt a stricter approach in the case of the selling of timeshare. There are those who advocate cooling-off periods of seven, 14, 21 and 28 days. Fourteen days was the length of time which the Director General of Fair Trading recommended for a cooling-off period in his 1990 report on the timeshare industry. Therefore, that has been adopted in this Bill.
Clause 4 contains certain supplementary provisions to Clauses 2 and 3: first, the offeree has no cancellation rights if he is acting in the course of business; secondly, a blank notice of cancellation must accompany notice of cancellation rights; thirdly, that notice must be in such form as may be prescribed; and, fourthly, agreements are not invalidated by contravention of Clauses 2 and 3. That last provision enables the purchaser/offeree to have the right to enforce the agreement if he wishes. It does not affect his cancellation rights.
Clauses 5 and 6 make provision for the purchaser's rights under the Bill to cancel a timeshare agreement or timeshare finance agreement. The basic right is contained in subsection (1) of both clauses. Subsection (2) extends the right of cancellation indefinitely if the purchaser has not been notified of his rights. However, that is subject to subsection (3) which says that if the purchaser affirms the agreement after 14 days, then he loses his cancellation rights. It is for the courts to decide what constitutes affirmation, but basically it means that the purchaser loses his right to cancel if by a positive action he has made it perfectly clear that he is happy with the agreement.
Clauses 5 and 6 make provision for what happens after the agreement is cancelled. The purchaser is entitled to the return of any deposit or moneys he may

1545
have paid over. In the case of a credit agreement, the position may be complicated by the involvement of the third party—the finance company. The consequences of cancellation are therefore set out in more detail in a separate clause, Clause 7.
Except for necessary changes in wording, Clause 7 is identical with subsections (1) to (3) of Section 71 of the Consumer Credit Act. It is important that the provisions of the Timeshare Bill should be consistent with the broader legislation regarding consumer agreements.
The rest of the Bill contains standard and technical provisions. Clauses 8 to 11 are standard provisions regarding enforcement. They are more or less drawn word for word from the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. Clause 8 allows timeshare sellers a due diligence defence in the event of failure to provide the purchaser with a cooling-off notice and places certain conditions on the defendant if he wishes to claim that his omission was due to false information or the fault of another.
Clause 9 makes it possible to prosecute employees of timeshare companies in appropriate circumstances and also renders directors and managers of bodies corporate, or members of partnerships in Scotland, liable if an offence is committed. Clause 10 calls up the enforcement schedule. Clause 11 lays down time limits for prosecutions.
Clause 12 contains a number of general provisions which are grouped together here for convenience. Subsection (1) makes it clear that a cancellation notice does not have to be in a prescribed form to be effective. Subsections (2) and (5) are designed to ensure compatibility with the Consumer Credit Act. Subsection (3) allows for notices of cancellation getting lost in the post—or timeshare companies claiming that they have been. Subsection (4) is important since it ensures that the purchaser cannot sign away his right to cancel. Subsection (6) contains certain necessary definitions, and subsections (7) and (8) contain the necessary order-making powers. Clause 13 contains the Short Title and provides for entry into force and application in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the enforcement schedule contains standard provisions laying a duty of enforcement on local authority trading standards departments (the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland) and giving powers regarding the production and seizure of documents and information stored on computers.
I hope that I have made myself clear. The Bill received a warm welcome on all sides in another place and completed its stages there unamended and unopposed. Not only that, it also has the backing of the legitimate operators in the timeshare industry and of the timeshare council. I hope that your Lordships will accept my apologies if I have been long-winded but the matter needed some explanation. However, I believe in the Bill's simple objectives and warmly commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
2.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, for introducing the Timeshare Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill and I therefore make clear that I am speaking only for myself and not for my party. I have a general welcome for the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl is right in saying that the measure is generally desirable. The whole area of timeshares requires to be addressed in legislation.
I have four observations about this Bill which might be considered relevant. First, I understand that the question of timeshare is being considered by the European Commission. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct me, but I understand that a Community-wide solution to the timeshare problem may well emerge at some fairly close future point, in which case this Bill will either be relevant and apposite or it will have to be totally revised. There is a little questionmark as to whether it is wise to go ahead with this measure if we are to revise it completely in a very short period of time as a result of Community activity.
My second point refers to the expression in Clause 1(7) to which the noble Earl referred about the law of the United Kingdom. I have had some communication with the Minister on that point. It is settled private international law that there is no such body of law known as the law of the United Kingdom. I understand that there are many statutes that apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that it can be said that there is such a thing as a "concept" of the law of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as the law of the United Kingdom. There is the law of constituent parts for the United Kingdom but that is a different matter. I understand why the expression has been included and the noble Earl explained quite carefully why. If one is dealing with statutes, then it is possible that as regards criminal offences there can be various interpretations of what is and what is not the law of the United Kingdom which would play a role.
On the other hand, if one is dealing with contracts and private international law, there seems to be a much greater problem if the contract itself is expressly written to be governed by the law of the United Kingdom. One cannot have jurisdiction of a concept, but one can have jurisdiction of a law. When the noble Lord the Minister comes to reply I ask him to comment on that observation because it seems to me and to the Law Society of Scotland, which has advised me on this matter, that it is an anomaly. That has nothing to do with the fact that Scotland has separate law from England and Wales and from Northern Ireland, but is simply a general comment which the Scottish Law Society has been kind enough to make.
The third point is the provisions in Clause 4(3) which provide that,
"An agreement is not invalidated by reason of a contravention of section 2 or 3".
The Bill is concerned to provide obligations to give notice of a right to cancel a timeshare agreement and that is provided for in Clauses 2 and 3. A failure to comply with these provisions results in criminal penalties. That is all very well but it does not help the

1547
person who has signed the contract. If one has signed a contract it does not help to get out of it if one knows that the other signatory is in prison or has suffered a fine. What is required is some arrangement that sanctions for violating Clauses 2 and 3 should not only be criminal, but the ability to cancel the agreement.
My fourth observation concerns the cooling-off period. In property transactions, generally speaking there is no cooling-off period. It is certainly a question as to whether a cooling-off period should be extended to all property transactions. A cooling-off period is useful only if there has been full disclosure of what is on offer and sold. For instance, as regards a house purchase it is a question of caveat emptor. The buyer will take such precautions as he or she feels necessary to ensure that he or she is perfectly certain about what is on offer.
If there is no full disclosure in the case of a timeshare, then the cooling-off period seems to have slightly less relevance. A cooling-off period is useful only if there has been full disclosure by the timeshare operator prior to the contract. That full disclosure would have to include, for instance, how the development is to be financed; what steps are taken to ensure that it will be completed with all the facilities that have been advertised; what guarantee there may be that services will be provided and what the relationship is between the developer and manager of the timeshare. Unless all these things are disclosed prior to the signature of the contract, a 14-day cooling-off period does not seem to me to have a great deal of relevance.
Those are four observations which I offer to your Lordships. It is not my intention at all to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill or to move any amendments when we come to Committee stage, if indeed we do. But I hope very much that the Minister, when he comes to reply to the debate, will be able to reassure me on the points that I have made.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing this Bill and congratulate him on the way in which he did so. As he made plain, it is quite a complex measure, but nevertheless he made clear to the House the nature and the purpose of the Bill and indeed the need for it.
I should like to emphasise that this Bill is not an attack on timeshare as a product, whether it is timeshare properties, as we normally understand them, timeshare caravans or timeshare fishing rights. There are many thousands of satisfied timeshare owners in the United Kingdom and around the world, I have no doubt. I am sure that there will be many more in the future. The Bill aims to help those who find themselves committed to purchasing timeshare properties that they do not want and may not be able to afford simply because they have succumbed to dishonest and unethical selling tactics.
There is not much that I can add to the exposition which my noble friend has given, but perhaps I could say a bit about the background of the Bill, outline the Government's position and deal with some of the
1548
matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. In 1990 in response to a request from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Director General of Fair Trading conducted an inquiry into the timeshare industry and published a report on its problems which included a comprehensive set of recommendations for action. Among these was a right for the consumer—the "offeree"—to withdraw from the contract without penalty during a 14-day cooling-off period. The director general also recommended that in view of the international nature of timeshare the European Commission should consider measures to control abuses in the industry throughout the European Community.
We agreed with that recommendation and last February, therefore, the Government asked the European Commission to bring forward a directive addressing the problems which the Director General of Fair Trading had identified. I am glad to say that the Commission has reacted positively to our suggestion and has drafted a directive which I understand it hopes shortly to be able to submit to the Council of Ministers. If, as we certainly hope, that happens within the next few months, we would attach priority to carrying it forward during our presidency.
We are assured that the directive will include a cooling-off period and it might then appear that the Bill before us will thus simply duplicate what European legislation is likely to provide for. But we cannot be sure what any ultimate European measure is likely to look like, nor when it is likely to arrive. The Community wheels grind surely but slowly.
Meanwhile, the mischief which we are addressing is with us here and now. Despite all the publicity which these operators have rightly attracted, unethical and unacceptable practices by timeshare sales companies continue. That is the reason why we support the Bill before us.
These practices are all too often effective because they catch the consumer when he is vulnerable and he is bullied—I do not think that that is too strong a word—into signing a contract which as soon as he has had time to reflect he regrets. We believe a cooling-off period, which is what this Bill provides, should do much to make such tactics ineffective. This Bill should draw the teeth of the sharks which currently disfigure what is otherwise a respectable industry. We believe that this should be done straightaway if their victims are to be protected. It is for that reason that we support the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why the agreement is not invalidated when notice is not given. It is in case the purchaser wishes to enforce it against the seller. There is no reason why he should be deprived of his right to do that. With regard to the law of the United Kingdom, the noble Lord referred to the fact that I had written to him on the subject. The answer is that if Clause 1(7) (a) did not refer to the law of the United Kingdom it would be open to the parties to provide that their contract was governed by the law of the United Kingdom and thereby avoid the

1549
application of the Bill. The reference therefore avoids what would be an unsatisfactory result. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.36 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for their kind words and for the welcome they have given to the Bill. Perhaps I may deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. First, on the European dimension, it will take time to get a solution onto the statute book. In the meantime, if nothing is done, there will be potential purchasers of timeshare who will not enjoy the protection that the Bill will give. We do not know for how long they would remain unprotected.
On the noble Lord's second point, I am no expert on the finer points of law regarding contracts and the overseas dimensions. I believe that the Bill does the best possible. On the noble Lord's third point, I believe that the Bill will have a powerful deterrent effect and therefore one would hope that people will not find themselves in the position of having to fulfil these contracts despite the fact that the offeror who has committed the criminal offence is in prison. Fourthly, the noble Lord touched on the subject of caveat emptor. The Bill seeks only to address this specific problem to do with the timeshare industry. It does not cover all the problems. It is not intended to absolve purchasers, and potential purchasers, of timeshare of the necessity of making the proper inquiries and searches. I believe that the 14-day period is sufficient not just as a cooling off period but that it also gives time, if someone is really in a hurry to make a purchase, to carry out the proper searches and inquiries. I have nothing further to add except to say that I look forward to seeing the Bill become law. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992
2.40 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this order I should like, at the same time, to speak also the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope Act) Order 1992. I seek the approval of the House for the two orders. The first—the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992—I shall for convenience refer to as the No. 2 exemptions order and the second—the
1550
Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992—I shall refer to as the extension of scope order.
The No. 2 exemptions order will introduce exemptions from the requirements in Section 57 of the Financial Services Act. Under that section, investment advertisements may be issued only if they have either been approved by, or issued by, persons authorised under the Act. Section 57 aims to protect investors from misleading advertisements. The Government attach importance to avoiding, wherever possible, unnecessary controls which add to the costs of legitimate business.
The No. 2 exemptions order is intended to remove certain restrictions on publishers of investment advertisements in this country where the advertisements are aimed at, and by their nature are of interest only to, professional or expert investors. In future, such advertisements will not require approval by an authorised person. That requirement has led to unnecessary delay and costs for publishers and advertisers, without any corresponding benefits for investor protection.
Article 2 of the order defines the professional and expert investors to whom advertisements may be addressed for the exemption to apply. To help publishers and advertisers, Articles 3 and 4 include indications to be taken into account in considering whether an advertisement benefits from the exemption. Article 5 exempts documents which relate to securities admitted to dealing on the markets listed in Schedules 1 and 2, where the rules of the exchange require or permit the document to be published. Article 6 exempts advertisements issued by markets listed in the schedules to the order as regards the facilities that they provide.
The extension of scope order is intended to bring back within the scope of the Financial Services Act investment advice given in pre-recorded telephone messages, screen-based systems and other electronic communications systems. Giving investment advice is an activity which may constitute investment business under the Act. Investment advice given in any television or radio programme and teletext transmission was originally exempt.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 introduced the concept of "programmes service" to the Financial Services Act. That had the effect of widening the scope of the exemption for investment advice to include advice given on 0898 telephone numbers and screen-based systems. That could have had undesirable consequences for investor protection and the present order restores the exemption to its previous more limited scope. Investment advice in programmes for transmission on televise on or radio, or on teletext, will remain exempt.
The changes before the House today will make for more effective regulation under the Act. Taken together, they will reduce unnecessary costs while maintaining adequate investor protection. As such, they have been warmly welcomed during the department's consultations. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for introducing the Motion. I usually take great interest in orders under the Financial Services Act because they often contain controversial elements. However, the present orders contain no controversial elements, bar one which I shall note in passing because I do not wish to resist it.
It is the case that the extension of scope order is an order under what is known as a Henry VIII clause; in other words, it changes primary legislation by means of a statutory instrument. It would be wrong of me to let that go through without a quick remark. I know that your Lordships will have ways and means in the future to deal with such matters. As regards the substance of the orders, I agree that they are right and that they will make for better regulation in the future. I see no reason to oppose the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992
Lord Reay Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1992
2.45 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations benefit small employers in their operation of the statutory sick pay scheme. They implement the announcement made on 7th February in another place to increase the contributions payments level at which employers may qualify for SSP small employers' relief from £15,000 to £16,000 from 6th April 1992.
The regulations also provide for such small employers to revert to 100 per cent. recovery of the SSP paid out to an individual employee after six weeks, irrespective of the rate at which it is paid. This ensures that where SSP payments span the usual up-rating date of 6th April the employer's rights to 100 per cent. recovery remain protected. This is largely a technical amendment and has no administrative impact on the employer's operation of the SSP scheme. The regulations are entirely beneficial and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations, which are welcomed on this side of the House. I well recall that when the statutory sick pay legislation was originally debated in your Lordships' House, we on this side of the House, along with other peers, were very anxious to ensure that there should be small employers' relief. This further improvement in the regulations is very much welcomed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Class 1 Contributions— Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1992
2.47 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1992.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the contracted-out terms at least every five years. His report and that of the Government Actuary were laid with the statutory instruments and they demonstrate how technically complex this subject is. I propose to avoid burdening the House with too many technicalities and to concentrate as far as possible on the broad principles.
It may help to put these statutory instruments into context if I remind the House that since 1978 occupational pension schemes have been able to contract out if they guarantee to provide a pension which is at least as good as the state earnings related pension. In return a reduction, commonly called "the rebate", is made to the national insurance contributions for such contracted-out employments.
The Government Actuary reports that the cost to schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions has been decreasing as the average rate of accrual of guaranteed minimum pensions declines. For the five years from April 1988 to April 1993 the rebate is set at 5.8 per cent. Following consultation, the Government Actuary has concluded that the range of uncertainties caused by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Barber case concerning equal treatment in occupational pension schemes makes it more sensible for the rebate level to be based on the costs for the first three years of the period only. He assesses that figure as 4.77 per cent. in his final recommendation to the Secretary of State, who accepts both that view and the recommended figure—subject only to rounding the figure to 4.8 per cent. The 4.8 per cent rebate will be shared so that employees receive 1.8 per cent. and employers 3 per cent.
Turning to the second order, in some circumstances contracted-out schemes may transfer their liabilities for guaranteed minimum pensions to the state scheme. This "buying back" is achieved by paying a state scheme premium. This premium is payable by the occupational pension scheme to the state scheme to transfer the liability for the guaranteed mimimum pension from the occupational scheme back to

1553
SERPS. The actuarial tables contained in the order before us today represent the average cost of providing a guaranteed minimum pension and are used to calculate the level of the state scheme premium payable.
The recommendations made by the Government Actuary will in most cases reduce the level of the state scheme premium payable. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted the Government Actuary's recommendations for that sensible adjustment.
My right honourable friend announced in another place that the Government would be consulting the pensions industry and other interested parties on the implications of equal treatment for contracting out. Those consultations are under way. In considering what changes are needed, we intend to give particular consideration to the scope for moving from flat-rate rebates to rebates related to age, at least for personal pensions and possibly also for other contracted-out schemes.
I hope that I have demonstrated how the Government have continued to safeguard the interests of those people who are contracted out through the rebate and buy-back terms. The House will see, I think, not only how complex this subject is but how these two statutory instruments fit into the Government's overall pension strategy, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation of these highly technical instruments. This side of the House has no objection to offer. We regard the orders as uncontroversial, and I have pleasure in accepting them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1992
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1992
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the proposals before your Lordships seek authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to raise a levy on the employers in the engineering construction industry to finance the board's running costs and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme. The proposals do not relate
1554
to engineering manufacturing as that part of the engineering industry moved to independent training arrangements in the middle of last year. The basis of the proposals is a levy of 1.5 per cent. on the payroll of site employers in the industry, although no levy will be paid by firms whose payroll is £75,000 or less.
Site employers will also pay a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by them for sub-contract labour. For head office establishments there is a levy of 0.4 per cent. of payroll on those with more than 40 employees. In addition, head offices will pay a levy of 0.5 per cent. on all payments made by them for sub-contract labour. The proposals have the support of the employers as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the board's full support. Your Lordships will know that the Government remain committed, as a general rule, to independent employer-led training arrangements.
However, engineering construction is an industry which has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry, the mobile nature of its workforce, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of sub-contract and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances in this sector of the engineering industry.
For those reasons the industry argued strongly for the need to retain statutory arrangements, including the power to impose a levy on employers. They argue that that is the best way of ensuring that sufficient numbers of new entrants are trained and brought into the industry and that the skills of existing workers are kept up-to-date.
We were persuaded to accept those arguments and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board was established in its own right in the middle of last year. At the same time, the engineering manufacturing sector opted instead to set up its own independent arrangements and was taken out of the statutory system.
I am happy to say that since then the ECITB has worked hard in partnership with the industry to meet the manpower and skill needs of this important sector of the economy. Employers in the industry remain firm in their support for the board and clearly this will be taken into account when the next review takes place in 1994.
We were concerned though to ensure that statutory burdens on firms are kept to a minimum and that firms who train appropriately are rewarded. To this end, we asked the new board to replace its head office exemption scheme by a voluntary code of practice based on the Investors in People initiative, to raise the exclusion level for small firms and to review the effects of its grant scheme on training employers.
I am pleased to say that all those issues have been addressed. In the proposals before your Lordships the small firms threshold has been raised for both head offices and sites. Also, the exemption scheme has been replaced by a grant scheme designed to reward those employers who train in key skill areas and those who seek Investors in People awards.

1555
I believe that it is right for 1992 that the House should approve the proposals before it and I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft statutory instrument. We accept it on this side of the House. He will not be surprised, I am sure, to learn again from me this afternoon that we regret the demise of the Engineering Industry Training Board. We still believe that there is a role for statutory provision in the engineering manufacturing industry.
We are glad that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has been established, although I have a query about the exclusion of small firms in this context. It seems to me that it is often in relation to small firms that safety issues are most important and are often overlooked. Training plays a vital role towards ensuring safety. The engineering construction industry, like the construction industry generally, does not have a good record when it comes to safety issues.
Having said that, we accept the order and will watch with interest to see how the new board functions.
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rochester, I have been instructed to welcome the order and wish it godspeed. There is obviously a tremendous case for it in this important industry. It is important for exports to raise the skills of the whole industry. So for once we are able to commend the order.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for supporting the introduction of the order today. I note carefully the comments that the noble Baroness made. It is important that we should ensure that the training is carried out in this important, albeit small sector of the industry.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that the Engineering Training Authority, Entra, has achieved a remarkable number of things in a short time. I know that she was worried that when the manufacturing sector was hived off—if I may put it like that—it would not achieve its objectives. It is the leader in the development of standards in the engineering manufacturing industry and it has developed excellent working links with TECs. It is piloting various training initiatives. However, its most tangible success so far is the support it has been given by employers in the industry. Over half a million employees are now covered through their employers' membership of Entra.
I believe that we agree that the engineering construction industry is different from most, if not all
1556
other industries, and needs to be treated accordingly. I know that the proposals before your Lordships have the support of the employers in this industry and have been approved by the board. I believe that they should be approved by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Bill
3 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This was a Private Member's Bill in another place promoted by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim and it had full support across all parties. Although it is short and simple, it has important consequences. This simple Bill would remedy a deficiency in existing fisheries legislation and would provide Ministers with parallel responsibilities to those that currently exist for agriculture.
Under the present legislation MAFF and the agriculture and fisheries department of the Scottish Office and local sea fisheries committees in England and Wales are responsible for commercial fish stocks. However, they have no statutory responsibility for the conservation of the wider marine environment. Fisheries affect the wider environment, sometimes through the incidental catch of sea birds, porpoises, dolphins and other marine wildlife in nets. Fishing can damage the sea-bed and remove important prey such as sand eels from the wildlife food chain. The ecological damage in such cases is difficult to assess. It is clear, nonetheless, that the fisheries authorities are in the best position to make this assessment. As matters stand they can legitimately claim to have no responsibility for the consequences of fishing other than those that directly affect commercial fish stocks.
The areas of sea surrounding the United Kingdom support an abundance of marine wildlife. There are 17 species of sea bird in our waters that exist in internationally important numbers. We have national and international responsibilities to protect this wildlife resource. As a signatory to the RAMSAR Convention, the United Kingdom has an international obligation to protect our estuaries and near-shore marine sites—that is to say, marine waters of less than six metres depth at low tide—from ecological damage. The United Kingdom also has an obligation to protect marine habitats that hold internationally important numbers of sea birds through the designation of special protection areas defined in terms of the European Community's directive on the conservation of wild birds.
As I said at the start, this Bill enjoys full government support and cross-party support. It is supported by the National Federation of Sea Anglers, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. If passed, the Bill will not allow wildlife conservation interests to dictate fisheries

1557
policy. The wording of the Bill is carefully modelled on provisions that already exist in relation to the functions of Ministers responsible for agriculture.
The Bill is designed to put in place a statutory mechanism whereby a balance can be formed between a sustainable fishing industry and the conservation of the marine environment. This Bill has become especially important in the light of the proposals for marine consultation areas which were put forward by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office at the end of last month. The system of marine consultation areas that has been proposed is intended to operate as follows.
Sites of marine conservation interest will be formally identified and listed. All bodies taking decisions on proposals that might affect that interest are asked to consult the conservation agencies, which will include English Nature, at the earliest feasible stage. All bodies giving formal approvals to such proposals are asked to check that consultation has taken place. Any advice offered by the conservation agencies is to be given due weight by the decision makers.
The responsibilities of Ministers and of sea fisheries committees within the marine consultation area system will become clear, but this Bill will reaffirm the statutory position of Ministers and sea fisheries committees in relation to those responsibilities. It will also encourage all concerned to take the same integrated approach to the utilisation of marine resources for sustainable use throughout the wider marine environment. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for introducing the Bill. It is a small Bill with only two clauses, but it is an important measure. As is the convention when I speak from this Dispatch Box, I express my personal view, but the noble Earl is correct to say that the Bill is widely supported. Indeed, everyone who spoke in the other place supported it. I shall be extremely brief because we wish to take the Bill through all its stages today, and it consists of only two clauses.
As I said, it is a thoroughly welcome measure and a useful piece of legislation. It is concerned with achieving the balance we need between a sustainable level of fish stocks and the conservation of the marine environment, as the noble Earl said. Your Lordships may know that Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee has just completed the taking of evidence on the report it is preparing on the common fisheries policy. Everyone on that committee has become extremely well aware of the environmental and conservation aspects of fisheries policy.
It is a little surprising that the lacuna in existing fisheries legislation was not remedied sooner, particularly as the Agriculture Act 1986 gives the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a specific conservation responsibility for the flora and fauna of the countryside. As we know, the marine flora and fauna are just as important and just as threatened.
1558
In that connection I am pleased to see from the news release which I received only today from the ministry that plans for preventing the introduction and spread of fish and shellfish disease in Great Britain are to be implemented from 1st January next year in connection with the relevant European Community directive.
As I said, this is a sensible and welcome piece of legislation and it gives me great pleasure to support it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Bill. It is a sensible Bill. It enjoins the Ministers responsible to look at the whole picture. Failure to do so has been the problem in many conservation issues involving farming and fisheries. The case of the sand eel is particularly important and has shown that everything hangs together.
The Bill enjoins the Minister to have regard to those important considerations but does not say that they must take precedence over commercial fisheries. It simply points out that those issues hang together. I am happy to commend the Bill.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to say that the Government welcome and support the Bill. The Government are committed to taking account of environmental considerations in all government activities, as our White Paper on the environment of 1990 made clear.
It is right, therefore, that in carrying out their functions fisheries Ministers and sea fisheries committees in England and Wales should he required to take into account the environmental implications of their decisions. The Government congratulate my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on his efforts to ensure that this useful Bill can be enacted before the Dissolution.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I welcome everything that has been said on all sides of the House. I look forward very much to reading the report of Sub-Committee D in due course. The work which is done by the sub-committees of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities is extremely valuable and influential. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his remarks and I welcome the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have some late business news. It now seems likely that in addition to the Bills which I previously announced to your Lordships would be received from another place, we shall also receive the Museums and Galleries Bill as a result of a further usual channels agreement. It is therefore

1559
intended to take that Bill through all its stages on Monday, after the Friendly Societies Bill and the Army Bill, which we also expect to receive.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I remind noble Lords that, in these circumstances, these Bills are likely not to be reprinted before being considered by your Lordships. Any amendments which your Lordships may wish to move in Committee should therefore relate to the Commons Bill, which is already available, and may accordingly be tabled forthwith.
I apologise for making this announcement so unexpectedly to your Lordships, but noble Lords will understand that the situation is somewhat fluid. I can assure your Lordships that the decision to take the Museums and Galleries Bill is a reflection of the uncontroversial and even, arguably, desirable nature of the measure.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches have been fully consulted about the need for the statement and its nature. Noble Lords may not be aware that attempts to bring the Bill before the House over the past two days have been made repeatedly. There has been no animus whatever as to the nature of the Bill but objections have been raised to the procedures and the exclusions and inclusions to the Bill.
This House has merely been the facilitator of discussions in depth that began in another place. I am fairly certain that on Monday the Minister, when proposing to give the Bill a Second Reading, will explain fully the nature of the Bill and the reason for the hesitation.
1560
Without commitment, and understanding completely the special circumstances of the past two or three days, we on this side of the House look forward on Monday to facilitating the passage of the Bill in these very unusual circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the context of Monday's business—I understand that the Finance Bill will be taken—will my noble friend list the order in which the various measures will be taken?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I believe I am correct in saying that we shall start with finance and then move on in the order which I laid out in the first paragraph of the statement that I have just made.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, for the purpose of proceeding with the facilitation of the business of your Lordships' House in a successful and satisfactory manner, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past three o'clock.