Lords Sitting of 15 July 1994

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

Citizens Advice Bureaux
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide or encourage financial support for citizens advice bureaux.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government provide financial support to the citizens advice bureaux through the grant-in-aid that they give to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and to Citizens Advice Scotland. The Government also welcome the good work of the Friends of the Citizens Advice Bureaux in raising funds to provide one-off grants to local bureaux.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the doubling of the grant since 1979 sounds very generous but is in fact parsimonious because it has not kept pace with the vast increase in the demand for the services of the CAB? Last year the number of calls for advice—many relating to government legislation —rose to 5 million. The present freeze on funding is especially damaging and threatens particularly the work of the CAB in regard to the training of volunteers and the keeping of information files which are two vital pillars of the CAB's work. Will the Government therefore please think again and increase the funding?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we always keep those matters under review. However, the noble Lord is being slightly churlish when he says that the doubling of the grant since 1979 is parsimonious. We are great believers in the CAB network which is why we shall continue to support NACAB, the national body.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a general feeling among social work organisations that the Government take no interest whatever in whether they grow or become smaller? There has been a large increase in funding since 1979 but that is in no way relevant to the demands now made of the CABs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government support the national body at national level. The local CABs are provided for by local authorities. There are some 1,500 CABs nationwide; they provide a very useful source of information. The service is provided at the expense of the taxpayer and the local council tax payer. Generally, the CABs provide an excellent service.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I acknowledge the splendid work which the CABs do locally in advising
2082
people. However, is my noble friend aware that in recent years they appear to have become more and more of a pressure group? Will my noble friend say how much of their funds are spent on work as a pressure group?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, through annual discussions with the national association, we try to decide, to some extent, on the carve-up of funds. But NACAB is an independent body. It is subject to democratic control by its members and. particularly by its member organisations—the CABs at local level. It is true that I have received some letters voicing anxiety about the lobbying work which the CABs do, but I believe that it is right that they should be seen to be independent and remain so.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we are grateful to him, in particular for his latter remarks? We all consider that NACAB does a first-class job on behalf of people who really need help, advice and counselling. We certainly do not want: to be churlish about the grants that have been given so far. But does the Minister not accept that the expansion in demand and need for the services which NACAB offers has been at the behest of government policy? The Government have taken away functions from the local authorities and diverted them to the voluntary organisations. They are relying on those voluntary organisations to fill the gap. But when they do that, they do not receive the necessary funding. Is it not a fact that this year's grant to NACAB will be the same as it was last year and that it is likely to remain at the same level for three years? How can the CABs maintain, let alone increase, the services which are being imposed upon them while the grant is reducing in value?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is true that there has been no year-on-year increase in the past 12 months but now that inflation is firmly under control there is no need for automatic upward movements in public expenditure. We shall keep the situation under review.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is not the part of the expenditure which is devoted to the training of volunteers money well spent? Otherwise, the unpaid services of the CABs could not be enlisted. There are plenty of suitable volunteers. Do the Government value that training, bearing in mind the complexity of the subjects on which advice is now being sought?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The subjects on which advice is sought are becoming more complicated. We need good quality volunteers. There is no shortage of volunteers and NACAB and Citizens Advice Scotland do tremendous work in improving the quality of training.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not true that a major determining factor of demand on the citizens advice bureaux is not inflation but the influence of government legislation? Will the Government consider making a special one-off grant to cope with the huge increase in the number of inquiries the bureaux are likely to receive as a result of the criminal justice Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords; I can see no connection whatever in that respect.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, when I was Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough a close friend of mine was secretary of the local CAB. Is the Minister aware that she recently told me that those bureaux cannot today deliver the same high standards of service because of the shortage of funds?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in response to an earlier question, the responsibility for funding local offices falls on the local authority. I hope that the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, will make representations to the local authority on the basis of her own requirements for the local CAB centre.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, will the Minister kindly consider being a little more generous, not only on the grounds of human misery— because, for many, the world has become more and more complicated—but also on the grounds of economy? Citizens advice bureaux are often the first line of recourse. If they can deal with people immediately, it saves a good deal of trouble down the line with the law becoming involved, great expense being incurred and the whole process proving more of a burden on the nation than the grant which goes to the CAB.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put forward a good reason—and I agree with him—as to why we continue to support the national network. Indeed, last year the grant was frozen when so many other public programmes suffered a reduction in the amount of funding.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think the whole House is pleased to hear the sympathetic response of the Minister. I know that the noble Lord is doing the best he can. I believe we all echo the words of the right reverend Prelate; namely, that citizens advice bureaux are very economical and good value for money from the Government's point of view, apart from anything else. Given that the matter turns out to be the responsibility of his department—which, I must admit, I was surprised to discover—will the Minister recommend to his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade that, at the very least after this year's freeze, this is an area where he could validly press for greater funding in the current public expenditure round with a view to saving money elsewhere within the public budget, which is what the CAB very much helps the Government to do?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, not only is it the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry; the matter comes under my own ministerial responsibility.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: Indeed, it is an area of policy that I find immensely interesting. Of course, the public expenditure round for next year is just starting. As I said, such matters are kept continually under review.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the House would like to move on to the next Question on the Order Paper.

European Council: Subsidiarity
11.16 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What European legislation applicable to the United Kingdom has been revised or withdrawn in accordance with proposals made since 12th December 1992 on the basis of the European Council statement on subsidiarity.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Commission has revised or withdrawn most of the proposals identified in the Anglo-French subsidiarity list submitted last year and a number of those in a separate German list. Most importantly, the principle of subsidiarity is now being applied systematically to all new proposals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. However, is she aware that my Question asked not about proposals but about legislation? Is the noble Baroness also aware that, at the conclusion of the Edinburgh conference in December 1992, the Commission itself set out a list of those matters which were already legislated for—or already enshrined in regulations, decisions or directives —and that it intended to update and, where they were obsolete, to withdraw them? My Question is directed to those matters and not towards proposals, although I am bound to say that on the basis of the recent determination about the importation of toys from China, which are permitted so long as they are human-like, some kind of confusion seems to have emerged.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to the Commission's interim report to the European Council in which it dealt with future legislation on the one hand and recommended,
"more extensive recourse to White Papers and Green Papers to canvass the views of all the interests concerned"—
I shall not continue with the long quote—while, on the other hand, it reviewed the situation as regards existing legislation and pending proposals. It showed that the Commission on 10th January 1994, following up the Edinburgh initiative and the Franco-British document, had formally notified a withdrawal of 10 proposals. It was then suggested that the Commission looked at others, but it has also started the complete exercise of recasting existing legislation on the Customs Union, the right of residence, Pharmaceuticals, competition, trade mechanisms, and so on. What is interesting about the Customs legislation is that 75 instruments have been replaced with just two regulations. If we can continue with that sort of progress, we shall be doing well.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister either confirm or

2085
correct my impression that, despite the need for both the Commission and the Council of Ministers to invigilate the legislation coming, proposed and existing, it is ultimately a matter for the European Court of Justice to police it? Is that not a most important function which ought to be closely inspected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right but we want the court to have less to police. I believe that having now gone from 185 proposals in 1990 down to just 75 in 1993, and 25 new proposals for primary legislation in the first five months of this year, the court will have less to police and therefore will be more able to do the job as speedily as possible.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House think that the Prime Minister deserves congratulations on his diplomatic skills in having vetoed for the presidency of the Commission a Right-wing Benelux Prime Minister with federalist leanings who supports the social chapter and is backed by Chancellor Kohl, thereby preserving the presidency of the Commission for a Right-wing Benelux Prime Minister with federalist leanings who supports the social chapter and is also backed by Chancellor Kohl? Are we to expect any more diplomatic triumphs of this sort in future?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord's question, funny as he and his colleagues may think it is, has—not for the first time—absolutely nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. It is a pity that he does not have it within his heart to congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has done on subsidiarity, as his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has done.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the real test as to whether subsidiarity, so far as important matters are concerned, is genuine or a sham will be whether decisions about the quality of drinking water are returned to national parliaments? Does she not agree that unlike, for example, pollution of the seas and the skies, drinking water is a purely internal matter in every sense of the term, with no cross-border ramifications?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that that seems a sensible suggestion to me.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, now that we have returned to the original Question, may I ask my noble friend first of all to expand a little on the Anglo-French and German lists that she mentioned in her original Answer and to confirm or to deny that other lists are in the pipeline? Is it possible to publish the agreed list in the Official Report?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that official level talks are going on about further co-operation and indeed perhaps other lists, but I do not think that we will get very far if every idea is published when some of it may not have any possibility of succeeding. However, I shall look into what my noble
2086
friend said because we want to get as many of the existing instruments reviewed, replaced or withdrawn wherever possible and make sure that proposals are kept to an absolute minimum in the future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with regard to the Question I put to the noble Baroness originally, is it not quite obvious that the Commission has done nothing at all to revise or to update the legislation which was referred to in the document issued by the European presidency at Edinburgh? Is it not equally clear that it is even making further regulations such as, for example, a European Union visa?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is not quite right here. I look at these matters with great care as he knows, and I see considerable progress being made:. Some of the issues that have already been dealt with —I described the customs union and others—are clear, but there are others which are interliaked with a lot of other legislation. That is one of the reasons why this is not happening quite as fast as either the noble Lord or I would like. However, I can assure your Lordships that we in the British Government will keep up the pressure on the European Commission. I believe we need to give credit where it is due and we should not dismiss the fact that a lot of work is going on in preparation for the Essen European Council and it will be at that council, as it was at Corfu, that we will see further progress being made. I refer the noble Lord to page two of the Corfu European Council conclusions which refer to this matter.

Israel: UK Arms Sales
11.25 a.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assurances they received, when raising the embargo on arms sales to Israel, that British weapons would not be used in Lebanon or elsewhere in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have received assurances from Prime Minister Rabin that Israel recognises its international border with Lebanon and has no territorial claims on Lebanese territory. All applications for the sale of arms to Israel are considered case by case in the light of international guidelines. These include whether a proposed transfer would be likely to increase tension in the region or to contribute to regional instability.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness for an assurance that no licences will be issued which might involve the use of British weapons against Lebanese or Palestinians in defiance of the Security Council resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right in saying that we should regard very carefully any licences, but particularly these licences. Having lifted our arms embargo on Israel we are now in line with our European partners, but that does not mean that we disregard what goes on in the region.

2087
We believe that regional stability is paramount in considering all applications for arms sales to Israel, not only as regards the Lebanese but those in Palestine, the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what precautions, physical and otherwise, will be taken to ensure that our country in no way infringes United Nations Security Council resolutions? A word of mouth promise would be insufficient and could damage the good name of this nation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, all the normal action will be taken by the Foreign Office in this matter. We have certainly worked hard behind the scenes to see a peace come to the Middle East. We want to see the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon as Security Council Resolution 425 calls for. We will go on keeping a close watch because we have been asked by Mr. Arafat to give considerable help in the region. That help would come to nothing unless all the things the noble Lord has asked for were also in place.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at a time of delicate negotiations in the Middle East, Questions of this kind which cast doubt upon the good faith both of the Government of Israel and in fact on the good faith of Her Majesty's Government do nothing to help the peace process and may do something to hinder it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are times when I am sure that Ministers at this Bench have often thought that Questions are not particularly helpful to the matters in hand. However, as far as this matter is concerned, we welcome the efforts that are being made in the discussions between Israel and the PLO which started in Cairo on 1lth July, and indeed the discussions which will start with Jordan next week because it is crucial that the discussions go on. Irrespective of whether the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is helpful or not, what is important is that the discussions towards full peace in the Middle East continue.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that anything which helps the Israeli Government fulfil their obligations under the peace process is extremely welcome? However, this matter is completely different. Does she not realise that it is unprecedented for this country to permit the export of arms to a country which is in breach of Security Council resolutions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is not quite right. What we have done is to make sure that we deal with Israel according to the international guidelines agreed by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council in October 1991, by European Union members in June 1991 and June 1992, and by CSCE countries in November 1993. We are certainly not out of line with our partners in any way but we say that regional stability is paramount when we consider all these matters.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most helpful steps in the peace process would be the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory, as required by Security Council resolution? Can the Minister say what steps we are taking to encourage and persuade Israel to effect that withdrawal?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows only too well, the Foreign Office is continuously engaged in trying to make that happen through the normal channels. However, as I said in answer to an earlier question, we fully support the implementation of Security Council Resolution 425 calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. We make our views clearly known, as we did on the occasion when Israel abducted Dirani from Lebanon. That was a clear breach of international law. Our views continue to be made known throughout.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government also intend to end the arms embargo against Syria? If that is the intention, can she say what the timetable will be?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness an exact answer to that question. Obviously we hope that at some time that will be possible but it will happen only when there is stability within the Middle East.

London Parking: Controls
11.30 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What co-ordination there is between parking arrangements in London on and off red routes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the police are now responsible for enforcing most parking controls on red routes, with the local authorities enforcing parking controls elsewhere. The Secretary of State has issued guidance to the London local authorities which details the need for close liaison with the police to ensure that the two systems operate efficiently side by side.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. In those areas where local authorities are now in charge of parking are they free to extend or impose yellow lines, or is that still a function of the police or the Government? Is my noble friend aware that the public are anxious about these matters because it is understood that the new system may be extended to other cities and urban areas?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, nothing has changed in relation to yellow lines. A local authority has the power to extend yellow lines but before it does so it must consult with the police, advertise its proposals locally and then consider any objections. The vast majority of parking regulations do not require any consultation or approval from the Secretary of State; nor

2089
indeed have they. The possibility of extension of red route schemes to other parts of the country is being considered, but for the moment we are keen to ensure that the system works properly in London and to learn any lessons that we can from experience here before the scheme is extended to other parts of the country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, many local authorities, Ealing in particular, have serious difficulties with illegal parking. They are not sure whether they can have vehicles removed and they have no equipment for that purpose, as the police have. That is the type of problem that has to be sorted out. Can the noble Lord arrange for discussions between local authorities—certainly in the Greater London area—and the police and so assist local authorities who are very keen to do their best to help the ordinary people of this great city?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have issued a framework for parking enforcement in London entitled Traffic Management and Parking Guidance. If motorists park on yellow lines, local authorities have all the power they need to impose fines, to clamp vehicles or, in certain circumstances, to tow vehicles away. It must be for Ealing to decide whether to deal with the matter in-house or—I should have thought much better —to look for a private contractor who might carry out traffic warden work on its behalf.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that ice cream vans park for long periods on double yellow lines in Cromwell Road outside the museum, thereby reducing a main thoroughfare from three lanes to two lanes? Nothing seems to be done about it. If any of your Lordships left a car there for any period of time it would probably be towed away. I have not seen the vans for two days; perhaps the ice cream sellers are on holiday.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall certainly take a look the next time I pass. I can assure my noble friend that ice cream vans are no more exempt from parking regulations than any Members of your Lordships' House. I shall certainly ask my officials to draw the attention of the appropriate London borough to the point he makes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the position regarding the proposed red route, which I understand has been under discussion for some time, from Sloane Square down King's Road to Putney Bridge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one pilot red route is currently in operation. We are looking at how it is working and what we can learn from it. As I believe I explained in answer to a previous Question in your Lordships' House, the London traffic director is looking at additional red routes on which it is hoped traffic will flow freely. That will help not only the motorist but also public transport.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister agree that from the point of view of the public the jury is still out on red routes? Can the Minister say whether there has been a reduction in
2090
pollution as a result of the red routes? That was one of the original reasons for their introduction in addition to the speeding up of traffic. Will he also note the feeling of the House in regard to parking and in particular illegal parking? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is also concerned about the abuse of the orange badge on many occasions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asks a number of questions. As a result of the red route pilot scheme, traffic journeys are now 20 per cent. faster and 40 per cent. more reliable. More importantly, bus journeys are also 20 per cent. faster. Reliability is slightly less, at 33 per cent. It looks as though the red route is making progress. Obviously, if traffic is flowing more smoothly and is not being held up in queues, the level of pollution is bound to be reduced.
I have forgotten the noble Lord's last point. I am told that it relates to parking. The position in relation to parking is that the Government believe that it is right and proper that authorities should impose all the parking regulations in order to help other motorists.

Disabled People: Discrimination
11.36 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement regarding the publication today of a consultation document on measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. The document addresses five key areas affecting their lives. The Government would welcome comments on these proposals in the course of the next three months.
"The Government give a high priority to helping disabled people to live with dignity and independence. Over the last 15 years, much has been done to further this aim. This document seeks to build on that record, offering wider opportunities for disabled people to partake in and contribute to the life of our community.
"As the House will be aware, the Prime Minister welcomed the fact that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was to be examined and discussed in more detail in Committee. This and subsequent debates also provided the opportunity for other voices to be heard in addition to those of the supporters of the Bill—employers, small business and other service providers—the very people on whom the burden of any additional cost would be likely to fall. The Government's consultation document will ensure that all those affected will have the opportunity to comment on the next steps.
"The first issue addressed in the document is that of employment. The quota system, which requires that registered disabled people should make up at

2091
least 3 per cent. of larger workforces, is increasingly recognised as unworkable. Only one third of those in the workforce eligible to register do so—about 1 per cent. The quota scheme, therefore, as it stands cannot be justified and the approach is inappropriate to today's needs.
"Many employers adopt good and sensitive practices when employing disabled people, but the Government recognise that some employers may discriminate unjustifiably against them. We are therefore inviting views on how this unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people can be tackled in this important area.
"One option might be to strengthen the quota scheme itself, but it is hard to see how its underlying problem of low registration could be overcome. Another approach might be simply to repeal the quota scheme and replace it with an entirely voluntary system.
"The Government are aware, however, that there is now widespread support for the present system to be replaced by a statutory right for disabled people not to be unjustifiably discriminated against in employment. Such a right would replace the quota scheme. We are consulting on ways in which such a right might be framed, but the Government would be prepared to reconsider the position if there was substantial support for a workable and effective alternative.
"The introduction of such a right would have to take into account the fact that some people will be unable to do some jobs because of their disability. Employers would also have to consider whether it was reasonably practicable—taking account of cost and other factors—to make an adjustment to the working environment or practices; or to provide specialist equipment to enable a disabled person to do their job. A code of practice would be issued to provide guidance on these matters. We would draw on the experience of employers and disabled people when developing this code.
"We believe the right should apply only to people who have a substantial disability which is long-term or recurring. We are seeking views on how best to define this group in a clear and practical manner.
"The new right, like the quota scheme, should not apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees. "Where individuals believe they have been unjustifiably discriminated against, they would have a right to complain to an industrial tribunal. However, it might be possible to provide as an alternative to full tribunal proceedings a less formal but more practical and more speedy process to resolve such issues.
"Disabled people not only want jobs—important though that ambition is—they also want to be able to participate, to the greatest extent possible, in the full range of activities open to the able-bodied population. It is important therefore to make the environment increasingly more accessible. The
2092
building regulations have done much to make new non-domestic dwellings accessible as well as most extensions to such buildings.
"We are considering whether the regulations should also apply to the design of new domestic dwellings so that they would take greater account of the needs of disabled people. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering advice in this area from the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. He aims to consult on detailed proposals before the end of the year. This will promote an informed debate on the extent to which new dwellings should be made more accessible to disabled people. There will be a similar consultation exercise in Scotland.
"Making buildings physically accessible is of little use to disabled people if they are excluded by prejudice or groundless fears for their safety. We are therefore seeking views on making it unlawful for any person providing goods or services to the public to treat people unfavourably because of disability. Discrimination would be ruled out in a variety of areas including access to public places, accommodation, entertainment facilities such as cinemas, theatres and restaurants as well as facilities for transport and travel.
"The new right of access would not apply where existing physical barriers prevented access or where compliance may create insurmountable safety problems.

"Where access was wrongly denied, a disabled person would be able to take civil proceedings. He or she would be able to recover damages for any financial loss suffered as well as damages for injuries to feelings. In the latter instance, it might be a fixed sum or an amount subject to an upper limit. The Government could vary the sum or limit in future years. Depending on the level of damages for injury to feelings, claims could be subject to the small claims procedure where proceedings are informal, simple and the cost relatively low.
"However, the disabled person might often prefer that the situation which had originally caused offence should be rectified without recourse even to the small claims court. To facilitate the resolution of cases without recourse to legal action, the Government are considering whether to institute a mechanism to help the parties concerned reach a mutually acceptable solution. For example, this might be done by funding a voluntary body to provide an advice and conciliation service for disabled people.
"We have received little evidence of discrimination in the provision of financial services. Nonetheless, we are inviting the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association to develop and issue Statements of Good Practice on the treatment of disabled customers, including clear advice on how to pursue complaints and, in the case of banks and building societies, explain the role of their ombudsmen. The Association of British Insurers, for example, will be asked to include in their Statement of Good Practice the need to be aware of the main

2093
forms of disability and their relevance in assessing the size or probability of an insurance claim; insurers should ask only for medical information which is demonstrably related to the additional risk associated with insuring the disabled person; and the need for insurance companies to have a clear mechanism for the investigation of complaints from disabled people, and for those complaints to be handled sensitively and speedily.
"The ABI will also be invited to set up an independent advisory committee, comprising representatives of insurers and the disability organisations, to monitor the effectiveness of the statement of good practice.
"The banks and building societies already follow the code of practice, Good Banking. This code has, as one of its guiding principles, that banks and building societies should act,
"fairly and reasonably in all their dealings with their customers".
"The Government are committed to tackling discrimination against disabled people. There is a strong case for setting up an independent body which could closely monitor this area and advise the Government on the effect of existing efforts to combat discrimination. This body would work closely with existing bodies representing the interests of disabled people.
"The new body might be called the National Disability Council. In particular, its duties would include monitoring discrimination against disabled people and advising the Government on general issues and measures relating to the elimination of discrimination, and progress towards these aims; drawing up codes of practice, when requested by the Government; reviewing the effect of the new right of access on business; and reporting annually to the Minister for Disabled People, who would be required to lay its report before Parliament.
"The Government themselves, in their triple role as policy maker, employer, and service provider, can and should provide a strong lead. I am now co-ordinating a programme of action developed to build upon the many positive initiatives which are already taking place. Later this year the Government will be launching a major publicity campaign designed to change attitudes and actions that adversely affect disabled people. We will also seek to involve organisations of and for disabled people in wider public consultations and to increase the representation of disabled people on public bodies. "A new Programme for Action on employment of disabled people in the Civil Service, launched in conjunction with this document, will provide a strategic framework and detailed "action checklists" to help departments and agencies recruit and retain disabled people. Many government departments and agencies have already improved the accessibility of their buildings and the quality of service they offer to disabled people. To encourage this approach throughout the public service, a checklist on how the Citizen's Charter principles apply to service provision for disabled people will also be published shortly.
2094
"The Government have an impressive record in helping disabled people—but more needs to be done. This document outlines the Government's proposals for further action designed to release the untapped potential of disabled people in our society.
"I commend the document to the House and ask honourable Members, and all those who share our concern to improve the quality of life of disabled people by removing barriers and expanding opportunities, to respond in a constructive and forward looking way to its proposals." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
11.48 a.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement today. The degree of attention with which he was listened to was, I believe, expected in this House, which has a proud record of being concerned to promote the rights of and facilities for disabled people.
However, let us ask why we are having the Statement. It is about blocking the Berry Bill, which was introduced into this House by my noble friend Lord Ashley. That Bill proposed a comprehensive Bill of Rights for disabled people enforced by a commission. Such was its support in the Commons that it had an unopposed Second Reading. The Minister, Nicholas Scott, chose not to amend the Bill in Committee. When Tory Back-Benchers suddenly tabled 80 amendments at Report stage, the Minister denied responsibility for them. When he had to accept responsibility for them, and to his dismay his amendments were accepted, he had to oppose his own amendments, and himself to talk out and defeat the Bill.
Such was the outrage, not only in both Houses, not only among the disabled, but among the community at large at such disreputable and dishonourable behaviour, that the Government have been forced to come forward with the Statement today.
Instead of a comprehensive Bill, such as that introduced by my noble friend Lord Ashley which would invest disabled people with rights enforceable by a commission, we have in this Statement a grudging series of one-off concessions to disabled people. Of course, they are welcome as far as they go, but they are piecemeal and inadequate and they are not enforceable by any body other than the disabled person.
None of us will deny that the proposals offer piecemeal improvements but they do not go far enough. As regards employment, we share the Government's recognition that the quota system may be inadequate because many disabled people do not register. We know that disabled people are three times more likely to be unemployed and six times less likely to be interviewed. But here we have a code of practice which is not enforceable by a commission. The remedy is only that of an industrial tribunal, which is lengthy and cumbersome. How effective will that be in ensuring that disabled people have full rights in their employment?
Secondly, the Statement refers to access to goods, services, buildings and financial services. Again, these proposals are welcome but inadequate. There are

2095
approximately 4.25 million disabled people but only 80,000 accessible homes. The rate of homelessness among disabled people is twice that of non-disabled people. This Statement will allow enforcement only through civil proceedings and not by a commission. It falls far short of what this House and disabled people are entitled to and demand.
Above all, this Statement is incomplete because it says nothing about the two preconditions for employment and access; it says nothing about education, and therefore access to jobs and employment; and it says nothing about transport, without which most disabled people are denied access to a full life in the community. Why have those two crucial areas of concern, which were covered in the Ashley-Berry Bill, been omitted from this Statement today? Will the Minister please tell us?
I presume that the reason relates to the question of cost. Certainly, that was the issue in debate on 22nd June until Members all round your Lordships' House demolished the Government's figure of £17 billion as being entirely bogus. It was shown that the basis of those figures was the shoddiest piece of research that it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. It had been assumed that all taxis, buses and trains had to be replaced in five years when the Ashley-Berry Bill precisely stated up to 25 years, by which time existing transport facilities will have come to the end of their natural life. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, did a splendid demolition job on those transport figures but after hearing this Statement it is as though that demolition job and the debate in your Lordships' House never happened.
Finally, the Statement announced the appointment of an advisory body to monitor, review and report. In other words, it has a power to do everything except enforce and a power to do anything except make a difference. On 25th May the Minister in another place wrote in a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Sheerman that he wanted proposals that were,
"necessary, workable, affordable and practicable"
The Ashley-Berry Bill, comprehensive and enforceable by a commission, is precisely that. This Statement is piecemeal, partial, grudging, belated, inadequate and incomplete. After 17 years of trying to get a Bill for the disabled, this Statement will not do.
11.54 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am pleased that parliamentary time has been found for it, although many noble Lords and many people outside this place would wish that parliamentary time could be made for legislation. Instead, we are spending time on legislation which is in ping-pong fashion going between this House and another place, and many of your Lordships feel that it is unnecessary or, in many cases, unwelcome.
I was unaware that the Statement was to be made this morning. Indeed, I was unaware until I sat on this Bench some 18 minutes ago. My immediate reaction was that the rights of disabled people are being approached in a crab-wise fashion. Without a Bill of Rights and
2096
fundamental civil rights for all our citizens, we need to address rights for particular groups. However, that immediately leads to a list which, because it does not address the fundamentals, is almost by definition partial.
As regards employment, will the Minister explain how job applications from disabled people can be encouraged? The Statement appears to deal entirely with the reaction to action or inaction taken by employers. I believe that a change of culture is required but that will not happen unless disabled people are encouraged to make job applications in the first place. I welcome the reference to speedy proceedings but unless they are regarded as a real sanction against employers they will be meaningless.
The Statement referred to current building regulations with regard to new non-domestic buildings. That is, however, on the fringe of the issue because efforts must be made to make existing buildings accessible. And they must not be accessible merely by a ramp somewhere round the back, which immediately classifies disabled people as somehow second class. After all, as a matter of environmental sustainability, we should be looking at improving existing buildings, not knocking them down and rebuilding in their place. Indeed, that point applies to domestic dwellings too.
A reference to increased grants for aids and adaptations to existing homes would have been welcome. Perhaps even more welcome would have been increased grants for the housing associations, which do a good job in providing homes for disabled people. However, I hate the "ghettoisation" which this type of approach is sometimes prone to produce.
As regards remarks about access to goods and services, there is a reference to civil proceedings and the recovery of damages by the person who has been affected. Again, I make the point that the sanction must be real. It may be a more real sanction if there is the possibility of a declaration rather than something which deals with the personal position of the individual. There must be the possibility of proceedings which will create change.
There is also a reference to an advice and conciliation service. It is described as being a conciliation service for disabled people but should we not be talking about a conciliation service between those who regard themselves as having been discriminated against and those who are doing the discriminating? It is not a conciliation service for disabled people somehow to persuade them that they should be a little quieter, go away into a corner and not pursue the matter. The language used in the Statement indicates that the Government are still looking at the issue from one point of view; that is, not from the point of view of disabled people. The question of funding for the advisory body will be most important.
There appears to be no mention in the Statement of accessibility to transport. Without access to transport —in other words, without mobility—much of the rest is meaningless. I hope that the Government will bring forward proposals to make transport truly accessible to those who currently do not have that.

2097
Finally, I say again that checklists may often be useful, but they may often also be dangerous. They may be incomplete. We need—to coin a phrase—to go back to basics.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, during the passage of the Berry Bill in another place, and of course during the passage of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in this House, the Government always made it clear that we did not support comprehensive legislation. And we were very clear about the reasons that we did not support that Bill—because of the costs, and because of the difficulties of implementation. We have always said quite clearly that we believe that targeted legislation would be much more effective and would be in the interests of those people with disabilities.
I understand the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not welcome the Government's proposals. She has made it clear on a number of occasions that she welcomes comprehensive legislation. We disagree on the best way to go forward. But I believe that there is agreement on both sides of this House on what the problem is; and we are trying to find a solution. Therefore I hope that all noble Lords, whether or not they support comprehensive legislation, will play a full part in the consultation process that will take place, so that out of that consultation process we will be able to go forward to do the many important things that are necessary.
Perhaps I might respond briefly to some of the questions that were put. I was asked about education and about, as it were, a right of access to education. Nobody has a right of access to a particular school or college. There is already much education legislation in this field for identifying, assessing and making provision for all children with such needs. Pupils with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools wherever possible where it is appropriate for a particular pupil. The wishes of parents and the particular needs of the child must also be taken into account.
Both noble Baronesses mentioned transport. We feel that blanket anti-discrimination legislation is not the most effective way to achieve more accessible transport systems. Targeted initiatives, including specific pieces of legislation and the setting of technical standards, have been introduced over the past few years and have been shown to be the best way to achieve workable and sustainable access improvement. We are already well on course to achieving full accessibility in most areas of public transport over the next 20 to 25 years. For example, all new rolling stock that is built is being made accessible as a matter of course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about building regulations. The important point here is that we want to take forward some of the many improvements that have been made in legislation for certain buildings and consult on whether we need to look at the building of new dwellings—that is, of people's houses, and not only at offices, to which the regulations have been largely related—including, say, at the size of the external or internal doors, whether there is enough space and whether the switches and sockets are accessible. The Department of the Environment aims to consult on
2098
the detailed proposals for new dwellings before the end of the year in a separate consultation with organisations (as I have said) representing disability interests, public and private house building sectors, design professions, local authorities and others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also asked how we can encourage applications for jobs from disabled people. The Employment Service will continue to work with disabled people to ensure that they know about the help and services that are available and to encourage them to apply for jobs. The use of the disability symbol by employers will also help and encourage job applications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about the need for a commission. The consultation document describes a number of ways of helping to reduce disputes without recourse to a full tribunal hearing: through good advice, guidance and conciliation. We want to have a system which is easily accessible, which is not expensive and which will produce the results for disabled people—that is, one which will encourage people to make any changes that they need to make: for example, to make buildings accessible, or indeed jobs accessible.
12.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hop; that my noble friend will answer one or two questions. I should like, first, to thank him for the very clear Statement that he made, notwithstanding the somewhat uncharitable observations of the noble Baroness opposite.
First, there is the question that my noble friend touched on in almost his last sentence, that for a disabled person access to the place of work is often the decisive factor. Where a company decides to improve the access to its working areas in order to facilitate the arrival of disabled people and where a company incurs expense in altering the access so that it is easier for disabled people, would it not be a sensible provision to allow the company concerned to offset the cost of those improvements for tax purposes—in other words, while not asking for a subsidy, to allow that work to be done without tax being incurred, and indeed, with an allowance being made for the cost of it against the tax payable? I hope that that will be considered. It is a very important factor in this matter.
Perhaps my noble friend could do something else. I know it is difficult, but can he give us some idea of the number of people who are affected by this Statement? Obviously, very seriously disabled people are not affected, because they will be incapable of work anyhow. But the vast majority—those with some disability who are capable of work—are directly affected. Although I appreciate that it is not easy for my noble friend to quantify exactly the numbers concerned, can he give me some idea as to the approximate numbers that are involved? The whole handling of this matter will be very much affected by the numbers that we seek to help here.
I tried to follow him, but I could not be quite sure as to whether he had in mind under these proposals laying down, in the case at any rate of larger companies, a provision that they must employ a specified percentage

2099
of staff who have some disability. Is that now intended; and if so, what exactly would be the classification of disability for the purposes of complying with that?
Finally, in relation to the whole of this vastly important matter and the very considerable human considerations, do the Government intend, after the consultation to which my noble friend referred has taken place, to introduce legislation? I know that for protocol reasons he cannot say that they intend to legislate in the forthcoming Session, but he could give us a hint.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I could deal, first, with the last point made by my noble friend about legislation. Obviously, the Government will have to look very closely at what the consultation document produces. If it is felt at one point that legislation is the way forward, the Government will have to look very closely at how that might best be achieved. My noble friend will understand if I am not drawn any further at this stage as to how that might come about.
My noble friend asked me about employers and whether they would have to employ a percentage of disabled people. We all recognise that the current quota system does not work. It does not work for a number of reasons, the first and most important of which is that there are not enough people with disabilities who register as disabled. There are quite a number of people with disabilities who are working and therefore are not registered. As my noble friend will appreciate, when the quota system was brought in, it stood at quite a high figure of 3 per cent. We believe that that figure is probably too high. It is not practical because there are not enough people with disabilities to go round, as it were. So those issues have to be considered. We must see whether we wish to have a new statutory right for disabled people in employment and whether that would replace the quota scheme.
As mentioned in the Statement, we are considering a statutory code of practice which will be issued to provide guidance on matters associated with the new right. The experience of employers and disabled people will be drawn upon when developing that code.
My noble friend also asked about numbers. It is very difficult to tell what the effects might be on numbers. The easiest way to answer is to say that perhaps there are about 6 million people with some degree of disability. But it is important to remember that there are about 2 million such people of working age. My noble friend will appreciate that many more disabled people are retired, because age affects disability, though it is not a disability in itself.
My noble friend asked, if businesses and companies spend money on improving their buildings, access or equipment to facilitate the employment of disabled people, whether they might have some form of deduction made against their tax. That is an important point which I shall bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who naturally has an interest in these matters.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I want to attack the message rather than the messenger. Does the Minister feel that it is a bit rich that this Government
2100
should now begin consultation, 12 years after the first Bill was introduced into another place? Why has it taken 12 years for the Government to begin to consult with disabled people and disability organisations? Is he aware that the sponsors of the first Bill 12 years ago and every sponsor since then, including those of the Bill now before the House, have consulted widely? So consultations have in fact taken place. The Government are not only 12 years behind; they are now duplicating the efforts of other people.
The present carefully prepared Bill, as mentioned by my noble friend, is supported by the majority of Members of the other place, Members of this House and, above all, the vast majority of disability organisations and disabled people themselves. Will the Minister please take on board that the Statement is pathetically inadequate as a substitute for the Bill? It is totally unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to the many people who sponsor the Bill and seek urgent Government action. It will not deter the campaigners from pressing for the Bill. Perhaps he could explain to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the comments made by my noble friends, including the noble Baroness, were to the effect that the Statement is uncharitable to disabled people. It is not my noble friend who is uncharitable; it is the Statement by the Government that is uncharitable.
I am sorry to have gone on at length. Let me conclude by saying that we simply must have a comprehensive disability Bill. Human rights are indivisible. The Government cannot be selective about the kind of rights that they accord to disabled people. Disabled people in this country are entitled to the same rights as those obtaining in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France and Sweden. They are entitled to them and the Statement is pathetically inadequate.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he wished to attack the message and not the messenger. I very much agreed with him when he said on a television programme which took place before we dealt with the Bill that it was a matter about policies and not personalities. The noble Lord is very much in favour of comprehensive legislation and therefore I understand why he is perhaps a little uncharitable himself in describing the Government's proposals as uncharitable. I do not believe that to be the case. As I said, we have come forward with suggestions that will lead to improvements in the lives of people with disabilities in this country.
The noble Lord made an important point when he asked why we needed to consult. He said that these issues have been on the agenda for some years and asked what was the point of further consultation? The answer is quite simple. There has been consultation in the past and that consultation brought about many of the improvements that now exist. For example, in the past we consulted on employment and that produced the Disability Working Allowance in 1990. The Government have a good record in this area. Spending on disability benefits rose to £17 billion in 1993–94—an increase of two-thirds in real terms since 1978–79. So it

2101
is not as though the Government have not consulted in the past. They have brought forward legislation and indeed benefits where necessary.
We are now taking that process further forward. I hope—indeed I am sure—that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will take part in the consultation process, so that we shall be able to improve the lives of those people in our country who suffer from disability.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome the proposals and in particular the proposal to reform the quota system. The need for such reform was emphasised in the debate that I initiated on 13th April. There was support from all sides of the House for the fact that the quota system was not working adequately.
With regard to Private Member's Bills, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is my noble friend aware that Labour Governments faced similar situations? The first such Bill was introduced by me in 1968. That was not 12 years ago but 26 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, was one of the sponsors of that Bill. He had joined the other place two years earlier. That Bill, introduced by me after success in the Ballot, was narrowly rejected after the Second Reading debate in a Division forced by the Labour Whips. We have been through that kind of thing before as regards Private Member's Bills.
Is my noble friend aware that some of us recognise the problems arising in the latest Bill, as explained in our extensive debate on 22nd June? Many disabled people are now unfortunately under the impression that with the enactment of what is called a "civil rights" Bill their lives will suddenly be transformed overnight, though we in Parliament know that that is not possible and that it must take years in various sectors of life. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned 25 years in relation to transport. That is not what many people outside in wheelchairs understand. That is one of the problems which not only governments, but also we in Parliament, must face.
I was partially disabled 49 years ago in the Second World War, and I have been trying, with disabled organisations and disabled people—many of whom have been in touch with me for many years—to explain that the civil rights Bill, which I supported in principle, cannot suddenly transform life for them, though the principles are ones which we all accept and should like to promote. I hope that the consultations will lead to much greater agreement than there has been in the past and that later this year we shall be able to look forward to some proposals.
Viscount Astor: First, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on all the work that he has done over many years for disabled people. As he said, he brought forward a Bill 26 years ago which was then rejected by another place.
Perhaps I can come forward to the debate that was held in relation to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. That showed clearly that there was great support in your Lordships' House for the cause and we were all agreed on that. However, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will agree, the Bill did not receive unanimous support in your Lordships' House. My noble
2102
friend made clear points on what he felt regarding the problems of comprehensive legislation. On an initial view that may look to be the way to go But when one looks at the practical realities of taking matters forward, it is not the answer.
Much has been done by governments—all governments over the past 26 years—the voluntary sector and many other people towards improving the lives of people with disabilities. The consultation document will take that one stage further forward.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I can touch upon one small matter contained in the Statement repeated by the noble Viscount. The proposal that damages for injuries to feelings are to be capped is welcome. But should not that principle be extended logically right: across the board, not least to damages for injury to feelings awarded to servicewomen dismissed for becoming pregnant? They knew perfectly well when they enlisted what the rules of the game were and their feelings therefore cannot be supposed to have been genuinely injured.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, makes an interesting point, not necessarily in relation to disability. However, I am sure that he too will study the consultation document and respond to it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the largest group of disabled people are those who are mentally handicapped? Will he confirm that the; consultation document will bear that in mind and take due note of the discrimination which exists at present against mentally handicapped people, especially with regard to accommodation?
Returning to the question of legislation, I support my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Croy, and other noble Lords. Is the Minister aware that very little can be achieved in this field without legislation? We must be realistic about that. I suggest that the Government should aim to introduce their own Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton makes an important point in relation to legislation. As I said earlier, after the consultation; period we shall look closely to see what is the best way forward. He made some extremely important remarks in regard to those who are mentally handicapped. We shall be consulting on the definition of "disability", and looking at the problems of the mentally handicapped will be included within that.
It may be helpful to your Lordships to point out that apart from the 20,000 copies of the consultation document that will be issued, it will also be available in Braille, signed and subtitled videos, audio cassette and audio cassette for people with learning difficulties.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the Statement: but one point has not yet been covered.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the House agreed to the Procedure Committee recommen dation that there should be a time limit of 20 minutes for supplementary questions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It shows how wrong that was!

Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
12.27 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (73) as first printed by the Commons. ]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 17, insert the following clause:
Jurisdiction of sheriff court or county court in Northern Ireland
'. Proceedings for an order under section 16 (order for delivery up of infringing goods, material or articles) or section 94 (order as to disposal of infringing goods, &c.) may be brought—

(a) in the sheriff court in Scotland, or

(b) in a county court in Northern Ireland.

This does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of Session or the High Court in Northern Ireland.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 15.
The effect of the amendments is to remove from Clause 95 the provision allowing delivery up to be dealt with in the county court in England and Wales. That will make it possible for the Lord Chancellor, at some future date, to make an order confirming jurisdiction for trade mark infringement on one or more county courts, such as the specialist patents county court. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 49, page 23, line 5, after 'section', insert '— (a)'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 7.
These amendments allow persons on the register of trademark agents to use the title "trade mark attorney". They also allow similar provision to be made in the future regarding persons on the list of qualified representatives that will be maintained by the Community Trade Marks Office. That will bring registered trade mark agents into line with patent agents who, for some years, have been able to use the title "patent attorney".
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is not my intention to intervene at any length on any of these amendments. As noble Lords are aware, I favour the Bill and the
2104
amendments very strongly. I particularly wanted to rise to say that these amendments are a distinct improvement and therefore the other place has contributed at least something to the Bill. I warmly support this group of amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with my professional background it would be a little churlish of me not to recognise that the call by the trade marks profession for permission to use the term "trade mark attorney" is an important one. I hope that it will help to consolidate their position on the world stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 49, page 23, line 11, at end insert '; and
(b) making in relation to the list of professional representatives maintained in pursuance of Article 89 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, and persons on that list, provision corresponding to that made by, or capable of being made under, sections 80 to 83 and (Use of the term "trade mark attorney") in relation to the register of trade mark agents and registered trade mark agents.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 72, insert the following clause:
Appeals from the registrar

'.—(1) An appeal lies from any decision of the registrar under this Act, except as otherwise expressly provided by rules.

For this purpose "decision" includes any act of the registrar in exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under this Act.

(2) Any such appeal may be brought either to an appointed person or to the court.

(3) Where an appeal is made to an appointed person, he may refer the appeal to the court if—

(a) it appears to him that a point of general legal importance is involved,

(b) the registrar requests that it be so referred, or

(c)such a request is made by any party to the proceedings before the registrar in which the decision appealed against was made.

Before doing so the appointed person shall give the appellant and any other party to the appeal an opportunity to make representations as to whether the appeal should be referred to the court.

(4) Where an appeal is made to an appointed person and he does not refer it to the court, he shall hear and determine the appeal and his decision shall be final.

(5) The provisions of sections 65 and 66 (costs and security for costs; evidence) apply in relation to proceedings before an appointed person as in relation to proceedings before the registrar.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 16, 18 and 19. All those amendments address concerns about the provision in the Bill for appeals.
The effect of the clauses is to retain the existing appeals procedure so that an appellant has the option of appealing to an appointed person or to the court. Thus

2105
the Bill provides a cheap and quick alternative means of appeal. The jurisdiction of the appointed person has been extended to deal with disputes between an applicant or an owner of a trade mark and a person seeking to contest the registration. I hope that that coverage meets with the agreement of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 After Clause 72, insert the following clause:
Persons appointed to hear and determine appeals

'.—(1) For the purposes of section (Appeals from the registrar) an "appointed person" means a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor to hear and decide appeals under this Act.

(2) A person is not eligible for such appointment unless—

(a) he has a 7 year general qualification, within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

(b)he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least 7 years' standing;

(c)he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least 7 years' standing; or

(d) he has held judicial office.

(3) An appointed person shall hold and vacate office in accordance with his terms of appointment, subject to the following provisions—

(a) there shall be paid to him such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees), and such allowances, as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may determine;

(b) he may resign his office by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor;

(c)the Lord Chancellor may by notice in writing remove him from office if—

(i) he has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors or, in Scotland, his estate has been sequestrated or he has executed a trust deed for his creditors or entered into a composition contract, or

(ii) he is incapacitated by physical or mental illness,

or if he is in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor otherwise unable or unfit to perform his duties as an appointed person.

(4) The Lord Chancellor shall consult the Lord Advocate before exercising his powers under this section.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 73, page 31, line 15, leave out Clause 73.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 After Clause 81, insert the following clause:
Use of the term "trade mark attorney"

".—(1) No offence is committed under the enactments restricting the use of certain expressions in reference to persons not qualified to act as solicitors by the use of the term "trade mark attorney" in reference to a registered trade mark agent.

(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974, section 31 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and Article 22 of the: Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 88, page 37, line 38, leave out Clause 88.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.9 to 14. The House will recall that during Third Reading in this House the Government's attention was drawn to a potential gap in the improvements which the Bill makes to protection against trade mark counterfeiting. These amendments enable enforcement authorities to seek the forfeiture of goods seized wherever they can demonstrate to a court chat an offence has been committed under Clause 92; that is, that the goods are counterfeit. This would also apply, once regulations have been made under Clauses 52 and 54, where the offence relates to the use of a Community mark or an international trade mark protected under the Madrid Protocol. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 After Clause 92, insert the following clause:
Forfeiture: England and Wales or Northern Ireland

'.—(1) In England and Wales or Northern Ireland where there has come into the possession of any person in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a relevant offence—

(a) goods which, or the packaging of which, bears a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark,

(b) material bearing such a sign and intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods, or

(c) articles specifically designed or adapted for making copies of such a sign,

that person may apply under this section for an order for the forfeiture of the goods, material or articles.

(2) An application under this section may be made—

(a) where proceedings have been brought in any court for a relevant offence relating to some or all of the goods, material or articles, to that court;

(b) where no application for the forfeiture of the goods, material or articles has been made under paragraph (a), by way of complaint to a magistrates' court.

2107

(3) On an application under this section the court shall make an order for the forfeiture of any goods, material or articles only if it is satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed in relation to the goods, material or articles.

(4) A court may infer for the purposes of this section that such an offence has been committed in relation to any goods, material or articles if it is satisfied that such an offence has been committed in relation to goods, material or articles which are representative of them (whether by reason of being of the same design or part of the same consignment or batch or otherwise).

(5) Any person aggrieved by an order made under this section by a magistrates' court, or by a decision of such a court not to make such an order, may appeal against that order or decision—

(a) in England and Wales, to the Crown Court;

(b) in Northern Ireland, to the county court;

and an order so made may contain such provision as appears to the court to be appropriate for delaying the coming into force of the order pending the making and determination of any appeal (including any application under section 111 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or Article 146 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (statement of case)).

(6) Subject to subsection (7), where any goods, material or articles are forfeited under this section they shall be destroyed in accordance with such directions as the court may give.

(7) On making an order under this section the court may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, direct that the goods, material or articles to which the order relates shall (instead of being destroyed) be released, to such person as the court may specify, on condition that that person—

(a) causes the offending sign to be erased, removed or obliterated, and

(b) complies with any order to pay costs which has been made against him in the proceedings for the order for forfeiture.

(8) For the purposes of this section a "relevant offence" means an offence under section 87 above (unauthorised use of trade mark, &c. in relation to goods) or under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or any offence involving dishonesty or deception.'.

10 After Clause 92, insert the following clause:
Forfeiture: Scotland

'.—(1) In Scotland the court may make an order for the forfeiture of any—

(a) goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark,

(b) material bearing such a sign and intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods, or

(c) articles specifically designed or adapted for making copies of such a sign.

(2) An order under this section may be made—

(a) on an application by the procurator-fiscal made in the manner specified in section 310 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, or

(b) where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, in addition to any other penalty which the court may impose.

(3) On an application under subsection (2) (a), the court shall make an order for the forfeiture of any goods, material or articles only if it is satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed in relation to the goods, material or articles.

(4) The court may infer for the purposes of this section that such an offence has been committed in relation to any goods, material or articles if it is satisfied that such an offence has been committed in relation to goods, material or articles which are representative of them (whether by reason of being of the same design or part of the same consignment or batch or otherwise).

2108

(5) The procurator-fiscal making the application under subsection (2) (a) shall serve on any person appearing to him to be the owner of, or otherwise to have an interest in, the goods, material or articles to which the application relates a copy of the application, together with a notice giving him the opportunity to appear at the hearing of the application to show cause why the goods, material or articles should not be forfeited.

(6) Service under subsection (5) shall be carried out, and such service may be proved, in the manner specified for citation of an accused in summary proceedings under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

(7) Any person upon whom notice is served under subsection (5) and any other person claiming to be the owner of, or otherwise to have an interest in, goods, material or articles to which an application under this section relates shall be entitled to appear at the hearing of the application to show cause why the goods, material or articles should not be forfeited.

(8) The court shall not make an order following an application under subsection (2) (a)—

(a) if any person on whom notice is served under subsection (5) does not appear, unless service of the notice on that person is proved; or

(b) if no notice under subsection (5) has been served, unless the court is satisfied that in the circumstances it was reasonable not to serve such notice.

(9) Where an order for the forfeiture of any goods, material or articles is made following an application under subsection (2) (a), any person who appeared, or was entitled to appear, to show cause why goods, material or articles should not be forfeited may, within 21 days of the making of the order, appeal to the High Court by Bill of Suspension; and section 452(4) (a) to (e) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall apply to an appeal under this subsection as it applies to a stated case under Part II of that Act.

(10) An order following an application under subsection (2) (a) shall not take effect—

(a) until the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day after the day on which the order is made; or

(b) if an appeal is made under subsection (9) above within that period, until the appeal is determined or abandoned.

(11) An order under subsection (2) (b) shall not take effect—

(a) until the end of the period within which an appeal against the order could be brought under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975; or

(b)if an appeal is made within that period, until the appeal is determined or abandoned.

(12) Subject to subsection (13), goods, material or articles forfeited under this section shall be destroyed in accordance with such directions as the court may give.

(13) On making an order under this section the court may if it considers it appropriate to do so, direct that the goods, material or articles to which the order relates shall (instead of being destroyed) be released, to such person as the court may specify, on condition that that person causes the offending sign to be erased, removed or obliterated.

(14) For the purposes of this section—

"relevant offence" means an offence under section 87 (unauthorised use of trade mark, & in relation to goods) or under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or any offence involving dishonesty or deception,

"the court" means—

(a) in relation to an order made on an application under subsection (2) (a), the sheriff, and

(b) in relation to an order made under subsection (2) (b), the court which imposed the penalty.'.

11 Clause 93, page 40, line 40, leave out subsection (4).
12 Clause 93, page 40, Transfer Clause 93 to end of line 40 on page 9.
13 Clause 94, page 40, line 44, leave out 'or 88'.
14 Clause 94, page 40, Transfer Clause 94 to end of line 40 on page 9.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 14.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 95, page 41, line 29, leave out Clause 95.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 101, page 43, line 31, at end insert:
"appointed person (for pur- section (Persons appointed to poses of section (Appeals from hear and determine appeals)' registrar))
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 107, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. The amendment removes a provision inserted by the privilege amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
18 Schedule 4, Page 60, line 12, at end insert:
'House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)
. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (other disqualifying offices), for the entry relating to persons appointed to hear and determine appeals under the Trade Marks Act 1938 substitute—
"Person appointed to hear and determine appeals under the Trade Marks Act 1994.'".
19 Schedule 5, page 61, leave out lines 28 to 32.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fair Trading Act (Amendment) (Merger Prenotification) Regulations 1994
12.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to provide faster decisions by the competition authorities on particular types of mergers, known as prenotified mergers, within a set statutory deadline. The existing maximum period under Section 75B of the Fair Trading Act 1973 for deciding whether or not to refer such a merger to the MMC is 45 working days. This consists of an initial period of 20 days; followed by two possible extensions, the first of 10 days. and the second of 15 days.
The regulations would cut 10 days off the maximum statutory deadline by providing for only one possible extension of 15 days. So the new maximum period would be 35 days.
The regulations also make a consequential amendment to Regulation 3 of the Merger (Prenotification) Regulations 1990. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-Competitive Practices (Exclusions) (Amendment) Order 1994B
12.33 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order aims to modify the de minimis thresholds applicable to investigations of anti-competitive conduct under the Competition Act 1980. The order changes the thresholds in two ways. First, it increases the turnover threshold from £5 million to £10 million. Secondly, it decouples the turnover threshold from the market share threshold. Businesses no longer have to fall below both thresholds in order to be excluded from investigation. Instead, they will be excluded if they or their group fall below either the turnover threshold or the 25 per cent. market share threshold. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an immensely important order and I am delighted that the Minister has introduced it. I can see nothing controversial about it and I hope that we are able to proceed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1994B
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee],
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, which is located in Heidelberg, was established by an inter-governmental agreement in 1973. It was to promote co-operation among European states in molecular biology. It has 15 member states: Austria, Finland, Israel, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the European Union states except Portugal, Ireland and Luxembourg.
The EMBL has decided to set up an "outstation" called the European Bioinformatics Institute, the EBI, which the United Kingdom, I am delighted to say, has successfully bid to host. The EBI is to be located at Hinxton Park, near Cambridge.
The EBI will be a home to the existing EMBL data library but will also have various research and development functions. Germany and Sweden also made competing bids but the excellent scientific arguments in favour of Cambridge, including this country's strengths in genome research, protein structural studies and computing, won the day. The UK bid was organised by the Medical Research Council working with the Office of Science and Technology. I am grateful to the Wellcome Trust for its generous contribution of half the cost of the building for the EBI. I am delighted that the EMBL has chosen Cambridge as the location for the EBI. I hope noble Lords will join me in welcoming it to the United Kingdom and wishing it every success in its endeavours.
A draft agreement has been negotiated between the Government and the EMBL concerning the status of the EBI. Specifically, this debate is about the privileges and immunities accorded under the draft order which are necessary to fulfil our obligations under the draft EBI agreement. I should like to emphasise that the privileges and immunities accorded give no more than is necessary for the effective operation of the EBI in the United Kingdom. They are granted in accordance with the limitations imposed by the International Organisations Act 1968, as amended, under whose provisions the order is made.
The privileges and immunities set out in the draft order include certain exemptions from duties and taxation for the EBI and certain immunities from seizure of its property although its premises do not enjoy inviolability. Its staff members are exempted from taxation on the salaries paid to them by the EBI (although they will pay an internal tax for the benefit of the EBI) and they will be immune from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts. Only the director-general of the EMBL will enjoy privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by a diplomatic agent. Those who are British citizens or permanent
2112
residents of the United Kingdom receive only the essential minimum privileges and immunities to enable them to perform their official functions.
The order needs to be formally made at the meeting of the Privy Council on 19th July 1994 so that the headquarters agreement may be signed shortly thereafter. The agreement will enter into force on signature.
It is for this reason that the order is before the House today. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the draft instrument and has reported to the House. There is nothing unusual in the order. It is a great success that the EBI should come to us here in Britain. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those outside the House who read our proceedings will not understand when I say that the presentation by the Minister has left us all breathless. We appreciate the exigencies of the business. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. She warmly welcomes what has been said and what the order does. We certainly have no objection to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994
12.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the main purpose of this draft statutory instrument is to implement European directives and our commitments to the Council of Europe in respect of animal welfare. It is being made after consultation with the industry, welfare organisations and other interested parties. While the size of the document may appear daunting this is principally because, as well as making the necessary changes to the legislation, we have taken the opportunity to consolidate five existing statutory instruments.
The House will note that there are four schedules to these regulations, relating to battery hens, calves, pigs and other livestock. We think this is a presentational improvement. Previously, for example, anyone trying to establish the welfare requirements relating to pigs would have had to consult three separate statutory instruments as opposed to the single schedule in these draft regulations.
I will now explain the main changes we are proposing. First, I should draw your Lordships' attention to the inclusion of a provision in the main body of the regulations which implements a recommendation made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. The council were concerned that wording used in some welfare legislation could militate against a successful prosecution particularly where a defendant denied knowledge of an animal's condition. The draft regulation makes it

2113
clear that references to a person "knowingly permitting" livestock to be kept also encompass those circumstances where a person might "reasonably be expected to know" how that livestock is kept.
Schedule 1 on battery hens updates the previous Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, which implement the Community directive of 1986 setting minimum standards for battery hens. It may assist the House if I explain a complex problem which arose when the 1987 regulations were made. The EC directive requires 450 sq. cm. of floor space for each hen—this is the minimum cage area. Normally, hens are kept four or five to a cage giving as a minimum an overall cage size of 1800 to 2250 sq. cm. This gives the birds some flexibility as to the use of space. However, some cages exist in which three or two birds are housed or one bird on its own. Clearly, 450 sq. cm. per bird is quite inappropriate when such small numbers are considered, because birds in these smaller cages cannot share each other's space as they can in the larger cages. Our domestic legislation therefore requires 550 sq. cm. per bird for three bird cages, 750 sq. cm. per bird for two bird cages and 1,000 sq. cm. for single bird cages.
Now for the complication. The height of the cage is regulated by reference to the minimum cage area. For certain three, two or one bird cages, mainly those known as "A-frame cages", while they meet the requirements in all other respects, their height in relation to the overall floor area will be just short of the minimum required when the minimum area is the higher area specified in UK law. We accepted arguments put forward by the industry that it would be unreasonable to make such cages illegal from 1995. The change in the regulations before the House will ensure that the cage height requirement refers to the minimum cage area set in the directive (450 sq. cm. per bird) and not that in our domestic legislation, thus permitting continued use of these cages. This will, we estimate, save the industry £9 million at current prices without adversely affecting the welfare of the birds concerned.
I will now take the schedules relating to calves and pigs together as the changes proposed to existing requirements are similar. In November 1991, the Council of Ministers adopted Community directives laying down minimum standards for the welfare of calves and pigs. We are, of course, required to implement those directives and are somewhat overdue in doing so. In addition to setting new space requirements for calves and weaner pigs the regulations implement a ban on the pig rearing systems commonly known as "sweat boxes" from 1st July 1995. They also introduce certain new provisions which although numerous, can be summarised as relating to the maintenance of good husbandry.
There are two important respects in which the requirements in these regulations go further than those in the directives. I refer, of course, to the ban on the use of veal crates and the phasing out of close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs. In the case of veal crates the ban was introduced in the Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987 and came fully into effect in 1990. The phase out of stalls and tethers was introduced by the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991 which allowed an
2114
eight year phase-out period to the end of 1998, unlike the directive which requires the phasing out of systems using tethers by the end of 2005 and allows the use of close confinement stalls to continue. These two UK requirements were in place before the directives were adopted and both were introduced for sound reasons of animal welfare. We do not consider therefore that, in implementing these directives, we should water down our own high standards. We voted against these two directives precisely because we were convinced they did not go far enough and we will continue to press for their amendment.
Next I would like to deal with the schedule: concerning the welfare of other livestock. This brings together requirements currently contained in the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990. The intensive units regulations were introduced in 1978 as a result of our commitment to implement the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. That convention has now been amended, requiring contracting parties to amend the definition of intensive farming in their law. The old definition assumed that "intensive" livestock farming meant the fanning of animals in environmentally controlled buildings and required that they be attended on a daily basis to ensure their welfare. However, the convention now acknowledges that farming systems. particularly in the southern states of Europe, which are not in buildings, may be equally intensive and the animals concerned may equally require daily attention if they are not to suffer. Although the change will be of little consequence to farmers in this country, it is necessary to enable us to ratify the amendment to the convention. By way of clarification I should explain that the reason the requirements in this schedule are not applied to battery hens, calves and pigs is, as I explained earlier, because those animals have been catered for in the schedules which deal specifically with them.
These regulations maintain our reputation for standards of animal welfare which are among the highest in Europe. Some of your Lordships may be disappointed that we have not taken the opportunity to go further than the EC directive and impose new requirements for battery cages. I make no apology for this. While we intend to retain our existing high standards, as we propose for calves and pigs, the way forward, as I and my colleagues have stated on a number of occasions, is in general to seek to persuade our European partners of the importance of achieving satisfactory controls on a Community-wide basis. We await the Commission's proposals for amendments to the battery hens directive and will be pressing hard for improved standards.
We do appreciate the concerns which have been expressed on behalf of those who are at the sharp end of this legislation; namely, the farmers. Statutory controls are an essential part of our programme for the protection of animal welfare. The requirements set out: in the many pages of this statutory instrument, a number of which are new to our legislation, may appear onerous.

2115
However, those who already respect and care for their animals—and this, of course, means the vast majority —have nothing to fear. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Geraint: My Lords, my noble friends on these Benches and myself welcome the new regulations. We believe that they are a step in the right direction but that they should go a lot further in the near future.

Being a farmer, and having been involved with stock all my life, perhaps I may first say a few words about battery hens. I hope that the Minister in his wisdom will introduce legislation in the near future to abolish the battery hen system. It is only greed and big business that control the present system, and in my view, and in the view of many others, the hens should be set free. At the moment, they are prisoners in their own environment. We have thousands of acres of set-aside land in this country and farmers are being paid for not doing anything with that land. On a lovely day like this I am sure that the hens would prefer to run on those acres of land which are growing nothing and doing nothing for anyone rather than be prisoners in cages. Fair play to the Minister, he has recommended different sizes and bigger cages for hens; but even if each hen was allowed a cage measuring one yard by one yard it would still be a prisoner in that environment. Let us hope that the Minister in his wisdom will introduce a scheme of diversification from the present system to involve the use of set-aside land.
I turn next and briefly to the dipping system. I know that the Minister has agreed with all of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Although I respect the council's views—it has done excellent work—I should point out that the president of the Farmers' Union of Wales, Mr. Parry, strongly believes that sheep scab should regain notifiable disease status and that enabling powers should be permitted to allow the imposition of movement restrictions in order to facilitate the enforced treatment of infected flocks and allow for the tracing of possible contacts. Special measures are also needed in relation to flocks on common land. Although the Minister has said on many occasions that the Government have no intention of reintroducing sheep dipping, I hope that on this occasion they will listen once more to the views of the Farm Animal Welfare Council because that disease is spreading at a colossal rate in our part of the world and throughout Britain. Compulsory dipping will need to be introduced sooner or later.
I am now going to say something that is irrelevant to the regulations. Last week many of us saw a film about one of the zoos in Belgium. The way in which the animals in that zoo are treated is a disgrace. I do not know whether the Minister has been in touch with the Belgian Government, but I hope that he will have an opportunity to see that film—perhaps once again— because the way in which those animals are treated is
2116
deplorable. Now that we are partners within the Community, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something on that to the House later.
The National Farmers Union has raised another point with me. It continues to object most strongly to the additional costs that adherence to the new regulations will impose on UK pig producers. It says that the regulations are unlikely to reduce the proportion of pigmeat that is supplied using restricted systems, but will merely ensure that that pigmeat is sourced from outside the UK. Producers who have depleted their financial reserves in order to remain in pig production are unlikely to be able to afford the reinvestment that is necessary if they are to comply with the regulations. On the other hand, the National Farmers Union, like ourselves, would welcome amendments which would delay or reduce the cost of complying with the regulations and which would offset the ongoing impact of the regulations on the productivity of individual pig units.
Those are my views and the views of many of my colleagues on these Benches. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley will raise many other matters.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I intervene briefly because the question of intensive methods of food production has been very much at the forefront of my mind since some 12 years ago when in another place I chaired a Select Committee which looked into the question of intensive farming. Having been associated with traditional farming all my life, I found the experience of examining intensive farming methods very disturbing. With my committee, I travelled all over the United Kingdom and to several places in Europe. Eventually my committee produced a report. Our recommendations, some of which were very strong, were duly noted by the government of the day. Progress towards more humane methods of food production has certainly been made, but very, very slowly. Therefore, I hope that the new regulations, which I also welcome, are just one step forward of many still to come so that the conditions in which hens, pigs and calves are kept can be steadily improved.
Perhaps I may make a brief comment on the report. As far as I can see, the new regulations make little changes for battery hens. I listened carefully to what my noble friend said about the battery system and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, that that system is a wholly undesirable way of keeping poultry. It is just too cruel. We tried very hard 12 years ago to improve the batteries and, although the battery system remains undesirable, we realise that it will be with us for quite some time because of investment reasons. I do not see that the new regulations have changed much about the battery system other than possibly the regulated height of the cage.
On calves, I strongly welcome the outlawing of individual veal calf crates. Seeing those crates was a horrifying experience to my committee and myself. I also very much welcome the fact that calves can no longer be kept in darkness. There are still some 400,000 calves being exported to continental systems from this

2117
country. I very much hope that European regulations can be brought up to the same standard as ours at the very least.
I also welcome the end of muzzling for calves. One of the most distressing experiences that I have ever had with regard to animals was when I visited a large veal production plant in Normandy. Rows and rows of calves were muzzled. They were also tethered very short and were bothered by flies. The muzzling looked awful. Muzzling is carried out so that calves cannot get any roughage at all into their systems. I understand that that eventually results in the meat being whiter. I welcome the end of muzzling.
According to the new regulations, calves should also have visual contact with other calves. Again with some knowledge from my own traditional farming, I appreciate how necessary such contact is for the contentment of animals. Therefore, that new regulation is most welcome, but it is somewhat undermined by the exemption for existing accommodation.
Turning to pigs, the new regulations state that a pig shall be free to turn round without difficulty at all times. What a blessing. Again going back to the days of my inquiry, I found sow stalls quite horrifying. Pigs must now be allowed the freedom to turn round. That is absolutely right. Like the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, I very much welcome the end of the sweat box system. Unfortunately, that is not to end for yet another year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Lord is saying, but do the provisions allowing a pig to turn round apply also to farrowing crates in which sows may be placed to farrow so that they will not lie on and squash their piglets? If a sow is kept in the farrowing crate purely for that period, it appears beneficial that she cannot turn round.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I accept and wholly agree with what the noble Lord has said. The sow stalls to which I was referring have nothing to do with farrowing. I was referring to the normal accommodation in which sows are kept. They are kept closely together to save space. When we saw them, those animals were showing signs of fearful boredom. They were gnawing constantly at the iron bars in front of them. I wholly agree with the noble Lord that precautions must be taken when sows are farrowing so that the piglets are not smothered by the mother rolling onto them.
Welcome as is the advance in more humane methods, I feel strongly that they are still inadequate. The new regulations fall significantly short of the RSPCA's Freedom Food Standards. I end by reminding your Lordships of the FAWC's definitions of freedoms which livestock should know. They should know freedom from hunger and thirst; from pain; from fear and distress; and freedom to express normal behaviour. I welcome the new regulations, but we still have a very long to go.
1 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too welcome the regulations, although I believe that they should have been implemented on 1st January, should
2118
they not? I wonder why there has been a delay. There was also a slight feeling that the four statutory instruments were made into one so as not to have four separate debates. I am delighted to learn from the Minister that that was not the reason. The reason he produced was a good one.
I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Geraint said. It is good that we are having this debate during the week in which the RSPCA's Freedom Food Initiative has been launched. That was a welcome occasion. It is the only time I have had the opportunity to attend a launch meeting in the Grand Committee Room and to come away with half a pound of bacon. I hope that there will be many more such occasions and, if there are, that the produce will all be obtained by humane methods.
The directives allow member states to have stricter regulations than are applied in the directives. It is right that this country, with its good tradition of animal welfare, should lead the way, but we should possibly push on a bit further. The only trouble at the moment, I suppose, is that when we produce initiatives which we believe would be good for the European Union or the Council of Europe to follow, the European Union, for one, is not in much of a mood to pay much attention to what Britain has to say, given Britain's attitude to other matters within the European Union. To be an effective leader, one has to be followed.
There is obviously a balance to be struck between the just calls for the improvement in the welfare of animals at home and the need for farmers to make a decent living. I know that my noble friends Lord Geraint and Lord Mackie, who are farmers, accept that point of view fully. I welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, which contributed greatly to our understanding of the problems involved.
I welcome especially the call for a phasing out of the battery hen system. It is not humane in any sense of the word. Although we manage to edge regulations gradually to the stage where the methods used are less barbarous than they used to be, the battery hen system should be done away with altogether—not immediately, but over a period of time. As my noble friend Lord Geraint pointed out, at least we now have the land to do that because it is not being used for other things.
The regulations do not meet the standards put forward by the RSPCA which, in their turn, are based on the FAWC's five freedoms. I should like to ask what part the FAWC had to play in the drawing up of the regulations. Surely the failure to meet those standards highlights the need for a properly independent animal welfare commission as proposed by our party. That will raise standards and not allow the government of the day to get away with a situation which may be an improvement on a past situation, and which may be better than in some parts of the European Union, but which is still not good enough.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the regulations are a welcome consolidation of a number of measures, as the Minister pointed out. Therefore, they are useful in that respect. The debate on the regulations shows that we are ahead of many of the other member states of the

2119
European Union where animal welfare is concerned. We should be aware that concern for animal welfare seems to be a peculiarly British phenomenon within the European Union. Will the Minister confirm a figure that I read somewhere, that the Ministry receives 10 times as much mail on animal welfare matters than on all other subjects put together. That illustrates the interest that we have in this country. That does have an effect, because we know that there are different attitudes—I shall be referring to some of them—in other member states, especially in southern Europe. British concern has a direct effect on our policy and on the fortunes of livestock farmers in this country.
I shall deal first with battery cages. The proposals on cage height, which the Minister explained extremely clearly, put right an anomaly. It does no more than that. I am sure that we all share a reluctance to see this system of egg production, but we are told that battery cages cannot be banned overnight and that they must be phased out in an agreed programme throughout the European Union otherwise we will have a flood of imported eggs produced through battery systems in those countries which do not share our concern. I believe that that is a fact.
If the system is to last, and I believe that it will last for some considerable time, there is an argument for much more research and development to make the battery cage more acceptable while the system exists. Some research into that is being done, but a great deal more should be done.
The argument that were we to ban the battery cage system in this country we would be flooded with battery eggs imported from overseas does not apply to veal calves and to pigs. We have banned the veal crate in this country, and that is something I welcome. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, we export 450,000 calves a year. We then proceed to import large amounts of veal reared abroad in crates in a system banned in this country. Having said that, how many of us when we order veal ask where it comes from, and if we do ask, would the restaurateur know? It is more than an anomaly, as has been recognised by everyone, that we ban the system and then proceed to eat the imported veal produced abroad by that system.
Before I leave the subject of calves, and on a point of detail, Schedule 2, regulation 1(3) deals with the calf tether. It provides:
"Each tether must be of sufficient length to allow the calves to stand up, lie down, rest and groom itself without hindrance. The design must be such as to avoid, as far as possible, any risk of strangulation or injury".
I wish the designer some luck when he comes to design a tether to fit that requirement.
I should declare an interest. The farming company with which I am involved keeps sows in sow stalls. We keep a much larger number outside. We keep some pigs in so-called sweatboxes, or the high humidity pig housing. Perhaps I may deal first with sow stalls. As we know, the measure to ban those was introduced in 1991 to take effect from 1st January 1999. It was clear at the time that the Government expected that they would be
2120
able to persuade other member states in the Community to introduce similar measures. They have suffered a complete defeat on that issue.
I quote briefly from the words of Mr. Maclean, the Minister at the time, speaking in Standing Committee C on the Pig Husbandry Bill in March 1991. He said:
"if some of our producers go out of business, as they would if we act prematurely, pigmeat will merely be imported to make up the difference. We believe strongly that animal welfare cannot stop at a national boundary. There is nothing more immoral than saying 'we have clean hands in Britain now—we have no sow stall and tether systems' and then turning a blind eye as Europe floods us with pigmeat produced under the system that we had banned".
That is exactly what will happen. I am not defending the sow stall. I am merely pointing out the practical effects of the proposals.
We know that tethers are to be banned in this country from 1st January 1999 and they are to be banned in the other member states from 1st January 2006. There is no ban on sow stalls in the other member states and I believe that there is very little prospect that there ever will be. There has been a substantial expansion in the use of sow stalls in Denmark, Holland and north-west France and it will be very difficult to persuade the other member states to agree to prohibit systems in which they have just invested large amounts of money.
I must admit that I have been uneasy about the sow stall. But it is fair to point out that they were introduced in the first place not just to save space, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, said, but also to reduce the bullying which was taking place in the system that existed at the time when sows were kept together. They were introduced to make sure that the sow had continual access to food without bullying, and so on. I am not saying that I agree with them but some farmers believe that if trials were conducted in which sows were given a choice between a sow stall and free housing, many of the sows would spend a great deal of time lying in their sow stalls. I make that point because I believe that there has been a lack of behavioural studies to support a number of the proposals that are being made.
The argument on the sow stall is a classic example of a perfectly understandable welfare worry which will result in the British pig producer being at a severe disadvantage. In the past year or so we have experienced the worst period for pig prices that I have known in nearly 40 years. But in 1993 the export refund and private storage aid for pigmeat in this country amounted to 2.6 million ecu; in France it amounted to 6.1 million ecu; and in Germany it amounted to 33 million ecu. I believe that the figure for France excludes the illegal aid which was given at the time.
If the sow stalls have to go—and they clearly do—at the end of 1998, I believe that we should at least examine the proposal that the sow stalls should be allowed to be used after service until the sow is settled in pig. A period of 35 days has been suggested and I do not wish to argue about the exact number of days. If that proposal were to be examined objectively there may be welfare arguments in favour of it. Again, the 35 day proposal is a good example of the need for objective research into animal behavioural studies so that we can discover what truly constitutes animal welfare.

2121
Perhaps I may turn now to high humidity pig housing. Very few people have ever examined that system scientifically and in depth. If we go back to first principles, the pig is an animal from the tropical forest. Given the opportunity, pigs like best to wallow, to get wet and to lie together closely. High humidity houses were designed to reflect that fairly natural behaviour by pigs. Arguments against sweathouses are entirely anthropomorphic. People look at them and say, "I would not like to live like that and therefore a pig would not like to live like that". Research in the 1960s showed that there are actual health advantages in high humidity pig housing which reflect the first principles that I outlined.
I have never understood the rationale for the banning of the high humidity house. I am quite prepared to be convinced, but I should like to know on what scientific basis that decision was made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Government.
Also, another important point is that that system started in Northern Ireland. Some time ago many pigs were kept in that way in Northern Ireland, although I believe that that is not so common now. However, it is still a fairly substantial number. I should be interested to know when the regulations are to be introduced in Northern Ireland. It would be extremely unfair if British pig producers were to suffer not only from unfair competition from abroad as a result of the banning of the sow stall but also unfair competition from Northern Ireland. However, as it is a European directive no doubt it will have to be introduced in Northern Ireland and the system banned from 1995.
I notice that paragraph 9(a) of Schedule 4 states:
"Where any cows which are calving are kept in a building, they shall be kept … in a pen or a yard which is of such a size as to permit a person to attend the cows".
If ever I have seen a regulation which is otiose, it is that one.
British livestock producers have a real problem. There is a higher profile for animal welfare considerations in this country—and I do not object to that at all—but that has an effect on our systems of livestock husbandry compared with other member states. There is not the same concern in other member states. As I have already said, in some countries in southern Europe they do not even understand the concept. With the single market it may be that we shall be at a permanent disadvantage as a result of that.
It is an enormous task to persuade the consumer to buy British on welfare grounds. I shall be extremely interested to see how the RSPCA freedom food concept actually works out. That is fascinating. But if the Government are prepared to recognise that in-built disadvantage, perhaps I may offer two practical suggestions to help to overcome that problem.
My first proposal is to provide tax relief at a rate of at least 25 per cent., compared with the building rate of 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., for new buildings which are required expressly as a result of the welfare regulations or legislation. Secondly, extra resources should be provided for marketing British food in an attempt to exploit positively the higher standards of animal welfare in this country. It is difficult for the producer to do that
2122
on his own with the funds which are available. If because of the particular anxieties in this country we expect a higher standard of animal welfare from our farmers, then it is only fair that the Government should help with the extra costs and not say that those costs should be met by persuading consumers to pay more for British food that is produced in more humane conditions.
Having said that, I believe that the regulations are to be welcomed. They bring together a number of regulations in a number of areas. I feel that they reflect the particular situation in this country which, in the long term, works to the disadvantage of the British farmer.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have expressed their views on this important and emotive subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, representations to my Ministry on the subject of animal welfare exceed those made on any other topic by quite a wide margin, although I cannot be precise as to what is that margin.
I began my opening remarks by explaining that the regulations are, to a large extent, a consolidation of existing controls. Nevertheless, there are some important changes and, once again, your Lordships have taken the subject of animal welfare very seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the delay in implementation of the regulations. It is true that the calves and pigs directive should have come into force on 1st January this year. Unfortunately, the pressures on my department have been such that the timetable was impossible to meet. Naturally, 1 regret that very much.
At this point, I should say that I shall try to deal with as many of the points raised in the debate as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, and other noble Lords, referred to battery cages. The noble Lord asks whether we would consider a ban on the system. I accept that the standards and the regulations are capable of improvement, but the Government do not consider that: a ban would be appropriate at present. As the noble Lord will know, all systems of egg production involve potential welfare risks. Birds that are kept in large groups can exhibit high levels of aggression and consequent injury. That is why proper welfare standards are needed for all types of production and why we are funding research into the area. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am much obliged. I quite understand why the Government will not contemplate a ban in the near future. However, if they were to say that that was the direction in which they were hoping to move, it would give the kind of signal which would help farmers to change their capital investment over a period of time so that when the ban came into force it would not put them at a disadvantage and it would be a very humane way of looking forward and planning.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was just about to turn to what the Government propose to do and to press for in the Community. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the directive is to be reviewed. In fact, it required the

2123
Commission to review the existing rules and to propose new minimum standards for alternative systems of husbandry by the beginning of 1993. The Commission's proposals have not yet been published. We shall be pressing the Commission to do so. The UK is seeking for battery cage systems a significantly increased area per bird over the 450 square centimetres that is currently required. We are also seeking environmental enrichment of cages including, for example, perches and scratching bars. We also expect the proposals to take account of the welfare needs of those laying hens which are not kept in battery cages. I hope that that will be of assistance to the noble Lord.
The noble Lords, Lord Geraint and Lord Carter, spoke about the phase out of stall and tether systems for pigs. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was especially concerned about the UK's competitive position in the Community. I appreciate the industry's concern about the phase out of those systems. However, as noble Lords may recall, the original Private Member's Bill introduced by my honourable friend Sir Richard Body had widespread parliamentary support, although it did not reach this House for consideration. The Government considered that the five-year phase out proposed in that Bill would have caused serious difficulty for the industry. We therefore introduced the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991 which, we believe, reduce industry costs to acceptable levels by providing for an eight-year phase out.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether there could be an exemption for the use of stalls during the first 35 days after service. We do not believe that there is a case for allowing that exemption from the ban. Comparisons made over the whole gestation period between the best managed herds in loose housing and those in close confinement systems show no difference in productivity.
In his intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to farrowing crates. Sows are kept in farrowing crates for no more than 28 days at a time. The crates make a valuable contribution to the welfare of the piglets as I am sure the noble Lord will know. A sow can weigh a hundred times or so more than her piglets and can crush them without even noticing. MAFF is funding research into alternative systems; but, for the time being, they present too great a risk of very high piglet mortality to be recommended.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about behavioural studies. I appreciate the importance of basing Government policy on sound scientific studies. The Government have funded research on animal welfare amounting to over £7 million in 1993–94 and that programme continues. Alternative husbandry systems for sows are an important part of that programme. The noble Lord also devoted some time to the system of sweat boxes. He asked about the evidence from the FAWC in that respect. The council was widely consulted over the review of the pig husbandry systems which recommended the ban on sweat boxes. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. My point was that it has never been clear as to exactly what scientific evidence the FAWC based their recommendations on. I believe that the council is just as liable to take the anthropomorphic view as anyone else.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the directive sets a number of criteria about the conditions in which pigs are kept; for example, as regards ventilation and humidity. They would have prohibited the sweat box system from 1st January of this year. However, we obtained a derogation allowing the few remaining systems to continue in place until 1st July. I do not have the report of the FAWC with me, but I shall be glad to write to the noble Lord outlining the relevant parts of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about the application of the sweat box regulations for Northern Ireland. The regulations that we are debating today extend to Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland. However, I am advised that a similar measure will shortly be introduced to cover the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, spoke about sheep scab and also referred to the recommendations of the FAWC in that regard. The Government will be responding in full to all the recommendations contained in the council's recent report. However, we believe that there is currently considerable scope for action by the industry itself before regulation should again be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also devoted some of his speech to the FAWC. I should tell the noble Lord that the Government greatly value the advice of that body and takes such advice fully into account when deciding on provisions in the UK and in European legislation. Of course, the FAWC is already a fully independent body. Therefore, in my view, there is no need for an independent commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about assistance with marketing. The Government consider marketing to be a priority area. My right honourable friend the Minister recently launched the marketing development scheme under which about £10 million will be available over the next three years. That will provide help for improved marketing throughout the food chain. Moreover, we have recently opened for registration a scheme, part funded by the European Union, to provide for capital investment. We hope for a good response.
I accept the request expressed by all noble Lords for an improvement in standards generally. However, the Government have undertaken not to introduce further unilateral improvements which could be to the disadvantage of UK producers. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I must say that we do not accept that we have problems of leadership in this field. As I said, we shall continue to press for improvements and continue to work for them both through the Council of Europe and the European Union.
I hope that it will be clear from my remarks that we believe the Community still has some way to go in establishing satisfactory farm animal welfare standards and that we are ahead of the game in some respects. The ban on veal crates and the impending ban on stalls and tethers provide two examples. I recognise that those

2125
measures impose extra costs on our farmers which the producers of imported meat do not have to bear. It is only right that those extra burdens should also provide a marketing advantage. It is certainly the case that consumers are becoming increasingly aware of issues such as animal welfare in making their purchasing decisions. That has been recognised by the RSPCA in its recently launched Freedom Foods Scheme and is a point that those involved in marketing might wish to emphasise.
Finally, while the Community rules we are implementing represent a useful step towards better welfare standards, I see them as transitional pending their further amendment. Husbandry methods are constantly evolving and research into welfare continues to improve our understanding both of the needs of the animal and how these can be taken on board by a commercially viable industry. I cannot emphasise too strongly the Government's commitment to our present high welfare standards and to maintaining pressure on our Community partners to achieve them. Equally, once achieved, we must ensure that they are kept under review and up to date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994
1.30 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the instrument which the House is considering sets out the rules for the 1994 decommissioning scheme. Much of it will be familiar because it is closely based on the successful 1993 scheme: in particular, it retains the tendering mechanism which enabled us to get the best possible value for public money. I am sure that most fishermen recognise the merits of this approach, and I trust noble Lords will agree that it should continue.
The main criteria for determining eligibility have not been changed. Vessels must be: UK registered and licensed, over 10 metres in overall length, over 10 years old, and seaworthy. We want to target active vessels so we have also retained the requirement that vessels must have spent at least 100 days at sea on fishing trips in each of the last two years—the years in question now being 1992 and 1993. We considered carefully whether the scheme should be more precisely targeted, for example, by confining it to trawlers or beam trawlers. We concluded that this would be too restrictive, but there is a new requirement that the vessels which apply should hold a full pressure stock licence, thus focusing on vessels fishing the most vulnerable stocks. Moreover, the 100 days at sea on fishing trips must have been spent in Community waters; the effect of this is to exclude vessels fishing primarily in distant waters where the pressure on the stocks is less intense.
Finally, we are excluding vessels which were successful in the 1993 tender but which were not actually scrapped; we included a warning to this effect
2126
in the 1993 explanatory leaflet to discourage withdrawals, and the current scheme implements that rule. The Government have already indicated that £8 9 million is available for this scheme. That includes an amount corresponding to the balance remaining from last year's scheme. Application forms are available in local fishery offices; fishermen who are known to be interested in this scheme have already received their forms. The closing date is 15th August and we look forward to a keen response with realistic bids.
It is of course difficult to predict the outcome because of the tendering element but I expect the 1994 scheme to make a useful contribution to conserving the stocks and achieving our multi-annual guidance programme targets. It is one element in a package of measures which also include the 1993 scheme; a further scheme in 1995; our system of licence penalties; and technical conservation. Of those, the 1993 scheme has already removed 135 vessels, about 4800 tonnes or 2.2 per cent. of capacity, at a cost of £7.8 million. The 1995 scheme will have £8.3 million available—that is to say, the original £25 million less last year's expenditure of £7.8 million and this year's expected expenditure of £8.9 million. Our system of licence penalties is such that capacity has to be given up when a new vessel takes over the licence of one or more existing vessels: we shall continue to operate this. And we shall continue to explore the scope for counting technical conservation towards our MAGP targets: the industry has put forward some useful suggestions which we are discussing with the Commission.
Your Lordships will recall that the first round of decommissioning was linked to our proposals on days at sea. In last year's debate on decommissioning I referred to the postponement of days at sea until 1st January 1994, and we subsequently announced that the policy had been suspended pending a ruling by the European Court of Justice. That remains the position and I believe there is no need to debate days at sea this morning.
However, the concept of effort control will not go away. The scientists are unanimous that total allowable catches and quotas are not sufficient on their own, and they have recommended effort reduction as an additional means to help the stocks. Community effort restrictions have operated since 1990 and the current MAGP requires fishing activity to be controlled. Effort control will also be vital in controlling an enlarged common fisheries policy which embraces Spain, Portugal and Norway. I would like to mention in this context that the European Commission has just put forward proposals on the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy. Its broad approach has been to allocate controls on effort in western waters using a system of "standard vessel days". That is needed if we are to see a continued control on Spanish fishing effort—but since they will be common measures they will need to apply to all member states. We shall want to study the proposals with our own industry to see whether they are on the right lines and how they can be made most effective and workable. There is no question of imposing inappropriate or unworkable controls. A first meeting of the industry with officials has already been fixed for next week.
There are also domestic reasons for keeping an eye on fishing effort because if fishing effort increases, the stocks will not benefit from our decommissioning expenditure, and because the MAGP rules now include a requirement that fishing effort should not increase. That is why we intend to monitor fishing effort. We shall not be heavy handed about this, but information from log books and landing declarations will enable us to assess the current level of fishing effort and its future evolution. The industry claims that the fleet is already fishing flat out and, if that is the case, effort should not increase. If it is wrong and effort does increase, we shall have to consider the way forward, taking account of the ECJ's ruling and of the position of other member states. We shall also consult the industry and listen carefully to what it has to say. However, I hope the industry will collectively exercise restraint and so make the use of such controls in the context of this scheme unnecessary. I invite noble Lords to join me in urging such restraint, and I invite them also to approve the scheme so that it can make its own significant contribution to conservation and to our Community targets. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy:My Lords, first, I want to say that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation welcomes the Government's commitment to decommissioning as a means of reducing current fishing fleet capacity without imposing as a pre-condition the days-at-sea restrictions which have been referred to the European Court of Justice. The Scottish fishermen hope that this order will pass rapidly through both Houses of Parliament.
Next, I have various comments to make and questions to ask about this year's scheme. The fishermen very much dislike the sealed bid system and consider that they are entitled to the same terms as those in other member states who will get the revised rates of decommissioning grant laid down in Council regulation 3699 of December 1993. Last year 46 Scottish vessels were decommissioned with an average grant of no more than £60,000 each. After deduction of the costs of scrapping, which have to be met by the owners themselves, and the consequential tax liabilities, very little was left in the hands of those withdrawing from the industry. In some cases the grant was insufficient to cover all the accumulated debts of the vessel, which can include large bank loans since the vessels can cost anything from £600,000 to £5 million to build. Application of the Community scheme would unarguably result in very much higher grants being paid.
Incredible as it sounds, I understand that decommissioning grants are not tax free. Needless to say, it would give far greater encouragement to fishermen to offer their vessels for decommissioning if they were. In many cases where decommissioning is under consideration preparatory negotiations will have to be undertaken with bankers and others with an interest in the vessel, and the matter of exactly when the grant can be expected to be
2128
paid may be of importance. In view of the fact that decisions on all applications will be made, I understand, by October, it is not acceptable that payment should not follow as soon as all the requirements of the scheme have been complied with but should often be held over until 1st April. The Treasury does not tolerate laggardness in payment of its tax demands. Why should it not do as it expects to be done by?
Why are the Government insisting that the required 100 days spent at sea fishing during 1992 and 1993 should have been spent entirely in Community waters? That will disqualify vessels which spent a significant part of the year fishing in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, which is very much nearer to the ports of north-east Scotland than some Community waters.
The Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department says that, according to its records few, if any, vessels would be disqualified by the provision, but I am not sure that that is right. Fishermen are unhappy about it and would prefer paragraph 3(1) (c) of the order to be amended to read, "days at sea on fishing trips" as in the 1993 scheme.
The noble Earl referred to the monitoring of the fishing effort. Apart from looking at logbooks, how is that to be done and who will do it? The fishermen fear that they will be saddled with still more bureaucracy and paperwork.
As with the 1993 scheme, the government announcement of the order made no reference to the need for socio-economic measures to assist crew members who will lose their jobs as a result of decommissioning and who will not benefit from the grant which the boat owner will receive. The Community has recently announced the PESCA initiative which is designed to help in that regard. Are the Government prepared to make a commitment to the fishing industry which will give us access to the PESCA budget, as every other member state's government will certainly do?
I turn to the more general subject of the serious shortcomings of the Government's policies on conservation, structures and decommissioning, with particular emphasis on the inadequacy of the latter to fulfil the requirements of the multi-annual guidance programme.
The present multi-annual guidance programme requires a reduction in the capacity or effort, or both, of our fleet by 19 per cent. by the end of 1996. Last year's section of the three-year £25 million scheme resulted in a reduction of 2.2 per cent. Assuming that this year's and next year's sections achieve the same result, by 1996 we shall have achieved a reduction of less than 7 per cent., leaving over 13 per cent. of our target outstanding. Industry-led capacity aggregation initiatives may result in a further small reduction in capacity. However, with effort limitation measures through days-at-sea restrictions in abeyance pending approval by the European Court of Justice —approval which, as one who knows the industry, I hope will not be forthcoming—there is no possibility of our meeting the target of 19 per cent. by 1996. What do the Government propose to do about that?

2129
The multi-annual guidance programmes of all member states are at present being reviewed. The report of the Commission to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on progress as at the end of 1993 has recently been produced. It shows the United Kingdom situation to be one of non-compliance.
As long as we are in breach of our multi-annual guidance programme—which the Government, not the fishermen—signed up for, our fishermen will not have access, as other Community countries have, to Community funds for building and modernisation grants. Our fleet is an ageing one and we are being left behind in the progress being made elsewhere in Europe.
Of the £25 million which this three-year scheme is to cost the Government, the Treasury will claw back some £15 million from the Community. But under the Fontainebleau agreement that will reduce the general rebate which the United Kingdom receives. So the Government will have less to spend elsewhere. By that piece of accounting—which is not creative accounting, but more like destructive accounting—our fishermen are being done down compared with their European counterparts.
Between 1987 and 1992 approximately £250 million was drawn from Community funds by various member states to finance decommissioning schemes, of which nothing came to us. If amounts paid to member states for construction and modernisation are taken into account, the amount rises to nearly £500 million, of which only £11 million came to us. No wonder our fishermen feel that they are not on a level playing field compared with their Community counterparts.
1.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, some 37 years ago I was appointed Rector of Lowestoft where the fishing fleet was at the time in decline in comparison with the wonderful years before 1959. The decline has continued. Those in the fishing industry well understand the problems that are faced by everyone and are very ready to play their part in the reductions which have come about. However, as the noble Lady said, they need reassurance that it is indeed a flat playing field. They want to know that there is equity in the handling of fishermen of other nations. I ask the noble Earl to reassure them that the Government will exercise total vigilance in ensuring that the same control and fairness exists throughout all fishing nations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister will be glad to hear that I can give a small welcome to the decommissioning scheme. However, it is a small welcome. It may take out 7 per cent. of existing capacity, but it does not tackle the main problem.
There is still some money left from previous schemes. It means that something is wrong with the scheme when fishermen are not even applying for the small amount that the Government are making available. We need to look at that aspect.
That is not the main problem. The scheme will help a little. However, the Government are up a gum tree together with all the governments of Europe. One may decommission but at the same time techniques are
2130
improving. Danish industrial fishing is immensely competent and sweeping up far more than is admitted. The monitoring of the catches of some nations entering our waters—for example, Spain—is woefully inadequate. One hears stories of there being half a dozen people stationed in Madrid who are supposed to cover the entire industry. That makes a nonsense of the efforts we are making in this country to control catches.
In relation to the total allowable catch, perhaps the Minister can say how accurate scientists have been in their calculations. Again, one hears stories from fishermen of adequate or even surplus catches of cod or haddock and so on when the scientists have forecast that stocks are well down.
The policy on discards needs to be looked at. Catches of cod and haddock need to be counted together. It is absolute nonsense that in order to keep their quota, fishermen have to throw away valuable fish. The number should be counted together so that the fish are not wasted, as they have been.
The problem is enormous. Are the Government exploring any new lines? It is true to say that we should not be improving the catching capacity. Perhaps we should return to older methods. My noble friend Lord Thurso has a bee in his bonnet, which I share, about line fishing. I well remember that in Arbroath—at one time a big fishing port —the line-caught fish, set on a long line, fetched a far better price than the net-caught fish because they were taken freely and were not simply caught in a net, squashed together, and suffocated. Not only did those fish taste better and fetch a better price, but the small fish which were put back into the water had a good chance of survival. I may be talking nonsense—it may not be possible—but an idea which the Government might explore is to give line fishermen a free run. That position would certainly be better than the total confusion we have at present.
I am sorry not to be kinder to a Government who are trying their best. The problem is enormous. We are not getting anywhere within Europe. Big efforts have been made. New methods with regard to nets, and so on, have been tried. Such efforts are absolutely necessary if we are to get anywhere. One factor is certain: at present we shall run down the stocks.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister explained the scheme extremely clearly. I can be brief because almost all the points that I would have made have been covered. However, before we discuss the regulation, will the Minister confirm that certain proposals released by the European Commission only yesterday—I have not seen them—are likely to be discussed at the Fisheries Council in November? The Minister commented on them, but how do they relate to the regulations that we discussed today? I understand that they deal with the situation after decommissioning. Does the Spanish and Portuguese accession have any effect on the scheme that we are now discussing, or does the scheme have to run for two or three years? Do the proposals deal with the situation after that period?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, on these Benches we welcome the scheme on the understanding that it has been carried forward from last year. However, it is

2131
important to repeat the figures given by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. The first round took out 2.2 per cent. of fleet capacity; the present rate of about 7 per cent. will be taken out by 1996. I understand that that compares with the target reduction of 20 per cent. Is that correct? What happens about the 13 per cent. shortfall? What are the Government proposals to deal with that?
If the gross expenditure last year was £7.5 million, I understand that £5 million will come back through the Fontainebleau agreement. Tax is paid on the £7.5 million that is paid out. Therefore if one takes an average tax rate of 15 per cent. or even 20 per cent., what is the net cost of the scheme to the taxpayer? After the tax payments come back in, I envisage that the Government are spending little more than £1 million on the scheme. How much of the £8.3 million this year will come back through the Fontainebleau agreement, and how much through taxes paid by those who receive the grants? I believe that the net cost to the Treasury is in fact quite small.
Is it also correct that, of the £500 million that was made available for decommissioning, construction, and modernisation grants, only about £11 million has come back to the United Kingdom? Why is the figure so small if that amount of money is available? We all know the size of the problem.
The figure of £25 million has been allocated over three years. Could the allocation be speeded up? It has been suggested that if it were speeded up, to be spent perhaps within two years, the vessels could be decommissioned more quickly. Is there any specific reason that the allocation has to be spread over three years?
Will the Minister comment on the interesting suggestion raised when the regulations were debated in another place yesterday? It appears that a potential buyer from Sri Lanka has a firm and positive offer to buy decommissioned boats in the United Kingdom and to take them to Sri Lanka. The buyer is prepared to obtain assurances from the Sri Lankan Government that those boats will not find their way back into the European Union fleet. Obviously it is important that they do not. If they were to return, of course they would need licences. However, that seems a useful offer. What is the Government's reaction to it?
In conclusion, as I said, all the important points had already been made in the debate. We are all aware that it is a difficult area. I was on the Select Committee of this House which considered the fisheries policy. To put the matter at its politest, there is not unanimous enthusiasm throughout the European Union to secure enforcement of fisheries policy. Our fishermen feel that the system has not worked to their advantage. I am not sure that these regulations will help to reassure them.
2 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have had a useful debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I shall endeavour to cover as many points as I can in my reply, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not
2132
cover them all. If questions remain to be answered at the end of the debate, I shall, of course, write to noble Lords.
I am pleased to say that noble Lords have welcomed the scheme, albeit in some cases in somewhat guarded terms. But the general view has been expressed that we should have been spending more if we are to achieve our MAGP target. It is true that we have a demanding target to meet. But we still have two and a half years to go. Decommissioning last year, this year and next year will make a useful contribution. As I mentioned earlier, we shall continue with licence penalties and we are actively exploring the scope for technical conservation at the instigation of the industry itself. It will not be easy to do that. I do not pretend that it will. But we shall pick our way forward in a sensible fashion, taking account of the position of other member states and of the Commission.
Perhaps I may turn to the detailed speech made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. She mentioned, first, that fishermen disliked the sealed bid system. The use of the sealed bid system is a normal way of securing the best possible value for public money, just as fishermen use the auction procedure to achieve the best possible value for their fish. It can allow for the cost of scrapping and debt, and so forth, in individual circumstances. I agree that fixed rates, as in the EC regulation, would have resulted in higher rates of grant. But then it follows that fewer fishermen would have been successful in the tender.
The noble Lady also referred to taxation. The general rule on taxation is that fishermen who scrap their vessels and receive decommissioning grant are treated in the same way as fishermen who sell their vessels. In both cases they have been able to set their original investment against tax; so it does not seem unreasonable that receipts on disposal should also be taken into account. The tax position of those receiving grant will, of course, vary according to individual circumstances. Applicants will be advised to take any necessary financial guidance before submitting their bid.
The noble Lady also made a complaint about the lack of prompt payment of grant, as she saw it. The results of the tendering exercise will be announced in October. Payment will follow as soon as the requirements of the scheme have been met. In particular, the vessel must be scrapped and the licence surrendered. The 1st April is the last possible date for payment but it will certainly not be the norm. We would wish to pay the grant as soon as the conditions have been fulfilled.
The noble Lady also referred to the disqualification for vessels fishing in Norwegian waters. I am aware of her anxieties. However, as she acknowledged, the point is probably academic because vessels which fish in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea are likely to have clocked up 100 days in Community waters too. Therefore, we are not inclined to amend the 1994 scheme but we shall certainly reflect on her point when it comes to the 1995 scheme.
The noble Lady expressed anxiety about the way in which fishing effort might be monitored. Of course, we want to avoid any unnecessary red tape. The aim is to use the existing system of log books and landing declarations and to avoid adding to bureaucracy.

2133
She also referred to the PESCA initiative, which the Government welcome. The aim of the scheme is to help the fishing industry adapt to the restructuring of the fleet. The Commission's guidelines and the invitation to member states to participate in the PESCA initiative were issued on 1st July. That has been followed by five symposia organised by the Commission in the UK to explain the initiatives to interested organisations. We are awaiting details of the UK's indicative allocation under PESCA. We shall be drawing up programmes to indicate what will be eligible for assistance, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall carefully consider the views of the industry before final decisions are taken.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the Fontainebleau mechanism. I am afraid that the figures that they quoted were wide of the mark. The Community contributes up to 75 per cent. of the. cost of decommissioning when vessels are scrapped. However, in large part, this contribution from the Community budget is financed by the UK taxpayer. The UK contributes about 15 per cent. of total Community revenue. Moreover, the operation of the Fontainebleau abatement, although it is beneficial to the UK overall in view of our position as a net contributor, reduces the net benefit of any receipts. Taking those two factors into account, the UK taxpayer would bear about 71 per cent. of any receipts from the Community plus the Government's own contribution.
The noble Lady and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, questioned the adequacy of the decommissioning scheme. As I said, we shall take stock as we go along. We have two rounds of decommissioning yet to come, plus the other measures to which I have referred. I do not believe that there is any cause for undue alarm any more than there is cause for complacency. The main point is that the Commission will want to see that we are taking our targets seriously and I believe that we are doing so.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough referred to the position of UK fishermen as compared with that of fishermen in other member states. The Government fully agree that there must be a level playing field among member states. The new control regulation and the recent Commission proposals for controlling effort will help to ensure that. My honourable friend the Minister of State has emphasised to Commissioner Paleokrassas the need for rigorous enforcement if the common fisheries policy is to have any credibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked about the lack of full uptake in the 1993 scheme. Money was left over from the 1993 scheme because vessels that had been accepted were in some cases not scrapped. The underspend was therefore carried forward to this year. The demand for decommissioning grant was excellent. Four hundred and thirty-three applications were made, of which 142 were successful.
The noble Lord also asked about the accuracy of scientific assessment and about discards. Of course, he will know that the science of fisheries is not precise and, I dare say, it never can be. But general experience and anecdotal evidence supports the view that stocks are
2134
under pressure and I am sure that he will agree with that. I agree with him that discards are a cause for concern and for that reason we are working in particular on technical conservation measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what the link was between the recent EC proposals and decommissioning. There is no direct link between the two. I think it worth emphasising again that the decommissioning scheme that we are operating is freestanding. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked whether it would be possible for vessels to be sold abroad, provided that an undertaking were given not to return the vessel to the UK fleet. It would be difficult to police such a system and we believe that scrapping represents the only practicable means of ensuring that decommissioned vessels do not find their way back not just into the UK fleet but into the EC fishing fleet too—
Lord Carter: My Lords, could not that be stopped if they were required to have a licence?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the licensing system provides a check on the number of vessels in the scheme. However, it would be anomalous, would it not, if we found that a vessel for which the taxpayer had paid out money was back in the fleet a month or a few years later? That would bring the system into disrepute—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Would the Minister be indiscreet enough to say that he is not satisfied with some of the licensing on the Continent? In this country, it would be very difficult to license a boat which had received a decommissioning grant.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is not so much that I am satisfied or dissatisfied; it is that the UK. has no means of controlling the way in which other member states operate their systems. The point that I made about wanting to keep maximum possible integrity within our own scheme is valid in that context.
I am told that in my remarks covering the anxieties expressed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about vessels which fished in Norwegian waters, I referred to their disqualification from the scheme. I hope that the noble Lady realised that I meant to say that the time that those vessels spent in Norwegian waters would not count towards the 100-day requirement I compressed my remarks, and I am sorry.
I hope that with those explanations the House will approve the order so that the 1994 scheme can go ahead. I believe that it will make a valuable contribution to the conservation of fish stocks and to our Community targets.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that we shall still have access to PESCA funds, even if we are in breach of our multi-annual guidance programme targets?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are not in breach of those targets. As I have explained, the Government welcome the PESCA initiative. So far as we know, we shall be eligible for funding under that initiative, and we shall study the rules with all speed and consult with the industry as we do so. But if I am wrong, and there is

2135
some link between the MAGP target and the PESCA initiative, and that somehow our eligibility will be delayed —although I do not believe that that is the case —then I shall write to the noble Lady.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure
2.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, when the care of cathedrals Measure was debated in this House in 1990, my brother bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, gave an undertaking to the House that a supplementary Measure would be brought before Parliament containing enforcement provisions relating to the procedure for the approval of works to cathedrals.
Both the Government and the national amenity societies considered that there should be statutory provisions preventing unauthorised works to a cathedral fabric, or where such works had occurred that there should be provisions requiring the fabric to be made good or reinstated without delay. The Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, which was approved in 1991 by this House, contained enforcement provisions in respect of parish churches. Undertakings were given that similar provisions would be included in a supplementary Measure for cathedrals.
The Measure that is now before the House honours that undertaking. It builds upon the visitatorial powers of the diocesan bishop which already exist in relation to his cathedral. Under Canon law the bishop has the right to visit his diocese,
"for the supply of such things that are lacking and the correction of such things that are amiss".
The constitution and statutes of every cathedral church must provide that the bishop shall be the visitor and must make provision for his functions. The Measure also includes a power for the court of the vicar-general of the province to issue injunctions or make restoration orders.
The enforcement provisions of the Measure feature a two-stage procedure. First, the bishop will seek to remedy any apparent contravention of the care of cathedrals Measure 1990 by private interview and, if he considers it appropriate, take action through a special visitation. Only if those procedures are unsuccessful will proceedings be instituted for the issuing of an injunction or the making of a restoration order in the court of the vicar-general of the province.
There has been very full consultation with deans and provosts and with cathedral administrative bodies concerning this Measure. The general view was that enforcement provisions should be provided for, although the cathedral authorities do not believe that they would themselves be likely, knowingly, to contravene the provisions of the 1990 Measure. The
2136
Department of National Heritage, English Heritage and the Cathedral Fabric Commission for England have also been consulted about the provisions and are content with them. The Government have continued to attach importance to the legislation and have taken an active role in pursuing the proposals.
There are also financial considerations to be taken into account. Consultations have been carried out with the church commissioners and the central board of finance of the Church of England about the financial implications of this Measure.
The church commissioners' involvement arises because they have a general responsibility in respect of the expenses of bishops, including legal expenses. Under Section 4 of the measure, where legal proceedings are to be instituted against a cathedral authority, the bishop must first inform the commissioners, who will decide whether they would be prepared to meet some or all of the bishops' costs and expenses in respect of those proceedings. The provision builds on the statutory direction that the commissioners already have in deciding whether to contribute to a bishop's costs in court proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. The commissioners and central board are content with the proposed arrangements.
So far as the synodical consideration of the Measure is concerned, it was given general approval in November 1992 and then went to a revision committee of the General Synod, which made a number of amendments.
Final approval took place at the November 1993 group of sessions at the Synod where the Measure was approved in all three houses save for one vote against. As will be seen from the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, that committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient. Given, then, the support which the Measure has received from the Government, amenities societies and the Church, I trust that your Lordships will feel able to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
2.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I first apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Nicol who cannot be here today although she would have been very pleased to be present. She authorised me to say on her behalf and on behalf of my noble friends Lord Strabolgi and Lord Williams, who served on the Ecclesiastical Committee, that the Measure is eminently satisfactory. The right reverend Prelate carefully explained to us the terms of the Measure and its history and purpose.
I took a great deal of pleasure in reading the Measure and listening to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. All of us as legislators understand the crucial importance of enforcement procedures. We can understand why they were left out as it was thought in

2137
the earlier Measure that they should be introduced at a later stage. We are certainly aware of the many ways in which enforcement might need to be operated.
I was interested in paragraph 7, where it is said that:
"The general view of the cathedral authorities is that enforcement provisions should be provided for, although they do not believe that cathedrals would be likely to contravene the provisions of the 1990 Measure".
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
In the same way, many people who are affected by legislation say that it is not necessary, but that it might be needed. The right reverend Prelate undoubtedly has a store of knowledge about the history of these matters. He and his colleagues are satisfied that even on rare occasions when enforcement needs to be carried out, there should be a proper body of law to cover it. The last thing that we want to do is interfere in the manner in which the Synod and its various committees go about their business.
I was also interested in paragraph 11 where the definitive votes are laid out: Bishops 26—a full house; Clergy 132 —one against; Laity 115—none against. I can tell the right reverend Prelate that it would bring tears to my eyes and to the eyes of the Government Chief Whip if we were able to deliver votes of that kind.
The final word used by the right reverend Prelate was that the Measure was "expedient". That is the term used in the other Measure before us. That is eminently right. Powers are not needed unless it is felt that they are or could be necessary. I notice the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough nodding his head. He and I have had more than a nodding acquaintance for more than 20 years when he had the good fortune to be the Bishop of Edmonton and I had the greater good fortune to be the Member of Parliament for Edmonton. Many times we have talked together and represented our flocks in the other place and elsewhere. Neither of us could have dreamt that we should both be here together in this great House representing those who were kind enough to believe that we could help them.
We on these Benches warmly appreciate the spirit, intention and operation of the Measure that the right reverend Prelate brought before us.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's contribution. The major point that he quite rightly made is that we hope very much that the provisions will not be necessary; but that in the event of enforcement being necessary, in our view it is entirely right that there should be a proper legal framework in place so that the enforcement can be appropriately operated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure
2.19 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this is a modest Measure which sets out to ensure that the
2138
Church's legal aid system works as effectively as possible. It gave rise to no controversy in the General Synod and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
The Church's legal aid fund exists to help with the legal costs of some of those who become involved in proceedings in the Church courts. The cost of that is borne in one way or another by parishes throughout the country and the fund itself is administered by a legal aid commission whose members are drawn from lay people, clergy and the bishops, including a number of professional lawyers who give their time free of charge. Like the state's legal aid system the Church's legal add fund has been faced with a major increase in costs at a time when, as your Lordships know, the Church is under great financial pressure. For that reason the commission conducted a thorough review of the Church's legal aid system and recommended a number of changes which the General Synod accepted and some of which appear in the Measure.
Your Lordships may be surprised that I describe what seems to be a lengthy Measure as modest. That is because most of it is no more than a consolidation of a number of existing pieces of legislation. I am told that the section on ecclesiastical law is one of the bulkiest in the statute book and the Church is anxious to do what it can to keep that section of the statute law in good order and as easy to use as possible. That means that much of the Measure is not new.
For example, the ecclesiastical committee initially expressed some anxiety over the provision that when the legal aid commission is considering the financial position of an applicant for legal aid and deciding whether he or she could afford to pay his or her own legal costs without help from the legal aid fund, the resources of that person's spouse should also be taken into account. That appeared in the previous Measure on the subject and does not mean that the spouse's capital and income are automatically added to the applicant's, as in some cases under the state's legal aid system. It means only that proper consideration should be given to them. Indeed, the Measure now before your Lordships increases the legal aid commission's discretion in this and other matters by requiring it to take all the circumstances of a case into account in reaching its decision. That reassured the ecclesiastical committee, and I hope it will also reassure your Lordships.
The Church has never been able to provide legal aid for every kind of case which comes before Church courts and tribunals. The primary purpose of the Church's legal aid fund is to provide help, in suitable cases, with the legal costs of clergy and some other ministers who are faced with disciplinary proceedings or other proceedings which may involve the loss of their office, their livelihood and the opportunity to exercise their ministry. In many cases of this kind it would not be right to expect clergy and other ministers to seek funds for their legal costs locally, from their own parishes or diocese, because that is often where the problems have arisen. There needs to be a central fund to which they can apply. The legal aid commission recommended that the limited resources which are available to the fund should be concentrated on that group of people, which

2139
means that some of those whom the commission previously had a discretion to help—I would stress that it was a discretion and not a duty—will now need to look to more local sources of Church funds. However, that will have the advantage that in considering their requests the local situation and local needs and resources can be taken into account. Here again, the ecclesiastical committee looked very carefully at what was proposed and was satisfied that it was expedient.
Finally, the Measure contains a number of new provisions to help the Synod's legal aid commission to carry out its duties as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, and to help ensure that the Church obtains the best possible value for money which it spends on legal aid. I hope that your Lordships will wish to support the Church in this, and will therefore support the Motion in my name. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, again we on these Benches have no intention of inhibiting the passage of the Measure. We recognise that they are matters of deep concern within the Synod and quite clearly they are matters which your Lordships wish to be brought before the House and given approval.
When I read the documentation, paragraph 4 on page 4 seemed to me an eminently good starting point. It states:
"The 1992 report was prompted by a particular case, involving a clergyman against whom disciplinary proceedings were taken under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, which resulted in heavy expenditure, both from the Fund and from other sources, as well as giving rise to unfavourable publicity for the Church".
I can well understand that from time to time there is a general feeling that one needs to bring something up to date and then an incident occurs which is a catalyst. Paragraph 6 encapsulates the raison d'être:
"to keep the cost of ecclesiastical legal aid to the minimum consistent with the purpose of the system, to allow the Commission to function as effectively and economically as possible, and to provide the Church with the best possible value for the money spent from the Fund".
We on these Benches are well aware of the high cost of litigation and of the need to ameliorate the cost for people who stumble into its consequences. Any system which helps to equalise the costs is very good.
Paragraph 7(a) is very important. It states that the Measure is to be amended,
"to enhance the Commission's existing discretion in dealing with applications for legal aid".
That is very good indeed because one must be conscious of the amounts of money available and try to weigh, very often imprecisely, the extent to which different causes and cases are entitled to call upon the moneys that are available.
We on these Benches wish the Measure every success, again bearing in mind that the matter has gone through what we would call the democratic process: at the Synod; 16 Bishops for and none against; 89 clergy
2140
for and none against; 106 laity for and none against. That is an even better record than the one on the earlier Measure.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to welcome the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and of my noble friend and commend the order to the House. I hope that it will be noticed in wider circles. I welcome the remarks about whether people are able to contribute to their own legal costs, because the whole nation has recently been appalled by the case of the Iraqi businessman who has already had some £4 million from the legal aid fund yet he is an extremely wealthy man. I believe that there is far more public expense to come. So I think that the Church is a model here and I hope that the appropriate authorities in the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Lord Chancellor's Department will take note of that.
My only other point is to warn the Church, with the greatest respect, to be careful. At the bottom of page 8 the Appendix to the Comments and Explanations states:
"The Commission should be given a much wider discretion in fixing solicitors' and barristers' remuneration on the taxation of costs of legally aided proceedings".
I have spoken in your Lordships' House of late about the quite appalling escalation of fees—of counsel particularly—over the past few years which are quite unjustified by any claim on the rate of inflation. I warn the Church to be very careful because I believe that this concern is growing to such an extent that the Bar Council may be forced into a position of having to put its own house in order.
Paragraph 4 refers to the very limited availability of Queen's Counsel. With due respect, we should take that with a pinch of salt. To the best of my knowledge, provided that the fee is high enough and the refreshers consistent enough, counsel are always very readily available.
As a layman, I hope that I am not impertinent in suggesting that the Church should have a good look at this. There is a large enough problem with ecclesiastical finance these days without having it compounded by the greed of the legal profession. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept these remarks in the spirit in which they are proffered.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the comments on this Measure. I should like to confirm that it was as a result of a particular case, and the very extraordinary expenditure incurred with it, that gave rise to a wider ranging review and the present proposals in the hope that they will be cost effective and efficient. That picks up a further point made by noble Lords. One of the advantages of this Measure is that any applicant will need to get a certificate for legal aid. The applicant will have to apply to the commission at the very earliest stage rather than embarking on proceedings and then presenting the commission with a Bill at the end. So the commission itself keeps a check on the proceedings as they go through in the hope, as I say, that the Church will not be faced with undue, runaway costs. It is also

2141
hoped that there can be some kind of dialogue and communication kept between the applicant and the commission throughout any proceedings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before three o'clock.