Lords Sitting of 3 February 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

War Crimes Trials
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Attorney-General, having consented to the institution of proceedings under Section 1(3) of the War Crimes Act 1991, will consider, before committal for trial, fitness to plead and delay relevant to abuse of process, with a view to exercising his discretion to enter a nolle prosequi.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the power to direct the entry of a nolle prosequi only relates to cases proceeding on indictment, that is, already committed for trial. I understand that the Attorney-General would expect to take account of any available medical evidence when deciding whether to consent to the bringing of proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991 and in the Serafinowicz case did offer the defendant an opportunity to submit any such evidence, and kept this aspect together with the evidence generally under close review.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. Does he agree that these preliminary objections for trial will inevitably be taken in all these cases and that Mr. Attorney, when he gives his consent to the institution of proceedings, has absolutely no means of knowing the substance of the objections? If so, before protracted committal proceedings, would it be appropriate for there to be some form of ex officio appraisal of consent to prosecute in the light of available evidence, at all events in such cases where the accused is about 85 and suffering from advanced Alzheimer's?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Attorney-General takes account of all the material available to him at the stage when he agrees to consent for prosecution in these cases. In the particular case to which reference was made, the Attorney-General had regard to all the evidence and information available at the time when he granted his consent. At the time the Attorney caused an inquiry to be made of those representing the defendant whether there was any medical bar to a prosecution and in particular whether the defendant wished to make any representations to the Law Officers concerning his health, mental or physical. No representations were forthcoming.
So far as concerns the other matters preliminary to trial, they were argued before the judge and the judge agreed that the case should go forward to trial, first, of course, on the question of the accused's fitness to plead.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry which led
1430
to the War Crimes Act made the key finding in paragraphs 9.10 and 9.50 that there were three cases with a realistic prospect of a conviction? Is he further aware that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wrote to me on 11th March 1994 to say that one of those cases had been abandoned because of a lack of evidence and a second case had been abandoned because the person had died? As The Times of 18th January reported that the Serafinowicz case was the third of those cases, has not the underpinning of the Hetherington-Chalmers Report now collapsed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Hetherington-Chalmers Report was based on information available at the time it was made and matters move on. The Act under which these prosecutions were taken was the basis on which the Attorney-General acted in this particular case.

Landmines: Manufacture and Export
2.41 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the manufacture and export of landmines.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Government's moratorium prohibits the export of all anti-personnel landmines to all countries. There are no such restrictions on manufacture but, as far as we are aware, no British companies have manufactured these weapons for several years.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I very much welcome the assurance of the Minister. Will she accept that my Question was prompted by the apparent disagreement over the plea by Princess Diana for the complete abolition of anti-personnel mines? I am glad that the position has now been clarified. The initiative taken by the Government last week at the disarmament conference in Geneva was welcome. But will that impede in any way the processes which were agreed at the Ottawa Conference on this subject last year? Can the Minister also confirm that these devices will not be used by British troops, in view of the general agreement that they have no military strategic importance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we welcome the comments made by the Princess of Wales in support of a total ban on anti-personnel mines. That is the Government's view also. I can assure him also that our tabling of a mandate in the Conference on Disarmament was done because we believe that that is the best place to achieve the goal of a total ban. We are pressing for an early start to negotiations.
The CD has a good track record in arms control and the wide membership essential for such an agreement. It is notable that Canada, the UN Secretary General and a significant number of countries have already

1431
pronounced themselves in favour of the Conference on Disarmament considering the APL. That is a good step forward, so there is no disagreement in that regard. In relation to working towards a unilateral ban on the use of mines, it is not the British Army that caused the problem. We do not ban their use if it is for a special purpose. But any such use will be subject to ministerial consent.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that landmines, whether anti-personnel or anti-tank, are quintessentially defensive weapons? Contrary to what might have been suggested by the noble Lord, they have enormous military significance, especially in the defence of small forces against substantially larger ones. Does not the Minister agree also that it is misleading to say that the mines have no military application? Can she give the House an assurance that the high profile publicity campaigns carried out by people who do not always understand the military implications will not lead the Government into any unilateral action?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that anti-personnel mines, particularly the SMART mines—the only ones now permitted—are defensive weapons. However, if he could see, as I have seen in country after country the terrible situation that exists for ordinary youngsters and adults who have become innocent victims of landmines which were not SMART mines, he would understand why I and so many others are committed not only to demining but also to gaining a global ban. We should not seek to have unilateral bans which allow certain countries to go on using mines. They have a proper military use, but it is extremely limited. I am glad to say that the British Army, when it has to use such mines, does so for limited purposes only, and we hope that that will decrease year by year.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I recently returned from Afghanistan, where there are an estimated 10 million unexploded landmines. Can the Minister say whether there is a move to harmonise export arms controls at IGC? If so, which governments are supporting the move?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not the IGC; I believe the noble Viscount means the Conference on Disarmament.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is there a move to harmonise at IGC on arms export controls?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no such move at the moment. However, our commitment to a total global ban on the transfer, as well as the production, use and stockpiling, of anti-personnel landmines will go a long way to bring that about. The critical need is to persuade all countries to ban the production, use and transfer and to stop indiscriminate use. That is what we are working well towards.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the Scott Report the Government's credibility on
1432
the matter of arms exports is at a low ebb? For that reason, can the Minister once again confirm that there are no exports, direct or indirect or by transfer to third parties—third countries like the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man—or in the form of component parts?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this Question has nothing whatever to do with the Scott Report. Last week I answered the question which has just been repeated by the noble Lord and I have nothing further to add.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in light of my noble friend's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, regarding the horrors of the effects of mines, does she accept that the most humane action we can now take is urgently to lift the mines? We should concentrate our efforts on lifting known mines and convincing the military to mark and map all minefields when they are laid.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why we have contributed £22 million to humanitarian mine clearance over the past five years. We shall maintain our position as one of the world's leading contributors to demining and shall contribute to the European Union support for humanitarian mine clearance. We have always said that mine lifting is one of the most valuable actions we can take and we are helped in that by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. However, the marking of minefields needs the consent of those who laid the mines in the first place. I know from bitter experience in Angola that many layers of mines had no such maps or, if they had, they have been destroyed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that our Royal Engineers have given an exemplary example in mine laying? In the last war, every mine that we laid, when it was necessary, could be picked up with the greatest of ease by another group of Royal Engineers when taking over the plans. If the rest of the world had the same ability as our Royal Engineers, laid mines would not be a difficulty.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the most heartening things that I am seeing these days is retired members of the British Armed Forces joining with groups such as the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group to teach people in countries which are littered with anti-personnel mines how to lift them safely. We wish them well in that work. The Royal Army Ordnance Corps and other soldiers have also been involved in that work.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House which are the countries that seem to be resisting our policy in this matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not yet clear. We do not have a complete rundown. However, we have had support in favour of the Conference on Disarmament considering anti-personnel

1433
mines from the United States, Canada, France, Italy, Japan and Australia. Some countries, probably among the non-aligned, are not yet ready to sign up, but our persuasion goes on.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I apologise if I asked this Question some time ago, but has progress been made in devising new methods of detecting and destroying the mines, which at the present time is an enormously expensive and laborious business?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there may have been, but I am not technically expert in these matters. There is good ability now among many local demining teams. However, the noble Lord is right. It is extremely time-consuming. It can take up to an hour to search thoroughly an area of a square metre. If one thinks of the many square miles that are littered with these mines, it will obviously take a very long while to carry out the clearance. Automatic mine clearance is fine in certain countries that have power and have the facilities to use very expensive equipment. But most clearance is carried out locally by small groups who are specially trained to detect very carefully.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that our Ghurka colleagues are especially skilful in mine clearance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure they are. They have been so skilful in every other task they have ever been asked to undertake that I have no doubt that they are skilful in mine clearance too. I have not met them on mine clearance operations but I have met many others. Most British soldiers know how to do it.

Bus Industry: Privatisation
2.51 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that privatisation of the bus industry has in overall terms been of benefit to the travelling public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, yes. The Government firmly believe that the travelling public and indeed the taxpayer have benefited substantially from the privatisation and deregulation of the bus industry. They have brought greater operating efficiency, introduced the benefits of competition and innovation in meeting passenger needs and given a reduction in the burden on the taxpayer of subsidising the industry.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extraordinary reply. Is he unaware of the fact that a government-appointed committee has in the past few days reported lower service quality, vehicles that are too old, unreliable services, loss of ticket
1434
interchangeability, lack of information for the travelling public and fares higher in real terms than before deregulation? How does he square that criticism with his response?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that that is a fair summary of what the report says. We believe that it is a useful contribution to the debate on bus deregulation and on transport generally. What the noble Lord also failed to mention is that bus mileage has increased by around 25 per cent. outside London, bus operating costs per vehicle mile have decreased and there has been a total decrease of 58 per cent. since 1985 in terms of the subsidy to the bus industry. Deregulation and privatisation have worked. We do not say that there are no problems with the operators disseminating information, and so forth, and we are keen to work with the industry to help improve that.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report from which he has just quoted states that the number of bus passenger journeys has fallen over the past 10 years by 29 per cent.? The report makes eight recommendations on how to improve ticketing and the cost of journeys as between road and rail. Do the Government have any plans to implement what is in the report?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the report has only recently been published. We shall certainly be looking at it very carefully. We think it is a contribution to the debate on the issue. The fact is that bus usage in terms of patronage of the buses has been declining certainly since the 1960s and possibly since before then. But we have seen a levelling off of that decline. As I said, we have seen a healthy increase in bus mileage driven as well as the innovative type of services—for instance, using small buses—that were not in existence before deregulation.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the purposes of the privatisation of the industry was to increase competition; that the competition authorities have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to deal with takeover bids and other anti-competitive and predatory activities by bus companies; and that the Government have failed to implement the promises made as far back as 1989 to increase the investigative powers of the Office of Fair Trading and the sanctions available against anti-competitive practices and to enhance competition policy in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, competition is of key importance to the bus industry. Since deregulation and privatisation, we have seen an increase in competition, with all the benefits that has brought to passengers. I certainly have not heard any calls to renationalise the bus industry or indeed to reregulate it. But perhaps the Opposition can put me right if that is not the case.
As the noble Lord correctly said, the Government intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. Meanwhile, the Office of

1435
Fair Trading booklet, Restrictive Fair Trade Practices in the Bus Industry, explains the present need and procedures for registering agreements between parties. This is certainly an important area.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware of the great problem of the non-availability of tickets across different companies, so that one cannot go in with one company and out with another? The problem is having a severe effect on the use of buses in other than urban areas. Can he confirm that the perceived cost of bus transport outside urban areas puts local authorities which are attempting to reduce the amount of travel by private motor car at a severe disadvantage?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the bus industry is key to the achievement of that aim. The noble Baroness may be interested to hear that 85 per cent. of services are currently run on a commercial basis. Subsidy is given to routes that are not run on a commercial basis. The question of ticketing and the co-operation, or otherwise, between bus companies are central issues and are ones which I understand the report considers. We shall want to respond in fuller detail to the report when we have had more opportunity to consider its recommendations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the one hand the Minister acknowledges that bus "ridership" has declined dramatically and on the other hand boasts an increase in the number of bus miles run. Does that not indicate at the very least commercial incompetence, and surely, much more: a decline in the quality of service?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I do not agree. I do not agree that there is any contradiction in what I said. It is important that more bus mileage is run. The innovative services that have come forward have been a factor in the reduction of the rate of decline of bus usage, which, as I am sure the noble Lord will admit, has tailed off over the past year or two.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that, by and large, privatisation has been a success. However, as he has rightly said, after 10 years certain matters have to be looked at. Is he aware that this is far too large a subject to be dealt with by a Starred Question? Does he agree that it might be better to delay the discussion until my Unstarred Question is debated on 10th March when we can deal with things properly?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am all for dealing with things properly. Indeed, I relish talking about the bus industry at the Dispatch Box. However, that is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am quite prepared to wait until March for the Unstarred Question debate. But, in the meantime, will the Minister go to Oxford to see how privatisation is working there? If he
1436
does, and manages to get through the air pollution and noise pollution, will he make inquiries to see whether the law of diminishing returns is operating in that city?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, from time to time I go to Oxford, but I am sure that my colleagues in the department with direct responsibility for this area of policy are fully aware of developments there.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may recommend that, before 10th March, the Minister reads the report to which I referred earlier? Does he agree that it makes very serious criticisms? Therefore, what is being done to deal with them instead of doing so, as the Minister has done, in a somewhat complacent way?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested to know that I have read the report. It was a major contribution to the enjoyment of the weekend to make sure that I had read it before coming to the Dispatch Box. It is an important subject. As the noble Lord will be aware, it is a very full report; no doubt he has also read every word of it. The fact is that, rather than coming to an instant conclusion on a first reading, it is better to digest the great amount of work that has gone into the report before arriving at our firm conclusions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Viscount take the trouble to travel by bus and train from North to South Wales? If he does, he will find himself back in 1850.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have spent quite a good deal of time in Wales during the past year. I shall certainly wish to talk to my colleagues about bus travel in Wales. I shall seek to inform myself further on the subject.

Rochester Prison: Hunger Strike
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to bring to an end the hunger strikes by asylum seekers and others in HM Prison Rochester.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the prison and immigration service at Rochester prison are making every effort to care for those detainees who have chosen to refuse to take regular prison meals, but they are also making it clear to them that it is in their own best interest to stop their hunger strike. There is no justification for them to take this action and the right course is for them to end their protest immediately.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, no one will condone a hunger strike—but this is by people who are the victims of torture and persecution throughout the world. Is not the right answer for the Government to say that it is wrong that we should detain people in prisons and detention centres against whom there are no criminal charges

1437
whatsoever merely on the decision of an official? Would not the right answer be to have a judicial process other than the bail system, which does not work, to safeguard these people and ensure that justice is done? The hunger strike would then be over immediately.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what the noble Lord is suggesting. There is a proper process. There is the right of appeal for all people who enter this country and apply for asylum. We detain in our prisons about 1 to 1.5 per cent. only of those applicants whose cases are outstanding. That means that between 98 and 99 per cent. are allowed into the community awaiting the appeal procedure.
The noble Lord referred to offences. I do not intend to use names because it would be inappropriate for me to do so. But some of the people who are operating this protest are involved with crimes, including child abuse, shoplifting, drugs, blackmail, living on immoral earnings and fraud, to name but a few.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the remark made by the noble Lord that these people have been tortured and have suffered terrible conditions throughout the world, can my noble friend assure us that they are not suffering such terrible conditions in our prisons and there is no question whatever of continuing torture and maltreatment of these people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say two things to my noble friend. First, if people are genuine victims of torture that would be sorted out in the substantive consideration of their case. Secondly, these asylum seekers are being looked after. There is a separate wing in the prison and there is no connection with convicted prisoners. There are D and E wings. There is also a hospital wing where some of the detainees are sent if they need medical care and attention. Food and water are provided throughout the day if they wish to partake of it. Medical attention is offered, although sometimes some of them refuse it. Care, attention and counselling have been given to persuade these people not to continue with the protest, and they are continuous.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is quite wrong that anyone should be imprisoned without trial? Why have we reverted to this barbarous and uncivilised practice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that it is barbarous. I have mentioned how few people are detained. They are detained because it is judged that they would not conform to the normal conditions of release. There are good reasons why they are detained, and it is done very rarely. The asylum seekers still have the freedom to apply for bail. Some have done so and in fact one was granted bail. Bail is considered independently of government and after taking into account the likelihood of a detainee conforming to the conditions of release.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us of any other circumstance in which people may be
1438
detained in a British prison without trial, without cause shown and without limitation of time? If the answer is no, can she tell us whether asylum seekers are so treated because they are seen as lesser breeds without the law or because the Home Office regards the safeguards as outdated and they are no longer taken seriously?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find that a preposterous premise on which to base a question. I have already given some reasons. Sometimes asylum seekers are detained because on an independent judgment there is considered to be a decided likelihood that they will abscond while awaiting either deportation or for the process to be completed. Some have been detained on conviction or on suspicion of having committed a crime. I have given reasons why they should be detained; and they are treated humanely. We have conformed to all our obligations under national and international law in the way in which we are caring for these detainees.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister referred to independent judgment. Is it not the case that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees requires that the granting of bail should be considered by a competent, independent and impartial authority, whereas in this country it is in the hands of Immigration Department officials, who can hardly claim to be independent? Is it not also the case that, even when bail is granted, an asylum seeker has to obtain two referees and find £2,000 for bail? Does that not of itself increase the number not only of those who are held in detention but of those who feel themselves to be unjustly held?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, unless the noble Lord has evidence to the contrary, we are not in contravention of our obligations under national and international law. We certainly conform to the United Nations Convention on Refugees.

Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order (S.I. 1996/3184) laid before the House on 18th December be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as these orders were laid under the negative procedure, I have tabled these prayers in order to secure a debate on them. Perhaps I may make it clear at the outset that I do not intend to divide the House at the end of the debate. I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if we debate the two orders together. The second order can be dealt with more formally when we reach it on the Order Paper.
With these orders—to coin a phrase as regards the BSE saga—we have reached the end of the beginning. I do not intend to rehearse the whole sorry BSE story today; it has been done often enough. Each time a new piece of information comes to light the responsibility of the Government for this disaster becomes clearer and clearer. Perhaps one day it will be possible to conduct an independent, authoritative inquiry—not to apportion political blame—in order to learn the many lessons to be learnt for government, public administration, scientific policy and the restoration of consumer confidence in our beef industry.
These orders comprise the final part of the five parts of the Florence Agreement negotiated by the Government in June last year. The House will recall that the Prime Minister returned from Florence, claiming a negotiating triumph, saying:
"This timetable is essentially in our hands".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/96; col. 22.]
I can recall remarking at the time that I thought that it was very unwise of the Prime Minister to make such a claim and then indeed to compound the problem by actually saying that the export ban would begin to be lifted by October/November of last year. When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he could give us the Government's estimate of when they expect the export ban to begin to be lifted.
Having agreed to the selective slaughter scheme as an integral part of the Florence Agreement, the Government announced in September that they were not, in fact, going ahead with the scheme after all. They claimed new scientific evidence in support of their change of stance and suggested that, because of the backlog of slaughterings in the over-30-month scheme, sufficient abattoir capacity was not available for them to be able to implement the selective slaughter scheme.
Two questions arise from the Government's stance last autumn. If the new scientific evidence then was a reason for not going ahead with the selective slaughter scheme, what is the even newer scientific evidence which the Government must now have which has enabled them to change their mind again? Also, if—as was certainly the case—the Government's mismanagement of the over-30-month scheme created an enormous backlog in the abattoirs, why did not the Government lay the orders, take the power to identify the animals to be caught by the scheme and then place restriction orders on those animals? The Minister will remember that the original proposals for the selective slaughter scheme mentioned slaughter or restriction. Indeed, that could have been done under the third order, which does not require parliamentary procedure—the BSE (No.2) Order 1996.
If the Government had done that, slaughtering under that scheme could have started as soon as the backlog of the over-30-month scheme had been cleared. Above all, the farmers who are involved in the scheme would have known where they stood. They would have been able to plan. They would have known what replacements were needed and how many animals they were going to lose. Why did not the Government do
1440
that? They said in a Statement made by Mrs. Angela Browning that they originally intended to lay the orders last July. Why this incessant chopping and changing? Why did not the Government take the powers last July so that the vets could get on to the farms, identify the animals and place restriction orders on them so that the farmers and everybody else would have known where they stood?
Of course, we all know the real reason for the delay and indecision. The Government knew that whatever they did the export ban would not be lifted. What a triumph of negotiation! First, we had the policy of non-co-operation with our European partners. I can remember the Minister telling me across the Floor of the House last summer that the policy of non-co-operation had produced the Florence Agreement, which the Prime Minister then said would lead to the beginning of the lifting of the export ban by October/November. The Government then said that they would not complete the Florence Agreement after all because the ban would be lifted anyway. Now they are introducing a selective slaughter scheme with apparently no commitment from Brussels regarding the lifting of the ban. Could the Minister please tell the House exactly what has been achieved by those six months of dither and indecision?
There are, of course, a large number of questions about the details of the scheme. It would be helpful when the Minister replies if he could explain how many of the detailed provisions are required by European regulations and how many are entirely within the remit of the UK Government and are not required by the European Union? If one looks at the two orders, it seems clear that the provisions of the first order (on BSE compensation) are entirely within the power of the UK Government and that the second order is required to bring them into line with European requirements. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how much of the detail of the scheme is entirely within the remit of the UK Government.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could tell us something about the situation now regarding the proposed certified herd scheme. Has a formal submission been made by Brussels regarding the scheme and the way in which it is supposed to work? When do the Government expect the scheme to start? How will it operate? Is it correct that the great majority of the certified herds at the outset are likely to be in Ulster? Incidentally, the MLC has suggested the title "Export Beef Scheme" rather than the "Certified Herd Scheme", which seems like a good idea.
The Minister will be aware of the very considerable concern that has been expressed by farmers and their organisations regarding the way in which the compensation is to be calculated, the definition of the number of productive animals in a herd and the capping of compensation payments. It would be helpful if the Minister could go into some detail regarding the operation of the scheme and particularly about how the Government respond to the practical points that have been put to them by farmers and their organisations.
Then there is the extraordinary decision to include in-calf heifers in the calculation of productive animals in the herd. In 40 years of farm management accounting,

1441
I have never included in-calf heifers in a calculation of average herd size. It seems to be a straight Treasury trick just to reduce the number of herds that qualify for top-up compensation through over 10 per cent. of the herd being taken. If the size of the herd is increased by 25 per cent., the chances of having 10 per cent. taken are reduced.
The Government have already said that they estimate the total cost of the scheme as around £120 million. To calculate that figure, they must have an estimate of the amount of top-up compensation within the £120 million. Average herd replacement rates are between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. A farmer will keep about 25 heifer calves, 25 yearlings and have 25 heifers to be put in calf for every 100 cows. That is how one calculates the replacement rate. As I have said, the Government must have a figure for the amount of top-up compensation within the £120 million. We all know what average herd replacement rates are. Therefore, it should not take a moment to calculate the saving to public funds as a result of including in-calf heifers in the definition of a "herd". It would take only a moment, so perhaps the Minister can give the House the figure when he replies to the debate. We are talking about the saving to public funds of including in-calf heifers in the calculation. Incidentally, how is the in-calf heifer to be defined? Presumably, it will be on a positive pregnancy diagnosis. Who is to do that, and who pays? I saw in the farming press that one of the definitions being suggested was when the heifer is first put to the bull or to AI. If that is correct, it reflects a remarkable degree of optimism regarding the outcome of the service procedure.
On the question of payment, the NFU has pointed out that the Intervention Board has a target to pay farmers within 21 days of animals being removed from the farm. Are the Government prepared to guarantee that timescale? After all, we had a target for the over-30-month scheme which missed by a mile and we were given a target for the lifting of the export ban. The Government must not be surprised, therefore, if in the case of BSE their targets are regarded as something of a movable feast.
I am sure that the Minister will also want to deal with the important question of the effect on quotas in the dairy and suckler herds if animals are removed from the herd as a result of the scheme.
Only this morning a point of which I was not previously aware was drawn to my attention. It seems that if a herd is subject to TB restrictions, movement is controlled and any reactors are taken for slaughter on the basis of 75 per cent. of valuation, subject to the current maximum of £630. It appears that under these orders any BSE selective slaughter culls which are found on farms with TB restrictions will be compensated as TB reactors and not by using the compensation formula set out in the statutory instrument. That compensation formula is on a replacement basis, not market value, and is not subject to the 75 per cent. reduction. It would be helpful if the Minister could clear up that point.
There is also the vexed question of maternal transmission. Can the Minister give the House the latest information on that? How will the selective slaughter scheme accommodate the problem if there is found to be a low level of maternal transmission in the national herd?
Throughout this whole sorry business the Opposition have behaved responsibly. There has been no attempt in the other place to exploit the Government's non-existent majority. We have every right as an Opposition to point out the Government's shortcomings. As it happens, my time as an Opposition spokesman on agriculture in this House, which commenced in 1987, has almost exactly coincided with the BSE crisis—although the philosophers among your Lordships will recall that a connection is not a cause. I can well remember over the years how the Government have been pressed to take certain actions and how they have responded—or failed to respond. However, my honourable friend Mr. Gavin Strang made it clear in the other place on 21 st January when the orders were debated there that he would not ask the House to vote against them, as I did at the beginning of this debate.
We supported the Florence Agreement and made it clear that we would support all necessary measures to bring this crisis to an end. But it is a sorry commentary on this whole business that we are now forced to support orders that will result in the slaughter of perhaps 100,000 perfectly healthy animals with the resultant worry and frustration of the farmers who own them and the cost to the taxpayer. Although the BSE crisis and the stance of our European partners in this matter come long after the days of Winston Churchill, an observation that he made in another place in 1934 is peculiarly apt:
"…the greatest target in the world, a kind of tremendous, fat, valuable cow tied up to attract the beast of prey, we are in a position in which we have never been before".
I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order (S.I. 1996/3184) laid before the House on 18th December be annulled.—(Lord Carter.)
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow directly the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the subject of agriculture. I congratulate him on having achieved 10 years as Opposition spokesman. Perhaps he will continue that role! The noble Lord has introduced a number of timely debates on BSE for which I am sure the House and my noble friend are grateful. However, I detected that the noble Lord's usual balance of experience was somewhat tainted by a political eye in terms of blaming the Government for virtually everything that had happened. No doubt that is totally unfair. This has been the most horrendous experience for agriculture, producers, the Government and even consumers.
I support the regulations despite the fact that there is to be a further dreadful slaughter of approximately 100,000 dairy cows and suckler cows which are to be sacrificed without any real scientific evidence. The

1443
noble Lord reminds us that as this is the fifth and final stage of the Florence Agreement, in the next few months surely we must expect the start of the lifting of the ban by the Commission.
Like others, I received a comprehensive briefing from the National Farmers Union. I pay tribute both to the National Farmers Union of England and Wales and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. They have done a fantastic job on behalf of producers and the industry generally in providing hope and seeking to get to grips with this dreadful situation. I cannot claim to have mastered all the nuances of the compensation regulations. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will guide us with his incisive description of what all this means. But it was clear from the briefing that there were two matters which appeared to be unfair and did not really achieve what the Government hoped to achieve—that is to say, the replacement value of the cattle to be slaughtered and fair compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned in-calf heifers. The situation is a strange one. I am sure that my noble friend will provide a clear explanation as to why this has been drawn as it has. Further, the top-up payment arrangements appear to be somewhat ungenerous at the threshold level. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about that.
Referring to the details of the regulations, I hope that my noble friend will have time today to say a little about the programme and procedures for the relaxation of the EU ban and the introduction of the certified herd scheme. At the same time, it would be interesting to know what contribution was being made by the Commission to these regulations in regard to compensation. No doubt my noble friend has figures relating to that.
Clearly, the most important task that faces the Government and producers is to win back the confidence of consumers. This has not been helped by the extraordinary report of the European Parliament committee. I note that it was designated a temporary committee. I hope that it is "very" temporary. It has not been helped by rumours that one reads about, for example, that a German Galloway cow may have passed the disease through maternal transmission. All of these are continuing uncertainties.
I feel that the best way that the industry and both Houses of Parliament can fight on behalf of the industry for the confidence of the consumer is to bring forward the computerised tagging system or tell them what is happening about the investigation and report of the committee and support the efforts of producers in the premium quality beef programmes. I suggest that the important consumer leaders in this country are such organisations as McDonald's and schools. I very much hope that they are looking carefully at all of the actions that the Government and the producers have taken to cleanse the industry of this dreadful disease.
I hope that when my noble friend replies not only will he clarify the compensation terms under the regulations but confirm his confidence that producers can look forward to a light at the end of the tunnel in the not too distant future.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I like to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has provided all of the detail. It gives me greater scope to look at the general situation than if I have to pose the questions that I trust the Minister has taken away to answer.
It is true that this is a necessary political move simply to restore the confidence that we have lost in Europe by making an agreement and then reneging on it for no very good reason. A great many animals which have no prospect of having BSE will be slaughtered, but if that takes out a number of such animals, restores confidence and gets the Government back on a decent footing in Europe there is a chance that the whole matter may be cleared up. We can then make a start on putting the herds in Northern Ireland and Scotland that have had very little BSE onto a footing where they can begin to recapture the markets that they have lost.
I turn to the attitude of the Government. I believe that they need to learn a lesson from the payment of half-compensation originally proposed for animals with BSE which were slaughtered. That must have resulted in quite a number of animals going back into the food chain. They corrected that and paid full compensation, but I hope and trust that they will learn that lesson when it comes to dealing with the herds which have BSE in them. As I understand it, a rough basis is simply going to be that if a herd has an animal which has had BSE, then they will look at all the cattle born in the same year and they may well be slaughtered. This can have an appalling effect on the herd.
I was never a very good stockman, although I was a dairy man. I am afraid to tell you that I was always more interested in the end result in terms of pounds, shillings and pence than I was in the animals; but I know that most breeders of stock are passionately interested in what they are doing and in the animals which they are breeding. I also know that a great many farmers who suffered the complete elimination of their herds in the days of the foot and mouth slaughter suffered terribly, some to the extent of the distress actually killing them.
The Government should approach the negotiations with the farmers whose herds are affected with a great deal of sympathy. Certainly, they want a far higher possible level of compensation than £1,000. I see that the NFU is suggesting a figure of £2,500. A pedigree cow which is producing and has been producing youngsters, whose milk yield rises, is worth a great deal of money in a herd, and to limit it to a figure such as £1,000 cannot be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, correctly attacked the Government for saying that they will change the basis of the herd. I have never heard of a herd of 100 cows being described as 100 cows with followers; one always has the milking cows and then one has the followers: a herd of 100 with the followers associated thereto. It would be grossly unfair. Compensation will be infinitely greater for farmers who buy in the replacements than people with closed herds—and these are the people who are proudest of their herds, who have worked hardest

1445
with them. It is unfair if there is to be a different basis of compensation. It is a petty, unworthy move, one quite unworthy of our Minister in this House. I am sure that he personally disapproves of it, and I hope that he wins the fight to have it removed.
There is a number of other particular points, but I wish to stress the treatment of the negotiations which take place during the selection of the animals to be taken out of a herd. The compensation is important; but a sympathetic treatment of the individual problems of a pedigree herd owner is also very important.
From this, I hope that the Government will go on to convince first the people of this country and the people of Europe that British beef is the safest in Europe. It almost certainly is, if we are carrying out the regulations properly, because nowhere else are so many safety measures taken, because we had the biggest outbreak. It is as certain as it can be that our beef in this country is probably the safest in Europe. We have taken out the affected parts and we inspect the slaughterhouses properly, I hope. Perhaps the Government should ask a member of the Commission to come and look at any slaughterhouse they choose, without any warning. This sort of thing would do a great deal to advance the day when we can register the animals along the lines already followed in Northern Ireland, where we can promote the excellent product and get the industry back on to a decent footing.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for once again raising this tragic subject. As I live in Scotland, I wish to support the principled position that has been adopted by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland; namely, the implementation of the Florence Agreement and the lifting of the export ban.
From an early date in this sad business I have had no interest to declare, having gone out of dairy and beef production some years ago. But Scottish farmers have been and are realists. They have recognised and understood consumers' concern for responsible fanning practices. They have realised that the Florence Agreement pre-conditions—right or wrong—have set a template for getting back consumer confidence and for getting the export ban lifted. Already during this debate we have realised how increasingly complicated this whole BSE subject has become.
These orders are therefore most welcome. They implement the undertakings given by the Prime Minister last June, since when BSE as been discussed six times in your Lordships' House and there have been no fewer than 60 written answers. These orders provide the opportunity, once in place, to negotiate sales of Scotch beef in overseas markets.
Scottish agriculture is particularly sensitive to the prevailing conditions of beef production and it accounts for 28 per cent. of total Scottish agricultural output. So its exclusion from export markets has been very harmful. Not only did it deny sales that have accounted for 20 per cent. of all markets; it removed the least price-sensitive part of demand. Scotch beef has for
1446
many years had a deserved niche at the top end of the market throughout Europe. It should be allowed back, and as soon as possible.
As to the details of the measure, only close investigation will prove how many animals actually are in the "at risk" group by virtue of being suspected to have fed from the same materials as calves, as known cases of BSE. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has already mentioned, the number of BSE cases in Scotland was extremely small in any case, and it may be supposed that not many animals will be involved in this additional slaughter. But no matter how small or how large the numbers, it is right in principle that we should support the measure as being in the wider public interest and in the interest of restoring confidence in our rural areas.
For farmers themselves, there is bound to be some disquiet about the compensation scheme. It should not be allowed to delay implementation and some parts have indeed been less than generous. I would like to refer to two aspects of the arrangements. One involves money, the other does not.
The aspect which does not carry any cost implications is the matter of timing. We should not ignore the potential disruption to farm businesses—both beef and dairy—which could arise if a number of cattle have to be taken from a single farm. Where this happens, a suitable transition period must be allowed. In the case of dairy farms, this could be accomplished by a phased removal of animals. Thereby, milk quota obligations could be observed and there could be prevention of too much dislocation to farm businesses.
For beef herds—the suckler herds which are mainly in the most difficult upland areas—it is more a case of extending the timing of replacements. Animal breeding is not like making cars. You cannot step up the production line and make a few more on any given day. This is a terribly important point to take on board. So we must be sensitive to the needs of the farmers affected, most especially where pedigree animals are involved. The recommended solution is to allow an extended period during which compensation assistance can be applied to the replacements.
That brings me to the compensation itself, the money issue. Market value compensation is inadequate for making up the numbers of beef suckler herds. Full replacement cost, including replacement cost of a cow by a heifer with calf at foot, is recommended. And where dislocation costs can be proved, for example in closed herds which have to breed replacements, these should be widely available.
I look forward to receiving the Minister's assurance and I commend the measure to this House.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am a beef producer, not a dairy farmer, so I reluctantly accept that if we are ever to get the EU to allow our beef into Europe, we must make obeisance, worship, and obey the craven images in Brussels and instigate this totally illogical slaughter.

1447
The thought of that unnecessary slaughter appals me and if a similar thing happened to my flock, I should be very reluctant to co-operate, to the extent of breaking the law. Our bureaucratic masters must try to understand that to many farmers building up a herd or a flock is their life's work and endeavour. They will feel very strongly about it.
However, at the end of the day, financial considerations can sway ideals and, given fair compensation and efficient management by MAFF, I suppose that I might be persuaded to co-operate. But, sadly, this order does not inspire me with confidence in either the compensation or efficient management by MAFF. I realise that some noble Lords may think that it is not right to compensate at all, but I feel sure that, the Government having taken the decision to do so, all noble Lords would agree that it should be done fairly and efficiently.
This order does not compensate fairly. I see no evidence that MAFF will organise it any more efficiently than it did with the original cull. To embarrass my noble friend Lord Lindsay, I only hope that MAFF will try to do as well in England and Wales in the future as it has in the past done in Scotland.
On compensation, the definition of a "herd" to include in-calf heifers is a disaster. It will militate against our best self-contained herds in favour of the flying herd, for all the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and clearly stated in the other place on 21st January. This will cause and already has caused ill feeling and non-co-operation. If the scheme is to work, such co-operation is vital.
Can my noble friend therefore help on the following matters: first, will he give a more specific definition of how vets will interpret "cohort years" and "feeding groups"? I hope that he will be able to say that they will be allowed to be flexible and, having been flexible, I hope that he will be able to confirm that their definitions will be acceptable to our lords and masters in Brussels. Secondly, will the Inland Revenue now follow the pattern of including in-calf heifers in the herd as being eligible in future, for Inland Revenue purposes, for the herd basis? What is sauce for the gander must be sauce for the goose, or whichever way it is.
How will vets deal with incorrectly maintained records? It is no good saying that farmers should keep good records. I am sure that I should. That will not solve the problem. If there are bad records we must try somehow to get them right. The only way in which that will be done is by sympathetic and understanding officials, and enough of them.
Finally, there is the matter of payment. The Government have said that they "hope to pay" within 21 days of slaughter. That means 28 days plus from leaving the farm. Bearing in mind the past record of MAFF and WOAD and their poor performance and slow payment with things such as IACS and headage payments, will my noble friend say whether that timelag could be shortened. It would help restore some confidence in MAFF's efficiency. I should say that I have nothing but admiration for the unfortunate
1448
MAFF officers on the shop floor. My complaint, as I have said before, is further up the line. I would not trust MAFF in Whitehall to run a burger bar. I wish that it would import just one person with current practical knowledge. I suppose that there are no burger bars now!
As the whole BSE problem is crazy, I suppose that we must suggest crazy solutions, such as this order. I wonder whether, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, my noble friend will say that, if and when we complete the cull, there is any hope of lifting the beef ban.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carter for bringing the attention of the House to these statutory instruments relating to the accelerated cull of cattle. I should at the outset like to declare an interest in that I own a dairy farm in Cheshire.
It is generally agreed that this cull cannot be justified on scientific grounds. It has been reported that BSE will die out around the year 2001 irrespective of this cull. Nor can the cull be justified on the grounds of public health, as all at-risk animals are excluded from the food chain by the over-30 months scheme. It cannot be justified on the grounds that it will open up either the domestic market, even from BSE-free herds, as this is a process of discreet proposals; or the export market, as there is no quid pro quo for this in the Florence agreement. If farmers are being asked to support a cull without foundation and to little avail, the response will largely depend on their perception of how they will be treated. It behoves the Government to restore farmers to the position they would have been in had there been no cull. These statutory instruments are deficient on both these points.
Before examining these orders, I should like to point out to your Lordships the unsatisfactory manner in which matters are proceeding at the farm gate. These orders came into force on 24th January and visits to farms by the state veterinary service started on 27th January. I received a letter from my MAFF service centre dated 23rd January which referred me to a scheme booklet. When I telephoned my regional centre I was informed that these booklets had yet to be produced and that I should telephone headquarters at Tolworth. I was visited last Friday by a divisional veterinary officer to have the procedures explained, but even he had not seen the booklet. This is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. In December, the ministry published a discussion document and I am disappointed that the statutory instruments do not differ from this document, given the robust challenges which the industry made to certain proposals contained in it.
There are several deficiencies in the Sis. Take, for instance, the definition of "herd" in paragraph 4(3)(a). The definition's inclusion of immature heifers in calf is entirely contrary to common practice. It also contradicts the Government's usual practice in relation to schemes, census figures and legislation, including that covering taxation on the herd basis. A herd of cows in all other circumstances is considered to include only productive animals; that is, cows that have calved at least once.

1449
Farmers will inevitably conclude that this unprecedented definition has been used simply as a device to reduce their eligibility for top-up payments. Furthermore, these savings will fall only on those producers and pedigree breeders who rear their own replacements. This definition is unacceptable.
Another deficiency relates to the compensation payments referred to in paragraph 4(1)(a). As the cull is irrelevant as regards public health, any taking of animals by the state must be fully compensated. And by that I mean full replacement cost, not 90 per cent. as in the order. Compensation should also cover consequential losses.
The enhancement of compensation set out in Schedule 2 is also inadequate. Consequential losses do exist below the 10 per cent. of herd threshold proposed by the orders. Also, the £1,000 per animal top-up limit and the maximum level of 25 per cent. of herd are entirely arbitrary figures. The top-up should have no per animal limit, which would simplify calculations. The banding limit should also be amended to reflect the levels proposed by the Country Landowners' Association: namely, below 5 per cent. of herd culled will receive a 10 per cent. top-up; between 5 and 10 per cent. of herd, a 20 per cent. top-up; between 11 and 20 per cent of herd, a 30 per cent. top-up; and more than 20 per cent. of herd, a 40 per cent. top-up.
Perhaps I may also draw your Lordships' attention to the ministry's discussion document and its definitions of "cohorts", "cohort years" and "feeding groups". It is very helpful and welcome that common sense and individual farming practices will be taken into account in drawing up each farmer's list of "exposed" cattle. However, I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to confirm that objections will not be raised by the Standing Veterinary Committee such that the approval of the cull is jeopardised. In this regard, the question of the definition of cohort being extended to include maternal transmission, as mentioned in paragraph 7, has still to be resolved.
The Natal Herd Report, which must be filled in by the veterinary officer when visiting each farm, refers only to the last born calf of BSE cases and then only if it is still in the herd. It would be unacceptable for the cull to begin and payments, including top-ups, to be determined before it was agreed what bearing, if any, maternal transmission has on the scheme as approved. It would be unacceptable for this process to have to be done all over again.
Paragraph 9 of the discussion document refers to "solid food". Are the Government aware that certain milk replacer powders contain added animal protein? I understand that there has been a case of BSE in a herd that did not buy in any foodstuff other than milk replacer.
As regards, paragraphs 23 and 27, accountability for the farmer must end when the animal leaves the farm and the period of compensation must start then. Payment must be within a defined period of time, with penalties for late payment. Discipline is demanded of the Intervention Board. But to make compensation pay-outs only after slaughter is confirmed by the abattoir places the farmer at a disadvantage, complicates matters and lengthens the time period.
1450
The discussion document also states that the Government will approach the Commission about the impact of slaughtering on other schemes. Can the noble Earl confirm that the HLCA beef and suckler cow premiums will still be paid to fanners who will no longer be able to meet the animal retention conditions of these schemes as a result of the cull? Can the Minister confirm also that there will be no difference in the tax treatment of compensation between animals taken under the compulsory and voluntary provisions of the orders?
These orders are not mere legislative detail but are of fundamental importance to the future of our farming industry. Everyone wishes to see an end to BSE as quickly as possible. All the measures now in place must be enforced fully and effectively as part of the process of building greater confidence in the safety and wholesome nature of British beef. It is, therefore, with great dismay that farmers learned of Germany's rejection of implementing a Community-wide extension of UK safety measures such as the rejection of specified bovine material. That is appalling after last week's news that there has indeed been a case of BSE in Germany.
In view of that, I hope that the noble Earl will confirm that the Government will press for the enforcement of all measures across the whole European Union. As other countries' under-reporting comes to light and further bans are implemented, such as the ban by Russia and Egypt on Irish beef, concern increases that, just as the United Kingdom rebuilds its beef industry, we could suffer from a new collective ban of all European countries' products to third party countries.
Regarding cattle of European origin, can the noble Earl confirm how many have subsequently become confirmed BSE cases? Is it the case that BSE-positive cattle that have been imported and reared in the UK for a period exceeding 22 months are deemed to have become infected from feed within the UK? If this is the case, how will cohorts of these cattle be determined and traced?
Finally, serious thought must be given to ending the rolling nature of the 30-month age for exclusion of beef from the food chain. If we claim that all possible precautions are being enforced, beef can be deemed safe from animals born after a certain date. What is the Government's thinking on this and what date do they have in mind?
Re-cycled meat and bonemeal was rejected from all feedstuffs earlier last year. I understand that a team of EU inspectors declared themselves satisfied with all the measures being implemented, at abattoirs during September 1996. Will the noble Earl confirm that the date of 1st September 1996 could be the definitive date?
The farming industry has been in crisis for 10 months and still the Government have not been able to come up with the right measures to give farmers the confidence and security they need to plan for the future. We have before us today two further measures which fall short in several regards. Until the Government respond to these concerns, our doubts over Ministers' ability to find a way out of the crisis will remain. Perhaps it will take a change of government for us to get the action we need.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, first, I must declare my interest as a dairy farmer who has had BSE within his herd. I certainly could not support these orders, although I understand that it is a tradition of your Lordships' House that we do not vote against secondary legislation. However, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to debate these orders. I believe that in order to judge them and learn the lessons, we should look at them against the whole background of this sorry story.
I suggest that the BSE saga has been one of the most expensive examples of government muddle in the annals of public administration in this country. I do not know how much it has cost. We are told £2 billion, £2.3 billion and £2.5 billion. For the purpose of argument, I would happily settle for £2 billion; that is, two thousand million pounds. Let us think of the opportunity cost of that money.
The greatest part of that expenditure cannot be justified neither on the basis that it has contributed significantly and proportionally to public health; or that it has succeeded in restoring our markets overseas; or that it was necessary to restore the British beef market (because I understand that the British domestic beef market, outstandingly in the European context, is already very close to what it was before BSE arose. Of course, that is much to the credit of the good sense of the British people).
First, on public health grounds, as I understand it—I shall be subject to correction—so far there have been only 14 cases of the dreaded CJD. That is with every hospital and doctor in the country on the sharp lookout for cases. It is questionable as to whether CJD is caused by BSE. That is in no way proved as yet. Even if it were, in terms of proportionality and the other calls on public spending of that amount of money, bearing in mind the other diseases which humankind suffers, I do not believe that we could conceivably justify that level of expenditure for that incidence of disease. That is my personal view. Speaking as a farmer, I am not sure that I do not feel more sorry for the taxpayers than for the farmers in this matter with this huge amount of public spending.
In order to learn from the past and thus be able to judge the orders now before us, we need to look at what I believe to have been the four fundamental errors which have been made in handling BSE. I should like to say a few words on the first three but will merely refer to the fourth because it has already been so fully dealt with by other speakers.
The first error was the failure to prevent cross-contamination of foodstuffs. That dates right back to when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, first became Labour spokesman on such matters—no cause and effect—in 1987 or so. It means that no steps were taken by the Ministry of Agriculture at that time to prevent manufacturers of animal foodstuffs from making the foodstuffs in which the suspect materials were not to be included in the same plant as the foodstuffs in which they were still allowed. That was an unforgivable and
1452
hugely costly mistake which I believe to have been largely responsible for the level of BSE cases over the past eight years. I believe that it has been a major factor.
There will I hope one day be a very specific inquiry as to exactly where the technical advice to Ministers fell down. I believe that fingers should be pointed. Clearly this was not a political matter; indeed, you cannot expect a Minister to think of such things. But the risk became apparent much earlier than when the Government finally took action in March of 1996. That was the date from which it was forbidden to use the same plant and machinery for making foodstuffs in which the banned substances were incorporated as well as foodstuffs in which they were not allowed. I would also suggest that there is quite a responsibility—I hesitate to use the word "liability"—on some of the manufacturers because they continued to use the same plant, thereby hazarding so many animals which ate the contaminated foodstuffs.
The second error was the sad mishandling of public relations in this country. I am afraid that I must blame my right honourable friend Mr. Stephen Dorrell to a large extent. I remember hearing with horror that broadcast on the "Today" programme during which he was being pressed in the irresponsible way that the media engage in from time to time. He said that he would take whatever advice was given, and was then asked whether that meant that he would, if necessary, order the destruction of the entire national herd. Instead of saying, "What an absurd hypothetical question; I have no intention of commenting on such nonsense", he said, "I will merely say that we will take the advice that we are given". Of course, the nine o'clock news led on that—indeed, I sat in my car and listened to the headline, "Minister envisages possibility of the destruction of the entire national herd". As I said, the public relations were not well handled either by the Government or by the media. For the latter, it was a perfectly lovely scare story but it just happened to be a rather serious one for all of us as taxpayers, as farmers and as a nation.
The third error was a lack of appreciation of the diplomatic dimension of the whole affair. There was the assumption that our European colleagues would be united with us in the desire to get British exports of beef back on to world markets and into their markets as soon as possible. However, nothing could have been further from the truth. We all know the degree of Schadenfreude that there is in Europe about Britain. It was really very predictable that, for all sorts of reasons which there is no time to go into now, there was little likelihood of there being other than the rubbing of salt in every wound that could be found. It is of course ironic that, as I understand it, the Germans are those who are now suffering the most in terms of their domestic market because the German people appear to be more panicky about beef than any other country in Europe.
I turn now to the fourth point, which has already been dealt with by other speakers in detail. There has been a lack of clarity, of certainty and of logic in the various schemes which have been muted, "unmuted", put forward, not introduced and which are now being introduced. What, therefore, would be my own view of the final situation? I have examined the incidence of

1453
BSE at the present time. I have with me one of the Written Answers of 23rd January in which my noble friend Lord Lucas most kindly provided the weekly number of confirmed cases in each week during 1995-96. There has, of course, been a fall but it has been a pretty irregular one.
Let us, for example, compare the average of the first 10 weeks of 1996 with the average of the last 10 weeks of 1995; that is, a 20 week-period. If we do so, we actually find that in the first 10 weeks of 1996 there were 234 confirmed cases a week and that in the last 10 weeks of 1995 there were only 221 cases—an actual increase of 6 per cent. Since then there was a welcome reduction in single figures in the closing weeks of 1996. The average for the last 10 weeks in 1996 is 113 confirmed cases, which means under half the rate during the first 10 weeks of 1996. I believe that at least part of that is due to the fact that no animals are now being fed with contaminated food. Indeed, I believe that that was probably being phased out before the Government introduced their regulations in March 1996.
Given the real situation in Europe, the domestic market in Britain and, indeed, the huge costs incurred so far, quite frankly, if I were advising the Government, my inclination would be to let BSE come to its natural and—it is to be hoped—rather rapid end, which I believe it will. Only when that happens will we be able to get back overseas markets. Perhaps some of those countries will realise that in order to restore confidence in their own beef they should play down rather than play up the risk of British beef. That would be my recommendation. However, I fear that it will fall on deaf ears. Nevertheless, if my noble friend Lord Lindsay has the time to comment on what I have said, I should be most grateful. Indeed, had my noble friend been handling the matter from the beginning, I suspect that we would not be in this situation today.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I take the opportunity at this stage of the debate to express a few opinions. First, I rather regret—and not for the first time—the convention in your Lordships' House not to oppose or vote against secondary legislation. Secondly, although I shall not go into the details, for me the orders are the culmination of a nightmare saga which seems to have a quality of unreality, garnished with stupidity and even wickedness. The effect of the orders will be destructive of healthy animals; it will be crushing for the people principally involved who have spent a lifetime building up a herd; and it will also be onerous in the extreme for the taxpayer. I beg leave to doubt whether the estimates of the cost will prove to be adequate or whether the compensation thereby provided will be fair.
I fear that we have here just one more instance of a reactive gesture which will be very expensive and which will achieve nothing. I hope desperately that I am wrong, but I cannot imagine that any of those scientists who are at present advising either the Commission or member governments will be ready to recommend the raising of the ban on British beef. That being so, nothing will be achieved by this measure except a great deal of
1454
expense and considerable misery. I would not have spoken in this debate at this stage had it not been for my heavy heart in the face of proposals which I think are totally unwarranted and ridiculous.
4.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the selective cull regulations. It also gives the Government the opportunity to set out the wider context of this almost unprecedented event.
I stress to noble Lords on the other side of the House and to my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Peyton that the Florence framework placed five commitments and prerequisites on which the opening up of the export markets depends. At the same time it placed obligations on our European colleagues and on the European Commission. When this selective cull is under way we will have complied with the fifth and last of the obligations to which we signed up. We will then have kept our side of the bargain. It will then be for all of us, through negotiation, to make sure that the commitments made by our colleagues are also honoured.
I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, suggested that it would take a change of government to sort this out. I was especially surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seemed to agree with that sentiment. I think everyone in the entire country believes that the ban is unjust, that it has no basis in common sense, and that there is no scientific basis for the ban on British beef whatever. Yet it was the colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in another place—the Opposition spokesman on agriculture—who described the ban as being both prudent and wise. The industry was disappointed when it heard that assessment by the honourable Member for Edinburgh, East. This House must remember that it was the Labour Party which felt there was some sense in this ban. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, looks puzzled, but I can refer him to both quotations if he needs them. That single, unjust, unscientific act of banning British beef has caused a greater loss of confidence in the product and throughout our industry than any other single event.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, in some of his more general remarks, made some allegations which ought to be dealt with. It was at Florence that the Prime Minister insisted that as far as possible the Florence framework would be negotiated through scientific and veterinary committees, and the political element of the lifting of the ban would be minimised as far as possible. It was regarded as being something of a victory—because it was resisted initially—that the political dimension should be put on the back seat as much as possible.
Having established therefore that science and empirical data form a part of the process, it would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government if, when the new scientific evidence was produced over the summer, we had simply ignored it and pretended that, despite the scientific element discussed at Florence,

1455
we were going to disregard science from then on. Since BSE was first identified in the late 1980s we have always taken account of the latest scientific understanding of it, and we have always promptly followed the advice of those scientists who are widely considered to know most about it. To have then disregarded the scientific data that emerged this summer—which was not available to anyone else in Europe when the Florence Agreement was signed—would have been bad government. It was not only the United Kingdom Government who wanted to assess that new science in the light of the selective cull that had been agreed at Florence; the European Commission and Commission advisers wanted to make sure whether or not the new science could be reconciled with the selective cull.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggests that we were chopping and changing; we were quite simply making sure that the latest science did not in any way cast doubt on the plans that had been signed at Florence. I reiterate that the Commission as much as ourselves sought to examine that. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also suggested that the backlog in the abattoirs created by the over-30-months scheme, which was a legitimate obstacle to starting the selective cull sooner, was an irrelevance. I remind the House and articulate an interest on behalf of our dairy and beef industry in saying that, had we identified farms and placed restriction orders on individual animals on farms before we were able to process them, slaughter them and pay compensation for them, we would in effect have blighted not only animals but, inevitably, have cast a blight over farms too. What would the farmers have been able to do? The restriction orders would have been in place, the reactor ear tags would have been in the ears of the cattle, and people would have known that those farms were listed as BSE-affected farms. However, the cattle would have stayed on the farms because the over-30-months scheme was taking all our capacity. The farmers would have had to look after those animals without any compensation and without our being able to see the process through quickly and efficiently. There was a sound practical reason for making sure that we had capacity in our slaughter system before we started on the selective cull.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned some general points, not least the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Grantchester, and my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Marlesford. I must turn to some of the specific details of the orders, but I shall deal with one other aspect that lies behind the need for these orders. A number of noble Lords have suggested there is no scientific basis for a selective cull. However, there is a scientific basis for it in that veterinary scientists have identified these animals as being those which are most likely to have been exposed to infected feed. Therefore, these are the animals which are conceivably most at risk. The scientific community has said that BSE will not die out before a specific year—which may be the year 2001—through introducing a selective cull. The logic of choosing these animals is based on science.
1456
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford were in a sense right to say that the end date of BSE as a problem in this country would not change. However, the decline in the incidence of BSE in the United Kingdom has already fallen dramatically, despite the specific periods to which my noble friend Lord Marlesford chose to refer. The selective cull can only accelerate the speed with which that decline is evidenced.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was absolutely wrong when he suggested that there was no link between the selective cull and the reopening of the export markets. I think it is common knowledge throughout the industry—I know that he is a prominent member of that industry—and it is certainly common knowledge throughout all the farmers' unions of the United Kingdom which all endorse this cull, that we shall not get beef or beef products from this country back on to the world markets until we have carried out this selective cull. Therefore there is an inextricable link between a selective cull being initiated and negotiations to open up our export markets. No noble Lord should forget that there is a link between the selective cull as the last prerequisite to the opening up of the export markets, and the lift that that will give to the British domestic market in beef.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford doubted whether there was a link between the £2 billion so far committed—it will probably be more in the three years from March 20th 1996—and the recovery of confidence within the British domestic market. I have to disagree completely with my noble friend. It was the measures that we took quickly after 20th March, not least the over-30-months scheme, that helped restore British public confidence in beef as a product. While I disagree with my noble friend's analysis, he was right to point out how strong has been British consumers' confidence in beef. It is heartening to everyone involved in the crisis.
Towards the end of last year, there were months when more hindquarter quality British beef products were being sold than were sold 12 months earlier, prior to the BSE crisis. Two large retailers at present are selling more beef from Scotland, for instance, than they ever sold before. The confidence that the British consumer has shown in British beef has been tremendous. However, the £2 billion, as part of the first two years of confidence building and industry building measures, will be vital to that trend. My noble friend cannot say that there is no connection between the two.
The issues relating specifically to the orders are the result of the agreement that we signed at Florence. As I said, the possibility is that although the science that emerged during the summer months has not caused us to change our minds about the current details of the cull, when the maternal transmission results from the long-running study are available in February or March, some adjustment may be made to take account of the findings. We cannot be definitive on that at present but it will become clear shortly.
Therefore, in this debate we are dealing with cattle born in one voluntary and three compulsory cohorts spanning July 1989 to June 1993. Various noble Lords

1457
have speculated about the exact numbers with which we are dealing. No one—not even the veterinary scientist charged with seeking to give best estimates—knows how many of the cattle from those cohorts will have been dealt with through the over-30-months scheme or some other means.
The orders concerned are the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 and the BSE Compensation Order 1996. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a third related order, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, which is not subject to parliamentary procedure. That is the BSE (No.2) Order 1996 which confers powers to restrict and slaughter animals. Taken together, these measures provide the enabling framework for the selective cull.
The selective cull compensation regulations give effect to the European Commission regulation which provides for the co-financing of the compensation by the European Union. I can tell my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that the European contribution is 70 per cent. of the market value of the compensation that will be paid to affected animals. The Commission regulation relates to the slaughter, treatment and disposal of cull animals identical to those for the over-30-months scheme. Finally, the compensation regulations create offences and specify penalties.
The BSE Compensation Order 1996 revokes and replaces the 1994 Order, and contains new provisions prescribing the amount of compensation payable for animals slaughtered under the selective cull. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Carter, an exact distribution among the orders between those details which can be attributed directly to a UK prerogative and those which can be directly attributed to European obligation. However, the entire framework of orders with which we deal today arises from the commitments we made at the Florence framework, so there is a European dimension to almost everything at which we look.
I shall turn to compensation payments to farmers in a moment, but first, I wish to cover other issues which do not deal with compensation.
Most importantly, I must stress that the cull arrangements between the agriculture departments and Intervention Board will be kept under close review by Ministers. Various noble Lords have expressed some misgivings that perceived failures in the system to date might mar the operation of the selective cull. We very much hope that, however accurate or inaccurate their perceptions, the selective cull will be a smooth and efficient operation. Operational details will be provided in a scheme booklet to be sent to all beef and dairy farmers probably in the week beginning 10th February. Perhaps I may echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. Tracing will be very thorough, as will be all the other details connected with the scheme, in the expectation of an EU mission to examine the detail of the procedure of the selective cull in due course.
The State Veterinary Service will be thorough but it will also be as flexible and sensitive as possible. The SVS has already started detailed discussions with farmers. Any practical difficulties experienced by
1458
farmers will be handled, we hope, both with sensitivity and consistency. I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We shall seek wherever possible, and wherever requested, to phase the slaughtering of a herd with the corresponding need to complete the cull as quickly and sensibly as we can. But we hope that flexibility and sensitivity will be able to accommodate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
We shall liaise closely with farmers to achieve minimum disruption to herd management in every other way. It goes without saying that welfare issues will be uppermost in the practical arrangements made.
My noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Grantchester asked about cohorts and feeding groups. The aim is to identify animals which are most likely to have been exposed to the risk of infection and to slaughter and destroy them. The basis of that approach is that feed containing meat and bonemeal has been the main and perhaps the only source of BSE infection for cattle. Scientific evidence suggests that most cattle were infected by eating such feed when they were less than six months old. The scheme is accordingly targeted on animals which are likely to have been exposed when they were young to the same risk infection from solid feed as confirmed BSE cases. A group of animals born on the same farm during a particular period is referred to as a cohort. That is not necessarily all the animals born in the same year. It will depend on calving patterns and feeding history.
We recognise, as does the State Veterinary Service, that management patterns vary on different farms and the risk of infection by feed may straddle two cohort years, or be restricted to only a part of one cohort year. Therefore we hope that through sensible investigation by the SVS and sensible access to farmers' records, we shall be able to reflect those sensitivities.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, can be reassured that we have developed the cull proposals in conjunction with the European Commission and the Standing Veterinary Committee. We are confident that they are familiar with the approach that we are adopting to the SVC.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked what would be the case where farm records did not exist. There are standard procedures for dealing with such circumstances. Enforcement authorities and the SVS currently check farm records, and should advise farmers of any inconsistencies and take the appropriate action. Farmers have been obliged to keep these records since 15th October 1990, and they should have been visited by the SVS or the enforcement authorities since then. I reassure my noble friend Lord Stanley that extra staff have been taken on and trained in order to cope with the selective cull.
I turn to payments and compensation. I shall deal first with the matters of quota and premia raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. An exemption has been granted to those affected by the cull to lease dairy quota after 31st December 1996. Producers affected by the selective cull will be able to lease out unused permanently held quota provided that they registered

1459
with the intervention board by 31st December. That lease cannot be initiated until the slaughter has taken place.
To turn to the beef special premium and suckler cow premium, we have approached the European Commission about the position of animals slaughtered compulsorily during the scheme's retention periods. We hope to advise further on that point in the near future.
I reassure my noble friend Lord Stanley that we have agreed a target with the intervention board that payments should be made within 21 days of the date of slaughter or the completion of the farmer's registration with the board, whichever is the later. Moreover, payments will be made electronically, straight into a farmer's bank account, rather than using the system that is part of the over-30-months scheme, whereby payments are sent first to a third party before being sent on to the farmer. In any event, we shall closely monitor the achievement of the 21-day target.
We understand completely the sensitivities and concerns which the detailed compensation and top-up arrangements have provoked. They were discussed in detail with farming interests. We believe that our proposals represent a fair balance for both the farmer and the taxpayer. I hope that that will bring some pleasure to my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Peyton.
I will give a very quick outline of the arrangements. The compensation per animal is not capped in any way whatever. I stress that point to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie, who suggested that capping might extend to the compensation. It does not. In the case of male animals, market value will be paid whatever that market value is; and for female stock, compensation will be either at market value or 90 per cent. of replacement value, whichever is higher. I stress that there is no capping on that.
The cap relates to top-up. For herds which lose more than 10 per cent. of their productive animals a top-up payment over and above the compensation will also be available in recognition of the dislocation that may be caused until herds are properly re-established. The top-up, for which both suckler and dairy herds may qualify, is capped at £250 per animal. However, the compensation for that animal is not capped. It is important to stress that difference.
I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that the top-up will be cumulative. It will be recalculated if further animals are taken from a herd at a later date; for instance, if the maternal transmission study suggests that additional animals should be taken. So there will be a recalculation and a reapplication, and further payments, if triggered, will be made to the farmer.
A number of noble Lords dealt with the definition of herd size. I stress that we are entirely sympathetic to the range of opinion that has emerged from the farming industry and others as to how this issue might be approached. We are also very sympathetic to the impact on closed herds. We understand the difficulties. That is why compensation will be one and a half times the normal top-up rate.
1460
The definition of herd size has generated some debate. I stress that we reflected carefully on the representations made. We should look at the productive potential of animals in the herd over the relatively short period of the cull. The top-up was designed to reflect to some degree the dislocation to a business arising from the loss of a significant number of animals over and above the compensation.
A period of adjustment, while replacements are integrated into the calving and milking pattern of the herd is understandable. However, it would be impractical and time-consuming to seek to measure the exact period and detail of each adjustment and any associated costs for each and every business. Therefore we have to use sensible guidelines which can act as a proxy measure. I do not intend to go into the exact detail of the guidelines today, but they will be made available to all farmers. I shall, if pressed, be happy to explain them to others at an alternative time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as I understand it, the Minister has sympathy for the point of view that we expressed—namely, that the herd number should be on the traditional basis—but he does not intend to do anything about it.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I do have sympathy. Let me explain the logic and rationale. Perhaps I may cite the example of why, for top-up purposes, in-calf heifers should not be excluded from the definition of a herd. Let us take two farms, Farm A and Farm B, with similar-sized herds, both of which are due to lose a similar number of animals through the selective cull. The herd at Farm A has just calved and has 20 newly calved heifers when officials visit. Farm B has heifers which are due to calve in a couple of weeks. In those two cases, where all the circumstances are identical save for calving dates, which are about two weeks apart, different treatment in relation to top-ups is arbitrary and illogical. That is what would happen if one excluded in-calf heifers. We have therefore included a logic and an equity through incorporating in-calf heifers. Noble Lords may wish to consider this point when reading Hansard before approaching either myself or MAFF to seek further details.
I stress that the compensation package overall is more generous than for other diseases. The top-up is not intended to cover consequential losses entirely: compensation is designed to cover the value of the animal based on the formulae that we have agreed. The top-up is simply a contribution to dislocation.
I shall deal quickly with the point about tax. A booklet on taxation matters will be sent to all beef and dairy farmers who are affected. It will therefore be possible for each and every farmer to take up issues with the Inland Revenue such as how in-calf heifers are dealt with on the basis of the information provided by the booklet.
I hope that I have explained some of the principal points raised by noble Lords. I hope that the House will feel able to agree the selective cull. This has been a useful opportunity both to remind the House of the

1461
essential reason for the selective cull and to answer some of the practical points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I shall be extremely brief in replying. I must apologise for forgetting to declare an interest at the outset. I am a director of a farming company with dairy cows. We have had BSE in the herd, but fortunately it looks as though we shall not be affected by the selective slaughter scheme.
The Minister is absolutely right: we shall have to read Hansard to determine the exact meaning of his remarks in relation to top-up compensation and the reason for including in-calf heifers. As I listened to him, I had the feeling that the explanation would have been easier to understand in the original Sanskrit.
To return to the point about recovery of the market, we should not become over-excited. It is perfectly true that sales of cuts, roasts and prime beef are back to 90 per cent. or more. There is still a reduction in the consumption of processed products; and exports are non-existent. Overall, the total for the beef market is still down, as compared to the total before BSE, by some 30 to 35 per cent. I received those figures from the MLC only last week. The overall market, which is the one that concerns us, is still considerably down.
One matter that did not emerge from the discussion may be of interest to your Lordships—indeed I was surprised when I discovered it. Of the 1 million animals that have already been slaughtered under the over-30-months rule, it seems, if I am correct, that fewer than 4 per cent. have been incinerated. So somewhere there are 960,000 carcases in cold storage. Let me pick up the point made by the Minister about remarks made about the ban at the beginning of the crisis. If the German Minister of Health had gone on German television and said that he was prepared to consider the slaughter of the whole of the German beef or dairy herd, I wonder whether the British consumer would have been queuing up at the supermarket to buy German beef.
The Minister kept referring to new scientific evidence. Let us be clear that no scientist has yet required the slaughter of a single animal for scientific reasons. From the beginning scientists made clear that they understood why the Government wished to introduce a slaughter scheme to restore consumer confidence. But no scientist has asked for the slaughter of a single animal. The new scientific evidence, of which the Minister made so much, was a new statistical forecast of the likely effect of different rates of slaughter. As we know, that will only reduce the headline rate of BSE over the next few years. It does not do anything towards helping the eradication of the disease.
I must take up a final point with the Minister. I understand entirely the backlog of slaughtering with the over-30-months scheme. It would not have been possible to slaughter the animals, if the Government had introduced the selective slaughter scheme last autumn,
1462
or indeed last summer as they said they would. But the suggestions that I made were not an irrelevance. The animals would have been on the farm. There would have been restrictions, but the fanner would still have been able to milk them. He would still have had the income from the milk. He would also have been able to plan and would have known how many heifers he needed and how many he was going to lose. He would have received the compensation either when the animal left the farm on the over-30-months scheme or indeed when the selective slaughter scheme was eventually introduced. I do not feel that the Minister answered that point.
As I said at the beginning, this has been a sad day. We hope that it is the end of the beginning of this awful crisis. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, and I shall not move the second Motion standing in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Potato Industry Development Council Order 1997
4.42 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order be agreed to.
This order provides for the establishment of a potato industry development council to take forward some of the work of the Potato Marketing Board. A year ago, we debated the order which led to 30th June 1997 becoming the date when the potato marketing scheme would be revoked.
As required under Section 27(1) of the 1993 Agriculture Act, the Potato Marketing Board has applied to the agriculture Ministers for approval of a scheme to transfer its property, rights and liabilities to a successor body: a development council. This followed a growers' poll and our own consultations, which both showed overwhelming support for such a body.
The proposed functions for the council are listed in Schedule 1 to the order and can be summarised as commissioning or assisting research and development; the collection and dissemination of statistical information; generic promotion and the development of exports; and setting basic quality standards for raw potatoes.
The council will comprise 16 members including the chairman and one other who must be independent of the potato industry. Nine members will represent the interest of growers, including at least one seed potato specialist; one will represent employees in the industry and the remaining four will represent the industry beyond the farm gate, including at least one with knowledge of the marketing or distribution of potatoes.
The council will be required to keep a public register, in two parts, of producers who grow one hectare or more of potatoes and first purchasers of 100 tonnes or more of potatoes. The dual register reflects the dual funding

1463
system that has been agreed upon by the joint committee of the Potato Marketing Board, whose members represent all sectors of the industry and consumers.
While a single levy might seem to be more efficient, there was significant opposition to it from growers and from processors. Growers in particular argued that a single levy point would undermine the concept of a body able to act for the industry as a whole. And the dual system does have the advantage of giving the council access to much better information on the industry. We feel that Article 9 of the order deals as effectively as possible with the practical difficulties that the dual system might have presented.
The order provides for a ceiling of £40 per hectare for the growers' levy and 25 pence per tonne at the first point of sale. We have set the ceilings higher than the anticipated actual charges to save the need for early amending legislation.
With this order we draw to an end the cycle that started with the passing of the Agriculture Act 1993. I have pleasure in commending it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my interest in this order arises from the fact that I am a vice-chairman of the all-party Retail Group. In that capacity, I have become aware of some of the concerns within the retail industry. There are in fact two main areas of concern. The first is the levy to which the Minister referred. As he said, the Potato Marketing Board worked with a single levy on growers based on the acreage of potatoes grown. That levy was passed up the chain as part of the cost. It was a system that worked very well, I am told.
The proposed introduction of a levy at the first point of sale as well as a levy on acreage, in the opinion of the British Retail Consortium, will inevitably introduce loopholes and opportunities for avoidance, due to the large number of merchants, merchant growers, agents and other operatives selling potatoes within the industry. They believe that the new system also will be expensive to enforce and very difficult to operate.
Therefore, I must ask the Minister whether it would not be better to fund the new council through the tried and tested method of the single levy on acreage, as we did before. I do not feel that he gave a very convincing explanation of why the second charge has been introduced and I should like to hear more about it. Will not the double charge have the effect of inflating the cost, at the end of the day, to the consumer or indeed the processor?
The second area of concern is the membership of the proposed industry development council itself, a body set up to:
"increase efficiency and productivity and improve and develop the service that the industry renders the community".
1464
No one could argue with those aims. But the composition of the council is taken directly from the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947-50 years ago—and does not reflect the needs of the present-day industry.
Retailers understand what consumers want and aim to fulfil that demand by close co-operation with growers. The partnership approach which has developed over recent years works well for the farmers, who grow to the specifications of the retailers in relation to varieties as well as to other specifications. Surely the structure of the new development council should reflect that partnership. Does the Minister appreciate that there is a new relationship which should be recognised in the council, or has the formula for the new one just been taken off the shelf as part of the old 1947 model? That is not appropriate for 1997.
I do not know what consultations the Minister had with the retailing industry, but will he undertake to look again at this matter before the draft order is approved?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether I may ask a question. I think I must have misunderstood her. Did she suggest that the retail trade should shoulder none of the charges for the development council?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the proposal as it stands in this order is complicated. It can indeed be open to abuse and we have managed very well without it so far. I should like to know from the Minister why it is needed.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I love the noble Baroness smiling at me. She was in fact saying no, the retail trade should pay nothing towards the council. She does it very charmingly, but it goes without saying that I think she is totally wrong.
I support the order, not least because I am, with my son, a potato producer. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Carter, when the whole question of dismantling the PMB was discussed and voted on during the passage of the Agriculture Act 1993 and the necessary affirmative order moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas in 1996. Now, four years later, I repeat my plea.
It was accepted by my noble friends on the Front Bench in both cases that the development council will be frustrated in what it hopes to achieve if the present unlevel playing field continues, with all other European Union countries having the ability to give surreptitious aid to their producers. It is essential in order to ensure the future of our industry that fair competition goes hand in hand with the development board.
I remind noble Lords that any form of support or quota was taken away from British growers in the 1993 Act, but not so—I repeat—for our continental competitors. As an aside, I should perhaps say that the 1996 potato crop came to a staggering £500 million less than the 1995 crop. We do not need any more "bumps", as my noble friend Lord Lucas said in 1996, caused by the national governments of our continental neighbours being able to support their own producers.

1465
What action will the Government take to ensure, as they promised in 1993 and 1996, a light-weight European potato scheme with as level a playing field as possible? If, as it seems, we are incapable of bringing any sense to the workings of the common agricultural policy, will the Government promise to undertake an investigation into the state of competition in the potato market, including state aids, and make that report public, in particular to Parliament?
In 1973 I was persuaded to vote to join the European Union; I believed it would encourage a common market. Sadly, it appears that I was wrong and it has become an uncommon muddle. The potato market has the potential of being a perfect example.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister can clarify one point for me. Article 9, paragraph (6), states:
"Where two or more persons jointly carry on business".
I presume that refers to people acting under paragraphs (3) and (4). I had in mind a fairly large farm or family who are both growers and also acting as "first purchasers" under this order. Either today or later perhaps my noble friend can give me some guidance on what paragraph (6) means, especially the last phrase, "shall … be treated as constituting a single person".
4.53 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question of my noble friend in connection with this Potato Industry Development Council Order. Although the constitution is set out under Article 4, I am concerned in respect of the ordinary consumer.
Many people, when they go to a shop to buy potatoes, want to know what is the best potato for boiling, making chips, roasting or baking, as the case may be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we are dealing with retailers. My problem is that most supermarkets regard the potato as just that—a potato. They cannot give advice as to what kind it is. I am fond of potatoes and like eating them. But quite often the only place I can obtain information about them is from the little farm shops which can tell me—I do not put them in any order of preference—whether I should buy Golden Wonder, Maris Piper or Pentland Squire. Those shops are the only places I can obtain the information.
I do not see anything in the order which gives the encouragement and help that the ordinary purchasers—all of us or our wives—need to strengthen an extremely important industry and one that I should like to see flourishing.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I join the list of people speaking in the gap. My name was meant to be included.
I suppose one must welcome the order, but the fact is that throughout Britain our potato farmers are suffering the worst year that they have had for a long time and they are regretting the demise of the Potato Marketing
1466
Board. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, unless we have some reasonable guarantee of a level playing field with the Continent, without help the industry will have to operate in a manner which, even if farmers are super-efficient, is not likely to make them prosperous under the present conditions.
Can the Minister tell me how much money the maximum of 25p a tonne would raise? It does not appear to me to be a lot. If one does all that is required, £40 per hectare, plus 25p a tonne, is not a great deal of money. One is expected to promote our export markets and conduct research into the growing and handling of potatoes and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, one has to reassure the public that potatoes are healthy and good to eat. All that takes a great deal of money. I do not believe there is a ready answer. But it is important at the present time to reassure the public that our methods are healthy; that we do not leave residues and cause problems with chemicals and all the things the environmentalists constantly, and rightly, complain about. If the marketing board is to do the research and to provide an explanation, it will need a lot of money. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. In this debate we may have a little less excitement than we had in the previous debate this afternoon.
From these Benches we generally welcomed the order in the debates on the 1993 Act. I made it clear on behalf of my colleagues that if the PMB was to be wound up, we would support a potato industry development council to fulfil the important functions of research and development, of collecting statistics, of generic promotion, of developing exports and of guaranteeing the basic quality standards.
In relation to promotion, I was pleased to see in the first schedule to the order that paragraph 3 promotes,
"the production and marketing of standard products";
and paragraph 8 undertakes
"arrangements for better acquainting the public in the United Kingdom with the goods and services supplied by the industry and methods of using them".
In discussions on previous development council orders we had problems with "promotion". It seems now that the Government are happy, under the 1947 Act, that promotion can be included.
When the order refers to "generic" promotion, can the PIDC, under European regulations, use its funds to promote the British potato or can it only promote potatoes as a whole? Can we isolate the British potato for generic promotion?
At the risk of upsetting my noble friend Lady Nicol, I have long supported the concept of development councils in agriculture. Agriculture is divided into small units; development work is for the benefit of all farmers and therefore all should pay. The only way to do that is through some form of compulsory levy.

1467
Perhaps I may say in passing that it is interesting to compare the attitude of this Government with that of the previous Administration led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. We had a number of attempts to try to get development councils. She saw them as just another quango and compulsory levies as just another tax. How things change!
I wish to make a final point about the potato regime itself and take up an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. We support, as do the Government, the principle of a lightweight potato regime in Europe, which is also supported by the Commission. It would be our wish to secure such a regime. But if we are not able to get the agreement of other member states, it will not happen. We should be clear about that. That will not surprise the Government, as they have been in exactly that situation with BSE for the past 10 months.
I wish to make two small points of detail. How will the development council know that a producer's hectarage has increased? Will it have to rely entirely on the producer informing the PIDC? There is a scheme in Article 8(4), but it is not entirely clear how the PIDC will know that the hectarage has increased. Can the Minister make absolutely clear what is to happen to the assets of the PMB? Does he have any information as to their likely size? What are they likely to amount to? Do the assets include the PMB research station? I saw in the farming press only this week that a consortium involving ADAS, the Scottish agricultural colleges and the Cambridge University Research Association is involved on the research farm owned by the PMB. It would be interesting to know how that will fit in with the work of the development council.
I conclude by repeating what I said when we debated the Agriculture Act 1987. I said that if the PMB had to be wound up it was essential that the development council should be in place to continue so many of the important functions of the old PMB. We therefore support the order and wish the new development council well.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to the establishment or to the functions of the council but to the funding and composition of it.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to reply to this short debate in which the proposals put forward by the Government have received such a general welcome, if slightly qualified in some quarters. Perhaps I may deal with the points that were raised in the order in which they were raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised some of the concerns of the British Retail Consortium. The House and the noble Baroness must understand that the proposals have been arrived at after consultation with all sides of the industry. As she will have learnt from my noble friend and indeed from her noble friend, there are a variety of views on how the funds should be raised and how the council should be made up. Nonetheless,
1468
agreement has been reached on the proposals before us today. They may be something of a camel; they may be a racehorse. We shall have to wait and see how they perform over the next few years.
If there turn out to be problems, there will be opportunities to bring forward amending legislation once everyone involved has agreed that things need to be changed. We have done the best we can, and the industry has done the best it can, to produce these proposals. I hope that the British Retail Consortium will feel able to live with them and that it will not go ahead with its proposal to play dog in the manger and not put forward someone for the council. That would be sad.
We recognise that retailers are at last starting to play a constructive role as regards British agriculture and British horticulture. For many years, as I am sure my noble friend and others will agree, they did not. Indeed, they seemed to be set against it and seemed to be trying to find ways of tripping it up. I think that is changing. I hope that if the consortium agrees to take part in the council it will find it constructive. In the end, what matters to potato producers is getting the best market for their produce. The retailers are a very important part of that and must to a large extent have an identity of interests.
I do not think we are looking at a council which will turn out to be producer dominated in that way. Nine producers are to be chosen by the Government. They are not being elected by some coterie of producers. I would expect them to have a wide variety of views. If the retailers and those in other parts of the industry were to put forward their views to the producers, it would take an exceptionally bad argument not to win over one of the producers to their cause and thereby take away the producers' majority on the council.
Perhaps I may turn to the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. We are and have been fighting for a lightweight potato regime. The Irish presidency tabled revised proposals based on the fruit and vegetable regime which were discussed at the Agriculture Council of 18th November. The revised proposals did not, as the House knows, command the support of the majority of member states. We hope that in the long run we will achieve agreement on this. There are some signs that some member states are moving towards our proposal. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, recognised, we stand in the middle between a group of states to the south of us which wants a heavyweight regime, and a group of states broadly to the north of us which wants no regime at all. It is a very fine line. If we go jumping around too much we might fall off on the wrong side of it. A period of quiet and slow diplomacy will repay our efforts in the end. So far as any cheating or unfair state aids are concerned, if anyone can bring those to our notice with enough evidence to go on, we shall pursue them, and pursue them vigorously.
My noble friend also raised the question of whether we would investigate the state of the European potato market. I shall draw that request to the attention of my colleagues and will write to my noble friend. However, I am not aware of any such proposals. I shall also write

1469
to my noble friend Lord Lyell. The wording of the order provides for a partnership or company to be levied once rather than there being a levy on each partner to avoid in any way duplicating levy collection. However, perhaps I should look at Hansard again and make sure that that answer fully covers what my noble friend was asking.
My noble friend Lord Balfour asked for information on the use of each variety of potato and what they were best for—what was best for frying, boiling and all the other uses of the potato. That comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was saying. There is a role for retailers to play in this, a role which, as regards potatoes and perhaps some other similar produce, they have not played to date. A good deal more information would be useful, and if that worked back into better varieties of potato being available with more information from retailers so that consumers knew how to use them, that would be extremely good and would be helpful for the potato industry as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked how much the levy would raise. If the levy was set at £35 a hectare and 20p a tonne, which is where we think it will start out at, it would raise £6.3 million in total, with £1 million of that coming from the first point of sale. The noble Lord might well argue that that is not enough money for everything the council might want to do. That is something it will have to establish in practice. However, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there is a balance to be drawn between the wish of the industry to be levied and its wish to spend money. It is a balance familiar to any Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, if, after the next election, Mr. Gordon Brown, the colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would like to apply for the job of chairman, he might be well qualified for it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord has a job to tell the difference between a camel and a horse, I do not think we should take his projections about the election too seriously.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew attention to an interesting side line on our situation within Europe. The French can, of course, promote French potatoes in Britain and we can promote British potatoes in France. However, we cannot promote British potatoes as such within the UK. The marketing campaigns undertaken by the council can be timed to coincide with the British new potato harvest or with some particular new variety which has been planted somewhere. We can act, as I am sure the French will act, in promoting our own potatoes, but we must not act so as to act against the interests of our Community colleagues and try to exclude them from our market. There is a subtle balance to be drawn. I am sure the council will draw it wisely.
The assets of the Potato Marketing Board will transfer to the Potato Industry Development Council. It is not yet clear exactly what they will be and what they will comprise. Dealing with them will be a matter for the potato council. I am sure that the noble Lord will be kept informed as matters progress.
The need to audit the acreage returns from producers is evident. The council will be helped in that by having information from the payers of the first-purchaser levy
1470
who will have information about who is supplying them with potatoes. They will be able to work with that information to produce an effective audit—nothing is ever perfect—of the acreage returns.
As the noble Lord said, a consortium of Scottish agricultural colleges, otherwise known as SAC/ADAS, and the Cambridge University Farm, have expressed interest in managing the Sutton Bridge experimental unit. The decision on that will be for the British Potato Council. We shall not be seeking to interfere with it. I hope that answers the questions that have been raised today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and for the comfort of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, can he confirm that I am right in believing that of the 16 members of the council, nine will be people representing the interests of producers? They will pay for 80 per cent. of the cost of the council so fair is fair in that respect. That may comfort the noble Baroness.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, at this point we believe that it is fair that the producers have what is in effect a bare majority on the council. Much will depend on how the members of the council are selected as regards their individual qualities. The noble Baroness should look forward with optimism to us finding a range of people to sit on the council who will not act in a pig-headed and stupid way and go against the interests of the people who, after all, are their largest customers. I believe that they will be seeking ways to work with the retailer. I hope and expect that the fears of the noble Baroness and of the British Retail Consortium will prove to be unfounded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Disposal of crofting property]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("() Any disposal of property under this Act shall only include normal maintenance burdens and obligations, and shall exclude major infrastructure in and related to the crofting community affected by the disposal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I preface my remarks by saying that I believe that the procedure that we have adopted in considering this Bill has been wholly beneficial. We had the advantage of the Select Committee's visit to Inverness where we took a great deal of valuable, informed and detailed evidence. We also had the opportunity of visiting Skye, where we were able to see many of the particular problems and to have illustrated to us many of the concerns facing crofters in the north-west of Scotland.
I wish to stress that we have also had the opportunity of having a very constructive Committee stage in the Moses Room. Putting it all together, for at least some Members of the Select Committee it has been an educative experience. We reach the Report stage where really no great issues of principle and no major matters of policy divide us. Indeed, having read the Hansard report of the Committee stage proceedings, I believe that many of us are happy to accept many of the policy clarifications that the noble Earl was able to give then.
However, there still remains a difference in approach. It is fair to say that the Government are intent on keeping the Bill relatively undefined in a number of areas in order to maintain flexibility. Flexibility is a good thing, but there is a risk, which is that because of the lack of clarity and certainty, those who may wish to proceed and to take advantage of the measures contained in the Bill will somehow be deterred. They will not have sufficient information to know where they stand at the initial stage. That is an omission.
Through virtually all the amendments tabled today we seek to add a degree of certainty and clarity to the Bill. We do not seek to change in any way the direction of the Bill or the main policy underpinning it. But there is an argument for a greater degree of precision. That is particularly the case with Amendment No. 1, which deals with the problem of burdens. In a number of cases, the burdens that particularly fall on crofting estates are of significance. The noble Earl the Minister indicated Benbecula, where there is a major drainage scheme. In other crofting estates there are responsibilities for major roads and bridges.
Clearly, if these burdens are transferred then at some time in the future, following something like a flood or a landslip, the crofting trust that has been established in all goodwill on the basis of viability at that time, will find itself faced with an intolerable burden, which will drive the trust out of viability. It is our proposition that it ought to be made clear from the outset that the burdens to be transferred should only be the normal ones of maintenance that one would expect in keeping up the property and that the exceptional and major burdens relating to infrastructure provision should not transfer at the time.
I recognise that the Minister at Committee stage in the Moses Room indicated that that was likely government policy. If that is the case, there would be great merit in trying to make that clear in the Bill itself so that this quite significant worry and concern is removed from those who wish to take advantage of its provisions. In trying to put into the Bill virtually the words that the Minister himself used at Committee stage, I hope that we shall get that degree of certainty. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the arrangements for the scrutiny of this Bill. I believe that the Select Committee visiting Skye, Inverness and the procedure in the Moses Room were particularly helpful.
1472
As regards the amendment, we have to make certain that we are talking about public assets rather than estate infrastructure. I believe that we can see that division. Therefore, we are probably talking about tracks and bridges, drains and fences as being estate infrastructure and the possibility of public roads and bridges have somehow or other crept on to the estate, but which have not yet been adopted by the local authority.
I certainly approve of the philosophy involved in the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps the words "normal", "major" and "crofting community" are still slightly undefined. I do not believe that that matters because it certainly explains the approach that should be taken in the negotiations between a group of crofters seeking to take over their estate and the negotiating team from the Scottish Office. It is probably just as well that there is imprecision in words like "normal maintenance", "major infrastructure" and "crofting community". I agree with this amendment and hope that it will commend itself to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I speak to this amendment as an ordinary person who looks after a fairly small estate in Scotland where the drainage was put in probably 200 years ago. The best way to go about this would be to insert into the Bill a provision to allow the new owners of the land to be eligible for a grant. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. If one replaces lead water pipes from the mains to the first tap in the house—pipes which are starting to leak because of their age—at present one is eligible for a 75 per cent. grant. Such a grant is important and applies whether or not the house is privately owned or rented. On average, such work costs about £1,000 per house. Most of us can afford to spend £250 but simply do not have the money to spend £1,000.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about the advantages derived from the procedure we have adopted with this Bill.
The noble Lord also suggested that despite great proximity on many of these issues, there was perhaps some difference of approach between us in that the Government are seeking to keep the face of the Bill non-prescriptive in terms of exactly how the transactions may progress. We see that as producing the necessary flexibility. However, the noble Lord fears that that may deter applicants from coming forward.
I acknowledge that the issue needs to be pondered carefully, but we have thought this through and we have a greater fear that if we pre-empt and fetter (by cluttering the face of the Bill with prescription) there is a danger that that inflexibility may deter crofting townships and crofters from coming forward. Therefore, I understand exactly the point which the noble Lord explored but, as I have said, we have thought about this carefully. We realise that clarity and some confidence about what is likely to be the result of the Bill are useful in encouraging people to come forward, but I hope that the assurances that I have been able to give to date in Committee and again today on Report will make clear

1473
the policy that would underlie the Government's position in any transaction between the Secretary of State and the crofting townships. I remind the House that the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State are willing sellers. The Government have introduced this initiative because they want to see the transfer of townships into crofting trusts.
To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, we are also determined that any such transfer should be to a viable successor body. We see no merit whatsoever in a transfer to a body which either immediately or within a fairly short timeframe might lack viability.
This amendment seeks to ensure that only normal maintenance burdens and responsibilities are transferred to crofting trusts and that the Secretary of State retains any responsibility he has for wider community assets. Noble Lords will recall that we discussed this at some length in Committee. I am grateful for all the contributions made in Committee and again today by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Balfour. I made it clear then that, although it would be appropriate for crofting trusts to take on the normal maintenance and repair responsibilities that go with ownership of an estate, the Government would retain any responsibility that they have for maintaining assets which have a wider community purpose. I am very happy to reiterate and underline that reassurance again today.
I appreciate that in proposing the amendment the noble Lord is simply trying to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill. He said that he took some inspiration from my words in Committee. I understand the reasons behind the amendment and I stress that in the minds of some there is a fear that other governments may not be as sympathetic as this one to the transfer of the Secretary of State's estate to townships.
Nevertheless, I suggest that the amendment is both unnecessary and conceivably dangerous. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide a flexible vehicle to allow for the transfer of the Secretary of State's crofting estates to crofting trusts. Noble Lords opposite have tried on a number of occasions to chip away at that by proposing amendments which would have the effect of constraining the Secretary of State or the trust. In other words, they would potentially constrain that flexibility.
I understand the motives—and they are the best of motives—but we feel that that is unnecessary. The disposal will be agreed between the parties. It will not be imposed on anyone. We have made it clear that the disposal would take place only if the crofting township or the crofting trust involved actually wanted and approved the terms of the transfer. The negotiations would be freely entered into by the crofting trust.
I think the amendment is potentially dangerous because we simply do not know what legal interpretation might be put on the key terms in the amendment, "normal maintenance and burdens and obligations", and, "major infrastructure in and related to the crofting community", in the future. We might find, for example, that because of the way the terms were interpreted, the Government were required to transfer some burden which they would have
1474
otherwise retained and that this decision was critical to the viability of the trust. I know what the noble Lord has in mind, but if the amendment were to become enshrined in legislation, those words would be looked at closely and we would no longer have the ability to explore every single possibility with the prospective trusts.
We should keep the Bill as flexible as possible. The House has my assurance on the general approach of the Government to this matter. I remain convinced that the best way forward is for each estate to be considered separately in the light of those principles. I hope that with that reassurance and explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He has gone most of the way to satisfying the concerns felt on this issue not only by noble Lords on these Benches but by all who served on the Select Committee. The noble Earl has spelt out the terms under which the Government would seek to exercise the disposal, with particular reference to the burdens. Given those assurances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("() In any disposal of property under this Act no value shall be attributed to the land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3 which is grouped with it. Together they seek to define the terms under which the disposal of both the land and the rights appertaining to that land should be transferred. Their objective is to ensure that the transfer of both the land and any rights takes place basically on a no value, no cost basis; and that the trust when set up enjoys without cost the full benefit of the land and any rights associated with it.
The Minister has, with credit, frequently indicated that the intention of the Government is that any property is transferred on the basis that the viability of the trusts set up is assured. The difficulty is that viability can be a very narrowly drawn concept. I suppose that if expenditure is 20s a year and income is 19s 6d that is viability. I am sorry; that is the opposite of viability. If expenditure is 19s 6d a year and income is £1 that is viability. That slip makes the point that the judgment as to whether or not something is viable is finely balanced. This may put too great a pressure on trusts if they are to flourish. We seek to ensure a basis of transfer that leads to a situation where trusts do not struggle to survive but flourish. To secure that, we want the transfer to take place on a no cost no value basis.
I accept the point made by the Minister in Committee that there is a distinction between the west coast crofts which predominantly have common grazings and east coast crofts which are effectively small farms. It is arguable that the basis of transfer may be different in those two situations. However, if one is to have a general approach surely it must be one that enables the

1475
crofting trusts to have the best opportunity of success and everything enables them to flourish. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek to ensure that.
The danger of "viability" is that it can be a very closely and narrowly defined concept. If the trust has the good fortune to have land on which there are rights—the main ones are mineral rights—let it have those rights and exploit them for the local benefit. One is not talking about enormous sums of money. For example, it was made clear that currently the total income from the Secretary of State's entire crofting estate from mineral rights was £17,000. Why do we not have the generosity to say that in order for local potential gains to accrue those rights should be transferred free of charge to the trusts that are set up?
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this amendment sets off in the right direction. I believe that the key word is "land". The crofters deserve the right to this land because they created it as agricultural land. When we went to Skye we visited the North Talisker estate. Before it was purchased by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in 1926 it had been a sheep farm. In 1883 the value of that sheep farm was £1,575 a year. I suggest that that exceeds the rent that is currently taken from the 70 crofters on that land. I am very much in favour of the transfer of the land which effectively has been created. It is possible that on some estates there are jetties, fish-processing plants, car parks or even helipads. Perhaps those kinds of infrastructure need to be sold and cannot just be regarded as part of the land, in the sense that there will have been substantial investment by the landlord rather than the tenants who will have brought the land under control.
Referring to Amendment No. 3, I note that, although the words
"at no costs to the transferee"
sound impressive, earlier in the provision there is reference to
"may agree with the body acquiring the property"
which perpetuates the philosophy adopted in the first amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as with the first amendment, I do not believe there is very much between us on Amendment No. 2. Perhaps the difference lies in the packaging rather than the destination that all noble Lords involved in this Bill seek. Amendment No. 2 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would require the Secretary of State to transfer the lands in his crofting estates free of charge. Amendment No. 3 would require that any associated mineral, sporting or other rights should also be transferred free of charge. We discussed both of these propositions at some length in Committee. Nonetheless, it may assist if I reiterate the Government's position. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, stressed our objective of achieving viable trusts. I prefer his second definition of viability to his first. The first smacks of Labour Party mathematics but the second is something to which the Government can certainly sign up.
1476
The Government expect that the vast majority of land on the Secretary of State's estate will be transferred free of charge. This is in line with the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the Government are willing to consider a transfer at no consideration where this is necessary to ensure the viability of a trust. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that the judgment of viability can be a fine science, but we would encourage any prospective crofting trust to seek as much advice as it believes it ought to seek in order to have confidence to go ahead with any purchase or the receipt of any transfer. We hope that the best advice will be available to them and that they will not seek to jump to any conclusions without help. Nevertheless, there will be exceptions where free transfer is either not necessary or is not in the public interest.
During the debate in Committee my noble friend Lord Gray quite properly reminded us that public money had been used to support crofting and that the public interest should be taken into account and could not be abandoned. I also emphasise the public interest in these circumstances. Given land values in the Highlands and Islands which reflect differences in land quality, I believe it is much more likely that we will look for some consideration for those estates that comprise individual crofts without common grazings in the eastern Highlands. At the moment the crofters on these estates can buy all of their land under the existing right to buy provisions based on the statutory formula of 15 times the annual rental value. As I said in Committee, it would be wrong for the provisions of the Bill to be used to allow crofters to circumvent the existing right to buy. It would also be unfair to those crofters who had already bought and to those tenants buying farms on lowland estates who had to make some payment to buy their land.
I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, accepted in Committee that we had a genuine point in anticipating that proposed transfers could legitimately and equitably distinguish between, on the one hand, west coast estates with common grazings and lowland values and, on the other hand, certain east coast estates with no common grazings and higher land values.
The proposed amendments would not, however, allow us to take this distinction into account or indeed other factors which might exceptionally suggest that the public interest should and could be taken into account. This would only be relevant, however, where any consideration being made for the value of the land did not threaten the viability of the future of the new crofting trust. In other words, any consideration has to be affordable to that new trust. It would be fair not only to the crofters concerned but to the public.
Amendment No. 3 deals with the rights attaching to the land. Since sporting rights run with the land, we are, for the most part, concerned here with mineral rights. We do not, in principle, want to retain mineral rights where the Secretary of State is transferring land to a trust. Indeed, an overriding intention to do so on our part would be contrary to the spirit of the Secretary of

1477
State's crofting initiative. Nor can we disregard any public interest. To do that would be contrary to a fundamental duty of government.
As with my response to Amendment No. 2, what we would seek would be flexibility and fairness to reconcile the specific circumstances with the respective interests of a crofting trust and the public interest. Each case would need to be looked at by both parties on its merits, but if trusts wish to acquire mineral rights, which we would welcome, then the public interest would normally require that a valuation be agreed and a charge negotiated.
The Secretary of State holds mineral rights over some 27 of his 53 crofting estates. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has reminded us, the total annual income arising from these rights is currently in the region of just £17,000. In many cases, therefore, the appropriate charge for the freehold transfer of mineral rights would indeed be very modest.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has reminded us in the past, with mineral rights there is always the potential for substantial or excessive windfall gains, and we need to consider such an eventuality with very great care. There might therefore be cases where only a modest charge would be appropriate, but it should be linked to a clawback provision which protected the public interest in the event of a substantial or excessive windfall gain. In addition, and again depending upon the circumstances, it might not be unfair to the public interest if any such clawbacks were time-limited. This sets out our presumption that mineral rights would, wherever possible, be included in a transfer of assets to a new crofting trust.
I have also described the flexibility that would be a feature of any such transfer so that we are fair not only to crofters and their circumstances and aspirations, but also to the taxpayer, who underwrote the purchase of those rights many decades ago and who has invested considerable sums in the maintenance of the estates ever since.
Suppose, however, that a prospective crofting trust was not, initially at any rate, able or willing to assume the relevant mineral rights. In those circumstances it would be wrong to seek to compel trusts, which is what would happen with this amendment.
Once again, we are determined that there be sufficient flexibility so that, without abandoning the public interest, the presumption can be that the crofting trust will normally be the principal beneficiary of the income arising. Therefore, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, I agree, let them exploit those rights for local benefit. I alluded to that possibility in Committee. The trusts, as surface proprietor, would be able to benefit from income while the department retained the mineral rights. Whatever the arrangements which are agreed, they must be fair to both parties, the trust and the public, whose money was used to acquire the estates and to support them over the past decades.
I trust I have explained the Government's position. The mandatory free transfer of land and related assets regardless of the circumstances would be wrong in principle and it would be in danger of creating
1478
anomalies and loopholes in practice. We have, nevertheless, made it absolutely clear that, through the flexibility that this Bill provides, our intention is to be as generous and supportive as possible to the future crofting trusts without riding roughshod and indefensibly over the legitimate interests of the taxpayer.
I hope that the noble Lord finds reassurance in the explanation I have given and is able to withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for his comments. I am particularly grateful that the noble Earl, in speaking on behalf of the Government, appears to be converted to the idea of a windfall tax. It is something to remark upon.
On the basis of what the Minister has said, I am content to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that, in approaching the individual negotiations, where there is an element of doubt the benefit of doubt will be given to the crofting trust and that the Government—any government—will act with a degree of generosity which will at least underpin the potential for the success of the trusts once they are created. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Restrictions on disposal]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 19, after ("community") insert ("and local community development").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to build into the consultative process which the Crofters Commission will undertake the concept of local community development. That is singularly appropriate because the objective of the Bill must be to strengthen community development in sparsely populated areas of Scotland, which are nearly as sparsely populated as this House.
When we discussed this in Committee the point was made that indeed the Crofters Commission could, if they thought it appropriate, take into account local community development and the way in which a potential trust would add to the achievement of local community development. However, in fact, there is a case for the Bill to be much stronger because the whole purpose of local community development is so central to the concept in the first place.
It would be remiss if the Bill did not actually specify the need for local community development and the extent to which a transfer would enhance the potential and possibility of local community development, if that was somehow left to one side or left to the possibility that the Crofters Commission, in undertaking their consultations, did not take that into account.
I see no objection as to why, in setting up the consultations, in reaching a view on which to advise the Secretary of State, the Crofters Commission should not take this central issue on board. It is a central issue; it is the way in which these trusts can in fact

1479
make a significant contribution—I hope that they do make a significant contribution—to the future economic and social well-being of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Indeed, that type of approach sits very well with the Government's own rural White Paper, and I would have thought that the emphasis that the inclusion of these words in the Bill would give to the value to be placed on encouraging local community development is wholly beneficial. I do not believe that it should be left as something that the Crofters Commission could or may take into account. They should be required to take it into account as perhaps the most important single factor in deciding the basis of their advice to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, with regard to one of these amendments, I have to say that at the present moment local community development is not an activity with which the Crofters Commission is required to deal. Indeed, it is probably not legally entitled to do it. It strikes me that it would probably be treading on the toes of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the local enterprise companies and possibly even on the toes of the local authority.
This is social and economic activity which the Crofters Commission ought to be doing, and I believe that the commission would like to start taking this approach to its work.
It is important to recognise that crofters now typically gain 10 per cent. of their income from crofting and 90 per cent. from what are quaintly known in crofting legislation as their auxiliary occupations. The move from subsistence agriculture to crofting becoming a population holding measure is a good one. It is important to encourage people to go to the remoter areas to make a life for themselves using repayable loans and the spare time activities which crofting constitutes. I suspect that we are looking at something which the Irish have solved by having a Department of the Gaeltacht to handle such problems. I commend the amendment to the Minister.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I was unable to take part in the Committee stage because I was listening to a debate in the Chamber. I was not on the Select Committee, but I have been listening to the discussions with great interest. Will my noble friend indicate whether the Government are against crofting trusts becoming entrepreneurial and doing good things on their crofts? I was a little dismayed by the discussion about minerals. I imagine that the Bill as it stands does not prevent crofters exploiting minerals. They might discover barites on the land, or something like that. I understand that the Government do not want to put that on the face of the Bill, but surely the whole idea is not to keep crofters where they are and to prevent them developing their crofts in any way they want; the idea is to put the crofts into the crofters' hands for the good of the crofts, the crofters and the Highlands of Scotland.
Although I shall understand if my noble friend does not want to tie things down too much by putting them on the face of the Bill, it would be interesting to hear
1480
from him—perhaps I should know—whether there is anything wrong with crofters becoming entrepreneurial and not just maintaining the status quo.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention. She has articulated the objectives behind the Bill as well as anyone has done to date. We want the Bill to enable crofters to take a greater stake in their own futures, shape their own destinies, to be as entrepreneurial as they want and to develop the social, cultural, economic and environmental aspects of their communities. The hope of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is that the transfer of the land and any other assets associated with that transfer will provide a springboard for those crofting communities to take hold of the direction in which those communities subsequently go. I have explained at great length that we are seeking to keep the face of the Bill as uncluttered as possible.
The Secretary of State has brought forward the Bill to encourage crofters to take on the management of their own estates. Crofters can progress as freely as possible. Any reservations that my noble friend might have are entirely misplaced. We are seeking to give crofters control.
The amendment encapsulates a sentiment with which we have a great deal of sympathy. If noble Lords look at Clause 2 they will see phrases such as:
"crofting interests in the property …the promotion of the interests of persons residing on such property … the general interests of the crofting community in the district … the views of crofters in that district; and any other matter which they consider to be relevant".
The concept of local community development lies at the heart of the Bill. I emphasised in Committee the important part that community development will play in the realities that will stem from the Bill becoming law. The Bill's drafting makes the amendments unnecessary. They could conceivably be restrictive.
I shall deal with the first point. The Bill already allows the Crofters Commission to have regard to community development, both when it considers the general interests of the crofting community and with regard to any other matter which it considers to be relevant. I drew attention to the current drafting because I cannot conceive that the Crofters Commission would not address a potential for local community development when it goes through the various duties that the Bill imposes upon it.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, suggested that with the existence of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, the Crofters Commission might feel constrained in addressing local community development, especially if it is economic. That is not the case. Within the duties defined by the Bill, the Crofters Commission will be advising the Secretary of State on the single transfer of a particular holding to a crofting trust. I do not anticipate any difficulty with that duty and the duties of the enterprise network.
There is also the risk that the amendments would have an unfortunate restrictive effect. I acknowledge that that is not intended by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. It is possible that some communities will seek to establish

1481
crofting trusts to allow them to maintain, as nearly as possible, their current situation. In those or similar conditions we would not wish the commission to see itself as being under any statutory duty to recommend against such proposals just because they were inadequately concerned with community development, however that might be interpreted.
We consider that a possibility. It is not one which we would like to see become a reality. The term "local community" may be uncertain. The local community would include more than just the residents on the property to be disposed of. That is the purpose of Clause 2(2). It is quite proper that the commission should have regard to the development of the wider community, but such development which goes beyond the land and members of a crofting trust cannot be of such importance that the commission should be required to give it preferential attention. That is why Clause 2 is structured as it is, with subsection (1) giving preference to the interests of those residing on the property while subsection (2) takes a broader look.
The Bill will allow the commission to give due regard to local community development, whether that development be economic or cultural, whether it involves an increasing population or improves circumstances for an existing population. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but we see difficulties with the drafting proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I again thank the Minister. I am more disappointed in his response on this occasion than on previous occasions. If on the one hand the Minister believes it to be inconceivable that the Crofters Commission should not take into account matters of local community development, I see no argument against requiring it, and making it clear that it should take into account the local community development effect of the transfer and the setting up of a trust.
The argument that it could be potentially restrictive is a non-starter. The amendment seeks merely to require the Crofters Commission to take this into account among a number of other factors. Having taken it into account in the particular circumstances which the noble Earl indicated, it may well seek to advise the Secretary of State that in a particular case, the local community development factor should not be dominant. That would be fair enough. But in reaching its view, it is essential that the local community development effect of a transfer should be something which it should at least be required to think about, consider and reach a view upon. As I say, I am disappointed that the Minister cannot go further on this particular issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2. line 22. at end insert—
("() Any subsequent conveyance from a transferee to a new owner of property disposed of under subsection (2) above shall require the consent of the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 returns to a difficult issue which took up a great deal of our time, thoughts and energies in Inverness; namely, the problem of on-selling. Perhaps I may explain my anxiety. A transfer takes place and I accept what the Minister has said that it takes place on a basis of generosity and viability and a healthy trust is established.
The difficulty then comes with what happens next or what potentially could happen next. The danger that is seen by at least some of those involved actively in the crofting community is that the intentions of the Bill could be undermined if there is a danger of significant on-selling of the land which formed part of the original transfer.
In many cases, it may be thought that that is not a very real threat. But there are some examples. I shall not use the expression "white settlers" because I prefer to use the phrase "heavy housing development pressures". In some parts of the Highlands, particularly outside the presently established towns and villages, it is clear that there is a very heavy demand for housing plots and developments.
There is a danger involved here. There are indications that that danger is becoming a reality, albeit on a relatively small scale at the moment. As I understand it, in the case of one of the already established trusts—Assynt—in order to achieve the income to maintain its current activities, it has sold some of the capital assets; namely, the land. Over a period of time, the whole basis forward of the trusts could be eroded significantly if there is that incremental selling on of the land which formed the basis of the whole development.
The Minister in his comments quite rightly drew attention to the role of the Scottish Land Court. It is fair for him to do so. In placing this amendment before the House, we are seeking to give him an opportunity to underline the degree of control and guarantee which the Scottish Land Court will be able to exercise to ensure that the erosion of the viability of the trusts which have been established is not put into jeopardy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for giving me an important opportunity to restate an assurance on this vital matter.
The amendment proposes an insertion into Clause 2(2) which deals with the matters to which the Crofters Commission should have regard when advising the Secretary of State in relation to a proposed transfer of land from himself to a crofting trust. I believe that it was intended to introduce an amendment which would require a crofting trust which wished to sell or otherwise dispose of any of the land transferred to it by the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the commission.
However, the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, raises is in relation to selling on. We have never stated that crofting estates are free from threats, pressures or an erosion of the current patterns by which their lives are guided. However, as I explained, we believe that there are sufficient safeguards to protect crofting land.

1483
Land in crofting tenure is protected by the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 which requires any landlord wishing to take land out of crofting tenure, which is known as "resumption" to obtain the approval of the Scottish Land Court. Before authorising the resumption, the Land Court must be satisfied that the landlord wishes to resume the land for some reasonable purpose in relation to the,
"good of the croft or of the estate or of the public interest".
In addition, "reasonable purpose" is also further defined and may include, among other things, the building of dwellings, schools, halls or community centres.
I hope that is the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. It is an important assurance which I am happy to give and I am glad that it should go on the record. We could not agree to the imposition of an additional or unnecessary hurdle on those crofting trusts which have assumed land that originated on the Secretary of State's estate, unlike other crofting landlords. We see the discrimination that would create. In a sense, it would create also a separate class of crofting landlord. That would be unjust and unnecessary. However, I am happy to repeat the safeguards which are very important and which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, suggested should be repeated for the record, and they exist in the 1993 Act.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he agrees that it would be a good idea for the Crofters Commission to scrutinise an incoming new estate owner in the same way that somebody who has purchased his croft has then to apply to become the crofter of it?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the point that I should make to the noble Earl is that if land was being resumed—in other words, taken out of crofting for a development purpose—then the Scottish Land Court must be satisfied with that resumption; that it is being done for a reasonable purpose; and that the benefits will flow to the crofters, the local community or the public interest.
If the ownership of the crofting land changes hands, that crofting land remains as crofting land and remains within the protection and security which exists to look after all crofting land in successive pieces of legislation. Therefore, a change of ownership should not increase the threat which might be posed to land which remains in crofting.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the Minister again for his comments. I take heart from the fact that the noble Earl spelt out yet again the view that he takes and the assurance that he gives as regards the role of the Scottish Land Court in that regard. However, it is possible that only practice and experience will provide us with the evidence. I have a nagging suspicion that there is a problem here to which we may have to return subsequently, once we see how the operation of the scheme actually beds down in reality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Rights of pre-emption]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 7, I should point out to the House that if the amendment were to be agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 8 owing to pre-emption. As it is being debated at the same time, the same applies to Amendment No. 9 which pre-empts Amendment No. 10.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("four months").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. The amendments will extend the period allowed to claimants for compensation in respect of loss of rights of pre-emption from six weeks to four months. I am grateful to various Members of the Committee who queried the original drafting of the Bill on this point, and especially to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I agreed to consider the matter further and I now propose that claimants for compensation should be allowed four months.
I would reiterate that the period allowed for the process does not in any way delay the transfer of the Secretary of State's crofting estates to crofting trusts. Indeed, it is only when a transfer has actually taken place that the process of seeking any compensation that might be due for the loss of pre-emptive rights is triggered in the first place.
I should also remind the House that the procedure for dealing with claims once they have been lodged is a very fair one for claimants. Where claimants fail to reach agreement with the Secretary of State, they will have a right of appeal to the Scottish Land Court. Proceedings in the land court are straightforward and inexpensive but the court has the power, where it deems it appropriate, to award costs. That should reassure possible claimants and those organisations which might represent their interests. Claims will be dealt with fairly and efficiently.
I feel sure that noble Lords will accept that the Government's proposal will allow adequate time to lodge a claim, wherever the claimant may be resident. Amendment No. 9 is consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Earl did indeed promise in Committee to produce amendments to extend the six weeks to a longer period. I tabled my amendment only about five minutes before the Minister tabled his. I did so to enable us to talk again about the matter in the event of the Minister not bringing forward such amendments. As it is, I tabled my amendments and asked for a six-month period in the hope that I might achieve three, like a Persian carpet seller. However, I have got more than I even dared hope for. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and shall not, therefore, be moving my amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I do not mean to oppose these amendments but I am still not convinced that we need any time limit for pre-emptors to show up and claim their extinguished right. As the noble Earl said, the pre-emptors' permission does not in any sense get in the way of a successful transfer between the Scottish Office and a group of crofters.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to my amendments. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that we would not seek to impose a time limit unless there was a very good reason for so doing. If there was no time limit and there was a possibility that there might be more than one claimant to pre-emptive rights, it would be impossible to reach a conclusion of negotiations in that, from the Secretary of State's point of view, there might be a need to wait and see whether any other siblings or collateral branches came forward with perhaps a stronger right in law. We must, therefore, impose a time limit to conclude the process. By doing so, we will actually deliver any compensation which might be payable to the just recipient.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 6, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("four months").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

Independent Qualified Conveyancers (Scotland) Regulations 1997
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above regulations I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the Executry Practitioners (Scotland) Regulations 1997 which follow on. Both sets of draft regulations were laid before the House on 13th January this year. They relate to the new professions of qualified conveyancer and executry practitioner for Scotland which were established by the
1486
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Both these new professions are intended to increase competition among legal service providers and to enhance consumer choice.
Independent qualified conveyancers will be able to offer all conveyancing services—some of which are at present reserved to solicitors—and executry practitioners will be able to offer the Scottish equivalent of probate services. Members of both professions will be regulated by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, which was revived last year after a period of suspension caused by the state of the housing market in Scotland and difficulties which have been experienced in arranging affordable cover for practitioners to cover indemnity insurance and compensation arrangements.
I am pleased to inform the House that the board has been able to arrange a professional indemnity insurance master policy at a premium comparable to that paid by solicitors in Scotland; and a compensation fund is now in place which will provide protection for the customer against fraud or dishonesty. In the period before contributions from practitioners into the fund have built up sufficiently, it will be backed by insurance and a relatively small government guarantee.
It is anticipated that in the early years the number of practitioners participating under the procedures laid out in the regulations will be small. However, there are a number of students currently taking the qualifications offered by the University of Abertay and Glasgow Caledonian University, both of which have been accredited by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. A number of students have already qualified and embarked upon their practical training. I understand that those who have completed their courses are finding training available to them in what is now a very competitive market. Courses are also in prospect at two other universities and part-time training opportunities are available.
The draft regulations before the House today were first issued in draft form for the purposes of consultation in December 1995. This was a major consultation exercise, with over 160 copies of the consultation document being issued and over 40 substantive responses received. In the event, those responses were very helpful to the Government and allowed our thinking on the draft regulations to develop. The regulations also benefited from the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading whom my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is required to consult.
Following on from the consultation exercise, a new draft was prepared and a second consultation exercise took place in September last year. The latter produced no new significant points, but gave rise to further discussions between the Law Society of Scotland and the Government to resolve one or two minor points of concern. I am happy to say that that was achieved.
I do not think it is necessary to go through the detail of either these or the following regulations. I am happy to assure the House that they will regulate both these new professions to the highest possible professional standards. On that basis I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—{Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given a clear exposition of these two important sets of regulations. I was pleased to hear the news about the major insurance policy and the compensation fund. One can only hope that neither of those will be called upon too often once the practitioners begin their work.
Both sets of regulations are welcomed by this side of your Lordships' House. After consultation and adjustment they were given a fair wind in another place. The detail and comprehensive composition of the regulations is such as to allay reservations about the operation of these two bodies in relation to conveyancing and executry practice. It goes without saying, once one reads the detail of these two sets of regulations, that a great deal of hard work and thought has gone into their preparation. I am sure your Lordships' House would wish to put on record our thanks to all those involved in producing the final regulations which are now before us.
Only time will tell how efficient and effective these regulations will be in regulating the operations of these two bodies in serving the public and individual interest. The regulations are clear and easily understood. None of the practitioners who contravene the regulations will have much of an excuse if he says he could not understand the terminology of the regulations. We hope that they will be a valuable addition as regards the protection of the public and the individual. As I said earlier, this side of the House welcomes both sets of regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Executry Practitioners (Scotland) Regulations 1997
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th January be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
6.22 p.m.
Report received.

Sundays (Dancing and Licensing) Bill [H.L.]
6.23 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfame) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Music and dancing on Sundays]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 3 and to the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I are attempting in our different ways to skin the same cat. That "cat" is the protection of residents' interests who may be affected by the operation of the establishments which are to be deregulated by this Bill.
The context of these amendments is a little different to that at Second Reading. Since then there has been an announcement by the Government, by way of a Written Answer, that there is to be a review of licensing hours, and in particular licensing procedures. As one who has made a rather inadequate attempt to grapple with licensing provisions in the current legislation, I shall certainly welcome some clarification of the complex provisions which we have to tackle. That review having been announced—prompted, according to the Government, by a substantial response to consultation on the extension of normal licensing hours from 11 p.m. to midnight—I am prompted to ask the Government whether they have considered postponing this deregulation in order to consider it in the context of that review? I am sure the Government have considered that, and I look forward to the Minister's comments on it. The licences are not identical but music and dancing licences are probably not a great deal of use in a commercial sense without a drinking licence.
As I have said, these amendments seek to protect residents who may suffer disturbance. I raised this point at Second Reading when I mentioned Kensington and Chelsea. The noble Viscount Lord Astor said:
"That was an issue when this matter came up in relation to deregulation. The debate has moved on since then".—[Official Report, 15/1/97; col. 269.]
I accept the debate has moved on with regard to the consultation of those who may be affected by deregulation but not as regards the substantive issue. A number of Members of the Committee will have received the letter that I received from residents of one block in that borough. I believe their words would strike a chord with people who live near to clubs, discotheques and other such places in other parts of the country, particularly in city centres and no doubt most of all in London, although not exclusively so. The description in

1489
the letter is vivid and it is worth repeating. I shall read a short extract to the Committee. The letter states that when premises are:
"open for dancing and drinking until the early hours local residents who live nearby are disturbed by noise from patrons arriving and departing (especially the latter) due to shouting, car doors banging, car radios playing, squealing of taxi brakes etc. … In addition the patrons of such establishments, who often do not have the well being of residents at heart"—
one can imagine that is not their first priority—
"park in residents' parking bays, on zig-zag white lines, on double yellow lines, in residents' driveways, on pavements etc. Obstruction to passing traffic also occurs. This is not fanciful exaggeration—it actually does happen as surveys we have made show. Why do we as residents carry out such surveys?".
This is the thrust of my amendment. The letter continues:
"We do so because the Council's Licensing Sub-Committee and the Magistrate's Liquor Licensing Courts are naturally cautious of accepting uncorroborated information. So we know what we are talking about".
What is difficult is to control the operation of these establishments, or perhaps more accurately the behaviour of the people who attend them. The establishments themselves cannot be held directly responsible for people behaving in an unneighbourly fashion when leaving the premises. It is the difficulty of enforcement that has led me to raise this matter again at Committee stage.
I would be the first to accept that the wording of my proposed amendments, which deal with special hours certificates, is quite possibly technically deficient and certainly may not go as far as I would like in terms of covering the issue. However, I think they at least provide a vehicle for raising a number of questions. I hope that either the noble Viscount or the Minister can respond to those questions.
Who is to take the lead in preparing licensing applications for the justices to consider? Who is expected to carry the principal responsibility for monitoring the introduction of the new Sunday licensing arrangements? What monitoring arrangements do the Government expect to be in place? What monitoring do the Government expect of the relationship between the liquor licence and the entertainments licence? The music and dancing licence is of no great commercial value without the liquor licence. What arrangements will there be for applicants to appeal against conditions placed on them, or against the refusal of a licence? Finally, do the Government intend to produce any form of guidance to local authorities and the police on these issues? At present the police are in the stronger position as regards the revocation of licences.
My amendments enable local authorities to have a role in the granting of licences and conditions surrounding licences in order to protect residents either before applications are granted or as a result of experience. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am happy that the debate on the Question that Clause 2 stand part is grouped with the amendment which the noble Baroness moved. I shall
1490
not repeat the points she made. She put forward a strong case expressing the grave reservations of residents not only of Kensington and Chelsea but of a number of other areas about what will happen to their Sunday nights and early into Monday mornings if the provisions of the Bill go forward without amendment.
Members of the Committee will remember that the matter was exhaustively discussed when an attempt was made to introduce the provision under the delegated legislation powers. The measure was the subject of much evidence and comment by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I do not believe that the concerns then expressed have been properly addressed.
In 1995 the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee considered the proposal was designed to have the same effect as this Bill. The committee received much evidence, including some from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. But it was not confined to London; the committee quoted evidence from Bolsover. It is a national and not just a London problem.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea vigorously opposed any extension of licensing for restaurants and night clubs on Sunday nights in order to protect its residents from late night disturbance. The promoters, those who support the Bill, thought that perhaps the council was making an unnecessary fuss. They expressed astonishment when told that within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea no less than 96 such establishments are currently licensed, most of which can be expected to apply for the licences for Sunday dancing and drinking. Many of these establishments are in the heart of quiet residential areas. In quoting from the letter she received, the noble Baroness vividly described the effect of the situation on residents.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee considered whether any protection for residents would be removed. The committee concluded that there should be explicit reference to the licensing justices' discretion to make special provisions for Sundays. It found the proposal unsatisfactory because it removed necessary protection for residents who at present are free from disturbance on Sunday nights.
Paragraph 54 of the fifteenth report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee states:
"There can be no doubt that an extension of the permitted hours for public dancing and drinking on Sundays will have an adverse effect on residents. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told us 'it will be the last straw for residents, particularly residents living very close to commercial premises. It is different if you are in Scarborough and all the premises are on the front. When residential accommodation is intermixed with commercial, then there is going to be a conflict'."
The position could not be spelt out more clearly. The report continues that,
"the odds are stacked heavily against residents",
when dealing with nuisance arising from such establishments.

1491
At paragraph 57 the report states:
"The Committee considers that, while the issues of dancing and late night drinking have to be considered separately"—
I shall come to that issue in a moment—
"there is a cumulative effect on local residents which cannot be overlooked. This will be particularly true in those areas where residential accommodation is mixed in with licensed premises".
I do not believe that those who seek this measure of deregulation have yet taken on board the serious situation as regards dance halls and clubs which are close to residential establishments.
The noble Baroness may be right in saying that a permit for dancing is not of much use without a licence for the consumption of alcohol. The notice to strike out Clause 2 applies only to the alcohol licensing provisions. I am indebted to the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association Limited for a letter which points out, as perhaps one should have known, that a public entertainment licence granted by a local authority is renewable annually. Therefore there is an opportunity every year for residents to make their views known forcefully to the local authority in the hope that a licence will not be renewed. The letter states, I think a little inaccurately, that,
"Similar considerations apply to liquor licences: licensing justices have very wide discretion on granting, renewing or revoking these licences, and may attach whatever conditions they see fit. These licences must be renewed every three years".
Therefore the opportunity for residents to make a fuss arises only every three years.
When these points were raised at Second Reading, my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated that it is open to residents to raise their anxieties at any time. But they should not have to do so. It takes a great deal of organisation, pressure, and repeated representations to the police, local authorities, licensing magistrates and anyone who may have an influence, before licensing justices will be persuaded to revoke or modify a licence they have given. I do not believe that Parliament should impose that obligation on local residents. Parliament may well have the power to insert conditions which will bring those issues to the attention of the licensing magistrates at the time when they award the licence.
I have studied carefully the noble Baroness's amendment; she has not claimed too much for it. I am not sure that her provision is the right answer. I am not clear what the right answer is. That is why I have given notice to oppose Clause 2 rather than putting down an amendment. We have a few days before Report stage of the Bill. I have indicated to my noble friend Lord Astor and my noble friend on the Front Bench that I do not propose to divide the Committee today on Clause 2. However, I shall require to be satisfied at Report stage that proper provision has been made to protect residents in the circumstances which the Bill sets out.
I am a strong supporter of deregulation for Sundays. I do not quarrel with dancing; perhaps dancing without drinking would not get far. But a combination of dancing and drinking on the one quiet night of the week, going on after midnight and perhaps up until 2 a.m., is intolerable. Under the Bill, that will be permitted and
1492
the licensing justices are given no indication that it should be strictly controlled. I have every sympathy with those who feel that this should not be allowed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose I should declare a minor potential interest in this issue. I live in a street which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows very well. It faces a playing field which has a clubhouse. On occasions, though not very often, late-night discotheques take place and go on until four o'clock in the morning. That tends to happen on a Saturday night, not on Sunday. Since the clubhouse is being rebuilt, the use could possibly be extended to Sunday nights if that is requested. That is the extent of my interest.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I am very sympathetic to the idea of deregulation and to the idea that there is no difference in this respect between Sunday and any other day. Having said that, I am also puzzled by the conflicting evidence put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, read out part of a letter, which I also received, from the Consort House Residents Association. I am puzzled by the difficulty that association has and the assurances given by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in his very courteous letter to me about the Bill following Second Reading in which he refers to the protection that exists. He refers to the powers of local authorities in respect of entertainments licensing and the powers that apply to licensing justices with respect to liquor licences.
If those powers work, why do those people have so much difficulty? It may well be that dancing on Sundays is a very special case on which to be raising a more general problem. But if that is the case, ought we not to consider the more general problem before we proceed, without amendment, to making this otherwise necessary change?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I understand that our discussion now combines the Question, opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that Clause 2 stand part and Amendment No. 1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall therefore proceed on that basis.
When I represented Enfield on the Greater London Council, there was an absolutely unruly late-night music and dancing venue in my constituency. Licences were granted centrally from County Hall. Each year, and year after year, Enfield residents came in a busload to oppose renewal of the licence because their lives were hell. They never succeeded because the other side had very brilliant QCs who put up a marvellous case. It was only when the liquor licence was withdrawn as a result of the number of knifings and dangerous incidents that had taken place on the premises that the dancing became less attractive. Therefore I support the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that if there is no liquor licence there will not be large numbers of people who are terribly keen to be there (unless drugs have replaced alcohol) dancing all night for nothing. Certainly in commercial terms it was the loss of the liquor licence that made the venue non-viable. Before that, people came there from all over London.
In our previous debate on this matter, there was a great deal of talk about revocation or refusal to renew. In the days when licences were granted by the GLC,

1493
there was always great difficulty over the first issue of licensing permission. The other side was always able to say that, until a club was there, it could not be said to be harmful. So everything was granted in the first instance. Then the poor people suffering those terrible inconveniences had to fight, literally for years. In the case I referred to, as I said, the liquor licence was eventually lost and that dealt with the matter.
It is not just a question of premises. As a result of the Noise Act, which I introduced in this House, we can now deal with noisy premises if they are too bad. It is a question of street noise—people slamming car doors in the middle of the night, revving up engines, particularly if they have a motor bike or car without the correct muffler. Those people are never caught. Having woken you up, they are gone; and there you are, suffering a sleepless night.
With my medical hat on, I would say that one of the greatest causes of accidents at work is over-tiredness. Sunday night is the night before people start their working week. For that reason, putting aside entirely whether or not we introduce regulation, I consider Sunday to be rather different to other days. I like the fact that large stores close at six o'clock. I should not like the thought that something else started up after that.
Camden council explained this matter to me. We had arguments about whether or not shops in King's Cross should be able to stay open all night. A measure passed by both Houses means that they can stay open all night, and Camden residents are suffering as a result. We have to be very careful when throwing out all the regulations and protections which are desirable from the point of view of residents.
In the case I referred to in Enfield the premises were in a residential street and affected between 20 and 50 residences immediately adjoining them. But in other, more densely built-up areas in the centre of London many more people live in very close proximity. The effects would be even more adverse.
I have a letter from the executive director of the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association Ltd. (BEDA). He said that he enclosed a valuable counsel's opinion on a particular matter. Unfortunately that opinion was not enclosed and I am unable to respond to the arguments put forward.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Courtown said in winding up that he felt the debate had moved on. He went on to say that he now thought that there was fair agreement between local authorities and the Government on this issue. I do not know where he gets that idea. The local authorities that have approached me are certainly not saying that they are in agreement over this issue at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says that those seeking the permissions have perhaps not taken on board people's concerns. My experience in this field is that they do not care about other people's concerns. They have only the vested interest in setting up such businesses. For those who live near to them it is impossible to say how many years it will be before the nuisance beside them can be stopped.
1494
Local residents are faced with the fact that they are small voices and usually merely individuals, even when they protest in a group. As I said, a whole busload of residents opposed the licence in the case I mentioned. The skilful arguments advanced by expert QCs for the leisure industry can be very convincing. For us to pass this measure would be a very bad thing. I add my voice to those who are opposed to it, and to Clause 2 in particular.
Viscount Brentford: I too, wish to express concern about nuisance being caused and to express my gratitude for the amendments tabled so that the matter can be discussed.
Last week I had a very friendly meeting with officials of BEDA. They did not entirely convince me of the value of it; however, it was a very friendly and courteous time and the meeting was very informative. For instance, one problem that has clarified itself for me this afternoon, and which I discussed with them, is that two different approaches arise in relation to clubs that open. One relates to those situated in residential areas and the other to those situated in out-of-town shopping areas where there are no residents, or in inner cities, which are purely commercial enterprises, again with no residents living nearby. Like other speakers, I would have no problem from a nuisance point of view with clubs being open in areas where there are no residents. All our discussion has been on the basis of clubs opening in areas where there are residents. Many are situated in residential areas, although I am told by the officials that the large ones opening nowadays are nearly always in areas which are free from residents. But that does not help the large number—many hundreds—which are situated today in residential areas. Therefore, I asked them and they agreed to consider whether there was any way of trying to distinguish in this Bill between those clubs which are situated in residential areas from those which are not. If there were a way to clarify that, it seems to me that it would rule out many of the problems and we could allow only those to be opened on Sundays which were not in residential areas. But that is a problem for the future and not for this afternoon.
On Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed to the fact that there are officials around who consider the protection offered by local authorities and justices to be inadequate. Certainly, that came out very clearly in a letter from the Consort House Residents Association, saying just that. It adds also—I should like to comment on it—that the powers are insufficient nowadays for them on weekdays. Therefore they question why these powers would be effective on Sundays. To back up my noble friend's remarks, they ask why those who go to work on Mondays should be denied their one quiet night of the week. The loss of their one and only quiet night of the week, to be lost for ever, is to me a very telling argument.
Therefore, I feel that the protection offered by the law at present is inadequate. I very much hope that we can in some way tighten it up for the sake of the poor, suffering residents who now will lose their one night of peace in the week.
Lord Wilberforce: I too declare an interest as a resident in the Borough of Kensington, an even more minor interest than that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because we do not front a playing field and so far, I am happy to say, there is no place of entertainment existing in our street. To that extent I am disinterested. But, like other noble Lords, I am entirely in favour of leaving the borough, as all other boroughs, an attractive place for people to come to and in which to amuse themselves.
The principle of the Bill is not in dispute. Everybody wants people to have liberty of action. One can see the logicality of not making a distinction between dancing and other activities which have been liberalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, quoted very strong passages from the committee report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and its very strong conclusion based on the evidence that the proposal is unsatisfactory because it removes a necessary protection for residents. Perhaps in addition I may quote from paragraph 59, which he did not read out. It says:
"The point was made to us that opportunities for residents to make representations with regard to licence applications and renewals are generally unsatisfactory".
Then it refers to a number of questions which were put on to two pages of the evidence. It did not come to a conclusion on that point because it was not within the committee's remit.
Nevertheless the point was made and obviously it impressed the committee. It has been very clearly underlined by what has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes: in fact, even in busloads, the local residents have very little opportunity to stand up against the big guns which can be mounted by the interests involved.
I do not want to say any more other than that I am entirely in support of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and other speakers. I hope very much that the Government in the later stages of the Bill see fit to allow to be introduced some greater protection for residents than is at present found in the Bill.
The Earl of Courtown: Before speaking to the amendments let me say that I believe I have the feeling of the Committee on them at this stage. But I point out that a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber were very concerned when they saw these amendments to the Bill coming forward.
The effect of Amendment No. 1 would be to retain the existing exception from Sunday observance under Section 88 of the Licensing Act 1988 which allows liquor sales at dance events which begin on Saturday night and continue into the early hours of Sunday morning. However, the first part of Clause 1 of the Bill, which is not affected by the amendment, would disapply the whole of the 1780 Act restrictions on music and dancing. Section 88 would therefore no longer be needed. The noble Baroness's amendment would retain a redundant provision and I hope she will, therefore, agree to withdraw it.
1496
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding explained, his amendment would prohibit the sale of alcohol beyond the normal licensing hours of 10.30 p.m. at commercial dances on Sundays. I understand the concerns of all noble Lords about possible disturbance to residents. However, I should point out that the licensing laws already contain considerable protections for residents against nuisance from late night drinking. It is unfortunate that I did not receive the letter which obviously has been received by many noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. Extensions cannot run beyond the time which the local authority has laid down for music and dancing to finish. So the local authority does hold the whip hand. If it decides that dancing can run beyond 10.30 p.m., the licensing justices have to consider an application for an extended liquor licence. Extensions are entirely at their discretion and cannot run beyond 2 a.m., or 3 a.m. in parts of London. Moreover, should any problems arise, the courts have the power to revoke the extension.
The Bill would do no more than allow dance organisers to apply to the courts for extended licensing hours on Sundays. The courts would have the same discretion over whether to grant an application, and if so on what terms, as they have for other nights of the week. They would also have the same power to revoke an extension if problems occurred.
In short, the following protections are in place: very wide discretion on initial grant of liquor licences; equally wide discretion on renewal—every three years; and licences can be revoked on application by anyone—police, local authority or individual. There is also wide discretion on grant of special hours certificate, also revokable where noise and nuisance take place; wide discretion on grant of public entertainment licence; and a public entertainment licence has to be renewed every year and can also be revoked where its conditions are broken.
Many noble Lords will know that Sunday already enjoys special considerations under licensing law. For example, the normal licensing hours on Sundays are shorter than on other days of the week. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned the treatment of applications for Sundays. The Government's understanding, based on counsel's opinion, is that the courts would also be able to take account of the special nature of Sundays when considering applications for extended hours.
The Committee will wish to bear in mind that many dances would not be commercially viable if extended liquor licensing hours were not possible. This would, therefore, be far from a technical amendment; it would seriously weaken the Bill as a whole.
Turning to Amendment No. 3, I understand the intention behind this amendment, which would allow the police and local authorities to protect residents from any disturbance which might arise from the sale and consumption of dance clubs operating late on a Sunday night. However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The courts are already able to limit an extension to the normal licensing hours where disturbance is caused to residents. This can take place

1497
either on the initial grant of the extension or subsequently. Those powers would apply to Sundays as they do to the rest of the week.
Local authorities can further influence the length of the extension through limitations on the premises' entertainments licence: as I mentioned earlier, extensions cannot run beyond the time which the local authority has laid down for music and dancing to finish.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about a review of licensing legislation. That review relates entirely to the proposals to extend normal permitted licensing hours on Friday and Saturday nights. Therefore, it does not have any direct relationship with the provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness also asked me about arrangements for monitoring Sunday dancing. The Home Office will keep the effect of the Bill, if it becomes law, under close review.
The Government will want to ensure that the arrangements work well and provide the necessary protection for residents. That will include the relationships between the liquor and entertainment licensing regimes and the effectiveness of the appeal mechanisms, which will vary from the rest of the week. The prime responsibility for monitoring arrangements locally rests with the local licensing authorities.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned the representations made by residents. The principle behind liquor and entertainment licensing generally is that there should be maximum freedom for people to spend their leisure time, including freedom to conduct legitimate business, consistent with the avoidance of noise and nuisance to others. It is for the licensing authorities to assess all those factors before deciding whether or not to grant a licence over which they have a wide discretion.
T understand the reasons behind the amendment. However, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that the power to limit the hours during which alcohol may be sold at late night dances is already well provided for by the Bill and that she will therefore agree to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend the Minister answered on behalf of the Government. Perhaps I may try to address some of the concerns of my noble friend and the noble Baroness on behalf of the promoters of the Bill.
I understand that there are 1,800 night clubs in this country. I am not sure how many are in Scotland and therefore currently open on Sundays but, according to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, 5 per cent. are in Kensington and Chelsea: that is a large amount.
My noble friend gave some extremely cogent examples as to why licences should not be granted. He gave some good examples of why night clubs disturb residents. I agree with him entirely. But that is not the point. The point the Committee should be addressing is whether the fact that some of those night clubs were opened when perhaps the licensing authorities should reassess the conditions of their opening should prevent other night clubs which wish to open on Sundays, where there are no strenuous objections from residents and
1498
where the licensing authorities and justices recognise that there is a reason for them opening, from applying for a licence.
We must remember that, if the Bill becomes law, no late-night clubs will be able automatically to open on Sundays. They will have to go through the licensing system of public entertainment licences and special hours certificates. The question one must ask—raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—is whether the current powers adequately protect the residents. I believe that on the whole they do, though I accept that there may be examples where they do not. I am sure that those licensing authorities will look carefully at that when the licences come up for renewal.
One point made by my noble friend and other Members of the Committee was whether local residents will be satisfactorily protected. How can they successfully fight? How can they hold their corner and show that in some cases certain places should not be open on a Sunday because they are in an area where they may disturb residents? Licensing arrangements are subject to local decisions. The licensing authority, if it wished, could refuse to grant a licence or apply specific rules as to closing time in recognition of the special nature of Sunday.
Perhaps I may offer some optimism to my noble friend. He kindly said that he would not be pressing his Motion this evening but would certainly want to have discussions before Report Stage. Perhaps he will withdraw his Motion so that we can think further on the issues he raised and discuss them with him. There may be a possibility of looking at whether the protection from the possible effects of a Sunday opening are adequate. There may be a way whereby the club could apply for its licence but the burden of proof would lie on the industry to show that there would be no detrimental effects on the local area, as opposed to that burden being on the local residents. That may be an area we can look at between now and Report stage.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend has shown that he recognises the strength of feeling expressed both outside the Chamber and in Committee this evening. The suggestions he offered towards the end of his speech are suggestions that will be followed up. He suggested that one protection that might operate is through the moving of the burden of proof. Following the phrase used by my noble friend on the Front Bench, perhaps we can also write into the Bill an obligation that the licensing justices or magistrates, as the case may be, should have regard to the special nature of Sunday evening when considering the extension of a licence into the late hours.
A combination of those two measures of protection would go a long way to meet the case made so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others this evening. I shall certainly respond to my noble friend's invitation that we should talk about this matter and do so quickly. But I do so against the background that, if the promoters are not prepared to write into the

1499
Bill something to give the residents protection, then they risk losing Clause 2 altogether. At Report stage I shall not hesitate to divide the Chamber.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As this is Committee stage, perhaps I may come back on one point that I do not feel has been dealt with adequately. I want to emphasise again that the real difficulty is in the first application for the licence. That is when whoever is granting the licence is not in a position to substantiate residents' objections. The residents have to suffer the nuisance before they can convince anyone that it exists. By that time there has usually been a large expenditure on the premises in order, for instance, to satisfy people that the premises comply with fire and safety regulations. The money that has been put into the building is used as a further argument against the residents as to why the licence should not be taken away; that is, because one is taking away people's livelihoods.
There should be something in the Bill which provides that, if people are going to go ahead and open these night clubs in areas which are not suitable and where residents will eventually succeed in their opposition, there will be no fear of moral blackmail simply because money has been spent in setting up the system.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may respond briefly to my noble friend. I do not see the scenario of a night club buying premises and opening up just to operate on a Sunday. We are talking about night clubs in the industry that wish to extend their business to Sundays. As a result, the licensing authorities and the justices will have a comprehensive knowledge of those night clubs, existing licensing conditions and whether complaints have been made against them. Therefore it is not exactly as my noble friend pointed out; but I take the general thrust of the point she made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply; there is a lot of sense in it. The only point I would make is that it is still a factor if one is setting up a new club to operate seven days a week rather than six.
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may briefly emphasise the two points made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. We should examine the possibility of including both those measures in the legislation. I strongly endorse his two points.
Baroness Hamwee: The proposals made by the noble Viscount are extremely welcome. I shall be happy to be a part of any consideration on how to take the matter forward. I share with most, if not all Members of the Committee this evening, a wish to see deregulation as wide as it reasonably can be but in a proper context.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, put his finger on the nub of the issue, which was taken up by other Members of the Committee. The issue is much wider than simply what is right for Sundays. The examples quoted tonight come out of experiences
1500
throughout the week. I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the review is with regard to Friday and Saturdays night only, as I had read the Answer to the Written Question. The Question was about the review of Friday and Saturday nights. The Answer seemed to broaden the matter and accept that there are problems through all seven days. It is the way the procedures work rather than the night of the week that is at issue.
What this seems to boil down to is the converse of what we so often say. We normally say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Here we have identified that it is "broke", or at least limping along not very well. A lot needs fixing, and more than what we can address in the context of the Bill.
Finally, before I withdraw my amendment, as I recognise it is less than perfect, I asked a number of detailed questions. I wonder whether the Minister will be good enough to write to me following today's debate. I see that he has agreed to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
RIGHTS OF WORKERS AS REGARDS SUNDAY WORKING
(". Schedule (Rights of workers as regards Sunday working) to this Act shall have effect").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 4, which is not identified as such on the Marshalled List but is the new schedule proposed after Clause 3.
The issues addressed in the amendment concern the protection of employees in the industry. I too had an extremely helpful meeting with the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association. I told the association that I would not be able to resist quoting from the code of conduct which it has drawn up. In quoting it, and teasing the association a little about it, I accept entirely the good faith with which it has been done. However, the Committee may enjoy, as I did, the notion that compensation to be awarded by an arbitrator under the code in certain circumstances will be such an amount as is "just equitable". The Committee may feel that quite often compensation is awarded which is only just equitable.
The code has been accepted by many in the industry. I understand that the association represents some 69 per cent. of the industry based on employment and turnover. Though there is a code of practice which that 69 per cent. will apply, what about the other 31 per cent.? What about the protection of the minority—those people who will not be entirely happy to be faced with the prospect of working on Sunday? I accept what the association has told me that many of the staff who work in clubs will welcome the flexibility of being able to work on different nights of the week. However, a question has not been answered: why is there not statutory protection for those—it may be a few—who work within the industry? Should existing

1501
employees not have the right to say no to Sunday work? What is the position for new employees who want to opt out of Sunday work? Where is the protection for those who may be dismissed for refusing to work on a Sunday? Should they not have the right not to suffer detriment—for instance, losing out on promotion—because they opt out of Sunday work?
I have based the amendments entirely on the Sunday Trading Act, which seemed to be the easiest way of writing a rather long schedule into the Bill. I have shamelessly plagiarised that Act. Although the concerns may in terms of numbers be more limited than when we were discussing the rights of people who work in the retail trade, I am nevertheless concerned that the staff in question should not be ignored or sidelined because they are a smaller group and because there is a code of conduct which, as it is not statutory, cannot have the same effect. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have a later draft of the code of conduct than the noble Baroness. My copy says "just and equitable" in the circumstances, so I think the association has picked up on her teasing. It goes on to say:
"The award shall be capped at limits set by the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association but presently the maximum shall be £8,000".
I am not sure that we would get away with that in legislation—capping the compensation at any amount. It could set the amount at a much lower figure if it wanted to in the future. All of this goes to show not that the intentions of the association are suspect but that it is a rather amateurish piece of drafting. It is much better to do as the noble Baroness has done and seek to use the provisions of the Sunday Trading Act and extend them to this legislation. That is what Parliament agreed for all other forms of Sunday trading. There really cannot be any good justification for behaving differently and in a voluntary way for this form of deregulation.
Viscount Brentford: I wish to support what has been said and in doing so thank my noble friend Lord Astor for kindly sending me a copy of the code of conduct. I believe that the statutory basis is right and proper. I accept that it is better than nothing, but I do not hold out very much hope for it being thoroughly effective in the light of the Sunday trading examples that have come to my attention.
I accept also that we are in a very different position here as opposed to Sunday trading. While I was almost persuaded that the whole Bill is excellent when my noble friend Lord Astor said in his Second Reading speech that up to 3,000 new jobs would arise from it, I now understand from the association that what that means is that there will be an addition of up to 3,000 in the pool of people for these evening jobs. They are mostly students or people who already have a daytime job. So the Bill does not improve the unemployment scene as much as I had originally anticipated. Therefore, the problems of employment are very much smaller than they were in the Sunday trading situation.
1502
There are many good points in the code of conduct. I hope that many aspects of it will continue to be operative even if we accept the amendments, as I trust we will. Other points not included in the Sunday trading employment clauses would be helpful in this situation. Presumably the code of conduct would not be binding on all those other clubs, as the noble Baroness said. BEDA told me that it has 730 members out of the 1800 clubs. Therefore, it represents a large number of clubs.
I have already made the point to BEDA that I should like to see the arbitration procedure, which it has admirably planned to be informal, permit the employee to bring a friend with him or her. A diffident employee might stand very little chance in negotiations against an experienced club manager. On the whole, I support the amendments.
The Earl of Courtown: I was particularly pleased to hear support for the Bill at Second Reading and I was particularly pleased to hear support for its deregulatory purpose, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the Government strongly support my noble friend's Bill, as currently drafted. I must say, however, that it would clearly be unfortunate to extend regulation in these circumstances on the back of a deregulation Bill. It would be unfortunate and indeed wrong where such an extension is wholly unnecessary and inappropriate, as I believe to be the case here. That would be wholly contrary to the deregulatory purpose of the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain the Government's objections to this amendment in more detail. The proposed amendment is unnecessary because the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association has prepared a comprehensive code of conduct for Sunday employment. I understand that my noble friend has provided copies to Members of the Committee. In my view the code offers as much as anyone could expect and makes very clear the industry's commitment to giving employees a real choice about Sunday working.
The draft code includes proposals to enable employees to opt out of Sunday working, giving no more than one day's notice of their intentions; the offer of independent arbitration in the event of disputes; and proposals for re-employment or compensation where arbitration upholds complaints. Members of the Committee will understand these as the essential elements of a meaningful code of practice about Sunday working.
The Government believe that voluntary arrangements—provided they work to the satisfaction of both parties—are far preferable to cluttering up the statute book with regulations. Arrangements agreed in the industry concerned are more flexible, and can adapt to the particular needs and circumstances of the parties. These benefits are particularly evident in the case before us.
Furthermore, in recognition of the circumstances of the industry, the code requires only one day's notice from staff of their intention to opt out of working on

1503
Sundays. This is in contrast to the statutory provisions under the noble Baroness's amendment which would require a full three months' notice. The Bill's provisions very much reflect the reality: employees in the industry on the whole tend to be part-time and often do not intend to pursue a long-term career working in dancing establishments. Turnover is high, and in many cases the individual might even have moved on before the three months' notice had expired. Employees in the entertainment industry generally are accustomed to working on Sundays. When we consider the type of work they will be doing we can see why. In general, work in discos and nightclubs will be the type of work which is already common on Sundays—waiting, serving behind the bar and so on. I can see no justification in legislating special provisions for employees who happen to work in a nightclub rather than a local restaurant or pub.
I put it to the Committee that what this Bill offers is better than imposing rigid and complex statutory requirements on an industry which, after full consultation with its employees and others with expertise in this area, has agreed to abide by appropriate and beneficial voluntary arrangements attuned to the needs of the industry itself. These are reasonable proposals and we believe that they provide a sound basis for resolving any differences that may occur between employers and employees. The industry association has made it clear that it intends to make the proposed code an effective option in practice, and I understand that it is confident that these voluntary arrangements will rarely be called into use. It expects no difficulty at all in obtaining volunteers to work on Sundays. There is likely to be no question of coercion, and no need for it.
I suggest to the Committee that it is clear that legislation is unnecessary and that very satisfactory arrangements can be made without any interference by Parliament. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that statutory regulation is unhelpful here, and will withdraw her amendments.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked why there was no statutory protection, which is the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment. If I heard him right, I believe he said that Parliament agreed that all other types of Sunday trading workers would be protected. If I remember the Sunday Trading Act correctly, it was shopworkers and betting shop workers who were protected, and that was all. If one looks at other types of workers in many industries, they receive no protection at all. The protection was for a limited and small number of people, relating largely to shopworkers.
When one considers similar industries, including restaurants, bars, clubs, amusement parks, cinemas, theatres, zoos, circuses and any other form of entertainment that one can imagine, there is no statutory protection for those industries, which are all open on Sundays. That is the fundamental reason why it has not been thought right to extend protection on a Sunday into this new area.
1504
The noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, also said that the code was an amateurish piece of drafting. I have sat on the Front Bench when he has told me that about Government legislation on many occasions. So what is new? I am sure that the code has defects, but I can assure the noble Lord that the code will be looked at very carefully. We shall try to get it right.
My noble friend Lord Brentford said that the 3,000 jobs would not necessarily all be new ones, but that some would be part-time. That is the case, but part-time jobs are as important as full-time ones in our economy. One of the Government's great successes has been the ability to create part-time jobs, which have very often led to full-time jobs and enabled people to get out of the unemployment or poverty trap. Part-time jobs are very important.
I come back to the reason for the code. The industry has sought to produce a code which is fair and strict. It will help employees. I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, about £8,000. Perhaps we shall look at that. Opening on Sundays will open up a great deal of deregulation for employees because now some of them can never take a Saturday off. If this Bill becomes an Act, perhaps they will be able to do so and work on Sunday instead.
I come back to the fundamental point that I wish to make to the noble Baroness. The reason there is no statutory protection is that the Sunday Trading Act gave it to shopworkers. Other industries similar to this one, such as restaurants and pubs—there are a huge number and many thousands more than there are of nightclubs in this country—do not have protection. There is no similar protection in Scotland where nightclubs have been open for more than 20 years. There does not seem to be a problem and, by and large, they seem to work well.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister and the noble Viscount for those comments. Perhaps I may bring the Committee back to the issue. This amendment is not about those people who are prepared to do the same job on Sunday as they do on other nights of the week. It is not in dispute that there may be many who work in discotheques and clubs who would be perfectly happy to have the opportunity of working on Sunday and who may prefer to do so, and perhaps swap for another night.
This amendment is not about protecting such people, but those who feel that their security of employment is threatened if they step out of line on the issue. That is why I tabled these amendments. We are largely agreed on the value of deregulation, but I believe that regulation has a very valuable place in protecting people who are in that position.
I do not regard it as an adequate argument that a code can do what legislation does. As often as possible I am happy to write Parliament out of a job, but I do not believe that that is a very good argument. However, I take the point that many others who work on Sundays do not have this protection. Parliament has seen fit to give protection to those working in the retail sector. I accept that these workers are members

1505
of another group who have the prospect of working on Sunday. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 3, I point out to the Committee that there is a typing error. The "Licensing Act 1994" should read "Licensing Act 1964".
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I must first declare an interest in that this Bill relates to insurance and I am a member of Lloyd's.
This Bill is a modest measure to remedy a gap in the law. But it will be of considerable significance to those men and women who give up their time to help the police.
The Bill is designed to give police authorities in England and Wales the power to hold personal accident insurance cover for members of the public who voluntarily assist the police. Local authorities already have similar powers. The power was also available to the old county police authorities when they were committees of county councils, before the reforms introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 created the new free-standing police authorities. The decision not to treat the new police authorities like local authorities so that they could hold personal accident insurance for civilian volunteers has been an unfortunate oversight. It is not clear why this arose. The Bill is intended to put all police authorities in England and Wales on the same footing, by giving them this power, in line with local authorities.
Civilians who voluntarily assist the police make an important contribution to the community. In many instances, the police could not manage without their valuable help. We have all read in our papers and seen on our television screens the rescue of people from our mountains and hills. In these dangerous circumstances, voluntary rescue teams, who are trained mountaineers and who know their areas well, assist the police to undertake a search and rescue. They are not paid for what they do. But they may be injured during the course of a rescue or search. Injuries may be due to the dangers inherent in a rescue rather than any negligence on the part of the volunteer or the police.
1506
In 1996 the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in another place looked into the mountain rescue services in Scotland. At paragraph 23 of its report of June last year it concluded that:
"the current system of co-operation between volunteer teams, the police and the military provides a service, at little cost to the public purse, that would be hard to improve. Regulation of mountaineering and hill walking, or compulsory insurance for participants, would not enhance the current system or make it cheaper, and would probably have a detrimental effect due to the loss of voluntary mountain rescue teams. The costs of mountain rescue are far outweighed by the economic and social benefits derived from these services".
I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the Select committee on Scottish Affairs. Voluntary mountain rescue teams provide an invaluable service to the community. I also know that the Government share the view of the committee because in his response to the report published in October last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"I note with interest the overall conclusion of the Committee in paragraph 23 of the report which is very much in line with the Government's views on how mountain rescue services should be provided".
Mountain rescue is one of the most visible types of voluntary support from the public. It is one we all know about, but many perhaps do not realise that it is the police who co-ordinate the rescue and call on the support of rescue teams. Mountain rescue teams are the most obvious group to need personal accident insurance cover. But they are not alone. Voluntary assistants help the police in other capacities. For example, with the rescue of potholers, and large-scale searches for a missing person. Some of our rural police stations have their inquiry desks staffed by volunteers. Police authorities also appoint lay visitors. Lay visitors are unpaid volunteers who observe, comment and report on the conditions in which people are detained at police stations. The nature of the duties performed by such volunteers brings them into regular contact with those visiting police stations or being held in custody. Of necessity, there is a risk that such volunteers will face the possibility of assault and injury.
As it is the police service which calls upon the help of such volunteers, it is only right that the police should be able to arrange the provision of personal accident insurance cover for their voluntary assistants. Insurance cover gives both volunteers and police authorities peace of mind at a minimal cost—around an average of £6,000 per year for each police authority, should each authority choose to hold such insurance cover. That is cheap at the price compared with a potential payout to members of mountain rescue teams of anything up to £150,000 if no insurance cover is provided.
I turn briefly to explain the Bill clause by clause. Clause 1 seeks to provide the necessary powers to the police authorities and is straightforward. Clause 1 amends Section 146A(lA)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 so that outside London the new free-standing police authorities are treated for the purposes of the 1972 Act as local authorities so that they can hold personal accident insurance policies for voluntary

1507
assistants who may be injured while assisting the police. For the purposes of the Bill, voluntary assistants do not include special constables, as subsection (3) of Clause 1 makes clear.
The exclusion of members of the special constabulary from the provisions of this Bill is quite deliberate. Special constables are appointed for a police area and are under the command of senior police officers. They have the powers of a constable. The other voluntary assistants do not. A special constable's conditions of service are therefore significantly different. This is recognised by provision in police regulations for police authorities to provide compensation to special constables who may be injured while on duty. That is not to say that we should be complacent about the need to ensure that police regulations treat special constables fairly. A recent Home Office report on the special constabulary in England and Wales commented on the inadequacy of the level of compensation currently available for special constables, and recommended changes. I understand from Home Office Ministers that they are actively considering changes to police regulations which would improve the level of compensation that can be paid to special constables. Therefore, as special constables are catered for by separate provisions and are in a quite different category to the other voluntary assistants, they have been excluded from the provisions of this Bill.
I turn now to Clause 2 which relates to the Metropolitan Police. As your Lordships know, the police authority for the Metropolitan Police is the Home Secretary. The provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 do not extend to that police force. Specific provision is required so that the Commissioner and the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police district have the same powers as the other chief officers and police authorities in England and Wales in relation to holding personal accident insurance for voluntary assistants. Clause 2 will, therefore, provide to the Metropolitan Police the same powers that will be enjoyed by the other police authorities in England and Wales by virtue of this Bill.
Clause 3 makes a consequential change to Part I of Schedule 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 in relation to insurance of voluntary assistants in the Metropolitan Police. The relevant class of insurance is set out in Section 140(l)(b) of the 1972 Act—namely, that Class 1 for accident insurance in Part I of Schedule 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 will apply to police authorities by the provisions of this Bill. This clause provides for accident insurance as applied by the 1982 Act and Section 140 of the Local Government Act 1972 to extend to the Metropolitan Police.
Finally, we turn to Clause 4. The Bill will extend to England and Wales only. This Bill does not need to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Scottish Office has confirmed that it considers the Scottish police authorities have adequate powers to take out personal accident insurance cover for volunteers. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities concur with this view.
1508
The position in Northern Ireland is unique. Insurance provisions need to be different there because of the troubled situation that sadly still exists. As your Lordships may know, much of the insurance costs in the Province are picked up by Government. It is not therefore appropriate for the provisions of this Bill to extend to Northern Ireland.
Voluntary assistants play an increasingly important role in supporting our police service. By undertaking these potentially dangerous tasks they leave themselves vulnerable to injury. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the powers this Bill seeks to provide to police authorities will help to nurture the concept of volunteering so that our police service will continue to get the support from the public that it fully deserves. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—{Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be aware that we do not take a party view on Private Members' Bills. This Bill seems to us to be entirely uncontroversial. The only controversy is as to why the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 was so badly drafted that it left this gap in the law, but one can expect anything of this Government.
7.41 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara on introducing this Bill to the House. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said, we have the best police service in the world. The Government are committed to providing the police with the resources to enable them to combat and prevent crime, but the police cannot do it all on their own. They need the support, and in some cases the assistance, of the communities they serve. Equally, those men and women who give up their spare time to assist the police should have some protection against accident or injury.
The Bill comes before your Lordships at a very opportune time. In recent weeks there have been reports in police journals and in regional television in the north of England about the need for the police to provide personal accident insurance cover for mountain rescue teams who are called out by the police. Winter is of course the time of year when the work of the mountain rescue teams comes to the fore. It is therefore most appropriate that the question of personal accident insurance for these teams of volunteers who help the police has come before the House at this time. My noble friend has described very eloquently why this Bill is needed. It was unfortunate that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 overlooked the need to provide the new free standing police authorities with the power to hold personal accident insurance for voluntary assistants. It will not come as a surprise to your Lordships that when Parliament considers major new legislation some minor oversights occur.
The police do an excellent job in tackling crime and creating safer towns and cities. There are over 127,000 police officers in England and Wales. Civilian

1509
support staff are also an important element of our police service today. There are now nearly 53,000 civilians employed by the police service. In addition to civilian employees there is a growing body of volunteer civilians working with our police. There are about 20,000 special constables who have offered to help police their communities for no payment other than expenses and allowances. This help is invaluable not only in increasing the number of bobbies on the beat but in forging a stronger partnership between the police and the public. There are also mountain rescue teams, lay visitors and other volunteers who help to keep rural police stations open by staffing inquiry desks. We do not know how many voluntary assistants there are outside the special constabulary. But if I tell you that one mountain rescue team in Cumbria has more than 120 members and that the number of lay visitors runs well into the hundreds it gives an impression of the numbers of volunteers involved.
This Bill quite correctly deals with those volunteers not covered by specific provisions elsewhere. That is why my noble friend's Bill correctly excludes the largest single group of volunteers, the special constabulary. I can confirm that the Government are actively considering improvements to the compensation paid to special constables by means of secondary legislation. The Government will be bringing forward proposals to amend police regulations in due course. There is therefore no need for special constables to be covered by the provisions of this Bill. As it is the police who call on the help of civilian volunteers, it is absolutely right that the police service should be able to offer those volunteers the comfort and knowledge of the protection of personal accident insurance cover. It is not a large price to pay. As my noble friend says, on average the cost to each police authority would be around £6,000 a year—an insignificant cost to the police service.
The Bill that my noble friend has introduced is a straightforward measure that will amend Section 146A(1A)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 so that police authorities in England and Wales are treated as local authorities for the purpose of holding personal accident insurance for volunteers. As the Metropolitan Police are not covered by the 1972 Act because the Home Secretary is the police authority, this Bill will put the Metropolitan Police on the same footing as other police forces in England and Wales. The Metropolitan Police are keen that they should be able to hold personal accident insurance cover for voluntary assistants, particularly lay visitors to police stations.
I am sure that the measures set out in this Bill will be welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Committee of Local Police Authorities. There is also cross-party support for this small but important measure. It is right that the police authorities in England and Wales should have the appropriate powers so that they can hold personal accident insurance cover for their voluntary assistants. This Bill will give police forces in England and Wales the same powers as those already available to the police in Scotland. The Government give their full support to this Bill. I commend it to your Lordships.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, for most of his words of support.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: Both words!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for his support for the Bill. I take issue with his criticism of the Government. When referring to the mistake in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act he said that anything could be expected of the present Government. I point out that it is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise all legislation. Obviously, on that occasion they failed in that duty. That is why we have had to introduce this Bill today. I am also grateful for the words of my noble friend. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to sponsor this Bill brought from another place, where it was so ably dealt with by Sir Michael Shersby.
Pharmacy is a profession in which I have taken an interest for many years. As chairman of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, I am very familiar with the excellent work that is done by pharmacists in the hospital service. I also know many community pharmacists. I am a great supporter of the valuable service which an effective community pharmacist provides to his local population. As a member of another healthcare profession, I am acutely aware in that capacity that all of us as prescribers or patients depend on the pharmacist to do his job carefully and accurately. (Throughout my speech whenever I refer to "his" I also include "hers".) Dispensing the wrong medicine to a patient can have very serious consequences. Errors in labelling or the giving of the wrong advice about how and when to take medicine, or whether it is safe to drive or to drink alcohol with the medicine, can also be crucial to the safe and effective care of the patient.
When one thinks about it, it is easy to appreciate that a pharmacist suffering from an illness that affects his ability to perform his critical tasks may need to refrain from practice or to practise only under conditions that ensure that any risk to the public is minimised. Of course, in many cases the pharmacist will take responsible action to deal with his health problem. He will stop work or restrict his work while he recovers. There are occasions when that does not happen. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which is the professional body for pharmacy, currently has no powers to act in the few cases where the competence of pharmacists is affected by physical or mental ill health or drink or drug-related illness and they do not voluntarily cease to practise. The society wishes to have

1511
these powers. This Bill seeks to create a new mechanism to enable the society to protect the public in these circumstances.
The most acute problems that have been brought to the attention of the society by colleagues, family or patients concern pharmacists who apparently have been suffering from mental illness but have been unable or unwilling to acknowledge any health problem. In addition to mental health problems, physical conditions can affect competence. For example, a pharmacist who suffers from poorly controlled diabetes which affects concentration can as a result make dispensing errors.
This Bill provides for a new committee of the society to be set up—a health committee—to hear cases where it appears that a pharmacist may not be fit to practise. I believe that the cases will be few in number, but the House will recognise the importance of having procedures to deal with these cases. It is essential that any action necessary to protect the public from error occurs as soon as possible and, whenever possible, before any harm occurs.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is under a duty to maintain a register of pharmaceutical chemists, and no person may act as a pharmacist in Great Britain unless his name is in the register. The health committee will therefore have jurisdiction over all registered pharmacists in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has its own pharmacy legislation and its own professional body, the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, and that is why the Bill does not extend to the Province.
The profession of pharmacy in Great Britain is governed by the Pharmacy Act 1954. The Act establishes a disciplinary committee, the statutory committee, which has power to remove pharmacists from the register of pharmaceutical chemists, but only following a conviction or serious misconduct. The statutory committee has no jurisdiction in the case of a pharmacist before he has done wrong. For the society to be aware of a problem but not be able to act until the pharmacist has committed an offence is clearly unsatisfactory.
While commenting on this, I wish to pay regard to the excellent work that the husband of Baroness Flather has done as chairman of that committee over many years. She is here; I thought it would be a pity if she was not here, but as she will no doubt speak later, I will reply on that point then.
Health care professions which are governed by more recent legislation, including the medical, dental and nursing professions, have procedures in their governing statutes for dealing with ill health among their members. This Bill will do the same for pharmacy.
It may reassure Members of the House to learn that the society has in recent years established voluntary and benevolent schemes to help pharmacists suffering from ill health or stress. These will continue. Where a pharmacist who is too ill to practise recognises this and voluntarily ceases to practise while he recovers his health, there will be no need for the procedures provided in the Bill to take place.
1512
I hope I can explain briefly what this Bill will achieve. First, it will establish a committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to consider allegations against pharmacists of unfitness to practise due to ill health. A case will be heard by a tribunal including a medically qualified chairman and a pharmacist. Allegations of unfitness brought to the attention of the council of the society will be investigated and where there appears to be substance to the allegation they will be referred to the health committee for hearing. In cases of urgency it will be possible for a case to be heard speedily, possibly even within a week.
The committee, if it decides that the pharmacist's fitness to practise is affected by ill health, will either make a conditions of practice order or a suspension order. A conditions of practice order may include any conditions which the health committee thinks necessary. Where it is essential to protect the public by suspending the pharmacist's right to practise, the committee will make a suspension order. The committee will specify the duration of the order, but the Bill provides that no order can be made for a period of more than three years, and the committee may review an order at any time. It may, on review, vary or revoke an order or substitute another order if it believes that is what is needed. Procedures for investigating allegations and for hearings and appeals will be specified in regulations.
I will not attempt to explain in full the detailed structure of the procedures established in the Schedule to the Bill, but I would like to draw to your Lordships' attention just three more important points.
First, rights of appeal to an independent appeal body are provided as a right to any pharmacist who is the subject of an order made under the Bill's provisions, and the pharmacist will also have the right at intervals to have the order made in respect of him reviewed.
Secondly, in cases where the health committee considers it essential in the public interest to do so, it may, having heard the case, order the immediate suspension of the pharmacist; in other circumstances the pharmacist will have a period within which to appeal before the decision takes effect, and if he does appeal then (except in the case where interim suspension is ordered) the operation of any order made by the committee will await the outcome of the appeal.
Thirdly, the health committee is under a duty to ensure that any order it makes is the minimum necessary to protect members of the public.
I hope your Lordships will have no difficulty in accepting this Bill and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on this excellent Bill. My interest has already been declared to some extent by my noble friend Lady Gardner. My husband has served as the chairman of the statutory committee for seven years and therefore what I am about to say really reflects his views. I put these views to your Lordships because my husband is

1513
concerned that there are a few points which might cause difficulties later on, and it is probably much better for them to be looked at at this stage.
Unfortunately, there was not an opportunity for him to be consulted; whether that was due to the pressure of time or whether it just went by the by, I do not know; but he was not consulted as to the contents of the Bill and he is someone who has been asking for such a committee to be established throughout the time that he has served as the chairman of the statutory committee.
As your Lordships may imagine, he has been under great difficulty when faced by situations where there is danger to the public and he has had no alternative but to suspend the pharmacist under the heading of misconduct. Clearly, it has been grossly unfair to the pharmacist to be suspended under that heading when he or she has been suffering from health problems or an addiction of some kind. My husband is therefore absolutely delighted that the matter will now be handled properly and it will be much fairer to the pharmacist.
Some of the points that he has asked me to make to your Lordships are as follows. He feels that a pharmacist ought to be informed under new Section 13B(6) of the Pharmacy Act what steps are being taken to obtain information about him, as it is likely that it could be through a competitor and it would be much better if the pharmacist were informed; it would be much fairer.
In new Section 13C(2) of the Act the words "well-founded" are used, but a standard of proof should be stated and it should be at least on the balance of probabilities. He suggests that, after Section 13C(2)(b), the power to impose conditions which must be complied with before any review of the order is made under Section 13D should be added so that other conditions can be made, such as that the pharmacist keeps in touch with pharmaceutical practice; that he attends for medical treatment for example; that he remains drug free for one year, two years, and so on; or that he produces a medical report on any subsequent review about his condition. That would let the pharmacist know very clearly what was required of him.
As my noble friend has stated, the suspension cannot be for longer than three years. At the present time in the GMC the normal practice is to call in a case some months before the end of the three-year term, unless, of course, there has been reason to withdraw the order earlier, and then to review it to see whether the doctor would be fit to come back into practice after the three years. If there were a further three-year suspension in the case of a pharmacist or doctor, it would be difficult for that professional to return to practice without further qualifications. It is important that that point is clarified.
Under new Section 13G(3) hearsay evidence is excluded. My husband suggests that tribunals normally admit hearsay. It should be left to the legal assessor to decide what is admissible and what is not; or one might have to have the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker in court to say what happened to them when they went to obtain their prescriptions. That is the current practice of the GMC and the GDC.
1514
Under Schedule 1B, paragraph 2, at least one, and preferably two, members of the committee should be lay members. Safety of the public is one of the criteria. The GMC and the GDC have that. It gives the public more confidence in the body's impartiality. In the procedure contained in paragraph 4(1), my husband suggests that at least one of the members should be a lay member.
The appeals tribunal panel excludes members of the statutory committee. My husband feels that those are the members who have had the most experience of evaluating evidence. He does not understand why the provision is stated in that way. If a case which starts out as a misconduct case turns out to be a health matter when the evidence is heard, it cannot be sent to the health committee. Equally if a case which has been heard by the health committee turns out to be a case of misconduct, it cannot be sent to the statutory committee. Those powers exist for the GMC and the GDC.
Most of the points that have been made are based on GMC and GDC practice rather than that of the osteopaths, which is probably the model for the Bill. Finally, in the next Session I hope to table a Private Member's Bill to give the statutory committee the power to order interim suspension in line with this Bill. For the protection of the public, it is essential—in some cases at least—that the pharmacist should not be allowed to continue practising for at least a further three months.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I intervene briefly, and apologise for not having heard the opening words of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I ask for her confirmation that there are provisions allowing for suspension of a professional person on the grounds of unfitness to practise for doctors, dentists, and veterinary surgeons. I receive acknowledgement of that from my noble friend.
It would be helpful to know how far that list extends in relation to health services. It may not occur to your Lordships—I noticed a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House who is a chartered accountant sitting on the steps of the Throne—that lawyers or chartered accountants are in the business of looking after the health of the nation, but these provisions do not exist for lawyers or chartered accountants, who can continue to practise when unfit to do so owing to health problems.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill. The only question I have to ask is: why was it not before both Houses a long time ago? I thought that we were aware of all the ramifications and implications of the Bill, but the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, came up with some useful details, obviously emanating from an expert source. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer her noble friend to her satisfaction.
Apart from protecting the public, one of the good things about the Bill is that it will result—perhaps under a certain amount of duress—in sick pharmacists obtaining the treatment which they would probably not have done before when they were denying or unaware of the fact that they were ill.

1515
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said that the Bill had been ably conducted through another place. However, when I looked at Hansard of another place for 17th January, when the Bill came before that place, nothing was said about it except that it was presented, read a second time, went through the Report stage, Third Reading and was passed. Not one word went into Hansard about the Bill's contents. Two cheers for democracy, I say on that one, and in this case three cheers for your Lordships' House, because we have debated the Bill as it should be debated, and it is now on the public record. We have no objection to the Bill, and I hope that it goes through all its stages quickly now that we have aired the various points. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy her noble friend about the detailed points that she raised.
8.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House and explaining its contents so clearly. Her experience of the health service, both as a former practitioner and now as one of the most influential trust chairmen in the country, is extensive and her knowledge prodigious. Her fitness to propose the Bill is beyond question.
As my noble friend has said, pharmacists practising in the community and in hospitals play a crucial role in promoting health, and in delivering care. As a profession they have been progressive in taking pharmacy forward. The Royal Society has sought to involve the profession through its document Pharmacy In a New Age, which has resulted in some clear and positive initiatives. It is committed to improving the accessibility and availability of pharmacy services, guaranteeing high standards in the profession, and to ensuring that all pharmacists participate in continuing professional development.
When it comes to dispensing medicines, pharmacists are the experts. Dispensing requires a high level of accuracy—supplying the wrong drug or failing to notice a dose that is too high can be fatal. For general health and medication in particular, patients frequently seek the advice of their pharmacist who may suggest appropriate self-medication.
Increasingly, doctors and pharmacists work closely together. Both in hospital and in the community they have sought to compile agreed formularies and thereby promote effective prescribing patterns and value for money. The pilot schemes for nurse-prescribing have also shown how nurses appreciate the knowledge and advice of community pharmacists, and we welcome these approaches which use all the skills within primary care.
The Government have made clear in their proposals for the NHS and in particular in the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill (which noble Lords will only be too well aware has just completed its passage through your Lordships' House) their intention to employ pharmacy skills more flexibly and to make the
1516
most of new opportunities. Among other things, the Bill enables pharmacists to provide services such as advice to residential and nursing homes situated in a neighbouring health authority.
Last year, we ran some successful pilot projects which showed how pharmacists can help GPs improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of prescribing. Those ideas are now being adopted right across the country. This year we are running pilot studies into the value of repeat dispensing; supporting patients with compliance problems; and "pharmaceutical care packages" which involve in-depth assessment of patients' needs, carrying out a review of their medication and monitoring their progress.
These roles will build on the services which many pharmacists are already undertaking, such as domiciliary visits to help patients manage their medicines properly or advising residential homes on the storage and administration of medicines.
So the pharmacists' contribution is an essential element in the totality of healthcare; but we know it can be a stressful job and on occasions pharmacists can feel professionally isolated. It is in all our interests that they should be both physically and mentally well, and when this is not the case, it is right that there is a formal system for remedial action. That is the purpose of the Bill.
As my noble friend has said, other professions have provision for health committees with powers to deal with these situations. Doctors, dentists and nurses have health committees quite separate from their disciplinary bodies. In recent years your Lordships have supported Private Members' Bills making statutory provision for the regulation of chiropractors and osteopaths. Both these Acts include provision for separate committees to deal with practitioners who are unfit to practise due to ill-health. Last month the General Osteopathic Council formally came into being; and only last week I announced the designate membership of the first General Chiropractic Council.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is anxious that it should have similar powers so that it can deal with the cases which arise. Every profession will include members who, sadly, become ill and the need to protect patients is paramount. That is what this Bill seeks to do. As my noble friend has said, the procedures established by the Bill provide arrangements for the investigation of allegations and the consideration of cases. This should ensure that the health committee will impose only the minimum restrictions necessary to protect the public.
I am very pleased that my noble friends Lady Flather and Lord Hacking support the Bill. Indeed, I thank both my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for making a number of telling points which I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner will address as appropriate. As it is a Private Member's Bill, it is right that she should do that. The Government strongly support the Bill and commend it to your Lordships.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In introducing the Bill, I paid tribute to Mr. Flather for his work over seven years and I said that I thought my noble friend Lady Flather was not in the Chamber. Having listened to her speech, perhaps it would have been better if she had not been in the Chamber!
My noble friend pointed out many material improvements which could be made to the Bill. I accept the points that she has made. However, this is a Private Member's Bill and in order for the Bill to become law, it cannot be amended in any way in this House. If it were amended, it would have no hope of achieving Royal Assent. I understand that all these Bills must go through in a matter of minutes in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out that there was no debate on the Bill when it was introduced in the other place and I understand that when it returns there, there is even less time available. Therefore, we must either have the Bill as it is or no Bill at all. That is a very difficult decision. It is true that faults have been pointed out. However, I believe that the Bill still answers a need and I believe that it is appropriate that it should become law.
I take a number of points which my noble friend made; for example, that hearsay is usually admissible in tribunals. That is absolutely true and is an interesting point.
I am pleased that my noble friend's husband is asking for this committee to be established and that he appreciates the difficulty of health cases. I understand that in the past my noble friend's husband will have had to deal with the sort of cases to which she referred under the heading of misconduct when really they were health cases. I am sure that he has handled those matters very sensitively and well, but that has not been an easy process. Therefore, it is important that there should be the change to a health committee and I am glad to hear that my noble friend's husband supports that.
The point was raised as regards what investigations should be carried out. I believe that the pharmaceutical committee should have the right to inform someone of what investigations it is carrying out, if it wishes to do so. That might be something that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society could look at, to see whether there would be any greater fairness if that could be done. That society is a highly reputable body which would want to do whatever was best.
It is probably deliberate in the Bill that disciplinary committee members cannot serve on the health committee. I believe that there is a deliberate separation of discipline from health matters. I do not believe that that is in the Bill by accident. The Bill has been drafted deliberately in that way. However, as I said, because it is a Private Member's Bill we cannot alter it in this House if we wish it to become law. I thank my noble friend Lady Flather for the issues which she has brought before the House. I hope that she will explain to her husband that we are in a procedural difficulty in relation to this matter and we wish to ensure that at least some powers exist.
1518
I support strongly the point she made that there should be a Bill to give interim suspension orders to the disciplinary committee. That leads me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hacking that dentists and doctors have that power. I was involved in that legislation, which was brought forward about a year ago. I understand that those provisions are working quite well. My noble friend asked me about veterinary surgeons and I am afraid that I do not know anything at all about them. I do not know whether they come into the accountants' and solicitors' category or that of doctors and dentists. Therefore, I am unable to help him on that. But I know that we have dealt with interim powers of suspension for doctors and dentists. There is a need for the disciplinary committee to have those powers. My noble friend Lady Flather and I have discussed that point often in general conversation. It has been recognised only in recent years how important it is to give immediate teeth to the professional bodies so that they can protect the public.
I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Bill
8.18 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has government support and has come about principally as a result of representations made by the Western Isles Council and was introduced by the honourable Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, Thomas Graham.
The Bill is designed to enable any Scottish local authority which wishes to do so to use the Gaelic language for the statutory name of its council. That option is not available presently because, although the Local Government (Scotland) 1973 permits a council to choose or change its name, Section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 stipulates that in addition to the word or words descriptive of its area, a council's statutory name must include the word "council".
While that provided for consistency of terminology, it has also prevented the adoption of a statutory name in Gaelic in any area where there is a strong local wish for that. That seems most unfair and compares unfavourably with the position in Wales, where bilingual names are required by law.
While there is no widespread wish in Scotland to require all councils to have Gaelic names, it is fitting that it should be possible to use the local language traditionally spoken. Western Isles Council, in whose area 68 per cent. of the population are Gaelic speaking, has long campaigned legally to call itself Comhairle Nan Eilean, which it already does informally.

1519
My council at home is Argyll and Bute. It uses the Gaelic language selectively and in some localities. I imagine, however, that it is less likely to change to Comhairle Earraghaidheal Agus Bod than Highland Council is legally to adopt Comhairle Na Gaidhealtachd, which it already uses bilingually in non-statutory contexts.
The meat of this Bill is in Clause 1, which amends existing legislation so that, with the Gaelic "Comhairle" in place of the English "council", a council may "by a resolution" opt for a Gaelic name. Under the terms of the 1973 Act such a resolution requires two thirds of a council to vote at a specially convened meeting, which is only appropriate for a matter of such importance.
For the avoidance of doubt, subsection 1(B) of Clause 1 provides that a council which has chosen a Gaelic name may subsequently, "change it back into English", however preposterous that notion may seem.
This Bill corrects an anomaly and gives recognition to the culture and tradition of our people. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—{Lord Gray.)
8.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I certainly welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, on the thorough and complete way that he introduced it. The noble Lord lives in Taynuilt and I have a brother who lives in the manse of Kilmelford, so Argyll matters are brought to my attention. Local authorities are very dear to the heart of Scottish people. They are proud of their achievements and resent assaults upon them. I am very proud of the achievements of Clackmannanshire Council and I shall speak about it later. There is dismay at the putting of personal consumption before service provision, especially in education. I cite the rise in class sizes in that respect. They were supposed to be safeguarded by the Union Treaty.
I turn now to the Gaelic language. I welcome its resurgence, and especially the funds which have become available for Gaelic television. I notice that it has become necessary to put English sub-titles into Gaelic television programmes because of the amount of the latter. I welcome that fact. I believe that it is important for us to have a bilingual approach at all times. I say that because the English language is the lingua franca; for example, I understand that aircraft are landed all over the world with the use of the English language. I am in favour of the use of local languages, but I also believe it most important that standard English should be taught wherever possible.
I was interested to read in today's Scotsman that a "Gael" is to be defined as someone who has Gaelic as his or her first language and that it does not refer to where a person lives. I also notice that we already have the bilingual approach in transport; indeed ScotRail has been busy putting all the names of stations on the line
1520
out to Kyle of Lochalsh into Gaelic. I noticed that while taking part in the Special Select Committee on the crofting Bill. It is a boon for the road sign industry and is also being introduced unofficially into local government. I recognise that this is also happening in Wales and Ireland. However, in neither Wales nor Ireland do people bother to translate B&B into Welsh or into Gaelic, nor do they bother much with commercial signs for tourists.
The Bill recognises the reality of the situation—and this is where my Gaelic accent will be even worse that than of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, which I thought was most impressive, despite what he said to me beforehand. Clearly the Western Isles Council would very much like to be called Comhairle Nan Eilean. Already the Highland Council has taken a subtitle of Comhairle Na Ghaidlealtacd. It strikes me that the subtitle approach is a rather good one. I shall not attempt to repeat the name that the Argyll and Bute Council has adopted as its subtitle. In fact, I am wondering whether the subtitle names are covered by the Bill. Perhaps the Bill is about the headline titles and only the Western Isles Council really wants to change its name.
However, the Bill makes it appropriate for all local authorities to use Gaelic which of course was much more widespread. My own dynamic local authority could change its name to Comhairle Na Clackmannan which would be a curious mixture of Gaelic and Pictish. Most of the names in Clackmannanshire are of course of Pictish origin. Indeed, I cite Alloa, Tillicoultry and Tullibody.
Of course there are other foundation languages in Scotland and perhaps we ought to be considering a Bill which would allow their use. Here I cite Doric, Lallans, Pictish, Norse and other Celtic languages. The unfortunate thing about using Doric is that we would end up with places having councils with the slightly uneducated sounding equivalent of, say, "Aberdeenshire cooncil" which might not come over terribly well.
In the case of Orkney and Shetland the word "Ting" could easily be used. Examples of this lie in Dingwall, Rosshire and Tingwall in the Isle of Man. When reading the report of the Napier Commission in preparation for the crofting Bill, I noted the imposition by default of the Scottish feudal system onto the Norse udal tenure system which was the result of the islands being a dowry for the marriage of Alexander III to the Princess of Denmark. It seems to me that, in compensation, we perhaps ought to allow the Orkney and Shetland councils to adopt the words "Ting", although I realise that we would probably need another Bill to do so.
Finally, I very much welcome the Bill. It recognises the culture and linguistic tradition of Scotland. It is perhaps symbolic rather than substantial but it is not unlike the welcome return of the Stone of Destiny. The Bill does honour to the position of Scottish local authorities. I wish it well.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, on introducing this small piece of

1521
legislation. Nevertheless, it may be a small step along the road to having the Gaelic language properly incorporated in the culture of Scotland.
I speak at fairly short notice. I was not aware that the Bill has Government support. I was not aware either—until the noble Lord, Lord Gray, indicated this—that the impetus for the Bill came from the Western Isles Council. I am not sure that I agree entirely with the interpretation of the legislation as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but no doubt that can be looked at rather more closely at the Committee stage.
I refer to the 1973 and 1994 Acts. I believe that the 1973 Act allowed names to be changed, but there is no mention of the language in which the name must appear. Therefore, on one view, one could use any language one chose to change a name. Legislation may be completely unnecessary in that regard. This is an interesting Bill. There is some degree of jocularity as regards the Bill in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords ask who is speaking on the Gaelic Bill, for example. However, the matter is much more serious than that. I hope that is not an attitude which any Member of your Lordships' House would take towards any other community in the United Kingdom. There is a flourishing Gaelic community both in terms of language and economic development which deserves all the support it can be given by the Government.
If this Bill is enacted, I hope it may herald a better understanding and greater consideration of the Gaelic language and culture, and of the people in the Highlands and in the Lowlands who speak Gaelic. At the moment it is not an official language. Various efforts have been made to print leaflets on welfare rights and other matters in Gaelic. However, as far as I am aware, none has yet been produced. If they have been produced, they must be of a minimal quantity. However, when I walked into a post office recently, I counted leaflets printed in some eight different languages, most of which were completely unintelligible to me. There was no sign of a document in Gaelic.
The Western Isles Council, Comhairle Nan Eilean, is to be congratulated on the stand it has taken. It alone reached the decision to call itself Comhairle Nan Eilean rather than wait for any legislation before doing so. If my memory serves me correctly, its coat of arms bears the legend of the county council in Gaelic. Jobs are advertised in Gaelic in the Western Isles. One can even obtain a bank book in Gaelic in the Western Isles from a bank which I shall not name in case I am accused of promoting one bank against another. The bank book will contain the name of the bank and one's own name printed in Gaelic. The only item which I believe is not printed in Gaelic is the amount one owes the bank. That may be another example of the single currency rule applying throughout the United Kingdom. However, I am not quite sure about that.
The Western Isles Council, on behalf of its own people, has sought to recognise its people's identity. There is no reason why other councils should not now change their name and ask the Government, or whoever is concerned, to declare the translation of the name of the council into Gaelic as illegal. The Gaelic name
1522
of the Western Isles Council has been in existence for a considerable time. As far as I am aware, no one has tried to tell the council it cannot do that.
I refer to the question of costs in the Bill. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states,
"The Bill will not result in any additional burdens on business".
However, if a council changes its name from an English name to a Gaelic name, there may be a burden on the council, as notepaper and other items have to be changed. However, the Welsh have taken this step. There is a strong Welsh lobby within the Palace of Westminster. I refer to the Welsh language Bill. The Irish have their own language. They found a simple solution to this question. When I was in Ireland before the troubles started, I found that the street names appeared both in English and Irish. The Irish found a solution without resorting to any statutory measure; namely, they took a black paint brush, painted out the English names and left the Irish names. That was not of much help to the tourist industry at that time except for people who intended to lose themselves in Ireland until properly directed to wherever they wanted to go.
Like the previous two speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I welcome this Bill on behalf of this side of the House as a starting point to greater achievements and recognition of the Gaelic language not only in the Highlands but throughout Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom.
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I join the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in congratulating my noble friend and kinsman Lord Gray on presenting this Bill to the House and on his fine speech. I also congratulate him on the expertise with which he incorporated Gaelic into the proceedings.
The Government support this measure. It will, in effect, allow councils to change their name into Gaelic if they have a strong wish to do so. A change of name would still require a resolution of the council, with two-thirds of the members having voted on it. That was well explained by my noble friend. This measure has the support of the Western Isles Council in whose area Gaelic is routinely spoken.
The Bill supplements the Government's commitment to supporting the Gaelic language and culture. We have taken a number of major initiatives in recent years; for example, the creation of the Gaelic Television Fund, now known as the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund, which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has welcomed, and the adoption of further new measures to maintain and strengthen the development of Gaelic education. These initiatives clearly demonstrate that commitment.
Such measures, among others, are doing much to enable the Gaelic community in Scotland to meet its aspirations for the development of the language. The financial resources which we have allocated to support the language have risen from the £61,000 which we inherited in 1979 to well over £11 million in the current financial year. We are planning to spend a further £300,000 on Gaelic in the coming financial year.

1523
We welcome the contribution which this Bill makes to the promotion of the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture. I am delighted that noble Lords on other Benches have also welcomed it. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, queried whether sub-titles of councils would be affected by this Bill. The Bill is about the headline title. However, councils will wish to use a sub-title in the other language of their area, where appropriate.
I join the noble Earl in welcoming the extent to which, in the public sector especially in the Gaelic speaking areas of Scotland, increasing use is being made by other organisations of the Gaelic language. I inform noble Lords that my arts and cultural heritage division at the Scottish Office, which has direct contact with the Gaelic community, has bilingual headed notepaper and makes use of bilingual signs in the offices. In addition, the agricultural training that my department organises in Gaelic-speaking areas provides documentation in both English and Gaelic. We are determined that the efforts which are being made by others—the noble Earl mentioned ScotRail—is reflected by efforts that we are making.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that the use by the Western Isles of its Gaelic name at present could be illegal. That is not the case. It is used only unofficially. On official documents the name is still the Western Isles Council. Anyone who has received correspondence from the Western Isles Council will see that alongside the name it includes the Gaelic name. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill describes the implications for public expenditure as minimal. I believe that to be correct. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was uncertain about, for instance, stationery costs. The Western Isles Council is an example of a council which already prints in both languages on its paper. We stand by the assertion on the Title page of the Bill that public expenditure implications should be minimal.
The noble Lord also wondered whether the legislation was necessary. It is necessary, otherwise councils would be called the name of the area in Gaelic or, as the noble Earl suggested, in Pictish or Doric. It would then be obliged to use the word "council" rather than "cooncil".
It is an important Bill. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Gray has introduced it so expertly. I wish it well.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in discussions on the Bill. I thank my noble kinsman the Minister for his kind remarks.
I was pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, nodded in the direction of British Rail, which has contributed to the promotion of the Gaelic language with its renaming. He seemed to suggest that we might soon discuss a Bill to allow councils to have Pictish, Doric or
1524
even perhaps Norse names. Nonetheless, despite those slight worries, it was pleasant to have a welcome from the Liberal Benches.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, did not criticise my Gaelic pronunciation. I was a little disappointed that he suggested that any of us spoke in this Chamber except in serious vein. It was inevitable that we should have a laugh with one another about whether our Gaelic was from Argyll, Western Isles, Inverness or Clackmannan. His question concerning the 1973 Act has been answered by my noble kinsman the Minister. However, without referring to any authority, I am fairly certain that, unless provided otherwise, in terms of legislation passed in this Parliament a name would have to be in English unless the contrary were stated. I do not think that there is a problem but I shall consider the matter and be ready for any argument that may come forward. I doubt that a Committee stage matter arises on that point.
The noble Lord commented about expense. I do not think that we need to worry too much. As my noble kinsman the Minister pointed out, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, acknowledged, bilingual names are in place at present. The substantial point as regards the Bill is that in future in deeds, official documents, and so on, a council which chooses a Gaelic name will be able to use that name. At present in such official context, the body is restricted to the English name. The Highland Council and Western Isles areas have logos which combine the two names.
I do not think that I can usefully say more beyond endorsing a general welcome for the encouragement of Gaelic and the contribution that Her Majesty's Government are making towards that. I note that in the Highland Council area and Argyll and Bute slightly more children in percentage terms between the ages of three and 14 speak Gaelic than in the next age group. That is encouraging.
A Dhaoin-vaisle, I translate that—"my Lords"—since the Companion to the Standing Orders requires me not to address your Lordships in Gaelic, I again commend the Bill to your Lordships' House and trust that it will be given a Second Reading.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make clear that I was in no way being critical of the promoters of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, nor the Government. I regard the Bill as an important step in strengthening the status of Gaelic in Scotland. I am sorry if the noble Lord perhaps misheard or misinterpreted what I said. I look forward to further Bills making the language even stronger.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before nine o'clock.