Sitting of 15 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  Sorting Office (Abbey Wood)
  9.34 am
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I have a petition which was signed over the past weekend by more than 1,800 residents of Abbey Wood who are concerned that cost cutting has been put before public service. The petition
  Sheweth that the Royal Mail proposes to close the Abbey Wood Sorting Office and relocate in Thamesmead; that the present office is easily accessible to Abbey Wood residents and is served by both buses and British Rail; that the Thamesmead office is not served by public transport, is located on a dual carriageway without pavements and that its relocation would cause great hardship, particularly to elderly and disabled people and parents with young children.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to review the proposed closure in the hope that he will take into account the overwhelming local opinion against this proposal.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Toxocariasis
  9.35 am
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs. Debbie March, whose son Eric was blinded as a result of toxocariasis. He is one of about 100 children who suffer from blindness or serious disease of the eye every year as a result of dog mess. She believes, as do I, that we could prevent the problem by introducing a system of dog registration. The petition says:
  To the House of Commons
  The petition of citizens of the United Kingdom who declare that there is a danger of dirty parks and greens, stray dogs being put to sleep and a disease called toxocariasis for which there is no cure.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons think again about dog registration and the petitioners remain, and so on.
  To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day
  Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill

    Clause 1
    SALVAGE CONVENTION, 1989 TO HAVE FORCE OF LAW
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
    ("(7) A draft of an Order in Council proposed to be made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
    9.36 am
    Mr. David.Harris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Before I deal with amendment No. 1, I should like to begin by paying a tribute, and giving my thanks, to Lord Donaldson—I see many of my colleagues clutching copies of his report "Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas" in their hands; undoubtedly, they will be referring to it—and Lord Mustill, who assumed stewardship of the Bill in another place. Both of them put the wealth of their knowledge of maritime law to the service of the Bill, and I am grateful for that. Two Ministers in another place, Lord Mackay, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, and Baroness Trumpington for the Department of National Heritage—there is an amendment touching on national heritage matters which we shall come to later—also tabled useful amendments which I hope will commend themselves to the House.
    None of the amendments affects the policy aims of the Bill earlier agreed by the House. Indeed, the amendments would ensure that those aims are met. Amendment No. 1 makes subordinate legislation made under clause 1 subject to parliamentary control. Clause 1 would permit the implementation and ratification of the 1989 international convention on salvage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) explained to the House on Third Reading, the aim of the salvage convention is to encourage salvors to get, and to stay, involved in salvage operations when there is a threat of marine pollution. The convention does that by assuring salvors that when there is a threat of pollution, they will at least recover their expenses. Of course, that will give them a great incentive to see a job through, or at least to attempt to salvage a vessel in difficult circumstances.
    Clause 1 (3) allows any subsequent revision of the salvage convention to be given effect in the United Kingdom by means of an Order in Council amending schedule 1. Schedule 1 sets out the articles in the salvage convention and related provisions. Similar provision was made in earlier Acts of Parliament for the domestic implementation of internationally agreed amendments to international agreements. For example, section 14(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 allows revision of the 1974 convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea to be implemented by Order in Council. Section 15(2) of that Act, however, provides for

    1277
    parliamentary control, in that a draft of the Order in Council must first be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
    In its report dated 24 May 1994, the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee noted the absence in clause 1 of provision for parliamentary control of the exercise of powers conferred by subsection (3). I accept that the implementation of amendments to the salvage convention should be subject to parliamentary control. Amendment No. 1 adds a new subsection (7) to clause 1, requiring that a draft of any order made under subsection (3) to give effect to the revision of the salvage convention be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I have reservations about Lords amendment No. 1. First, I must declare an interest as I am a partner in a firm of solicitors—which has a marine department, although I am not involved in it—in Plymouth. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) for introducing the Bill. He is known in the west country as a veritable champion of all matters maritime.
    I have grave concerns about Lords amendment No. 1 because I believe that it will be increasingly necessary to amend our salvage legislation. I am concerned that, if we make those matters that are to be dealt with by Order in Council subject to scrutiny, we might introduce an element of delay, which would be unfortunate and undesirable.
    The Law Commission recently expressed concern about the backlog of its reports published since 1969 but not brought into law. Those reports might involve legislation and that is an expression of how difficult it is to find sufficient parliamentary time to introduce desirable and necessary measures. By this year, 35 Law Commission reports were awaiting implementation by the House. The primary reason for the delay was not that anyone disagreed with their contents but the difficulty in finding sufficient parliamentary time. We must consider that problem.
    While amending the international convention on salvage and United Kingdom law covering such matters is of primary concern to those who are actively involved in salvage operations and maritime issues, one can easily imagine how such matters might constantly fall to the back of the queue in our proceedings.
    As is often the case, the amendment would have an unforeseen consequence. It was tabled by well-meaning people, but could be counter-productive. I cite as support for my arguments the fact that there have been many revisions during the past 30 years or so to the approach that the Lloyd's insurance market takes to salvage. Insurance is central to the whole issue.
    There have been changes to the Lloyd's standard form of salvage since the turn of the century, but there have been three revisions in the past 20 years. We all know that the old maxim, "No cure, no pay" used to govern the approach to salvage. That position has gradually changed during the past 20 or 30 years.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend may have answered his own question. The salvage industry and the insurance market are often able to react much more quickly to circumstances than the House. That is why Lloyd's open form, which is used to dispose of about 74
    1278
    per cent. of salvage cases, is changed from time to time. Does that not solve the very problem that my hon. Friend is bringing to the attention of the House?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. How absurd it would be if the Lloyd's provisions were out of step with United Kingdom law and the parliamentary procedures and convention that we are following. It is important for such matters to go forward step by step. If we make them the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, with all the in-built delays that that involves, it could make us out of step with the commercial realities of the marketplace.
    9.45 am
    Mr. James Clappison: My hon Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) makes an important point, although one does not necessarily draw the same conclusion as he does. Is it not right that matters as important as salvage and the protection of the environment should be protected by the force of law, rather than left to the vicissitudes of the market and of freedom of contract? There will always be unscrupulous owners and ships' masters who feel that they are under pressure. Is it not right that such matters should have the force of law and that we should give the environment the best possible protection?
    Mr. Streeter: I thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable contribution. He is entirely right. It is important for such matters to be protected by the full force of the law, but that must be done in a way that reflects the commercial realities and the pace of change in the marketplace.
    The recent Donaldson report gives us further evidence that salvage law is changing rapidly. Recommendations 85 and 86 of that report suggest that ocean-going salvage tugs should be made readily available. If we incorporate the provisions of the international salvage convention into our law in the near future, the market will shortly afterwards ask us to change those principles because of commercial pressures. I urge the House to put in place a system that will enable us to respond rapidly to such commercial pressures.
    Mr. Michael Bates: Was not one of the matters raised in the Donaldson report the establishment of high-risk areas, a point which relates to my hon. Friend's argument? Does he agree that, in the context of the insurance market, such high-risk areas may lead to an unnecessary burden being placed on the most sensitive parts of the market—the parts that are most in need of protection? That might dissuade people in the market, but surely the protection of the environment is far more important. Is that not another endorsement for what he is suggesting?
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has also made a valuable contribution to the debate.
    There is another reason why it would be a little foolhardy to accept the amendment. Our salvage law may need to be amended rapidly. A recent case that arose in the west country concerned the sinking of the trawler Pescado off the shores of Devon and Cornwall in late 1991. The vessel was brought to the surface after two years by new salvors, after many false attempts by the original salvage operators, who were brought in by the police. For the families of those who lost their lives on the Pescado, that was a time of great distress and humiliation. Local

    1279
    television stations covered each attempt to raise the vessel and the families hopes were raised, only to be dashed, through the incompetence of the original salvors.
    We are not far from the introduction of a range of measures to deal with the quality and competence of salvors operating off the shores of the United Kingdom, to protect people such as the families of those who so tragically lost their lives in the Pescado. That is another reason why it would not be right for us to commit ourselves to a procedure that cannot guarantee urgent ministerial attention and implementation. I believe that that further supports my argument. The Bill introduces into English law the issues arising out of the international convention on salvage. We now need to see an upgrading of firms that are involved in salvage operations.
    A measure that may need to be brought forward is one to increase the rewards available to the people who are involved in the operation. We must see an increase in the number and quality of salvors operating from the United Kingdom. For those reasons, I express reservations about Lords amendment No. 1. It is right that the power to respond to an ever-changing marketplace should lie in the hands of the Executive, and it is right that we should be able to introduce changes to the law in relation to salvage quickly, and not await parliamentary time.
    Mr. Piers Merchant: This is a small but important amendment, which raises some issues of constitutional significance. I do not wish to delay the House, but I want to raise two important points.
    The first has to do with the principle of subordinate legislation, with which the amendment deals. I observed when I spoke at the early stages of the Bill that it did not deal with the issue of passing back delegated powers to the House for scrutiny. It is not that I lack confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister or in other colleagues in the Government, and I realise that it is necessary for orders to be made in many cases under many Acts of Parliament. It is simply a matter of a thousand eyes being better than two.
    Where changes in the law are proposed, the House should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise them. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who I know is an advocate of legislation on that. I understand the reason why he stresses the importance of speed—I do not quibble with that—but I do not agree that changes in legislation would necessarily be held up by requiring this House and the other place to scrutinise them.
    There are ways to ensure that that is done speedily through the usual channels if a particular emergency has to be dealt with. Accuracy is more important than speed, so it is important that any changes made to the law should be properly scrutinised. That was picked up by the Delegated Powers Committee in its report on 24 May, and that is rightly what informs us of the need for the Lords amendment.
    There are wider constitutional reasons why it is important for secondary legislation to be properly scrutinised, and those relate to the authority of this place. This place exists to sanction and approve the law and if we increasingly encourage other ways by which the law can be amended or changed by diktat, that inevitably diminishes the powers, authority and responsibility of this place. Those powers have been built up over many centuries, often following great difficulty and struggle, and it is important that they are preserved.
    1280
    There is also the simple and practical reason that our constituents expect and require us to be aware of changes in the law, and to look closely at, and to scrutinise, those changes. If there is a system where major changes in the law can be easily made, without reference to the House, we are put in the extraordinary position of having to say to our constituents that not only are we unable to make representations on the matter but we have no powers, responsibility or involvement. They would find that difficult to take, and we would find it difficult to justify.
    Secondly, the international aspect is significant. This is a matter of considerable controversy at present, principally because of the European Union legislation. Many of my hon. Friends regard it as a dangerous trend that it is increasingly possible for those in Brussels, who have no elected status, to tinker with, and to change, the law of this country, often in a simple and easy fashion.
    It worries me that we had, or still have until the amendment is finally accepted, a situation where the law can be changed effectively at international level. I appreciate that the regulations would actually pass through our constitutional process, but the reality is that negotiations could take place in an international forum where we are represented by a Minister or, effectively at some levels, by officials. A deal could be done and something that is not palatable could be accepted, perhaps without the full implications being realised. We could end up with a de facto situation where an international committee, comprising of a large majority of people who are not British, makes a decision which, through this process, slips into British law. That is a dangerous precedent. The matter that is agreed may not be one of any controversy, but it could be. It is necessary that the House ensures that there is a safeguard against that happening.
    That is why I think that the Lords amendment is extremely important, why I fully support it, why I hope that it is incorporated into the Bill and why I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, although I respect his views.
    Mr. Roger Knapman: I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) has said. I have looked at the speech of the noble Lord Donaldson, as well as at the offerings from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), and I congratulate them both on the way in which they have brought forward the Bill. When someone as learned as the noble Lord says that he is proposing a small technical amendment, it is normally time to dive for cover. In this case, I entirely agree that the amendment, which deals with an Order in Council under clause 1(3)—I presume that that is the clause to which the noble Lord was referring—is absolutely necessary.
    I listened with care to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter). It is always encouraging to hear a member of the legal profession arguing for directness and speed. Sadly, however, at that stage I must part company with him. Such is the apparent need for speed—I am sure that this will not be taken as a savage attack on the usual channels—that we have, according to my hon. Friend, 35 law reports which are waiting to pass through the House. That is indeed a matter for the usual channels.
    My hon. Friend said that this is such an important matter that we should bypass this place. I would merely say that, by the time that we have government by the Privy Council,

    1281
    government from Brussels and government by international convention, the press may indeed start to wonder why we are being paid any salaries at all.
    I strongly support the amendment, and I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I hope that he will be able to confirm that nothing can happen unless the matters come before the House of Commons.
    Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to be here today to have an opportunity to speak on this important Bill and finally to wish it godspeed through the last of the legislative process. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) I should declare an interest as an Admiralty solicitor. I should also perhaps declare a more obvious interest, which is that I represent a coastal constituency—the most attractive coastal constituency represented in the House.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) who is a doughty campaigner for the sea and for those who earn their living on the sea. He has fought hard not only for the Bill but for other legislation for the sea. His constituents and all those with an interest in seafaring and the sea's environment already owe him a great debt. They will owe him an even greater one after the Bill is passed.
    10 am
    I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Lord Mustill. I also join in paying tribute to the learned Lord Donaldson for his magisterial publication on the Braer disaster, which contained 103 recommendations. I am sure that the House will refer back to that publication many times in the next few years.
    We are considering the implementation of the salvage convention of 1989. I support amendment No 1, the drafting of which is analogous with that of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. It is important that Parliament has a say in any future changes to the convention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said so eloquently, that convention will become part of our domestic law, so it would be quite wrong if the House had no say in any future changes to it.
    We would all hope, of course, that any amendments to the convention would be sufficiently sensible and practicable to command widespread support in all parts of the House, but there is no guarantee of that. We are talking about important matters. The Lloyd's open form system operates in 74 per cent. of salvage incidents, but a substantial number are left as a matter for general law. The salvage convention reflects much of what is contained in the latest version of Lloyd's open form, but should the convention be altered in the future, such change must be approved by the House. If any change were needed urgently, following a particular disaster such as the Braer, I am sure that those amendments would be passed by the House and the other place with great rapidity.
    As someone who represents a coastal constituency, I believe that it is essential that we maintain our crucial right to consider, and to approve or otherwise, any changes that are made to the salvage convention. The British Government will continue to have the opportunity to make representations, through the International Maritime Organisation, on any amendments to the convention, but it
    1282
    is necessary that the House and the other place should maintain the right to have a genuine debate on any suggested changes.
    Sadly, this country, perhaps more than any other, has had more experience that any other of major shipping accidents such as the Braer and the Torrey Canyon disasters. We have a major interest in putting our point of view not only to ensure that whatever changes are suggested are sensible and have the desired effect but to protect our essential national interest—the coastlines of our constituencies, such as Eastbourne—from the pollution caused by such disasters.
    I warmly welcome the amendment, which I support.
    Mr. Bates: I, too, must part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who is a doughty fighter on coastal matters and takes a great interest in maritime issues. I fear that he is wrong on this particular occasion, because parliamentary scrutiny allows a number of different factors to come into play that may not be considered by, for example, the marine accident investigation branch.
    My argument is based on what happened in my constituency a couple of years ago. A 5,000 tonne Swedish registered vessel, the SK Link, with a cargo of forest materials, tragically caught ablaze 10 miles off the coast of my constituency. It drifted with the tidal flows towards the coast and caused great anxiety to many of my constituents. The marine accident investigation branch paid particular attention to how the fire had started, the structure of the vessel and its safety provisions. It was unable, however, to consider the issue that was of prime concern to my constituents—the risk faced by the team of fire fighters from the Cleveland county fire brigade, who were airlifted onto the vessel to try to tackle the blaze. They discovered that the cargo included 38 tonnes of sodium chlorate, which could have exploded at any time.
    Those fire fighters are paid for and accountable to my constituents and their safety is of prime concern to them. As my constituents' parliamentary representative, I should have the opportunity to scrutinise any incident in which those fire fighters are involved. If I cannot discuss in the House a potential risk to the lives of my constituents, and if that is not counted as legitimate use of parliamentary time, I wonder what can be.
    It is vital that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the international conventions, such as the convention for safety of lives at sea, chapter 7 of which relates to the carriage of dangerous goods. If we had had a debate on what happened to the fire fighters in my constituency, that chapter could have been amended to avoid similar risks in the future.
    Teesport is the second busiest container port in the country and it handles 43 million tonnes of cargo. It faces increasing risks because oil and gas come on shore through the central area transmission system pipeline at Teesside.
    I have had a number of discussions with the Cleveland county fire brigade about the risks posed, as well as discussions with the environmental protection officers at the various district councils. There are question marks about safety and great concern has also been expressed about the effect on the environment of any accident. The local authority has taken great interest and made great strides in developing environmentally protected areas. It has established wildlife parks and the area is noted for the particular beauty of Seal sands and the coastline around my constituency at Saltburn. Northumbrian Water is spending

    1283
    about £13 million to try to clean those beaches, one disaster such as the SK Link, when oil poured on to the beaches of my constituency, would cost the local authority thousands of pounds. Because of our constituents' concerns, we have a right to scrutinise any convention. We would be able to offer an added, helpful dimension to any discussions.
    Great concern has been expressed about certain high risk areas. In the current stringent trading conditions, many companies find it difficult to operate. Companies feel that, however worthy it is, the proposals in the Donaldson report on high risk areas may attract a higher premium which could place added burdens on business. Business, local authorities, fire brigades, my constituents and representatives of environmental protection areas have a right to have their voices heard and their scrutiny applied to legislation. That is why I endorse Lords amendment. No. 1.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Clause 1(3) is a classic King James II clause. It really is historically unacceptable for the Crown, by treaty, to alter the rights of property and the obligations of subjects. That is why the amendment is so fundamental and important.
    It has not been stressed that the key to the legislation is contained in schedule 1, and in particular in articles 13 and 14 of schedule 1, which are parts of the treaty. They are of fundamental importance. They redefine the liabilities to pay for salvage and how much salvors can be rewarded. They are classic examples of property rights and obligations, and they should be determined by Parliament and not by the Crown by the exercise of the prerogative.
    Mr. Clappison: Legally, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Does he agree that articles 13 and 14 can properly be described as the regulation of economic relationships? However, is not it the case that, as with all economic relationships, they might need to be revised from time to time?
    Mr. Evans: I agree entirely, but the difference, for the first time, is that when Lloyd's of London is so attacked from all quarters these days, we should recall that Lloyd's of London has a tremendous historic past and, one trusts, a future in marine insurance, that the triumph of Lloyd's of London was that the greater part of shipping collisions were arbitrated in London by arbitrators appointed by the Committee of Lloyd's, and that a small band of very distinguished experts—London Admiralty solicitors, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and members of the Admiralty Bar—over a long period established a substantial world dominance in this aspect. How that dominance appears in the invisible balance of payments statistics, I have never begun to understand. It is a classic example of the leadership of this country and the leadership of London being ignored by those who look at manufactured metal boxes which are much easier to count.
    The point about that system was that Lloyd's of London had an agreement and could do things on a contractual basis. As was urged, one can see how contractual relations need to be brought up to date.
    What provoked the recent convention—it is the key to this matter—is that the matter cannot be left any longer simply to those who are sinking and those who are going to save them because of the environmental issue, which means that, as a matter of public law and international law,
    1284
    it is necessary to protect our coastlines by superimposing and defining upon those contractual arrangements some public obligations and duties.
    The important point is contained in article 13(1)(b), which states:
    "the skills and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimising damage to the environment".
    That is an absolutely fundamental aspect.
    Similarly, article 14(1) states:
    "If the salvor has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment and has failed to earn a reward under article 13 at least equivalent to the special compensation assessable in accordance with this article, he shall be entitled to special compensation".
    The rub of the argument in the international convention was exactly how we deal with the aspect of the environment and the payments to one side or the obligation of the other to pay. There was also a big dispute between this side of the Atlantic and the other side of the Atlantic—it used to be done on a pro rata basis—as to whether the cargo or the ship should pay and in what proportions. That was resolved in the convention by article 16.
    I believe that, by a brief description of the guts of the matter, one can see that the most important types of social and public obligations and very serious questions of liability and rights to compensation are defined by this legislation—we hope. That is highly desirable. It is an excellent Bill, but it would be wrong to allow the Crown, by Order in Council—the Privy Council—as a matter purely of Executive power, to alter all that. That is why the Lords Committee was absolutely right to pick up that constitutional error in the Bill, and that is why I commend Lords amendment No. 1 to the House.
    Mr. Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the importance of amendment No. 1, which goes to the heart of some important environmental issues. Before doing so, it would be a wise precaution for me to declare an interest as an underwriting member of Lloyd's, which these days seems to provoke certain interest in certain quarters. It might be wise to declare that interest now, in case Hansard is read in certain quarters on Monday and I find myself alleged to be part of a giant conspiracy involving amendment No. 1.
    10.15 am
    I wish to speak strongly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and redress the balance, which has been in favour of strict constitutionality. Perhaps, at the end of the day, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, I will have to defer to the voice of strict constitutionality, as expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) hit the nail on the head, as I suggested in my intervention, in his analysis of the legal implications of the amendment. However, I might place more emphasis than my hon. Friend did on the environmental implications which follow from leaving such matters to the law of contract and to the economic relationships between contracting parties.
    Protection of the environment must be the top priority. It is right that public law should override freedom of contract and reinforce the protection that has been given under the Lloyd's open forms. There have been too many cases, I suspect—this matter was dealt with very well in Committee—when important environmental matters have

    1285
    been at risk when ships are sinking and salvors are considering whether to go to the rescue, and there is hesitation and delay while parties argue about terms in a contract. The environment is just too important for that; it should not be left to such hazards. We should have a clear public law regime that sets out the rights and liabilities of the parties.
    Such rights and liabilities may require revision. I am constantly surprised at how late the forces of law have been brought to bear upon the subject. The environment is so vital that the matter should have been dealt with years ago. Now, relatively late in the day, the needs of the environment have been brought into the equation. Perhaps further revisions will be needed to reassess, for example, the balance between risk and reward or to set a higher reward for salvors if salvors do not come forward because of the rewards that are provided for them in environmental cases. They might feel that the incentives are just not great enough for them to take the risk involved in going to the rescue of a ship. Perhaps the incentives will not be entirely effective. If that is so, I for one would be happy to take part in a revision.
    I warn my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and other hon. Friends who talked about strict constitutionality and the use of parliamentary time that it may be necessary for the matter, if it is to be subject to the House and to Parliament, to come back before the House on several future occasions so that we can act in the best interests of the environment and fine-tune the legislation to the needs of the environment.
    It is an important issue. There are many other ways in which the law could be developed, not least to take account of marine environment high-risk areas, which is one of the most important recommendations in the Donaldson report. I can see no reason why a way cannot be found to take account of that in regulating such relationships, to provide higher incentives in such cases and to reward responsible masters and shipowners who use routes which put the environment at the least risk.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton put the matter most succinctly. I have expressed concern during the passage of the legislation and said that we should put the highest possible priority on the protection of the environment. I am happy to support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, even if, at the end of the day, we have to defer to the voice of strict constitutionality.
    Ms Joan Walley: Many Tory Members have expressed their thanks and gratitude to the noble Lords in the other place. May I place on record my gratitude to Lord Clinton-Davis, who gave full co-operation to the Bill but has not been mentioned in previous speeches. [Interruption.] Hon. Members tell me that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to him.
    Mr. Harris indicated dissent.
    Ms Walley: Oh, the hon. Member for St. Ives apparently did not mention the noble Lord. Clearly, I should not accept contributions made from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Harris: I did not mention Lord Clinton-Davis, but I am happy to join the hon. Lady in thanking him for the valuable contributions that he made in the other place.
    Ms Walley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment No. 1 deals with parliamentary scrutiny. I am heartened by the huge number of well-informed, brief contributions that we have had from Tory Members who are suddenly interested in merchant shipping and want to participate in a debate on parliamentary scrutiny—issues which the Labour party has been trying to raise for a long time. It is ironic that so many people are suddenly so concerned about parliamentary scrutiny. In reality, it is a well-orchestrated filibuster of today's business, because parliamentary scrutiny should also be given to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Energy Conservation Bill.
    Mr. Bates: The hon. Lady should also place on record the fact that only one Labour Member is in the Chamber this morning. It is all very well for her to talk about the importance of the environment, but by turning out and discussing the environment, Conservative Members are declaring the fact that they are serious about it and interested in it, whereas the vacant Benches behind the hon. Lady demonstrate eloquently the Labour party's position.
    Ms Walley: The Bill has come forward only because the Government were not prepared to deal with the international convention on salvage. We have raised the matter time and again in Committee, but the Government refused to bring forward their own legislation to deal with merchant shipping and pollution. It is only because they have relied on the admirable efforts of the hon. Member for St. Ives to rescue them for their failure to deal with merchant shipping that the Bill has now been through its Committee and Lords stages and returned here. It has therefore had all the debate that it needs and it should now be a matter of rubber stamping the amendments before us.
    Mr. Roger Evans: It is absolutely astonishing and an indictment of the whole parliamentary process that the Bill got as far as it did before clause 1(3) was picked up by the Lords Committee. It is up to us to put it right this morning.
    Ms Walley: That proves that, had the Government been prepared to prioritise merchant shipping and introduce proper legislation rather than legislate in a backhand way through a private Member's Bill, the Bill would have been carefully prepared and we would not have to pick up mistakes at this late stage.
    The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) tabled a great number of amendments to block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Will the hon. Lady return to amendment No. 1, please?
    Ms Walley: Amendment No. 1 deals with parliamentary scrutiny.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: A moment ago, the hon. Lady said that she thought that the House should rubber stamp the Lords amendments. Will she think again about the phrase, "rubber stamp"? Is it not the obverse of proper parliamentary scrutiny?
    Ms Walley: We want parliamentary mechanisms that enable us to deal with the issues of the day and to introduce parliamentary legislation that has been thoroughly researched and well prepared within the overall agenda of the Government's legislation. If that had been done in

    1287
    respect of the 1989 international salvage convention, we would not be dealing with this Bill. The later issue of parliamentary scrutiny had not been included and we are not dealing with it as I should have liked, partly because priority has not been given to merchant shipping. Indeed, the House of Commons does not even have a Minister responsible for shipping—he sits in the other place Those issues must be borne in mind.
    In view of all that has been said this morning on parliamentary scrutiny, will the Minister say whether that will conflict with the provisions of the Bill on deregulation and contracting out? I agree with the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) that parliamentary scrutiny is absolutely important. Members of Parliament need to know exactly what legislation we are passing and be involved in the procedure of drawing up legislation. I welcome an amendment that will give proper parliamentary scrutiny to subsequent orders of this kind. Bearing in mind not just what is contained in the draconian first part of the Bill on deregulation and contracting out but that many issues relating to deregulation and contracting out could be taken away from this place, could the matter that we are now discussing be taken away at a later stage because of that?
    Clause 1 was drawn up because we need to ratify the 1989 international salvage convention. I would welcome any subsequent conventions that arise out of that convention, or out of the International Maritime Organisation or European organisations, which would enable us better to respond to ships in distress and prevent environmental catastrophes.
    Other issues arose from the Donaldson report, which many hon. Members have before them. Although those may not relate directly to the international salvage convention, they should be brought forward urgently. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has raised some specific issues with me. As so many other issues need to be addressed, the Minister's response may be an opportunity for him to say whether he now proposes to introduce new regulations to implement the recommendations of the Donaldson inquiry, which could be part and parcel of clause 1. Will he introduce the mandatory routing of oil tankers to avoid hazardous areas of sea? Which of Donaldson's recommendations does he expect the shipping and ports industry to deal with voluntarily?
    Mr. Waterson: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the main benefits of the Bill is that, by extending the strict liability to vessels other than laden oil tankers, part II, schedule 3 may help to deal with many clandestine and apparently minor discharges of bunker oil along our coastline which, on a daily basis, is very damaging to our natural wildlife, particularly to birds?
    Ms Walley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important case and I entirely agree with him. I am pleased that we are dealing not only with catastrophes but with the regular, consistent discharge of bunker oil into the sea, which is not properly dealt with at present. It may be better to debate that matter under clause 6, but it may also relate to the parliamentary scrutiny that we are discussing now. In which case, this might be an opportunity for the Minister to elaborate further on the Government's policy on ports.
    It is clear from recent parliamentary questions that I have asked about whether the Minister will introduce regulations to deal with facilities for the ports and ways in
    1288
    which legal discharges can be made—[interruption.] I have just accepted an intervention on the subject, which is part and parcel of the parliamentary scrutiny that we are discussing. I agree that the issue of facilities in ports cannot be left to the marketplace.
    Having made those few comments, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
    10.30 am
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Mr. Harris) for his customary assiduity in introducing the amendment, and I join him in thanking noble Lords in another place who have helped to sponsor the amendments to the Bill that we wish to make this morning.
    The lonely vigil of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on the Opposition Benches is notable for the very reason that she should recall more than she has—she alone appears to have the slightest interest in these important topics. By contrast, my hon. Friends have contributed to an extraordinarily high-quality debate on an extremely important issue. It is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to talk in terms of a sudden interest because it would be useful if the Labour party took a sudden interest in who governs the country, which is what the amendment is about. It has been notable over the years that the Labour party has been solely concerned to ensure that it introduced the sort of socialistic nonsense that the electors of this country will never take through the front door as they have shown by their affection for the Government—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a head of steam and must return to amendment No. 1.
    Mr. Norris: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you go straight to the heart of it. I was incensed. I crave your indulgence as I did stray, for which I should be reproached, and I am grateful to you. I shall leave my remarks on the record and those who witness our proceedings on television will draw their own conclusions about which side of the House is concerned about marine pollution.
    Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Norris: No, I do not have the time to give way to the hon. Lady, as it is important to get on.
    I was discussing the useful debate that we have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). He and I are mere journeymen in the world—we are small business men. When I listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterston), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) I became terrified at the prospect of ever having to pay my hon. Friends for the sort of contributions that we have just heard free of charge. I am diffident about intervening or responding to the extraordinary outpouring of knowledge that my hon. Friends displayed. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) has a degree in law and politics so perhaps, by implication, he is also to be commended for his assiduity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham was right when he said that it was important to ensure that any amendment to the essential provisions of the Bill should be subject to the scrutiny of the House. He made an important

    1289
    point that was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. Without wishing to select one contribution over all the excellent contributions that we have had this morning, I must say that in the House we can effectively scrutinise the changes proposed by others whose interests are not those of the United Kingdom. I believe that that was the expression for which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham was seeking—the people that we are talking about were not necessarily born in the United Kingdom. We are talking about those who quite properly prosecute interests that are not United Kingdom interests. We want to ensure that when such changes are made, they are made with the full scrutiny of the House. It is important on all such occasions when we, quite properly, enter into international obligations—whether as part of the European Union or any other international forum—that this House remains in control of those negotiations and is able to endorse them after appropriate debate or to reject them if that is appropriate.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—I decided not to make a speech so that we could get on. Will my hon. Friend take up the point that concerns my constituents? Recommendation 9.3 of the Donaldson report mentions the harmful effects of pollution from bunker oil and waste, which are often carried around the world without the facilities to get rid of it. A company called ROIL proposes to place a facility into my constituency, in Portland—all the details have been given to the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. In asking us to ensure that we ratify the conventions, the Government must also help to put in place the necessary facilities.
    Mr. Norris: I know that my hon. Friend has submitted full details of the ROIL scheme to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. No doubt ROIL will continue to press for a waste oil facility and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will continue to press for new jobs in Portland. I hope that he will not mind if I do not dwell at length on the point that he has made. If I can help to bring the matter to the attention of my noble Friend, I will be happy to do so.
    Like all law, conventions adopted within the International Maritime Organisation require amendment from time to time to take account of the changing circumstances in which they operate. I think that my hon. Friends appreciated the fact that many of the amendments are technical and do not necessarily require detailed consideration by a Chamber such as this. The Bill, therefore, provides for those amendments to be implemented by Order in Council—that is perfectly sensible and straightforward. It is clearly right that Parliament should have oversight of the implementation of such amendments. I, therefore, agree with those of my hon. Friends who supported amendment No. 1, which ensures that any future revision of the salvage convention can be simply and rapidly implemented in the United Kingdom, subject to the agreement of this House and the House of Lords.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, who I know is, and has for a long time been, interested in the subject as he has a maritime interest in his constituency, need not worry about the ability of the House to make swift changes and take rapid action should that prove necessary—a point
    1290
    endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh. My hon. Friend also mentioned the tragic accident involving the Pescado, which was the subject of a thorough investigation by the marine accident investigation branch.
    As my hon. Friend knows, a number of recommendations were made as a result of that report. Some of the recommendations have been made public, some have been communicated to members of the family and others remain to be determined. Following that incident, there is and will remain a procedure that must be followed—whether in relation to tragic accidents such as the Pescado or incidents involving oil pollution—and under which rapid action can be taken and, if necessary, rapid changes can be made to the regulatory framework. None of that will be impeded because the House has the opportunity to endorse such changes where it is felt that they are appropriate.
    In this country, we can be proud of the fact that we have the ability swiftly to address the causes of accidents, whether marine, aviation, rail or any other mode of transport to ensure that swift action is taken—I am thinking particularly of the MAIB and the air accident investigation branch. One of the things about which we are concerned is that we should not rush to make regulatory change before we have fully taken account of, for example, the cost that might flow from our over-enthusiasm in dealing with the cause of accidents immediately. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the Pescado and I understand his point, but it does not conflict with the intention of this amendment.
    If the amendment were not made, there would be no parliamentary oversight of the implementation of any revision of the salvage convention. Those who ask whether this power sanctions the implementation of radical changes to the salvage convention by subordinate legislation need not concern themselves—the answer is clearly no. The power sanctions only the implementation of relatively minor changes to the convention. If the convention needed to be revised extensively, that would be done not by agreeing amendments to the 1989 convention, but by agreeing an entirely new convention. The power of clause 1 (3) would not allow the implementation of a new salvage convention. For that, one would properly require primary legislation.
    In answer to a couple of my hon. Friends, we do not anticipate the early need for significant amendments to the 1989 salvage convention, which supersedes a convention that was agreed in 1910. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne knows, the principles are, in general, well established and such amendment as is necessary is technical—it reflects technical change rather than any amendment of the principle.
    The United Kingdom will, of course, ratify the salvage convention shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The convention will enter into force one year after the date on which 15 states have agreed to be bound by its provisions. To date, nine states have made that commitment. The Irish Republic already has legislation in place to permit ratification. Australia and Canada, like the UK, should adopt the necessary legislation shortly. Entry into force in 1995 is, therefore, possible and one can assume that entry into force no later than 1996 is relatively certain. If, this autumn, the number of contracting parties to the salvage convention is still insufficient to bring the convention into force internationally in 1995, the terms of the convention will be applied in UK law from 1 January 1995.

    1291
    I should like to refer to one or two other points that were made by my hon. Friends during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh mentioned Teesport. I agree that that is an important matter. I think that he will agree that the issues have been answered, in a sense, by my hon. Friends' observations. We have had a valuable debate to flesh out precisely why, as a number of my hon. Friends have said, this is an important amendment.
    Perhaps it was not fair of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth to chide the House for having allowed to Bill to go this far without spotting the need for the amendment. I underline that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives introduced the Bill as a private Member's Bill. He has prosecuted it vigorously with the support of Labour Members, who have been here, if not in number, then at least in spirit and who have not opposed the passage of the Bill. I am grateful to them for that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned the Donaldson report. I do not want to go down that track, because there are other amendments with which we should deal. As she knows, the Government remain committed to ensuring that the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's excellent report are fully aired and debated and, where necessary, brought into effect as urgently as possible.
    On salvage tugs, Lord Donaldson's inquiry envisaged in the longer term a mixture of a few large salvage tugs and smaller tugs to administer first aid while a larger tug is on the way. The inquiry rightly acknowledged the need for negotiations with tug owners and other countries to establish what could be done before we decide on tug sectors. We intend to take those discussions forward and the inquiry also recognised that detailed negotiations on arrangements and funding would take time, but it identified Dover strait, the western approaches and north-west Scotland as the three areas most urgently in need.
    10.45 am
    We have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to carry out a study of the cost and benefits of providing the three tugs. That study should take about six months. The appropriateness and role of public funding, both in the short and long term, of the tugs needs careful consideration and we shall consider the matter in the context of the report's general recommendations on financing.
    Ms Walley: In view of what the Minister has said, can we expect early Government legislation to implement the Donaldson report?
    Mr. NorrisThe hon. Lady knows our attitude to the Donaldson report. We have commended those people who prepared the report and, in particular, Lord Donaldson for an excellent piece of work which gives us a number of valuable insights. We have accepted some of the recommendations and agreed, as Lord Donaldson suggested would be appropriate, to investigate others as a matter of urgency. She will not cause me to move from that position this morning, as she is well aware.
    The hon Lady asked whether the provision of the salvage tugs should be more widespread. She knows that the inquiry recognised that it was impractical to provide coverage of all areas by full-size salvage tugs. Not only would cost outweigh benefits, but skilled crews might become stale and unable to function in an emergency. The inquiry suggests the Dover strait and south-western approaches because the density of traffic means that a tug
    1292
    is most likely to be needed there. Most other areas have some sort of tug available. The only exception is north-west Scotland, where a third salvage tug is suggested.
    The hon. Lady asked for an undertaking in relation to the contents of the excellent Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry currently has before the House. It is classic of the Labour party to assume that any attempt to reduce the burden of regulation on industry or business will lay to waste killing fields of danger and expose employees unnecessarily, solely in the pursuit of profit and putting safety last. That is, of course, a nonsensical approach to the sensible business of ensuring that regulations are always appropriate to the protections that any individual or organisation can reasonably expect.
    Mr. Don Dixon: Are the Government in favour of regulation?
    Mr. Norris: I shall not be drawn on that, save to say that we believe that regulations should exist only where they are necessary for the protection of the public, as individuals or collectively, and where they are concerned with safety, honesty and probity. Any regulation that goes beyond that to any degree and imposes a burden on individuals or businesses which cannot be justified should not remain on the statute book for one moment longer.
    I am sad to say that the Labour party is obsessed with the idea that the slightest reduction in the burden on industry or business will somehow simply allow the massive accretion of private profit at the expense of personal safety. That sort of attitude will ensure that it remains exactly where it is long after the next election, with or without the ministrations and leadership of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
    The hon. Lady need not concern herself that the deregulation Bill will have the slightest impact on the terms of the convention. My goodness, I saw you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about to direct my mind to the amendment, but I hope that you appreciate that I was answering a request from the hon. Lady. Methinks I was provoked yet again, not just by the hon. Lady but by the normally silent member of the usual channels mafia, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) who is occupying his usual place on the Opposition Front Bench.
    I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. We have had an excellent debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friends who participated. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam reminds me that I may have overlooked mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. All the contributions were excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton is an experienced enough lawyer to know that, although he made his debating point with force, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and others are clearly right that it is necessary for Parliament to have the right and ability to scrutinise proposed changes to obligations entered into by this country in conjunction with others. The amendment provides for that and I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 3

      AMENDMENTS AS TO POWERS OF IMPLEMENTATION
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 43, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") and insert—
      ("(a) may make provision corresponding to the provision authorised for an Order by paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) of this section; and
      (b)")
      Mr. Harris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I hope that this matter can be dealt with quickly. The amendment corrects a minor error in the wording of clause 3, and I am grateful to their lordships for correcting it.
      Clause 3 is important. It aims to simplify the procedure for the domestic implementation of technical amendments to the International Maritime Organisation conventions governing the safety of life at sea and the prevention of pollution from ships. Those two issues—making our seas cleaner and safer—are what the Bill is all about.
      Hon. Members have spoken about the work of the IMO. I visited the IMO across the river yesterday to meet its secretary-general, Mr. William O'Neill, about Lord Donaldson's report. It is clear that the IMO has carried out its own appraisal of that report, but, of course, the initiatives on the report have to be taken by the Government. I have no doubt that the Government will make recommendations to the IMO on safety at sea and the prevention of pollution by ships.
      Despite the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), it is necessary for many of these matters to be dealt with internationally. I look forward to the Government, taking a lead where international initiatives are required in putting such matters to the IMO. I have always been greatly impressed by the IMO, which is rather different from most United Nations agencies. I was about to say that it does a down-to-earth job, but that is quite the wrong metaphor for a maritime organisation. It functions in a workmanlike and impressive way.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4

      PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS: FURTHER POWER TO IMPLEMENT INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
      ("and provision authorising the making of regulations authorises the amendment or revocation of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e) of the said subsection (4).")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.-[Mr. Harris.]
      Ms Walley: Will the amendment make it easier for the Government to lead discussions at next year's North sea conference in Denmark on the need to curb deliberate and continual dumping of oil at sea? That matter was mentioned briefly in the debate on amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Norris: I can assure the hon. Lady on that point. Plainly, the extension of the United Kingdom's jurisdiction for counter-pollution measures will apply to the law not only as it stands but to any future law. The amendment makes that clear.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The clause is extremely important, because it gives effect to the provision in the law of the sea conference that coastal states can extend their jurisidiction over waters beyond the territorial sea for the purposes of controlling marine pollution. This island is beside the world's busiest sea lane, between the English channel and the North sea. A small proportion of ships passing our coasts fly the British flag or the flags of the other coastal states. Therefore, it is important to exploit the possibilities provided by the new law of the sea that emerged from the 1982 convention to apply our own standards as a coastal state.
      The amendment is sensible; it makes it clear that when the legislation is used to extend coastal state jurisdiction by regulation, we can subsequently change the regulations. That is important, because, from time to time, marine pollution regulations need to be revised without having to go back on that essential extension of the jurisdiction of this country over the seas beyond our territorial waters. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 5

      LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION FOR OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE: 1992 PROTOCOLS
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 42 and insert—
      (a) the word "1984" shall be omitted from the section 4A(1) of the 1974 Act and the paragraph 4(a) and (d) constituting Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act as respectively inserted and substituted by Part II of Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act;")
      Mr. Harris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
      Mr. Harris: The amendments improve the clauses as they left the House. Clause 5 is extremely important.
      Mr. Norris: The amendments are important because clause 5 will allow the UK to accede to the 1992 protocols. The Government are keen to do that as soon as possible, so that higher levels of compensation quickly become available to victims of oil pollution. The 1992 protocols will enter into force one year after the date on which a total of 10 states representing both leading carriers and importers of oil have agreed to be bound by their provisions. To date, only Mexico has agreed to be bound by the 1992 protocols. The Government plan to accede to the protocols shortly after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
      Hon. Members will be interested to know that copies of the 1992 protocols are available in the Vote Office for them to consult. We have arranged for the text of the protocols to be published as a Command Paper and laid before Parliament at the beginning of the next Session.
      In the past, the implementation of IMO instruments has taken a considerable length of time. We are anxious to avoid a repetition of that with the 1992 protocols; we are working with our partners towards early implementation of the protocols in domestic law, and will seek to encourage other countries to follow suit.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

  Disabled People (Consultation)
  11 am
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement regarding the publication today of a consultation document on measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. The document addresses five key areas affecting their lives. The Government would welcome comments on the proposals in the course of the next three months.
  The Government give a high priority to helping disabled people to live with dignity and independence. Over the last 15 years, much has been done to further that aim. This document seeks to build on that record, offering wider opportunities for disabled people to partake in and contribute to the life of our community.
  As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed the fact that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was to be examined and discussed in more detail-in Committee. This and subsequent debates also provided the opportunity for other voices to be heard in addition to those of the supporters of the Bill—employers, small businesses and other service providers, the very people on whom the burden of any additional cost would be likely to fall. The Government's consultation document will ensure that all those affected will have the opportunity to comment on the next steps.
  The first issue addressed in the document is that of employment. The quota system, which requires that registered disabled people should make up at least 3 per cent. of larger work forces, is increasingly recognised as unworkable. Only one third of those in the work force eligible to register do so—about 1 per cent. Therefore, the quota scheme as it stands cannot be sustained and the approach is, in my view, inappropriate to today's needs.
  Many employers, of course, adopt good and sensitive practices when employing disabled people, but the Government recognise that some employers may discriminate unjustifiably against them. We are therefore inviting views on how that unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people can be tackled in this important area.
  One option might be to strengthen the quota scheme itself, but it is hard to see how its underlying problem of low registration could be overcome. Another approach might be simply to repeal the quota scheme and replace it with an entirely voluntary system.
  The Government are aware, however, that there is now widespread support for the present system to be replaced by a statutory right for disabled people not to be unjustifiably discriminated against in employment. Such a right would replace the quota scheme. We are consulting on ways in which such a right might be framed, but the Government would be prepared to consider the position again if there were substantial support for a workable and effective alternative.
  The introduction of such a right would have to take into account the fact that some people would be unable to do some jobs because of their disability. Employers would also have to consider whether it was reasonably practicable —taking account of cost and other factors—to make an adjustment to the working environment or practices or to provide specialist equipment to enable a disabled person to do his job. A code of practice would be issued to provide

  1297
  guidance on those matters. We would draw on the experience of employers and disabled people when developing the code.
  We believe that the right should apply only to people who have a substantial disability that is long term or recurring. We are seeking views on how best to define that group in a clear and practical manner. The new right, like the quota scheme, should not apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees.
  Where individuals believe they have been unjustifiably discriminated against, they would have a right to complain to an industrial tribunal. However, it might be possible to provide, as an alternative to full tribunal proceedings, a less formal but more practical and more speedy process to resolve such issues.
  Disabled people not only want jobs—important though that ambition is—they also want to be able to participate, to the greatest extent possible, in the full range of activities open to the able-bodied population. It is important, therefore, to make the environment increasingly more accessible to them. The building regulations have done much to make new non-domestic dwellings accessible as well as most extensions to such buildings.
  We are considering whether the regulations should also apply to the design of new domestic dwellings so that they would take greater account of the needs of disabled people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering advice in that area from the building regulations advisory committee. He aims to consult on detailed proposals before the end of the year. That will promote an informed debate on the extent to which new dwellings should be made more accessible to disabled people. There will be a similar consultation exercise in Scotland.
  Making buildings physically accessible is of little use to disabled people if they are excluded by prejudice or groundless fears for their safety. We are seeking views on making it unlawful for any person providing goods or services to the public to treat people unfavourably because of disability. Discrimination would be ruled out in a variety of areas, including access to public places, accommodation, entertainment facilities such as cinemas, theatres and restaurants, as well as facilities for transport and travel. The new right of access would not apply where existing physical barriers prevented access or where compliance may create insurmountable safety problems. Where access was wrongly denied, a disabled person would be able to take civil proceedings. He or she would be able to recover damages for any financial loss suffered as well as damages for injuries to feelings. In the latter instance, it might be a fixed sum or an amount subject to an upper limit. The Government could vary the sum or limit in future years. Depending on the level of damages for injury to feelings, claims could be subject to the small claims procedure where proceedings are informal and simple and the cost relatively low.
  However, the disabled person might often prefer that the situation which had originally caused offence should be rectified without recourse even to the small claims court. To facilitate the resolution of cases without recourse to legal action, the Government are considering whether to institute a mechanism to help the parties concerned reach
  1298
  a mutually acceptable solution. For example, that might be done by funding a voluntary body to provide an advice and conciliation service for disabled people.
  I come now to financial services. We have received little evidence of discrimination in the provision of financial services. None the less, we are inviting the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association to develop and issue statements of good practice on the treatment of disabled customers, including clear advice on how to pursue complaints and, in the case of banks and building societies, to explain the role of their ombudsmen. The Association of British Insurers, for example, will be asked to include in their statement of good practice, first, the need to be aware of the main forms of disability and their relevance in assessing the size or probability of an insurance claim; secondly, that insurers should ask only for medical information that is demonstrably related to the additional risk associated with insuring the disabled person; and thirdly, the need for insurance companies to have a clear mechanism for the investigation of complaints from disabled people and for those complaints to be handled sensitively and speedily.
  The ABI will also be invited to set up an independent advisory committee, comprising representatives of insurers and the disability organisations, to monitor the effectiveness of the statement of good practice.
  The banks and building societies already follow the code of practice, "Good Banking". That code has, as one of its guiding principles, that banks and building societies should act
  "fairly and reasonably in all their dealings with their customers".
  The Government are committed to tackling discrimination against disabled people. There is a strong case for setting up an independent body that could closely monitor that area and advise the Government on the effect of existing efforts to combat discrimination. The body would work closely with existing bodies representing the interests of disabled people.
  The new body might be called the National Disability Council. In particular, its duties would include monitoring discrimination against disabled people and advising the Government on general issues and measures relating to the elimination of discrimination and progress towards those aims; drawing up codes of practice when requested by the Government; reviewing the effect of the new right of access on business; and reporting annually to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who would be required to lay its report before Parliament.
  The Government, in their triple role of policymaker, employer, and service provider, can and should provide a strong lead. I am now co-ordinating a programme of action developed to build upon the many positive initiatives that are already taking place. Later this year, the Government will be launching a major publicity campaign designed to change attitudes and actions that adversely affect disabled people. We will also seek to involve organisations of and for disabled people in wider public consultations and to increase the representation of disabled people on public bodies.
  A new programme for action on employment of disabled people in the civil service, launched in conjunction with this document, will provide a strategic framework and detailed action checklists to help Departments and agencies recruit and retain disabled people. Many Government Departments and agencies have

  1299
  already improved the accessibility of their buildings and the quality of service they offer to disabled people. To encourage this approach throughout the public service, a checklist on how the citizens charter principles apply to service provision for disabled people will also be published shortly.
  The Government have an impressive record in helping disabled people, but more needs to be done. This document outlines the Government's proposals for further action designed to release the untapped potential of disabled people in our society.
  I commend the document to the House and ask that hon. Members and all those who share our concern to improve the quality of life of disabled people by removing barriers and expanding opportunities, to respond in a constructive and forward-looking way to its proposals.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It was with some sadness that I listened to the Minister's statement on what could possibly be his last appearance at the Dispatch. Box. His words add very little to what was said in the previous debate in the House, and in his subsequent letter to me on 26 May.
  The Minister knows that there are two ways of evaluating the Government's performance before the statement—it is either malevolence towards disabled people and their rights or it is incompetence. Those of us who have been here Friday after Friday know which it is.
  It is clear to us that the Government did not have the honesty or integrity to oppose publicly and openly a Bill offering civil rights to disabled people, and that they did not have the courage to allow the House to make its own decision on such a Bill. That is the background to today's statement. But for the Government's total embarrassment on recent Fridays, there would have been no statement, however inadequate.
  We received a copy of the statement very late—only a few minutes before the Minister spoke. I thank him for giving us a copy, but I see that it refers to codes of practice; we hear "voluntary" "advisory" and, unfortunately, "citizens charter", but we do not hear about "power" to disabled people. Nor did we hear about a commission, which is the only effective way to deliver rights to disabled people.
  Will the Minister confirm that the statement says nothing about important matters such as education and transport, which seriously affect the lives of disabled people? The statement runs to five pages of guff, but contains nothing about education or transport. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to be heard, I shall continue. I know that there are certain sensitivities on the Conservative Back Benches—we have certainly witnessed a discreditable performance Friday after Friday. Once again, Conservatives would like the Opposition's voice not to be heard on this important issue.
  Why does the statement fail to address various aspects? It is clear that the Government believe that education and persuasion are all that is necessary, workable, affordable and practical. Suitable legislation that meets all the criteria and which would deliver power to disabled people has already been before the House.
  Why has not the Minister produced a document that delivers civil rights? That is what the debate is all about, but the Government are terrified of delivering them to disabled people. Why has not the Minister made a statement of intention that delivers on holistic and
  1300
  integrated approach? The House and disabled people outside know that the statement is piecemeal, partial, pathetic, grudging, belated and inadequate. Disabled people and their supporters will not accept it.
  Mr. Scott: I recall a story about a parson who from time to time used to write in the margins of his sermons the initials "AWSL". They stood for "argument weak: shout loudly". Nothing better typifies the hon. Gentleman's approach than those initials.
  The previous Labour Government's record bears no comparison with that of this Government in meeting the needs of disabled people over the past 15 years. We have trebled the amount of money provided to disabled people through the benefits system; we have introduced the disability living allowance, the disability working allowance and the independent living fund; carers' income has increased one hundredfold; and I believe that our record bears comparison with anything that has gone before.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) listened with great care to the statement, and that he will respond in his usual constructive manner when he has had time to reflect. I believe that it contains another major step in the right direction. We do not believe in the concept of rights in the sense that it was embraced in the Bill. We prefer to tackle the key issues affecting the lives of disabled people in a practical, workmanlike and affordable manner. We will continue that approach.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his own abhorrence of discrimination is widely recognised and appreciated and that it is welcome that the Government are undertaking consultation? But will he further accept that the extent of the consultation needs to be increased and that it must be conducted, so to speak, without prejudice?
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government owe it to all of us who are concerned about this immensely important issue to make a balanced and realistic analysis of the benefits as well as the costs to the economy, and that it will not do to assert again in the consultation document that the cost of anti-discrimination legislation is £17 billion? We appear to have a dialogue of the deaf in this regard—not with my right hon. Friend, but with the economic Departments.
  Will my right hon. Friend accept that the consultation needs to cover all the relevant fields and that it is for the Government to lead in the introduction of legislation to establish civil rights for disabled people on a comprehensive basis as a decent society requires, while safeguarding the reasonable interests of employers and service providers?
  Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks and I appreciate his concern. I sought to set out in the statement what we have identified as the key issues. However, it will be open to those who read the consultative document to respond on a range of matters affecting the lives of disabled people. The document contains some assessment of the costs that flow from action in these spheres and, if we move in due course to relevant legislation, compliance cost assessments will be introduced.
  I understand the point that my hon. Friend has raised more than once about the need to balance costs with the benefits that might flow to society.

  1301
  Manifestly, it is more difficult to quantify those benefits in financial terms than to quantify the costs, but undoubtedly there are benefits from greater employment of disabled people and from putting greater purchasing power into the hands of disabled people. That purchasing power can then flow out. We ought to recognise those: to quantify them is a much more difficult task.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is not the Minister still up the river without a paddle? Does he recall my hour-long meeting with the Prime Minister, when it was made clear that the Government could not accept any Bill on this subject with cost implications? Is that still his policy?
  Is he aware that the promoters of the civil rights Bill have consulted very widely already? Indeed, is he aware that, ever since I first published the Bill in 1991, the response has been strongly positive? Is he also aware that it would be a further and gross betrayal of Britain's 6.5 million disabled people to abandon a Bill which they say is so crucially important to them, and which has a parliamentary majority? Will there be a debate in this House on the document on an amendable motion?
  Mr. Scott: It is certainly not open to me to deal with the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no doubt that he can make his views known in other quarters.
  The manifest flaw in the approach taken by the Bill which we recently discussed is that the costs that were inherent in it were unquantifiable and unpredictable. It is important when the Government come to legislate that they have a clear view not only about the costs that they intend to accept themselves but about those that they intend to impose on business and other providers in our society. That was not taken into account by the Opposition in their approach to the issue. I believe that to create a concept of some over-arching right for disabled people leads one all to easily into the dangers that we have observed in other such legislation.
  Mr. Sheerman: Name one.
  Mr. Scott: I look particularly—I make no criticism of anyone involved in the process—
  Mr. Sheerman: Pregnant ex-service women.
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will let me complete the sentence—yes, precisely that. I find few people in my constituency who do not react with astonishment and dismay to the prospect of pregnant ex-service women receiving grants and compensation vastly in excess of those serving members of the armed forces who have been injured in the course of their duties.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement, which is welcomed on the Conservative Benches as a positive way forward for providing additional opportunities for Britain's disabled people. I particularly welcome his proposals for the Government's own lead. The Government are a big player as an employer. I urge my right hon. Friend to produce the action checklist and act on it as soon as possible.
  Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose record in disability matters is well known and highly
  1302
  respected. As I said in my statement, if we are to encourage others to take action in this important area, the Government must set a lead and an example.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Is the Minister aware that, although his statement is all very well and good, it does not go far enough? Disabled people want to have their civil rights entrenched in law. They want to be treated like ordinary human beings, because that is what they are.
  Why are there no details about transport in the statement? The Minister says that he wants to get more disabled people into employment. Does he not realise that without accessible transport, they cannot get to that employment? He mentioned action in the document. Is he now saying that education and persuasion have not worked?
  Mr. Scott: No—I do not agree with the hon. Lady's last point. Increasingly, in terms not only of physical provision but of attitudes towards disabled people, we have made a great deal of progress. However, I recognise that I would not be making this statement today if I did not recognise that we needed to do better and go further in the future.
  In a way, I believe that transport has been a good example of how significant progress has been made in recent years without the need for some over-arching legislation. On the railways, all new rolling stock is now accessible for disabled people. We already have in London and in other parts of the country pilot projects for properly accessible buses.
  All new taxis in London have to be accessible to wheelchairs, and 80 other local authorities around the country are following the same rules that were started in London. Anyone who looks at what has happened in terms of accessible transport in Britain over the 10 years should recognise the substantial progress that has been made.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is it not a parliamentary fact that private Members' Bills are frail craft, ill suited for highly controversial and expensive legislation? I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on presenting a document that talks in terms of what is practical and affordable. I congratulate him on getting money out of the Treasury for that purpose at a difficult time.
  Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has also contributed a great deal on disability matters. [Interruption.] We shall have to see. This is a consultation document. I know that it may be an unfamiliar concept to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to publish suggestions and then listen to what people outside have to say about them. We will listen to the representations that are made to us and then make firm decisions on the way forward.
  Mr. Roger Berry: I thank the Minister for giving me, as the most recent promoter of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, early sight of his statement and the consultation document. There have been many such Bills, and I hope that it will not be necessary for there to be many more.
  Will the Minister acknowledge that the very reason why he has made the statement here this morning is that there is overwhelming support throughout the country for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? If the Minister is saying that the Government cannot accept the principle of rights-based legislation, will he tell please tell the House

  1303
  why neither he nor any of his colleagues voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and why he did not oppose a single clause of the Bill in Committee?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the one option for progress that has the overwhelming majority support of Members of this House is, indeed, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? In the spirit of consultation —I share his view that it is necessary to consult—will the Minister circulate with his documents for consultation the one proposal that a majority of Members of Parliament are on record as supporting?
  Mr. Scott: I recognise the proprietorial interest that the hon. Gentleman has in his piece of legislation.
  Mr. Sheerman: Don't be so patronising.
  Mr. Scott: I am not being patronising. I genuinely understand the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the concept behind his Bill. I do not happen to agree, and the Government do not agree, that it is the way forward. I believe that much of the swell of support for his Bill came about because of a general wish in our society to meet the needs of disabled people. I believe that, when people understand what we propose in a practical and affordable manner, they will support us in the work that we are doing, and look forward to the action that will flow from the process.
  Mr. Roger Sims: I commend my right hon. Friend for both the tone and the content of his statement, and for the positive steps that he has taken in issuing the consultation document. It is far more in character than his attitude to the private Member's Bill, which some of us found rather disappointing, and which seemed to alternate between ambivalence and a negative approach. Will he assure me that, during the consultation process, full account will be taken of the needs and problems of those who suffer what has been described as the invisible disability—the deaf and hard of hearing?
  Mr. Scott: It will certainly be our intention to take account of those needs as we go forward. I hope that the House as a whole, rather than harking back to the approach of the Bill so recently discussed, will look forward in a constructive way to the future. Anyone who has held my job knows that the largest group of disabled people n our society is the deaf and hard of hearing. We will certainly not neglect their needs.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In his reference to the financial aspects and how disabled people could have access to finance, the Minister referred to the "main forms" of disability. Does that mean that he is talking about the categorisation of disability? Disability comes in many forms, and each is distressing, and we certainly would not like to see any categorisation. As to monitoring discrimination, the Minister indicated that a much closer watch will be kept on that. Who will be appointed to do the monitoring and to whom will they be accountable? Finally, what budget limit has been placed on the exercise by the Treasury?
  Mr. Scott: It would clearly be wrong to go into the consultation process with some predetermined financial limit on what action might follow, and no such thing has been done. We will be going out genuinely to consult on the proposals in the document, and then looking to see what action can be taken. We do not enter this with
  1304
  predetermined attitudes, and we look forward to receiving and involving all the organisations of and for disabled people, as well as hon. Members. Of course, we are not forgetting that there are many other people whose businesses and other activities will be affected by any legislation that we pass in this sensitive area.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement successfully balances the special needs of disabled people with the reasonable ability of a Government to pay, unlike the past rhetoric of Opposition Members?
  Mr. Scott: I am sure that that is right; it is the correct approach for us to take in this area. Having said that, I am convinced—I am sure that all those who have held my post are convinced—that there is still discrimination against disabled people. Of course, this involves some expenditure, but it also involves changing many people's attitudes towards disabled people and recognising the immense untapped potential there still is for disabled people to contribute in a whole variety of ways to our society.
  Mr. Tom Cox: The credibility among disabled people of the consultation that the Minister wants will depend on what happens after that consultation. The Minister referred to the three-month period. Can he tell the House a little more about what will happen?
  Will there be a Bill, or will there be a debate initiated by the Government, which would give hon. Members a proper opportunity to discuss all the points raised in the consultation? If that is the case, can he assure the House that we will not be treated as we were, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was, over the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when we did not have a proper allocation of time? May we have an assurance that, after the consultation, something constructive will happen and there will be adequate time for the House to discuss that?
  Mr. Scott: I would not have produced a document, as I have today, unless I was looking forward to positive action following the consultation process. I very much hope that, during the three-month period, we will get a good and positive response to the ideas in the document. Legislation is referred to in the document. We will have to see how to carry that work forward when we return.
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty in this saga is not a question of principle but the practical application to help the disabled, in which he has such a singularly distinguished record? Is there not a stark contrast between the practical help offered by the Government in the instant help given to those on the disability living allowance introduced by this Government, compared to the Labour Government's mobility allowance introduced in 1976, which was phased in over a long period? Does that not demonstrate the differences between posturing and practical application?
  Mr. Scott: Of course, Labour Governments suffer when they seek to introduce measures in this area—and, indeed, in a whole range of other areas—from their total and proven inability to run a successful economy. The controls of the International Monetary Fund always play a significant part in their activities.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the reality that the Government have been dragged kicking, screaming and protesting into introducing the consultation document? May I take the Minister back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), about what might happen in terms of legislation? May we have an assurance that, in so far as the consultation period ends in three months' time, at the end of October, we will have legislation before July next year? I give the Minister notice that Labour will seek substantially to amend that legislation if it does not meet our objectives.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not in a position to give that assurance, but I can tell him that we are approaching the consultative exercise, on which we are now embarking, in a positive way, and looking forward to a positive outcome as a result.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not the only pathetic thing about the statement this morning the ridiculous rant of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and the fact that so many Labour Members have singularly failed to welcome what is an important step forward for the disabled?
  Is it not a fact that this Government have achieved more for the disabled than the Labour party could ever have dreamt of 15 years ago? Is it not both presumptuous and impertinent for Labour Members to arrogate to themselves the monopoly of caring for the disabled, and the belief that they have the only practical and sensible system for achieving the sort of end for the disabled that all of us in the House want?
  Mr. Scott: With his long experience of advocacy and presenting effective cases, I do not think that I can do better than simply say that I agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: If, as the Minister said, the costs of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill are unquantifiable, how have the figures which I have heard, which range from £15 billion to £18 billion, been arrived at, and why was there no detailed definition of such costs in the Bill? Further, with whom will the Minister consult? All we have heard from Tory Members is an attitude to the disabled which suggests that they are constantly looking for patronising help. It is not help the disabled want; it is civil rights.
  Mr. Scott: The document is being distributed across the whole range of those who are interested in this matter. Of course, it involves the organisations of and for disabled people, as well as hon. Members. It will also be of particular interest to those on whom any costs may fall, either in the public or the private sector. I look forward to receiving a whole range of views about the way forward, but the Government certainly intend to approach the matter in a constructive and forward-looking manner.
  Dr. Ian Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today and for the opportunity it gives the country as a whole for constructive consultation on this matter. Is he aware that the 60 per cent. increase in funding for the London dial-a-ride has been warmly welcomed in London since the demise of the Greater London council? Is that not a good example of how the Government have taken positive and constructive action
  1306
  throughout their time in office to help disabled people and not relied on adding burdens on industry which may in fact harm the interests of disabled people?
  Mr. Scott: The whole point of the consultation document is to be able to balance a whole range of factors —some leaning one way, some another way. I certainly reinforce my admiration for the progress that we have made in terms of dial-a-ride. But in a whole range of other areas, surely those who have open rather than closed minds recognise the tremendous progress that has been made over the past 15 years.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Does the Minister recall that, when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was discussed in the House, assurances were given by the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who is now the Secretary of State for Health, that the advocacy provisions in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 were overtaken by the provisions in the 1990 Act? Obviously, that is now nonsense to all disabled people in the country.
  The Minister made no mention whatever of advocacy provisions this morning. What steps will the Government take within the review to ensure that proper advocacy provisions for disabled persons are introduced in Britain?
  Mr. Scott: Manifestly, those matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and, undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity to raise that matter with her. We certainly do not want closely to define the consultative process on the document. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has points that are relevant to it, he is welcome to put them forward.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend talked about financial services and suggested that a code of voluntary practice is appropriate. Given the change in those financial services, that is probably better than primary legislation. In his discussions with the industry, and bearing in mind the fact that one of our larger institutions recently had to withdraw some of its employees from work because it got the guidelines wrong, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidelines, when they are issued, receive wide publicity and are aimed at customers of those financial institutions?
  In addition, will my right hon. Friend stress to the industry the fact that, should it decide to place additional sums on a client's costs because he or she is disabled, it will have to be demonstrably proven that that extra cost relates to the disability and that there is a strong reason why such a cost should not be absorbed generally within the services?
  Mr. Scott: I am sure that my hon. Friend's latter point will be taken seriously by those who take part in the consultation—the organisations that represent banking, insurance and building societies.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The document contains few international comparisons, which does not surprise me. In 1981, I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament for the International Year of the Disabled, which involved making comparisons between European countries on the situation of disabled people. At that time, the United Kingdom was very near the bottom of the pile

  1307
  on rights for disabled people, and it is still at the bottom of the pile. This document is the mark of a weak Minister, who has failed to make his case with the Treasury.
  On the quota system, it has been suggested that the system ought to be voluntary. In other European countries, a financial levy is imposed on employers who do not meet the quota system. The Minister should consider that carefully, as its strength has already been established. The Department of Employment is one of the few Government Departments to have reached its 3 per cent. quota. Is he suggesting that, if there is a voluntary scheme, Departments will be able to throw the quota system out of the window?
  Mr. Scott: I described earlier the new actions being taken throughout the civil service to encourage the employment and retention of disabled people. We will be approaching that matter very positively throughout Government.
  The hon. Lady's recollection of the pattern of provision in other European countries may or may not be correct. I have visited a number of them since I was given my present responsibilities. In this country, we have nothing to be ashamed of in our provision for disabled people. She mentioned the concept of imposing a levy on employers if they fail to reach their quota, as happens in one or two European countries. Many employers in those countries prefer to pay the levy rather than employ a disabled person.
  Mrs. Angela Knight: As part of his consultation, will my right hon. Friend explore better ways to promote best practice and effective practical help, such as the excellent decision by Trent Buses, which operates in my constituency, to replace its existing bus fleet with so-called "kneeling buses", to the great benefit of disabled people and the elderly?
  Mr. Scott: I very much agree. Opposition Members often deride good practice as an ineffective approach. Of course I recognise that law has to play a part in our approach to meeting disabled people's needs, but I am sure that good practice, and a deeper understanding of the contribution that disabled people can make and the extent to which we can voluntarily overcome obstacles to their doing so—in a way that encourages good practice—also have an important part to play.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am now going to bring questions on the statement to a close. Hon. Members will understand that we shall be returning to the subject of disability. Today is the last day for private Members' Bills and I cannot deny those Members with Bills on the Order Paper the opportunity to reach their Bills.

  Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported. without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  11.43 am
  Mr. George Kynoch: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This is an important measure, which has received all-party support in this House and in the other place. In the Standing Committee, I welcomed the support given by the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) here on behalf of the Scottish National party.
  The Bill would introduce changes to fisheries legislation to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to control all fishing activities in inshore waters, where it seems to him that such control is necessary to preserve stocks, or prevent disputes between fishermen using different and incompatible types of fishing gear.
  Those powers are already available to my right hon. Friend where fishing is conducted from fishing vessels. The recent growth in land-based dredging operations, however, has allowed a coach and horses to be driven through the control measures that Parliament put in place in the Inshore Fishing Act 1984. That has meant that the full weight of stock conservation has fallen on one group of fishermen who are prosecuting the stock in question. There is broad agreement in Scotland that that is inequitable, and I believe that the House will share that view.
  It is clear that the law should be changed to ensure that all who profit from an activity also contribute to the long-term survival of the resources that they are using. Only by that means can real sustainability be assured. Developments in other parts of the fishing industry have shown that sustainability can be difficult enough to achieve when all concerned are contributing to sensible conservation measures. It is clear that, without that solution, no conservation measures will work. If there is no conservation, there will be no long-term industry.
  The problems of land dredging arise in many parts of Scotland, but the activity has proved most worrying on the Solway firth. That is partly because of the vast sandbanks that are exposed at low tide. They often stretch as far as the eye can see—about three or four miles. The sandbanks are ideal for populations of cockles and, in recent years, a fishery has developed to extract them.
  In the beginning, a small number of local vessels adapted their fishing equipment to take cockles, but, as increasing numbers of tractors also joined in the fishery, it became evident that the cockle stocks were diminishing. That reduction was brought about and aggravated by the situation across the sea in Holland, where the Dutch Waddensee cockle fishery closed in 1992. Some of the Dutch fishermen decided to come to Scotland to prosecute the stocks there.
  The hydraulic suction dredgers used are tractor-drawn. That is a highly efficient method of harvesting cockles, but unfortunately the dredgers sort, and almost entirely remove, cockles of a certain age and size, which significantly reduces the biomass of stocks within a site.

  1309
  The survival of the remaining cockles is good only if they are left undisturbed. Unfortunately, with that method of extraction, they are not.
  Dredging has an impact not only on cockles, but on the other flora and fauna found in the sea bed. The magnitude of that impact will depend on the frequency of dredging, on the depth at which it occurs and on whether the fauna is able to move away from the site of disturbance. The damage is significant environmentally and has an impact on the life of the sea bed.
  The stock reduction may in part have resulted from entirely natural fluctuations in stock levels. I understand that cockle stocks are especially vulnerable to large fluctuations in their numbers. I do not intend to go into details of the reproductive cycle of a cockle—
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to go into the sex life of a mollusk—exciting or dull though that may be. The obverse, however, is that, when sensible conservation measures are taken, the refreshment of stocks can be very rapid for precisely the same reason.
  Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend raises a valid point, but he will recognise that the reductions that can occur naturally and through the aggravated process of dredging mean that it is necessary to have conservation measures, and that is what the Bill is about.
  I was talking about natural fluctuations, which are a part of the natural biology of the cockle. It is clearly a factor within which fishermen have to work and, as my hon. Friend said, they must take cognisance of it. It is not impossible that some of the falling stock levels were due to natural and environmental reasons, entirely unrelated to either the land-based or vessel-based dredging activities. However, surveys of the cockle beds showed beyond doubt that the population had shrunk considerably.
  Because of that, my hon. Friend the Minister had to judge whether the existing levels of fishing could safely continue, given the changing size of the cockle stock. A letter put out by the Scottish Office on 10 June 1993 referred to the stocks situation in Solway:
  "Updated scientific assessment of cockle stocks in the Solway have just become available. These indicate that the biomass has improved slightly from its low in 1991…though stocks remain well below the 197m per square km detected in 1990. However much of the latest increase stems from good spat settlement in 1992 and these very young cockles form a very high proportion of the total stock biomass. Stock assessments of older cockles indicate a steady and continuing decline… After two poor years, the good spat settlement in 1992 is encouraging. However, the exploitable stock biomass remains at very low levels and is, in fact, below the level at which the fishery was closed last year."
  As result of the statistics, the Minister extended the fishery's closure beyond July 1993 and has said that it will remain closed until August 1994. I understand that he has renewed that closure, because the situation is still poor. Of course, that applies only to vessels which fish from the sea.
  It was at the point when my hon. Friend acted that local vessel owners pressed him and the Scottish Office to control the activities of all cockle fishermen, to make sure that sufficient population levels remain for stocks to regenerate themselves. They fully realised that they would have to be affected by any controls as well and their motivation was not to put an end to land-based dredging while they continued regardless. They accepted that, in the
  1310
  absence of powers to control tractor dredgers, it would be themselves alone who would have to stop fishing, at least in the short term.
  I applaud the fishermen for the responsible attitude that they have shown to stock conservation and I also sympathise with them because they have had to suffer one-sided controls for so long. I know that they are eagerly awaiting the completion of the Bill and that they are equally eager for the powers to be used as soon as possible, to bring all fishing activities under the existing controls. I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about how he envisages the powers being used and how quickly and effectively they can be brought in.
  Concerns have also been raised by other interest groups. Cockles are an important foodstuff for many coastal bird populations. The south-west of Scotland is particularly rich in bird wintering and nesting areas. It is not the only part of Scotland which is affected by the measure and which has cockle areas.
  I received information from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—it has been extremely helpful in the preparation of the details of the Bill and in providing background information to myself and colleagues who have approached it—that cockling areas that are of international importance for wild birds include not only the Solway but Dornoch firth, Cromarty firth and Otterswick in Orkney.
  The areas are spread throughout Scotland and while the problem at present exists only in the Solway firth, it is likely that it could be aggravated, and could spread to other parts of Scotland. The Press and Journal of 28 April 1992 states:
  "Pirates plunder Tain shellfish".
  Tractor dredgers must have already got up to that part of Scotland.
  The activities of tractor dredgers and, to some extent, other fishing activities, obviously upset the fragile balance which exists within the eco-system. In particular, dredging activities conducted at low tide can disturb roosting birds during the winter months, as well as the foreshore when it is exposed or covered with shallower water than would be the case with vessel dredgers. That means that overturned sand that has been left to dry out could have a serious impact on many other marine organisms that live in the same stratum of the foreshore as cockles.
  If there are not enough cockles for birds to eat, they can starve to death. In the Dutch situation to which I have referred, there was a significant death rate among the eider ducks that fed in that area. Undersized cockles that are returned to the sea as part of the process of suction dredging are less likely to survive if they are returned to parts of the beach that have dried out.
  On the other hand, vessel dredgers return small shellfish to the sea bed while they are still covered in water and that allows them to burrow easily back into the sand. Another clear impact on local bird populations—this applies equally to vessel dredgers and tractors—is caused by the fact that the number of cockles remaining for local bird populations is reduced. It must be obvious that that may have an impact on breeding success and can in extreme cases lead to the short-term survival of adult birds.
  The House knows that much of rural Scotland has outstanding beauty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to hear my hon. Friends from south of the border

  1311
  agreeing with that; may many more of them come to see the beauties of Scotland. In particular, they may like to see the beauties of the Solway firth.
  The countryside is a valuable natural resource in its own right, but it is also of inestimable value in attracting tourists to areas that otherwise would have limited means of income generation. Tourists come for a wide variety of reasons, but one is to see the wild animals and birds that thrive in those areas. Any potential impact on birds would therefore be worrying in its own right, but could also have an impact on the long-term income generated from the tourism industry.
  The Annandale Herald of Thursday 3 December says:
  "Scottish Office environment minister, Sir Hector Monro, announced international conservation designations for the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes this week. The site, which straddles the Scottish/English border, has been made a Special Protection Area for Birds and a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar convention."
  People will come to visit the Solway firth not just to see the bird life but to experience the peace and quiet which is so natural there. I know that the RSPB has circulated hon. Members with photographs of what the beach at the Solway firth looks like with the monstrosities of tractors and dredgers. There is a man in the photograph and it clearly shows that the suction dredger is more than double the size of that man. These objects go charging up and down the beach, ripping it to pieces, and they have an effect on the peace and quiet of the area.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The measures that the hon. Gentleman is proposing are generally thought to be constructive. Is it not all the more a pity that, the last time they came before the House, they were caught up in the disreputable attempts by his hon. Friends to delay and stop discussion of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is not the point that we should take from this that constructive measures such as these should not become a part of the tactics used in this place to stop other hon. Members' constructive measures?
  Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman had been present on that occasion, he might understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) raised valuable points about the problems related to ownership of the tractors and leasing commitments. He raised valid points about which there was concern and he contributed significantly to highlighting the importance of the details of the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Luff: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that the only reason that the Bill failed to complete its Committee stage on that day was that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) called an unnecessary Division, which meant that the Bill was lost.
  Mr. Kynoch: I agree; that is why I want to ensure that we get the Bill through today.
  I do not believe that all land-based dredging need necessarily be prohibited, but it must be controlled. That will ensure a proper balance between it and other types of fishing. The powers in the Bill will be used to ensure an overall balance between fishing activities generally and the flora and fauna that would be affected by any activity.
  Land-based dredging techniques are in their infancy and I do not believe that anyone can say at this stage that that activity must be curtailed for ever more throughout Scotland and at all times of the year. It is important,
  1312
  however, to ensure that the Minister has flexible powers available to use in whatever way is necessary in the circumstances that face him. In this case, he should have the power to address the anomaly whereby conservation measures affect those who fish from vessels, while, unfortunately, they must watch as tractors on the beach continue to deplete the stocks of cockles.
  The Bill has, therefore, been carefully drafted to allow seasonal controls and for those controls to apply to certain parts of the coastline only—for example, in areas of particular sensitivity to bird life. That flexibility is similar to the powers already available in the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 in relation to vessels. Those powers have worked well in the past 10 years and it can only be right that, when the Act is extended, similar flexibility should exist in its revised coverage.
  The Bill has support from both sides of the House and from all fishing organisations. I was speaking to Bob Allan, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, just last night and he reconfirmed his support for the Bill. I therefore believe that it should reach the statute book and pass into law as quickly as possible.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) once again raised the canard about why a number of Conservative Members are keen to speak about the Bill. I will not weary him once again with an account of those reasons; I simply refer him to column 1039 of the Official Report of 20 May, which gives a full and adequate account of our concerns about the Bill.
  Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) did not realise what he was saying when he referred to my non-attendance on 20 May. I am sure that, on reflection, he will recall that that was the day of John Smith's funeral and will want to withdraw his imputation.
  Mr. Luff: I will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) if he wishes to help to clear up this matter.
  Mr. Kynoch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had been here on that day, he would have realised that we were sympathetic about the fact that Opposition Members were not present. I was not implying anything about his absence, but he was suggesting that that sensible debate had been totally unnecessary. If he had read Hansard fully, he would have appreciated that the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) were valid. I do not want to imply that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was absent through lack of interest and if that is what I did imply, I do not want it to be on the record.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that those mutual explanations will suffice for the moment. Can we now get back to the Third Reading?
  Mr. Luff: I agree entirely with your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The two basic themes behind the Bill are environmental and economic. One deals with protecting birds and the other with protecting the activities of responsible fishermen. Both those needs are extremely urgent. It is my

  1313
  great regret that we were unable to give the Bill its Third Reading on 20 May, so that it could reach the statute book. Conservative Members, at least, know the reason for that.
  There is an urgent need to act. I should like to quote from a leaflet entitled "The Solway Firth" produced by English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage. It states:
  "Today the Solway's highly productive and largely unchanged environment continues to play a key role in many people's lives. With careful management, some of the more traditional means of earning a living such as those in the fishing industry may contribute to the local economy for a long time to come. At the same time the relatively unspoilt coastline with its combination of mudflat, rocky shore, sea cliff and sandy beach is attracting new commercial activities that include tourism, bird-watching and industrial development.
  To manage all the Solway's rich resources wisely so that they are still there for future generations to enjoy and use, will require a careful balancing of all present and future needs."
  That sums up the purpose that lies behind the Bill.
  About 19 months ago, the Scottish Office announced enhanced protection for the upper Solway firth. On 10 December 1992, the Galloway News quoted the Dairy-based RSPB conservation officer for Dumfries and Galloway, Chris Rollie, as saying:
  "The RSPB are delighted that the Government has at last recognised the international importance of the Solway and we hope that this will increase the impetus for proper regulation of the cockle industry, for example, to take account of the internationally important birds and other wildlife."
  On 5 May, The Herald contained a long report on concerns about marine pollution and human activities, particularly as they affect bird life. It reported David Dick, the RSPB's species protection officer as saying,
  "points to 75,000 seabird deaths along Scotland's East coast in February. Scientists are fairly sure the birds died from starvation. They suspect bad weather played a part. But the scale of the deaths has confounded them.
  Mr. Dick is also concerned at the increases of some bird populations and the decreases of others. It all points to further signs of an eco-system tilting out of balance.
  'It shows just how little we know about how the sea works' he says."
  I underline those points. I am sure that hon. Members will have noted Mr. Dick's observation that starvation on the other side of Scotland may have played a part in the deaths of those sea birds. The Bill is aimed at preventing that fate.
  In the same article, Bob Allan, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, is reported as saying:
  "fishermen are all in favour of participating in campaigns to sustain a healthy marine population, but he warns that they are being locked into 'a straitjacket of bureaucracy'—of regulations and directives from Brussels.
  'The last thing we want is a whole new set of rules,' he says. 'If they are coming to talk to us as fishermen about ways we can help them to sustain bird population and other forms of marine life, fine. But they have to appreciate that the industry is in many ways fighting for survival.'"
  Against that background, the federation's support for the Bill is all the more admirable.
  Controls are urgently required to protect not just birds but, as the quote from The Herald suggests, fishermen. Fish Trader of 5 to 18 March states:
  "Cockle beds in the Solway have also been closed and new by-laws are proposed for the Dee. Fortunately cockle stocks in the Burry Inlet, South Wales have been protected by a strict quota system and the fishery, centred on Penclawdd, remains productive.
  Ups and downs in stock levels are typical in this fishery and cockle beds can regenerate quickly after a good `spatfall'."
  That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside. The article continues:
  1314
  "But many fishermen fear the cockle bonanza will be over unless stricter controls are introduced soon to protect the declining stocks."
  In other words, this is a problem not just for the Solway firth and for Scotland but for the entire United Kingdom. That is why I am here, representing an English constituency.
  My first question to the Minister is the same as that posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside. How soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent will its provisions be enacted? The need for action is urgent. In a recent letter to me, the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland said that, because we had lost the Bill more than a month ago, part of this season's stock has already been lost to effective protection. How quickly does he intend to introduce the measures in the Bill?
  I have also received a series of specific questions from the RSPB, some of which I have written to the Minister about. He has been kind enough to reply in writing. As part of the RSPB's new and welcome marine life campaign, it published a document earlier this year, entitled, "Recommendations for the Protection of Seabirds' Marine Habitats", in which it spoke about the need to establish protected sea areas under United Kingdom law. It states:
  "Biological targets should be established to judge the success or failure of management. Depending upon the objectives in protecting a site, targets could be in terms of richness of the seabed invertebrate community, fish stock characteristics or wildlife populations.
  There must be a basis in law for managing all activities, even existing rights which are not compatible with site management objectives. Fisheries authorities must have proactive powers to manage fishing activities, both in the interest of the fishery and for ensuring fishing in an area is compatible with other uses of the site.
  The Government is being called upon to protect marine wildlife and fisheries from various threats, such as tankers, offshore development etc. A coherent programme for identifying sites needing protection and controlling threats must be established by the Government, rather than the current ad hoc site protection measures."
  The Bill is welcome—I hope that it will receive the approval of the House—but it is an ad hoc measure in respect of the RSPB's overall marine life campaign. Under the new European habitats and species directive, the Government are obliged to designate and protect coastal and marine areas, including the Solway, Cromarty firth and the Severn estuary, rather nearer to my constituency of Worcester.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would say whether a decision has been made on which coastal and marine areas should be designated under the habitats and species directive and what new measures will be introduced to control fishing in such areas. The Association of District Councils in England and Wales and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have asked repeatedly for certain activities below low-water mark, including fish farming, to be brought within the jurisdiction of local authorities. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister would repeat what he said to me in his letter about the intention of legislation to extend the jurisdiction of local authorities below the low-water mark.
  The regulatory mechanism for fisheries in Scotland is determined by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, and in England and Wales fisheries regulations are determined at local level by sea

  1315
  fisheries committees. Will my hon. Friend comment on an intention to introduce sea fisheries committees in Scotland?
  I also press my hon. Friend the Minister about the levels of fine in the original 1984 legislation which are not addressed in the Bill. The levels are referred to in section 4(2), which states:
  "Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or, on conviction on indictment, to a fine."
  Does my hon. Friend regard those fines as truly adequate 10 years after the original Bill? Was consideration given, in advising my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside, to the need to uprate those fines to provide an effective deterrent?
  Several amendments that I have tabled have not been selected for debate. I do not challenge your decision on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances about the issues that those amendments address, particularly the advice that is given to fisheries officers. The unselected amendments deal with reasonableness in enforcement. I seek a simple assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that fisheries officers are advised to act reasonably at all times.
  We know that the federation supports the Bill—hon. Members heard me quote the article in The Herald—and we heard of the federation's concern about the straitjacket of regulation and bureaucracy that it considers that it suffers from and the fight for survival that it is engaged in. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that we must not harass fishermen unnecessarily. Fisheries protection vessels—one of my family has served as a fisheries protection officer, so I know something of the subject—can engage in fairly intimidating tactics to stop illegal fishing. They can fire blanks, they can call up a frigate, they can buzz a vessel with a helicopter, and so on. Long chases can be quite exciting experiences. I hope that, at the end of a chase, there is no temptation to vindictiveness on the part of fisheries officers.
  What would constitute unreasonableness? An intimidatory approach to searching individuals or cabins, excessive intrusions into privacy and so on all need to be considered. The Bill confers remarkable powers on fisheries officers—powers which I am sure that officers use with discretion. The House will be a little surprised to know that—I say this with no sense of flippancy—this is the only legislation that confers on fisheries protection officers, and sometimes naval officers, an absolute right to ask a pretty girl to submit to a strip search without giving any reason whatsoever. That might be a fanciful example of the powers in the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister will have to concede that it is factually correct. I hope that he will be able to assure me that the guidance given to fisheries protection officers deals fully with that point.
  This is an important Bill for Scotland; the issues that it raises are important for the whole of the United Kingdom. I commend it to the House.
  12.14 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on introducing this subject. It is obviously greatly important to him and to other Scottish Members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has raised the matter throughout the country. My eight-year-old son, who is a member of the RSPB, has brought the matter to my
  1316
  attention in the way in which only small children can, and he will no doubt do so in respect of other environmental subjects.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), who obviously has an in-depth knowledge of the subject. I should be interested to learn the answer to his question about strip searching and whether it is true or nothing more than a fishy tale.
  I represent a land-locked constituency, but my constituents are not land locked; they travel widely—for example, to Scotland and to other parts of the country. I am conscious from their comments on this and many other environmental subjects just how such issues are becoming increasingly important to everybody, wherever they may live. There is a need for conservation. There is also a need for people to be able to go about their normal course of business and earn their livelihoods. Often, there is considerable tension between those two requirements, but I suspect that that is not the case in respect of the Bill, as the intention is to do in Scotland what has already been done in England and Wales. Often, Scottish Members complain that legislation is introduced first in Scotland and then later in England and Wales. This legislation mirrors what already exists in England and Wales or can be implemented in England and Wales.
  There has been an advance in cockle fishing techniques since the introduction of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. I suspect that it was not visualised then that cockle fishing could take place in other ways—for example, tractor dredging, which can be very destructive not only for cockle fisheries but for estuaries generally. I have always understood cockling to be a traditional activity in many estuaries in Scotland, England and Ireland. We all recall the song that we learned at school —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it."] I will not sing it, but it goes something like, "In Dublin's fair city, where the maids are so pretty". I am sure that hon. Members can finish the first verse for me.
  The tensions and difficulties arise not in the traditional activity of cockling but in the suction dredging technique, which the Bill would control. An extremely disturbing survey undertaken by the university of Aberdeen showed that heavy exploitation by whatever technique of such fishing would result in, perhaps, a short-lived, high-yielding fishery but then periods when stocks were too low to support a viable fishery. Those who indulge in such techniques ruin the livelihoods of others.
  The problem occurs elsewhere. Disturbing reports have been brought to my attention, in particular one in The Independent in June 1993. It was reported that more than 20 men were travelling the country in search of cockles and were using two articulated trucks, tractors and an all-terrain vehicle, and that they were attempting to take cockles from an estuary in Wales. The problem is more widespread than has been mentioned so far. The report goes on:
  "a local cockle picker said of incoming gatherers: 'They have no right to come here. We want to gather cockles here for the next 40 years and not just for a couple of weeks'."
  That demonstrates succinctly exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve. An article that appeared in a newspaper a few months earlier said that fast-moving pirates from the south of England are going to a bay in Scotland, which is rich in shellfish, to take the shellfish in a short period, thereby destroying the fishing there for the future.

  1317
  Clearly, tractor dredging is causing great disturbance. It is not only destroying normal fishing but causing many difficulties for other wildlife, particularly birds. Hon. Members will agree that it is much easier to destroy than to conserve, but it is essential for the future that measures be available so that conservation can be dealt with in a sympathetic, clear and coherent manner. I support the Bill.
  12.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is surprising that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who criticised hon. Members who wanted to speak in this debate for filibustering to keep out another Bill, has vanished now that the discussion is under way.
  It is a pleasure to discuss a Bill on conservation, as we rarely have an opportunity to discuss conservation relating to a matter that commands widespread support from both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said, this is an important Bill. As an English Member, I step into this debate somewhat reluctantly as I want to discuss the Solway firth, which the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), knows like the back of his hand. If I make an incorrect statement about it, I am sure that he will correct me immediately. I know the Solway because it is near my constituency. It is a wonderful part of the country and its estuary is of unique value to the landscape and wildlife of the British Isles, so it needs careful protection.
  The area is also popular among tourists who go there to see the wildlife and landscape. I know of only one tourist who did not like the area. He was a local man called Paul Jones, who went on to become the commander-in-chief of the Confederate Navy during the American civil war and was responsible for the last invasion of these islands. Funnily enough, the area that he chose to invade was Kircudbright which is on the Solway, and he bombarded the town. So that tourist went back to the area with an evil intention.
  The protection of wildlife in the area through the control of the cockle fisheries is essential. Hon. Members may not know that the other side of the Solway is England, where cockle fishing has been controlled for many years. The English have a much better record on conservation than the Scots. For instance, we took off the salmon nets in about 1865, whereas the Scots still have the right to take salmon with nets on their side of the Solway. I believe that the Scots refused to take off their nets in the 19th century because they were frightened that Englishmen would come and steal their fish. So rather than have Englishmen steal their fish, they would fish it themselves, regardless of the conservation consequences. That is a typical Scottish attitude.
  The Scots had a fascinating way of catching salmon. I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a salmon is a little larger than a cockle, but it is linked by fishing. The Scots used to ride on horseback and spear the salmon in the shallow waters of the Solway, so there is a long history of fishing in that area.
  One of the problems faced by the Solway cockle is the change in status of the humble cockle. We have had a good discussion on the cockle this morning, although I was hoping to hear a little about its sex life. I read up on that
  1318
  interesting subject, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside rightly spared the House the intimate details. Whereas the cockle used to be eaten by Cockneys when they went to Southend-on-Sea, it has now moved up a scale and become a shellfish delicacy, particularly on the continent. Because the Dutch closed their cockle beds, the price of cockles has been forced up to such an extent that it has caused a bonanza for tractor dredgers on the Solway and other areas.
  I have visited the Solway at night [HON. MEMBERS: "What for?"] I confess that I went there for wildfowl.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend pursue a little further the interesting question of why the Dutch had to close their cockle beds? Was it because of the overfishing, which the Bill is designed to prevent in this country? Or was it for some other reason, such as disease, environmental damage or pollution, from which we could learn a useful lesson to safeguard the future of our cockle industry?
  Mr. Atkinson: I understand that it was because of pressure from environmentalists. Overfishing and the knock-on effect on bird life caused the Dutch Government to introduce regulations to ban cockle fishing in a substantial number of traditional cockle beds. The Dutch have a passion for fish and shellfish and are determined to buy it everywhere. Interestingly, Dutchmen are behind the tractor dredging industry on the Solway. Locals will confirm that, although the tractor dredgers are locals or southerners who come up to fish, they sell their cockles to Dutch merchants who wait in the area and pay large sums of cash for bags of cockles, which are rapidly moved overseas to Holland. There are also reports of Dutchmen using British-licensed boats to fish cockles in the sea. So the high prices and the increasing demand for cockles are problems faced by the poor mollusc.
  The effect on bird life has differed according to the species of bird. I am grateful to the RSPB, which has been helpful on this matter. Curiously, although the overfishing of cockles is causing a decline in most species, particularly wading birds, the population of the pintail seems to be going up, perhaps because it feeds on smaller cockles which sea fishermen are putting back into the water. I hope that, during the period of consultation that will follow the Bill's enactment, we can examine that phenomenon so that that problem can be dealt with.
  I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside on piloting it through the House. I wish it a speedy passage today and hope that it will be enacted as soon as possible so that the wildlife and traditions of the Solway firth may be preserved.
  12.27 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a few comments. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on promoting the Bill so effectively. It seeks to amend the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 to make provision for the control of fishing in Scottish inshore waters by vehicles or equipment. As my hon. Friend said, it brings the law in Scotland in line with that in England and Wales.
  Many threads in the Bill are being examined today. One thread involves the livelihoods of those affected by cockling and the decline in cockling stocks in the Solway

  1319
  firth area, the good husbandry of stocks for the future and the closing of loopholes that destroy those stocks. There is a broader environmental picture. We are talking about wildlife conservation, fisheries development, business and leisure, all of which have conflicting demands.
  The problem is not unique to Scotland. My hon. Friend referred to the experience of the Netherlands. Such was the decline of cockle stocks in the Waddensea, in the North sea in the Netherlands that a closure was made. That action was taken because birds in the area were consuming 13,500 tonnes of cockles per annum—more than the stock. That shows the importance of the cockle stocks, not only to individuals who wish to consume them, but to bird life.
  The Solway firth is an extremely important natural habitat, particularly for oyster catchers, knots and sea ducks, which eat cockles. The Solway firth is a natural habitat for many species of bird life. We must balance the needs of the bird life with the needs of fishermen who make their livelihoods in the area.
  I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair when I initiated an Adjournment debate on a landlocked subject—metal detecting, which causes big problems in my constituency. Due to that experience I empathise with those in the Solway firth area. Illegal metal detecting destroyed crops in my region—a phenomenon that is not dissimilar to the destruction of fishermen's livelihoods and the depletion of cockle stocks in areas such as the Solway firth. The environmental damage caused is similar and parallels can be made between the two—the spirit of the Bill is the same as the spirit behind that Adjournment debate.
  In 1985 and 1989, orders were introduced to make necessary adjustments to the 1984 Act. They stressed that fishermen should voluntarily restrict their actions. The Scottish Office displayed a willingness to be flexible. We now know that the cockle fisheries were closed and the ban has been further extended.
  Research was done in the "Netherlands Journal of Sea Research" in 1990 and it was found that considerable damage could be done and recovery could be quick. But it was found that if the action was repeated regularly, it caused irreparable ecological damage. Suction tractors are a new innovation and cause extensive damage when used on an unsustainable basis. The aim at the heart of the Bill is to prevent the terribly damaging effect of tractor dredging that undermines fishermen's livelihoods.
  Cockles landed in 1991 in the United Kingdom totalled 40,000 tonnes; by 1993, it was down to 20,000 tonnes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, cockles have ceased to be the staple food of cockneys and have become designer food in fashionable restaurants. It is not only the birds that have suffered from the lack of cockles, but people's wallets.
  The RSPB and Scottish Natural Heritage have pressed for the measure. The Solway firth is the largest continuous area of inter-tidal habitat in the United Kingdom and is a vital resting place for migratory birds. It is the winter home to many waders and wild fowl. Oyster catchers are particularly keen on eating cockles and 34,000 of them live in the Solway firth. In addition, there are many barnacle geese from Spitsbergen, as well as pink-footed geese. Some 120,000 different birds live in the Solway firth at different times and the ecological balance of that vital area of the United Kingdom is under threat from tractor
  1320
  dredging. The RSPB has pressed for the Bill, which has been introduced so successfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside.
  There is considerable resentment among local people at the activity of individuals who appear to own or operate the tractor dredgers. They are called dolers by some local people because they appear to operate in some sort of grey economy with their bull-nosed motor cycle tractors and they are regarded by traditional fishermen as fly-by-night operators with no sense of feeling or love for the sea and its bounty.
  The statistics are frightening. The tractors can collect 1.5 tonnes of cockles per hour. We know from research into rates of depletion how damaging that can be. The Bill exposes that unwelcome activity. It highlights the importance of a balance in marine life. Cockle stocks on the Solway firth dropped by about 80 per cent. between 1990 and 1992. That drop must be halted. The Bill will control tractor dredging and, in helping to ensure that cockle stocks are replenished, will play a vital part in the ecological balance in one of the most beautiful parts of these islands.
  12.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The Solway firth is well known to me—I often take family holidays there—and I have had the opportunity to see tractor dredgers in operation. Such a sight would destroy any romantic idea that one had as a child of shrimping or cockling. It looks more like opencast mining.
  The tractor dredgers are very efficient and quite ruthless in the way in which they take cockles from the surface and nothing much is left behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) mentioned that cockles that do not meet the necessary size requirement are cast aside. That is different from what happens on boats. Cockles are cast aside onto the beach. Whether the molluscs survive depends to a great extent on the state of the tide. In observing the tractors in operation, I did not take the view that I was watching an operation involving biodiversity or recycling in the sea.
  Given a good season, cockle beds quickly regenerate, but there must be an optimum level at which they cannot form. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Spring) talked about the Dutch experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) asked whether it was a question of disease or fishing. Therein lies one of the principal dangers of not passing the Bill. The nature of over fishing means that if a disease is introduced into cockle beds—which one hopes will not happen—the constitution of those cockle beds will make them less able to survive.
  We live in a constantly changing world. Cockle beds in the Wash in East Anglia, an area which I represent, have been out of action for a whole season, but fishing is about to restart. Cockling has been taking place in the Solway firth for generations and fishermen have adapted. They, too, operate a dredging system. We should not lose sight of the fact that sustainable communities in the Solway firth rely on fishing. Our fishing industry has diminished, but communities can survive, and we can look forward to their being there for the next 40 or 50 years. Communities rely on fishing and enjoy untold benefits from it which extend across the region.

  1321
  I do not take the xenophobic attitude that was perhaps displayed by some of my hon. Friends. I do not mind who eats the cockles, whether it is Scots, the Welsh, the English or even the Belgians—if I could differentiate between Belgians and an oyster-catcher. The importance point is that if the Belgians are paying for cockles, that money is coming back into the local economy. That is part of the process of ensuring that such economies can be sustained. It is right to try to influence control at the source rather than seeking to control the vessels or tractors that extract the cockles.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend has not mentioned what appear from the debate to be important consumers—the birds. What are we to do about them? We have heard that birds ate more of the Dutch stocks than the annual replenishment rate. Over-consumption by birds and not over-fishing by humans destroyed the Dutch stocks. Surely no conservation measure applied to this cockle fishery will be effective unless we can cope with the problem of birds. What does my hon. Friend suggest?
  Mr. Pickles: On that matter, I must defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds who has great knowledge of the subject. It is a matter of common sense that if vehicles are removing molluscs at the rate at which my hon. Friend the Bury St. Edmunds referred, stocks for birds will be diminished. For birds to take cockles is natural. Long before dredgers entered the Solway firth and before my hon. Friend became a Member of the House birds were taking cockles there, but nature has a way of sorting out populations. Dredgers are artificial and destroy the balance of nature. That is the reason for fishery conservation.
  Some 100 or 200 years ago, there was cockelling along the Solway firth, but the way in which the cockles were taken from the sea was quite different and not as efficient as current methods. If old methods were still used, the balance of nature would be preserved. The central theme is that this practice is an important part of the economy of the Solway firth. Communities rely on it and we must do our best to ensure that the balance of nature is maintained. That is why the measure is important.
  I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) has returned to the Chamber. She spoke about problems on some of our beaches caused by gangs taking cockles and other molluscs from local communities. That has led to a degree of tension and there has been some violence on our beaches, which I deprecate. By controlling the extraction of molluscs, the measure makes it less likely that cowboys will engage in raids and take from communities a commodity on which they rely as a major source of income. I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside on introducing it.
  12.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I have many points to answer from my hon. Friends in this important debate. As many hon. Members have said, I have a personal interest in the Bill, because I live within sight of the Solway firth and I know its shoreline particularly well.
  1322
  The Bill has had all-party support and it made speedy progress when it had a chance to do so. I will not repeat what happened on 20 May: perhaps hon. Members know the sad reason why I was not able personally to promote the Bill that day.
  The general agreement in this useful debate is that it is a worthy Bill. I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) for guiding it through the House. I think that it is the first Bill that he has taken through the House under the private Members' Bill procedure, and I am glad to say that it looks as if it will be successful.
  I thank Lord Campbell of Croy, who has great Scottish knowledge and interest, for guiding the Bill through the other place. We have had satisfactory progress on a Bill which will be of tremendous benefit to the Solway.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to the ecological and economic importance of cockling on the Solway. Many of my hon. Friends highlighted the importance to the whole shoreline of bird life on the Solway. The major areas are the Caerlaverock nature reserve and the East Park centre, which many thousands of people visit each year to see barnacle geese in particular, but also the large numbers of grey and pink-footed geese on the Solway in winter and the many other species of wild fowl.
  The numbers of barnacle geese had dropped to a dangerous level 20 or 30 years ago, but now 15,000 to 20,000 of them come to the Solway each winter. There appears no reason to be too concerned about their long-term future, which is good news for all those interested in bird life. However, that raises questions among the large farming population in my constituency about how many geese are sustainable in the winter months. The farmers look longingly at the large financial assistance for the farmers on Isla, who have a similar, although bigger, problem with barnacle geese.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the tremendous support for the Bill from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I commend it for its support and for the information it has supplied to Members of Parliament. I am pleased to have a close relationship with RSPB officials in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom on any matter that relates to Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester referred to the position of fishery protection officers. I am sure that they would always behave reasonably in carrying out their duties under the Bill. They have immense experience around our coast, both in fishery protection vessels and in aircraft, which are also important. The Scottish Fishery Protection Agency has a code of practice on enforcement procedures. My officials go into great detail on the law as it applies to fishing activities on the shoreline and out to sea.
  I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) that her children are interested in wildlife. She was right to suggest that we should encourage children to take an interest as early in life as possible. England is, perhaps, fortunate in having slightly stronger legislation on tractors than Scotland. However, Scotland should soon catch up on that. My only disappointment was that my hon. Friend did not burst into song.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised two points about the habitat directive. Scotland is closely following through issues related to the marine environment. Under the Natura 2000 sites, we will fulfil all

  1323
  responsibilities. He referred to the sea fisheries committees. Scotland has always taken a different line on that. We feel that it would acid a layer of bureaucracy to an already complicated system and might, through byelaws, cause problems for the fishing industry. It is something of which we are constantly reminded by some fishermen, although others remind us that they do not want committees in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is an acknowledged expert on the countryside, shared his expertise with us. If I could just establish contact with him, I must say that I thought that I noted a hint of suspicion in his comments. I believe that he thought that English conservation legislation was perhaps more effective than the equivalent Scottish legislation.
  I remind my hon. Friend that King Robert the Bruce introduced the first conservation Bill, which dealt with salmon, significantly before any such legislation in England. Of course, at about the same time we put certain men to flight at Bannockburn. [Interruption.] I want to keep hon. Members on side.
  My hon. Friend was absolutely right to highlight the importance of cockling on the Solway. I shall not digress and become involved in the story that he was relating about John Paul Jones. The cottage in which he was born has recently been renovated and opened to the public, arid is located near to the main cockling areas on the Solway which we are debating. My hon. Friend also mentioned the support given by the RSPB, and I reiterate our gratitude to that organisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) gave us some interesting information about the amount of feed required to sustain the bird population. He is right to say that we have to find a balance between the long-term livelihoods of fishermen and the sustainability of the bird population. He also mentioned the barnacle. I am sure that there is a substantial number of Brent geese in his part of the world, just as there are substantial numbers of pinks and greys on the Solway and all around the coast of Scotland.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the fact that cockling on the beaches has become a particularly unattractive sight because of the sometimes venerable tractors and, more important, the diggers and other implements which do not mix well with those who enjoy walking on the beach or bathing in the summer when cockling takes place.
  We have always accepted and welcomed cockling from boats, but the problems that have been highlighted are the reason for the introduction of the Bill. We have to prevent a modern form of cockling, which has been imported perhaps from Holland and which has overtaken cockling from boats which has existed in this country for many years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) also stressed the importance of sustainability and of striking the essential balance between fishing from boats and fishing on shore. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked a key question—how soon would we be able to take action? I highlight the imperative of the issue by pointing out that only this week I signed yet another order to ban cockling from fishing vessels from 1 August—in other words, the ban on vessels fishing for cockles will be continuous, because stocks are so low.
  When the Bill has received Royal Assent, I shall, rightly, have to allow several weeks for consultation, but, subject to that consultation, which I must not prejudge, we
  1324
  shall have an order in place in the not-too-distant future. I believe that we are talking about a month or two. Initially, we certainly envisage that for the Solway firth, but, if the situation were to deteriorate on the Dornoch firth or the Moray firth or elsewhere in Scotland, legislation is available to be introduced quickly to deal with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside spelled out the importance issue of the activity that we wish to restrict. When we introduced the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 to provide powers to regulate inshore fishing, no one anticipated that tractor-based dredging would be introduced a few years later. This is our first opportunity since the position became serious to prevent that from happening in the future. There will be proper consultation and we will take action on the basis of scientific evidence of the availability of stocks.
  My hon. Friend's Bill will give us the opportunity to make an order, again subject to consultation, to prevent dredging of cockles by tractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds highlighted the huge tonnage that could be extracted in a week's fishing with dredgers. That is why we want to have the legislation in place as soon as possible.
  I am disappointed, of course, that we have to prevent local fishing vessels from fishing for cockles, but that is because the stocks are so critical and so very low. After a year or so, we shall reassess the position and consider what can be done this time next year, when the order that I have just signed runs out.
  We have to take all factors into account, as well as the additional duties that were placed on me and other Fisheries Ministers under the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992. That Act was introduced as a private Member's Bill and, like the Bill that we are discussing today, attracted strong Government support.
  The long title of the 1992 Act adequately explains its function. It requires Fisheries Ministers and relevant bodies to have regard to the conservation of flora and fauna in the discharge of their functions under the Act. Section 1(1)(b) also requires Ministers to achieve a reasonable balance between conservation of flora and fauna and any other considerations to which they are required to have regard.
  In effect, the Act merely confirms the existing position, because I and my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices already took such factors into account. However, it was helpful to confirm that in legislation and to bind our successors to the practice that we believed to be sensible.
  Existing vessel-based fisheries came within the purview of the fisheries Acts. My powers would therefore be used after taking into account the conservation interests mentioned in the long title of the 1992 Act. The subsequent developments brought increasing numbers of tractors, which ploughed the exposed foreshore at low tide. Unlike the vessel-based fishery, those activities were not open to control under existing fisheries legislation. We therefore faced the unwelcome fact that a natural and finite resource was subject to exploitation by increasing numbers of operators, but that only one group was subject to control.
  I should perhaps stress that I do not believe that all tractor dredging is necessarily harmful or that the activity should be prohibited under any and all circumstances. If that had been my view, I would have suggested to the House that section 3 of the Act should be amended to enshrine an outright ban in the primary legislation.

  1325
  Dredging activities have shown themselves to be economically efficient. We must now examine what safeguards should be set in place to ensure that other factors are taken into account. In some highly sensitive areas, that may mean many year-round bans—I cannot rule that out—but in other areas it may be possible to develop controls that will allow judicious amounts of dredging to take place while still taking into account the impact on the stocks and the effects on other forms of natural life. Therefore, the issue is one of ensuring that the new activity is open to control in the circumstances required.
  I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose constituency borders the Solway as much as mine—indeed, more so—became increasingly concerned about the effect that combined fishing pressure might be having on stock levels on the Solway. The scientists at the Scottish Office marine laboratory conducted surveys of the stock level in the area affected. Some of the results of the surveys have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
  The surveys showed conclusively that the cockle stock had reduced significantly. It was not easy to determine whether that was due to the natural fluctuations which natural populations are subject to or whether dredging activities were having a more direct impact, but it was clear that the stock level had reduced to a point at which fishing pressure could make the difference between stock collapse and stock recovery.
  We looked at other ways of trying to meet the problem; in particular, we recommended to local authorities that they might frame byelaws under the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982. But at the end of the day, because of the necessity to get almost universal approval from landowners to the shore, it was considered best to proceed as we are—by this legislation. That is why we were so glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside was successful in the ballot. We are about to see the Bill's enactment into law.
  As I said, the Bill has considerable support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) gave it warm
  1326
  support in Committee. We will now proceed, once the Bill is enacted, to consult and then decide to bring in an order to deal with something that is presently, at face value, very harmful to the cockle stock on the Solway.
  We are looking not only at the issue of saving the cockle stock but at the long—term future of the fishermen—the traditional fishermen who have earned a valuable livelihood over many years and who are now finding it swept away by modern methods which were, as I said earlier and as hon. Members mentioned, originally imported from Holland.
  We are concerned about other fish. All in all, the Bill will be a valuable restriction and a tremendous help to the fishermen and fish processors. A number of fish processors in Scotland deal with cockles and other similar products.
  Hon. Members have mentioned how popular cockles have become in restaurants abroad. Of course, that is very welcome. The amount of fish exported from Scotland is high, and that is important to the Scottish economy. It is interesting that in 1992, the total income from shellfish landings into Scotland was more than £46 million; yet, in 1938, the comparative figure was £70,000. Even allowing for inflation, that shows that it is an important issue in Scotland.
  I am grateful to hon. Members for the all-round support that we have had for the Bill. It is right that we have highlighted our concern about not only the fishermen and the cockles but the tourists. What has stood out firmly today is the way in which hon. Members felt this was important to bird life, and the interest that has been shown by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
  After all the explanations that we had in Committee, in another place and in this House, this is the moment when we should say, "Well done," to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside. He has achieved a significant piece of legislation—something with which we in the Scottish Office are proud to be associated. I am grateful to the large number of my hon. Friends who have shown support here on a Friday. I support the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed; without amendment.

  Marriage Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.4 pm
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am pleased to say that the Bill enjoys support on both sides of the House and beyond. You may have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that today every national newspaper is carrying a delightful picture of yesterday's royal wedding. I hope that you have also seen a wonderful British film called "Four Weddings and a Funeral", which is a considerable box office hit—one of the most successful British films ever made. It is playing to marvellous business throughout this country and on five continents.
  It seems that the whole world loves an English wedding and my Bill is designed to give couples who choose a civil wedding in England and Wales even greater choice as to where their marriages take place. The Bill would implement two of the most popular recommendations contained in the Government's 1990 White Paper, "Registration: proposals for change"—those aimed at introducing greater choice and flexibility for couples over a venue for civil marriage, by empowering local authorities to license suitable buildings, in addition to registry offices, as venues for such marriages, and by allowing couples to marry by civil ceremony in any registry office or approved building in England and Wales.
  As the law stands, couples wishing to marry by civil ceremony have to do so at the registry office in the district where at least one of them resides. There are many reasons why people wish to marry by civil ceremony in other places, the most common being that they have moved away from their family home to study or work, but wish to return there for their marriage. Perhaps the registry office does not meet their expectations of a suitable place for marriage—it may not be sufficiently stylish or large. Those of us who believe in marriage want it to be celebrated in the style and manner that the couple choose.
  Mr. Peter Luff: I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend could reassure those of us who watched, "Love Story" and saw the rather sickening chic of the marriage sequence in that film, or who occasionally browse through the pages of Hello! magazine and have seen some of the grosser excesses of Las Vegas-style weddings, that his Bill will not open the floodgates for such scenes.
  Mr. Brandreth: I am shocked by the revelation that my hon. Friend reads Hello! magazine. "Love Story" is not a British movie and therefore not one that I have seen. My hon. Friend can be reassured that there is no way that we want to move towards the Las Vegas style of wedding. Marriage is, we hope, a uniquely important event in any couple's life and the ceremony must be conducted with dignity in suitable premises. I shall elaborate in a moment.
  By allowing local authorities to approve buildings such as stately homes and hotels as venues for civil marriages, and by removing the requirement to marry in the district of residence, the Bill will give allow members of the public a greater choice over the venue of their marriages.
  Mr. Roger Evans: My hon. Friend mentioned stately homes and hotels. I do not understand
  1328
  whether it is a requirement of the Bill that a marriage should take place in a public place, in the sense that an approved location is one to which the public can have access.
  Mr. Brandreth: Yes. Being a distinguished lawyer, my hon. Friend has gone to the heart of the matter. One of the basics of the English marriage is that it should take place in a public place, so the place must be accessible to the public. Obviously a constituency such as mine, which is rich in heritage and packed with historic buildings and the finest hotels, is ideal. Candidly, I foresee a day when the City of Chester becomes the most popular location for weddings in the United Kingdom.
  The Bill ensures that local authorities adopt a responsible attitude in approving buildings for civil marriages, by providing for the making of regulations setting out the procedures to be followed by councils. That follows consultation with the local authority associations and the drawing up of formal guidelines. The Bill has the support of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Society of Registration Officers—the registrars' professional organisation.
  Mr. David Lidington: I am concerned because the Bill does not mention the Association of District Councils. For those of us who live outside the main metropolitan areas, the district council is the chief planning authority and it might be worried if unsuitable premises, from a planning point of view, were selected by the county council. Has my hon. Friend taken that into account in the Bill?
  Mr. Brandreth: Yes. My hon. Friend will find that district and county councils will be able to work together on this in a satisfactory way. I shall show him the range of consultation that has taken place and he will be reassured on the involvement of the district councils.
  As I have mentioned the registration service, this could be an appropriate point at which to pay a tribute to that service and the contribution that it has made to the civilised ordering of important moments in all our lives. The registration service in England and Wales came into being in 1837 and, in many respects, its organisation and procedures have not changed greatly up to the present day. It is in some ways comparable with the city of Chester and—some would say—with the hon. Member for the City of Chester in that it is a service that is as modern as tomorrow and yet has a lot of time for yesterday.
  Mrs. Angela Knight: I am sure that my hon. Friend is whetting the appetites of those who wish learn about the provisions of the Bill and about the delights of the city of Chester. When will the proposals be put into effect if the House agrees to them?
  Mr. Brandreth: If the Bill goes through the House and has a satisfactory passage through the other place, we hope that weddings will be taking place in this way this time next year, so it will be reasonably imminent.
  Exactly a decade ago, the Government's programme of efficiency scrutinies included an inquiry into the registration service. The findings were published in the efficiency scrutiny report on the registration of births, marriages and deaths, and the report made nearly 50 recommendations for change.

  1329
  In 1987, the Government announced that if time could be found, new legislation would be introduced. As a first step, a working group was set up and was asked to consider the scrutiny recommendations and to make proposals for the form that the legislation should take. The working group covered a wide range of interests, with representations from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the Department of Health and Social Security—as it then was—the Home Office, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In sub-groups of the working party, the Society of Registration Officers, the National and Local Government Officers Association—as it then was—the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board, the Society of Genealogists, the Institute of Population Registration and the Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies were also represented. The consultation process was wide and deep.
  Mr. Michael Stern: My hon. Friend has given a long and impressive list of professional societies, corporate bodies and voluntary organisations which were consulted in connection with the Bill. Were people at any stage also consulted?
  Mr. Brandreth: Very much so. The working group reported in 1988 and its recommendations were published in a Green Paper called "Registration: a modern service". That Green Paper received 600 responses from throughout the United Kingdom, including many from public bodies and other organisations, but also many from individuals. The great majority of those who responded registered broad agreement with the proposals.
  In January 1990, the White Paper to which I referred was published and the proposals that it contained put forward a sound basis for reforming and modernising the registration service in England and Wales. Because of the many other reforms that this great reforming Government have introduced, it has not yet been possible to find time in the parliamentary programme to introduce the legislation necessary to implement many of the proposals. I am aiming to remedy the matter from the Back Benches.
  Last year, I introduced a Bill relating to the registration of deaths. The Bill whose Third Reading we are now considering proposes to introduce two of the most popular recommendations contained in the White Paper to give members of the public greater choice over where their civil marriages may take place. It will also give local authorities greater scope and flexibility to deliver a service geared to the needs of the local population.
  I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the work that they have undertaken to get the Bill to this stage. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has taken a keen interest in this matter. He has been actively supported from his Front Bench by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and by the spokesperson on the Liberal Democrats Front Bench—I suppose that it is its lone Bench really—the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).
  In Committee, the hon. Member for Leyton tabled half a dozen amendments, half of which would have brought a religious dimension to what is essentially a Bill about civil
  1330
  marriage. It is important to understand that the Bill relates to civil marriages. About half the marriages that take place nowadays in England and Wales are civil weddings.
  The hon. Member for Leyton wanted the Bill amended to allow for religious marriages to be solemnised in any building approved by local authorities. He felt, in particular, that it should be made a requirement for every local authority to approve a Buddhist or a Hindu temple, a Muslim mosque or a Sikh gurdwara within its area and that persons other than registrars should be able to solemnise such marriages.
  I hope that I was able to reassure the hon. Member that the law already provides for the registration for marriages of any building used as a place for religious worship and certified as such by the Registrar-General. I believe that the procedures involved are reasonably straightforward and the cost is certainly minimal. There are 281 eastern religious buildings currently registered for marriages in England and Wales. There is scope for further considerable extension. Marriage ceremonies in those buildings can already be performed by the religious celebrant, where that is required.
  The hon. Member for Leyton also tabled an amendment to allow marriages to take place in gardens and other public open spaces, bringing English law into line with that of other parts of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) mentioned the possibility of beach-style weddings, the sort of thing that might feature in American or Australian films. That would change English marriage law fundamentally. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) raised that point in a timely intervention. Apart from specific and historical exceptions, marriages in England and Wales must take place in a registry office, a church or chapel of the Church of England or the Church of Wales, or in buildings of other religious denominations, Christian or non-Christian, registered for marriages. It is a basic tenet of English law that marriages take place in buildings publicly recognised as being suitable and approved for the purpose.
  It is also necessary for the venue of the marriage to be capable of clear description so that a specific and known venue can be included on the notice displayed at the registry office and to give ample opportunity for any legal objection to be made. The idea of a wedding in a garden may seem romantic, but it could be an elusive venue. We do not want to encourage people to get married behind the bushes. We want to know where the marriage is taking place.
  The climate in our country might be said to be against open-air marriages. It might be possible for a marriage to take place in what could be described as a garden room within a permanent structure. It would not be possible, however, to hold a marriage in a large open space, somewhere like Hyde park, because one would arrive to witness the wedding, but would not know where it was—it could be anywhere. That is why we do not envisage open-air marriages.
  A moored ship on a permanent site, such as the Thames, might be a possibility as a venue, but not a free-floating vessel. One must know where—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is amused at that suggestion, but there is a serious point behind it. One wants to be able to attend a wedding, let us say—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Tony Banks: I intervene to assist the hon. Gentleman while he convulses. It is an interesting point. Should not marriages be conducted on a moving vessel?
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a submarine?
  Mr. Banks: Some marriages would have been better conducted in a submarine, kept quiet and never allowed to rise to the surface. What about a captain's power to twin people? I thought that captains still had such power. Would it go?
  Mr. Brandreth: That power will not be affected. We are talking about civil weddings in England and Wales. My serious point—it is wonderful that such a happy measure is being received in such happy terms—is that it is vital that people are able to have access to the place where a wedding is taking place. Although we want to introduce greater choice in respect of a wedding venue, it is a serious and important public event. Therefore, access to it by the general public is essential. A wedding must be at a location that is well known, open to the public and, consequently, stationary.
  The hon. Member for Leyton withdrew an amendment aimed at ensuring that the regulations that are provided for in the Bill would be formally approved by the House and the other place rather than being subject to affirmative resolution. Although I recognise the importance of the Bill—the number of right hon. and hon. Members who are present today underlines its importance—I do not believe that the regulations made under it are of such significance that they warrant the affirmative resolution procedure.
  In Committee, I was able to offer some good news to the hon. Member for Leyton—this will please my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight)—who asked when the legislation would be implemented. I have encouraging news on the timetable for the implementation of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leyton proposed that the Bill should automatically come into force three months after receiving Royal Assent. I do not believe that such an amendment would have been necessary.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. Not only is he a fine Minister and an adornment to any Government, but he has taken a particular interest in the work of the registration service. Publicly and behind the scenes, he has worked hard to ensure that the important reforms are put forward as rapidly but as sagely as possible. I have been assured by my hon. Friend that, should the Bill pass into law this Session, from January next year, couples will be able to marry in the register office of their choice in England and Wales.
  Clause 2, however, requires the making of regulations and the setting up of the necessary procedures for the approval of premises by local authorities. We do not want to harm a good job by doing it in a hurry, particularly when, as has been said, there might be a need for discussions between county councils and district councils. A three-month deadline would be restrictive. I hope that the provisions can be brought into effect within the first six months of next year.
  A spring or early summer wedding in an approved building is therefore a distinct possibility. Think of it, Madam Deputy Speaker—this time next year, at wedding receptions across the land, once the bride and groom have
  1332
  been toasted and once the best man has celebrated the bridesmaids, glasses might be raised to the hon. Members who give a fair wind to the Bill today.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Would it not be very good if, as they raised their glasses, they could think of the prospect of living in a warm and comfortable home which had been enhanced by the House also making progress on the Energy Conservation Bill?
  Mr. Brandreth: We have to proceed one measure at a time, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to move on to his business, which is why I conclude by saying that this is a good-news Bill which is designed only to add to the nation's sum of human happiness. I commend it to the House.
  1.24 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the Bill and the change that will occur in our nation's marriage laws provided that the Bill passes all its stages before the end of this Session. I am one of the Bill's sponsors and I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on getting it this far. When, in Committee, he compared the Chairman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), to Hugh Grant, the star of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", I thought that he was pushing his luck. I am pleased that he did not compare you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Andie MacDowell, the female lead in that film, because that certainly would have been pushing his luck. When he said that, I thought that he might—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not push his luck. He must remember that Third Reading is about the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, I had better move on to safer ground.
  The current marriage laws were enacted in 1949 and are out of date and restrictive. They do not give couples who want to get married the same rights and choices as those in other countries. I want that choice to be expanded, which is why I introduced a Bill—number 13 on today's Order Paper—on St. Valentine's day last year and again this year. But my Bill will not make progress, whereas this one will. With due respect to this Bill's proposer, my Bill is better, but we must take what we can get and the form that he proposes is welcome.
  This Bill deals with civil weddings and their location, whereas mine deals also with their religious aspect. In my Bill, couples can choose to get married in the manner that they wish, whereas under this Bill, the registrar decides where the venue should be, but at least it is a move in the right direction. I was particularly concerned that many couples are forced to have two weddings. In 1949, the law makers in this country knew only about the Church of England, the Quakers and the Jews. Many other ethnic minorities were not covered effectively by the wedding laws, so they have been forced to have two weddings: first, a religious ceremony—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not answering an exam question comparing and contrasting the various methods. He must concentrate on the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: This Bill relates only to civil weddings, so many people will still be forced to have two weddings. Those people will be not just ethnic minorities but couples in which only one partner is religious or when the partners have different religions. Such couples will have problems. The hon. Member for City of Chester assured us that a wedding could take place in gurdwaras, mosques or temples, and I welcome that. I hope that the "Minister for marriages", as he called himself in Committee, will add his assurance in that respect. Perhaps the guidelines that his Ministry will publish will included guidance for local authorities and registrars to allow marriages to take place in those venues in all circumstances if they are located in their vicinity. I hope that the guidelines will take that matter into account.
  I should like marriages to take place in gardens, open spaces and parks. That happens in other countries. It is well known that in Australia couples like to get married under Sydney bridge. I do not see why couples in this country—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I said earlier that we can discuss only what is in the Bill. Open-air locations, and certainly Sydney bridge, are not in the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate what you are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Bill is about locations for weddings and marriages. The registrar can choose nice buildings in the location, which is right. The locations should include the person's own garden. That would fall in line with giving the couple the choice. When people get married they spend money and are prepared to do so, but some may not wish to spend too much money.
  The couple may also wish to get married in the place where they will live out their vows, so their garden may have a special significance to them. It is a shame that we are still restricting that choice. The measure could still include provision for open doors, mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester, even if the ceremony were in an open space. There could be an arrangement so that other people could object so that the marriage complied with requirements under the current law.
  I welcome the Bill. A press release has been issued by an organisation called Garlands. There is a role for celebrants to conduct marriages, as happens in other countries around the world. Our law should recognise the fact that a celebrant could have a good role to play. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the idea of a celebrant, who conducts a sort of business—the Government say that we should encourage small businesses.
  When I was presenting my amendments in Committee I spoke to one of the Clerks of the House who said that he hoped that the Bill and the changes would be passed because when he retired he would like to build a church in a beautiful location and let people come to be married there for a charge. That is a reasonable aspiration and a business which could be encouraged by both sides of the House.
  The press release is headed, "Wedding Survey Reveals Discontent with Venues". It states:
  "More than one in five couples with no religious beliefs marries in church simply because they want the tradition and pomp of a church ceremony.
  'It was everything I wanted' said one bride. 'I just closed my mind when it came to the religious bit.'
  A survey of recently married couples published today reveals that 60 per cent. weren't able to have their first choice of wedding venue because of Britain's current restrictive marriage laws.
  1334
  Churches were the first choice of those who held firm religious beliefs, but over half of those questioned would choose to marry in a beautiful garden, if they could. And stately homes, castles and hotels also came out high on everyone's list. Nobody at all gave a register office as their ideal venue. In fact, increasing numbers are voting with their feet and are getting married abroad in their search for a romantic wedding.
  The survey was commissioned by … Garlands"—
  which—
  "specialises in organising wedding ceremonies in unusual venues."
  The survey continued:
  "Current law allows a marriage to be legalised only in a register office or church … Many couples come"—
  to Garlands—
  "wanting to be married in a beautiful building or by a river and then are heartbroken to find that, although they can have their own ceremony where they like, they still have to go to a register office to register their marriage. And they feel that this effectively means having two ceremonies."
  It states:
  "The survey shows that religious couples often have to marry in a register office because the local priest is intransigent over divorce or mixed religions, or refuses to marry non-churchgoers. And non-religious couples often choose a church simply because they want the solemnity of atmosphere or else they end up in a register office if they aren't prepared to lie about their beliefs.
  "Although many register offices are attempting to make their ceremonies more memorable affairs in order to accommodate the desire for a meaningful event, some are still very mundane places without character. 'Dark, dismal and naff was how one bride described her London register office. 'Drab and office like' said another.
  "The only alternative one-stop venue at present is a church but in fact only 1 per cent. of those questioned were churchgoers. Some 53 per cent. of the brides claimed some religious beliefs and 40 per cent. of grooms. But 35 per cent. of brides and 48 per cent. of grooms said they had no religious beliefs at all."
  A Garlands representative said:
  "That's very significant… Many people aren't religious but their wedding is still the most important day in their lives and they should have an equal right to a grand and dignified ceremony where they want it. If only a tiny minority of the population are churchgoers, it seems wrong that other than register offices churches are the only buildings which can be licensed to register marriages."
  The press release then refers to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for City of Chester. It welcomes the relaxation of marriage laws and states that his Bill
  "proposes that certain other buildings such as stately homes and hotels should be able to be registered for marriages and that couples should be allowed to marry in any register officer and not just the one in the local authority area in which they live.
  "Gyles Brandreth's Bill is a start but it doesn't go far enough… I'd like to see a situation where the marriage is legalised not because of the building it takes place in but by the officiant who performs the ceremony—whether he or she is a priest, registrar or trained marriage celebrant. Then people could have their wedding where they want just as they do in the Australia and the USA. They're much more enlightened than we are."
  That is a press release from a company and a celebrant with knowledge in this area and it puts the issues clearly. The proposal would widen choice. It shows how out of date our marriage laws are. It shows how we could and should introduce further reform to take into account couples' wishes on marriage, which are not being met in many cases.
  The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for City of Chester is an important start in the achievement of change and I welcome that. It is the only prospect of achieving change quickly. I hope that we will approve it today, that it will be passed in another place and that those many couples that the hon. Gentleman referred to can have the wedding of their choice next summer.

  1335
  A change in the law will still be necessary in the not-too-distant future to increase choice so that couples' wishes can be met. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester. He has set in motion important changes. The Minister for marriages is also the Under-Secretary of State for Health. The Department of Health has only few opportunities to present legislation to the House in every Session and marriages, I suspect, are a long way down the list of important matters on which health legislation is required. If it were left to the Government, it is likely that it would take several decades to change the marriage laws.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester on picking up the issue and proposing changes that can be passed by the House.
  1.37 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on introducing the Bill and on the perspicacious, persuasive, perceptive and even passionate way in which he spoke. Like a wine waiter introducing us to the virtues of a good claret, he showed that this particular variety would be distinctive and greatly enjoyed by many celebrating people.
  As the hon. Member for Leyton said, it is right that we should pass a deregulation measure which will allow the 60 per cent. of people who do get their first choice of marriage venue a greater opportunity to do so. As part of my lengthy preparation for the debate, I asked the registrar of deaths and births in Kidderminster in my constituency about the figures on marriages in registry offices and in Church of England and other authorised religious establishments. In 1989–90, there were slightly more marriages in religious establishments—346 compared with 288 registry office weddings. By 1993–94, the position had been reversed and more people—286 against 283—were getting married in registry offices. The measure will give those people greater choice. The figures are not surprising as one third of marriages nowadays are remarriages.
  As the hon. Member for Leyton said, sadly, parts of the Church of England take a dirigiste attitude and people are forced into registry office weddings although they would prefer a religious ceremony. That probably has something to do with the appalling fact that a 1991 survey showed that some 57 per cent. of people of the marriageable age of 18 to 24—it is getting older nowadays—were ignorant of the nature, purpose and history of Good Friday. By encouraging people in the way that the measure seeks to do, that situation could be improved.
  There is a broader reason why it is important to give couples more choice of places in which to be married. It is that successful marriages depend on the involvement not only of couples' families but of their communities. Given the production line nature of many registry office weddings, it is often difficult to provide a personalised atmosphere, but the investment and memorableness of the wedding occasion are preludes to a successful marriage.
  Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph published an article in which Lesley Garner said:
  "Marriage is more than a ritual that many consider outdated. It is the offering of protection and security under the law."
  Any change in the way in which people get married—especially as it affects those 50 per cent. who get married in registry offices—that underlines that and involves the family in a place that is familiar or has an impressive
  1336
  setting, would make it more likely that people will take their marriage vows more seriously and think more carefully about the implications. It may be a forlorn hope, but in my view that could lead to more stable marriages.
  Such changes may also encourage more people to get married. At present, 25 per cent. of children are born out of wedlock. While I make no comment on people's decisions about life style, many people do not get married because they feel that it is a hassle and would not mean much to them. If they were able to get married surrounded by their family in a happy and familiar setting, they might be prepared to consider it slightly more seriously. That leads me to what I think is the Bill's only fault, which, I hope, can be remedied by the regulations that will oversee the way in which local authorities decide on the places that are appropriate for marriages.
  I have a great deal of sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton that we should encourage maximum flexibility in the choice of places for registered weddings. Sadly, many stately homes and chateaux mariages—the sort of hotels that would be applying for licences—are anything but the kind of places where marriage vows should be properly exchanged.
  Perhaps the house of an aunt or that of a mother or father would be more appropriate for marriage vows, whether outside or indoors. The legislation should allow local authorities on a temporary or permanent basis to permit such places to be used for registered weddings after deciding that health and safety and planning regulations have been met. It is important that the public should be able to gain access to such events. Obviously, that would be up to the local authority and, ultimately, the registrar. He will have discretion over whether to marry a couple after he has seen—together, I hope, with local authority officials—the surroundings in which weddings will take place.
  Provided that the regulations can be drawn up in a flexible way, people will be allowed to marry in registered surroundings of their own choice rather than the long-standing and possibly inappropriate choice of the local authority. That would meet the objectives of the Bill.
  With that important proviso, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester on bringing the Bill to the House and I wish it every success.
  1.46 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the principles that animated my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to introduce the Bill. I want to take just a few minutes to deal with three or four points of concern about the detail of the Bill, with which I hope either he or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal when they reply to the debate.
  My first point is that to which I alluded in an intervention; it concerns the respective duties of county and district councils. In the majority of cases, there would be little difficulty in the two local authorities reaching agreement on the designation of a particular building as a suitable site for civil marriages. There would be no problem with most hotels, to take the example most frequently cited. However, I can imagine circumstances in which there might be a clash of opinion. We all know of certain public buildings and of private buildings with a public function, such as sports stadiums, whose

  1337
  construction and use has been permitted by the local district council subject to fairly stringent planning conditions.
  Where there is a difference of opinion between the two authorities, whose power will prevail? Will it be the county council, with its proposed right under the Bill to designate particular premises as suitable for civil marriages, or the district council, which might say that the building cannot be used because its planning conditions state that it may be used for certain defined purposes only and not for anything else? Will the county council, as registration authority, have to seek planning permission from the district council?
  I want to question the definition of "premises" in the Bill. I do not think that a full answer was given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I understand that a particular building or a garden attached to a building is covered by the definition of "premises". If a couple wanted a Disraeli wedding, they could book Hughenden house or its garden. If they wanted to be a little more adventurous and have a John Wilkes wedding, they could book Prebendal house in Aylesbury for that purpose. However, if they wanted a Hellfire club wedding, would the West Wycombe caves count as premises under the Bill's definition?
  Even though a couple could not use a field or a large park, would a small, easily identifiable, well-defined and fenced area of open space count as premises? Could they hold a John Hampden wedding by the Ship Money memorial in the field just outside Prestwood?
  My third query relates to public access. Public access is crucial because a wedding is not only a private but a public ceremony. All of us who have been through the ceremony as a participant know that the most heart-stopping moment comes when the minister or registrar asks whether there are any objections to the marriage. I am worried especially about the designation of premises outside a couple's registration district. I hope that the regulations will contain provision for adequate notice to be given—and to be given publicly—of certificates and licences so that members of the public are able to exercise their lawful right to voice a legitimate objection in that one in a million case where such an objection exists.
  My final concern relates to the record of marriages taking place under the proposed new system. In passing, I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester did not feel able to include in the Bill a provision covering information additional to that contained in marriage certificates. In this respect, England and Wales have much to learn from the Scottish system.
  I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend to take on board the use that genealogists make of certificates, licences and other material relating to weddings. Such material is especially important for the reconstruction of family history. Whereas my hon. Friend and I would probably not have too much difficulty tracing our ancestors, even though we might not know exactly where they were born and married or where they died, people with a more common surname might find it more difficult knowing only the name. In such cases, the place of residence and, associated with that, the place of marriage, become more important. I hope, therefore, that registers of licences and certificates provided for in the Bill, and especially of documents relating to marriages that have taken place out of a couple's
  1338
  home registration district, will be made available as a matter of course to genealogists and other legitimate researchers.
  1.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: In view of the time, I shall be as brief as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for introducing the Bill because I was one of those caught up in the bureaucracy that he seeks to abolish.
  Eighteen years ago, when my wife and I were planning to get married, I was living and working in London and she was living and working in High Wycombe, although we wished to marry in York where her parents lived and where she had been brought up. In order to be married in York, not only did she have to re-establish her residence there for a couple of months before the wedding but I had to make four separate visits to the registrar in London to persuade him to study up and get the forms right to enable us to be married in York. My impression was that if two professional, reasonably articulate people found it so difficult to overcome such bureaucracy, most people must be living in sin because they could not have got through all the hoops in the first place.
  I hope that either the Minister or my hon. Friend can clarify, first, the religious use of premises. The notes that my hon. Friend has helpfully circulated state that for premises to be registered under the Bill there
  "must be no recent or continuing connection with any religion."
  Filton folk centre is a major public building in the town of Filton in my constituency, and it would be ideal for registration under the Bill as drafted. However, at weekends it is regularly used for services by at least one major evangelical Christian group.
  The premises would be perfectly adequate for the celebration of marriages at other times or, indeed, at the same time because there are plenty of rooms in the building. I hope that the restriction under the regulations concerning connection with any religion will be applied, if necessary, not to the whole of a building but to a particular part of a building or a particular part of a building at a particular time. If not, what would otherwise be ideal premises will be completely excluded.
  There are two matters on which the Bill does not go far enough. There has already been some discussion of whether people should be entitled to be married in a private home or their own home. In fact, quietly, the Bill permits that in two types of home. The Bill will permit the marriage at home of the owners or occupiers of a stately home or their families. It will permit the marriage at home of the owner-occupiers or employees living on the premises of a hotel. That is wholly admirable. I hope that in building on the legislation in future that principle could be extended. I hope that the matter can be considered in the regulations.
  I understand the difficulties that are admirably expressed in the notes that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester circulated in relation to his argument that weddings must be held in a public place. However, I commend to him the principle that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I became used to in our youth. At certain times of the year—I am thinking of the passover service held at home—private premises are thrown open to all comers. The door is left open and an extra place is laid at the table to anyone who wishes to walk in. I can see no reason why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said, a private house cannot be made

  1339
  into a public place for a particular purpose and on a particular occasion. There are now many religions and branches of religions in this country for which either a combined religious and civil ceremony or one following the other would be ideally held at home. I cannot honestly see any reason why the law should be so restrictive as to bar people from ordering what is often the most important day in their life as they and their families desire.
  The second matter is that, to my great regret, while the Bill and the proposed regulations under it recognise the increasing practice of registrars of allowing some music at a civil ceremony, there is still a crazy distinction—I can only describe it as such—between religious and secular music. Why is it that popular tunes such as "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or "Sheep May Safely Graze" are barred from use in a ceremony because they originally formed part of a cantata? Why is it that Rossini's "Stabat Mater", which has been described by critics as the most secular piece of religious music ever written, should be barred because of its title?
  Why is it that if one is particularly fond of Ravel's "Danses Sacrées et Profanes"—roughly translated as sacred and secular dances—one has to pick the bits of the dances that are permitted to be played legally at a ceremony? It is a crazy distinction and any registrar who was serious about it would find that there was little secular music that had not been made into a hymn tune at some time or another.
  I hope that when the regulations are made under the Bill they will be somewhat wider in their application to what is permissible. Subject to that, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for introducing the Bill. I wish he had been in a position to do so 19 years ago and I certainly do not wish to delay its passage.
  1.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Time is pressing on so I shall simply limit myself to dealing with some of the points raised during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised yet again his obviously deeply felt desire to have been married in a garden. As we know, there are some problems with marriage law—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My problem is that that is scarcely relevant.
  Mr. Sackville: That is what I was about to say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall turn to my next point.
  The Bill is about civil marriage. Matters to do with marriages in temples are taken care of. Those places can be registered and, as long as an authorised person or registrar is present, there need be only one ceremony. I think therefore that that is not relevant to today.
  1340
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a good point about which local authority would be designating. The answer is that it is metropolitan boroughs, county councils and London borough councils at present. That will remain the case, although district councils—of course, there may be changes in all this; we do not know—can put forward their own civic buildings for consideration. But there will be no change to that.
  My hon. Friend said that among other excellent places in his constituency are the Hellfire club caves at Wycombe. I have to tell him that I used to play in a rock band called "The Hellfire Club", and I have some knowledge of the activities that those gentlemen—Wilkes and others—got up to in the caves. Those activities would not lend any sort of dignity to the institution of marriage, so the answer to his question is probably no. Being caves, they can hardly be called a permanent structure, either—although that is a matter for geologists.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr.Stern) raised a number of interesting points. He pointed to the criteria for designation, and mentioned a place used by religious groups at some point. The criterion will be something along these lines: any building that would be seemly and dignified, and therefore appropriate to the institution of marriage, will be permitted. The fact that such buildings might be used at some other time for religious purposes would probably not be relevant, but that would have to be left to the discretion of the local authority concerned.
  On the matter of the music, I was deeply impressed, as was the whole House, with my hon. Friend's erudition in these matters. If I may, I will write to him and deal with what he said.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. We have a strange, quaint custom, particularly at the beginning of Adjournment debates, of welcoming debates that do nothing to help the Government, and congratulating hon. Members who are about to get up and do everything that they can to destroy one's credibility. In this case, however, I most sincerely and warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). For the past two years, I have been trying to find ways to help the White Paper commitment to the improvement of civil marriage. My hon. Friend has made that possible. I am quite sure that what he and other hon. Members have said—that this will add to the dignity and, we must now say, the popularity of marriage at a time when it certainly needs it—means that this is one of the most useful and beneficial pieces of legislation to have emerged in the past 11 years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  2.3 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I shall be brief. I commend the Bill to the House, and in doing so I thank those who are responsible for its being here—primarily, Lord Renton. He is better known to many of us in this place as the right hon. Sir David Renton; he was a Member here for many years and the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the constituency of Huntingdon. He piloted this Bill through another place with the general support of peers in all parties.
  I had the good fortune to take on the Bill and, had I won a place in the ballot, I would have introduced it last year. I took the Bill through Committee with the support of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and I am grateful for that support. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who is on the Front Bench today, and to our right hon. Friends the Minister for Industry and the President of the Board of Trade, all of whom have been extremely helpful in supporting the Bill.
  The Bill has one simple, but important, aim—to outlaw the practice of market overt. Members on both sides of the House will know that if goods in Bermondsey market, which is the one that is almost always quoted, are bought between sunrise and sunset, the title of the goods purchased passes to the purchaser, regardless of the origin of the goods. The market has been castigated as a thieves' den for that reason. The Bill contains no threat to the legitimate traders of Bermondsey market and it has the strong—indeed, passionate—support of the various antique dealers associations, the Antiques Trade Gazette, the Metropolitan police and many other police forces who have been in touch with me, all of whom see it as a small, but positive and helpful step. The Historic Houses Association is yet another organisation which lobbied for the Bill and welcomes its introduction.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends have matters that they want to raised and we have little time. With the leave of the House, I shall respond to them if there is an opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking so briefly. I propose to be equally brief. He is wrong to suggest that in Bermondsey market one can pass title regardless of origin. The rule applies only to goods acquired for value in good faith. That is not such a startling proposition and, indeed, it is one which is echoed in other areas of the law.
  My concerns about the Bill are that, first, it does not apply, and has no relevance, to car boot sales, which are the modern curse, where fences dispose of property. Secondly, a proper understanding of the rule is so narrow that it will arouse greater expectations for change. The problems of prosecuting people who buy colour televisions—stolen from my constituents—in public houses in Cwmbran are exactly the same as those of prosecuting people who buy antique items in Bermondsey market at and under value. The law does not affect that problem.
  1342
  I do not intend to talk out or to oppose the Bill, because I am satisfied, having talked to my hon. Friend the Minister, that the Government can deal with it in a way that will satisfy all of us. The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) identified is important, but—partly as a result of the heritage lobby, with and for which he is elegantly associated and an important spokesman—it is only one aspect. Ironically, he wants to tear up the pages of Coke's institutes and Coke's reports, which are still the law of the land on the topic, and to replace them with the Rocky Horror alternative prayer book version; but never mind. If there is a social need to do so, I can understand the force of the argument, but the problem with the Bill is that it does not deal with other situations that are equally open to challenge, and the matter ought to be given broad consideration.
  For example, mercantile agents in possession can pass good title to goods, which means that if one takes one's car to a car salesroom to ask for a quote and it is sold on to someone else, that other person takes good title.
  Secondly, if we buy trust property that is sold in breach of trust by a trustee, the rule is that the purchaser for value in good faith takes good title. It makes nonsense of law reform to take one aspect of chattels of a particular class and deal with it on its own. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the Government will review the general position.
  The next problem is that the Bill moves English law further away from European law, rather than the reverse. The rule in the French civil code is "La possession vaut la titre", which is very similar to the doctrine of market overt. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider, because this is a single-market issue, whether there ought to be a European approach as to the circumstances in which good title in goods is passed and the circumstances in which it is not. If one buys and imports throughout the European Community—whatever the appropriate balance of protection between the vendor and, on the one hand, the person from whom the goods are stolen and, on the other, the bona fide purchaser—it is a matter with a European dimension that is dealt with on that basis.
  Has my hon. Friend had any consultations with the City of London corporation? One of the glorious anomalies is that every shop in the City of London is a market overt in the class of goods in which it trades. He is seeking here to abrogate the ancient privileges of London, and I should be very interested to know what consultations he has had on that aspect.
  What has tended to happen in recent years is that our ancient franchise markets—the kind of market to which the market overt rule traditionally applies—have been greatly undervalued by those in power. I am bound to say that we have seen attempts to deregulate them which the Government have had to slightly reflect upon, and this is another fairly brutal attempt to whittle away at their considerable privileges.
  I have several traditional franchise markets in my constituency, and I see colleagues in the House who represent agricultural constituencies where rural franchise markets are a part and parcel of life and perform a valuable social function. Farmer Giles can still turn up and sell his potatoes or his beasts. It used to be that one bought them with good title, and one could sue the auctioneer or those running the market. The Bill would stop that.
  I urge my hon. Friend to consider the question of franchise markets. He should not abolish them as a feudal

  1343
  anomaly where they are valued and appreciated institutions. Nevertheless, will he consider a general review of the way in which markets are regulated and run? I hear what those in the antiques trade who make complaints about Bermondsey market say. I have never been there and I have certainly never bought anything there, although I may have driven past it.
  Those who complain that particular institutions have become thieves' kitchens might perhaps consider whether they have a remedy in the law as it stands, rather than promoting Bills of this sort.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall also be extremely brief, and I could not better the erudition with which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) expressed his concerns—which I share, particularly those about livestock markets. The reservations that I have about the Bill include the fact that we are intending to sweep away a piece of English history which goes back for many hundreds of years at just after 2 o'clock in a deserted House on a Friday in July, and that is a pity.
  The Bill will not do what it is designed to do, and it will pursue people in one market at the expense of livestock markets in my constituency. I have one charter market in my constituency which has existed since mediaeval times. We do not know—and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) also does not know—whether it is a market overt or not. I suspect that it is, but there is a dispute about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said that there could be real problems in dealing with the issue of title, which is currently covered by that aspect. While I share those concerns, I do not propose to obstruct the passage of the Bill; but it is worth a moment's pause before we abandon a piece of legal history to the dustbin.
  2.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I shall respond to some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) put directly to me. He asked me to consider whether the matter could be looked at through the European Commission. That is an interesting point and I will consider it. I do not believe that the Bill contains some of the anomalies to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I shall want to look carefully at it in the light of what he said. I will respond in due course.
  We are conducting a more general review and we have known about the Bill for some time. There have been no representations that the market overt rule ought to be kept. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) almost argued against his own point in one respect, when he referred to his local market and said that he was not sure whether it was a market overt or not. There are some problems with definition as to which markets are covered by the general rule of market overt. I do not think that there are particular reasons for keeping it going.
  1344
  Indeed, it is something of a puzzle why it was not abolished when the common law regarding the sale of goods was first codified in the Sale of Goods Act 1893. The rule has been much criticised as a thieves charter, and although there is not a great deal of evidence that market overt is used as a means of disposing of stolen goods, it can no longer rationally be defended. For that reason, the Government support the Bill and commend it to the House.
  2.14 pm
  Mr. Cormack: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks. I should like to reply briefly to my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), to whom I am grateful for saying that they will not ultimately oppose the Bill. I cast no aspersions on the learning of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, but many learned lawyers, including Lord Renton and Law Lords in the other place, believe that the Bill is desirable and sensible. On the law, I rest my case.
  To say that, because market overt has been enshrined in English history since 1189, there is no reason to get rid of it, is hardly an argument. William Wilberforce could have bowed to the same argument when the slave trade was being abolished and one could still be branding people and doing all sorts of other unmentionable things. That argument does not hold, because something that has a long history behind it is not necessarily correct.
  I am glad to note what my hon. Friend the Minister said about Europe and it is, of course, important that we discuss matters with our colleagues in the European Union.
  As for the City of London, as a freeman of the City—if I have to declare that interest—I have received absolutely no representations from any of my colleagues or from common counsel on this. Many of them know about my interest in the Bill, just as they know that Lord Renton took it through the other place.
  I will not weary the House by quoting an extremely learned letter from Brian Davenport QC—I believe that my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth and for Hexham have seen the letter—but, as he points out,
  "As a matter of history, there is nothing new in the suggestion that the law of market overt should be abolished. This was unanimously recommended by the Law Reform Committee in its twelfth report in 1966."
  He goes on to deal with the livestock market and notes:
  "The Law Reform Committee reported that over half the livestock markets in England were private markets and therefore could not be markets overt. In the case of each of the others it would have to be shown that the market was established by charter or had existed since before the year 1189."
  I do not believe that the farmers of Hexham or of anywhere else are in danger. No one likes dealing in stolen goods in any event, if he is an honest man, and most farmers are honest.
  I am conscious that another measure is to be discussed briefly, so, once again, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  Sports (Discrimination) Bill
  Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: To be considered on Friday 21 October.
  Sir Peter Fry: There are amendments to the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It will not be in order for the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) to move his new clause, because consideration has been deferred by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is in charge of the Bill.
  Bill to be considered upon Friday 21 October.

  Energy Conservation Bill
  Not amended(in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Energy Conservation Bill
    New clause 2

      COMMENCEMENT
      'This Act, except sections 4 and 5, shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different provisions, different purposes of the same provision and different areas.'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 3—Power of Secretary of State to give guidance on conduct of investigations—
      Amendment No. 92, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out 'and'.
      Amendment No. 93, in page 2, line 4, after `practicable', insert 'and cost effective'.
      Amendment No. 181, in page 2, line 20, leave out from 'cent.' to end of line 22 and insert
      'or such other percentage as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute; and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;'.
      Amendment No. 94, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
      '(5A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above what measures are in its opinion cost effective, the authority shall have regard to any guidance on the question for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 43 and 51.
      Amendment No. 153, in page 3, line 27, after 'plan', insert 'and any modification'.
      Amendment No. 182, in page 3, line 28, at end insert—
      '(8) Orders under subsection (2)(a) above may make different provision with respect to different cases or classes of case.'.
      Government amendment No. 52, in clause 3.
      Amendment No. 203, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      Amendment No. 196, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'a date' and insert
      'such date or dates as he considers appropriate'.
      Amendment No. 199, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'all'.
      Amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 29, after 'plans', insert 'and modifications'.
      Amendment No. 197, in page 3, line 29, after 'plans', insert
      'or parts of plans, as he may specify'.
      Amendment No. 206, in page 3, leave out lines 31 to 41.
      Amendment No. 147, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'all such plans' and insert 'any plan or modification'.
      Amendment No. 201, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'all such plans' and insert
      'a plan or part of a plan specified under subsection (1) above'.
      Amendment No. 193, in page 3, leave out line 32.
      Amendment No. 204, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      Amendment No. 146, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'such plans' and insert 'the plan or modification'.
      Amendment No. 198, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'such plans' and insert
      'the plan or the part'.
      Amendment No. 171, in page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34.

      1347
      Amendment No. 170, in page 3, line 33, after 'may', insert
      ', with the consent of the Treasury,'.
      Amendment No. 169, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'a Scheme for making'.
      Amendment No. 148, in page 3, line 34, leave out 'of such plans'.
      Amendment No. 195, in page 3, line 35, leave out lines 35 to 41.
      Amendment No. 205, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      Amendment No. 200, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'above;' to end of line 41.
      Government amendment No. 32.
      Amendment No. 167, in page 3, line 42, after '(4)', insert
      'Subject to subsection (5) below,'.
      Amendment No. 149, in page 3, line 43, after 'plan', insert 'or modification'.
      Amendment No. 166, in page 3, line 45, at end insert—
      '(5) Regulations under subsection (4) above may make different provision for different cases, or classes of' case, including different provision for different areas.'.
      Government amendment No. 53.
      Amendment No. 194, in the title, line 5, leave out from `powers' to second 'and' in line 5 and insert
      'to secure the implementation of such plans'.
      2.17 pm
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I listened with great care to the Minister's advocacy of new clause 2, which he spent 30 minutes doing on 22 April and I am disposed to accept it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not clear that this Division was not originally sought and that it is taking place against a Government new clause which I have accepted, with tellers for both sides being put in by Government supporters so as to ensure that the Energy Conservation Bill does not make any further progress today? Can you confirm that the promoter of the Bill did not put in tellers for the Division? It is clearly an attempt by the Government to prevent the House from considering the Energy Conservation Bill any further.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: As Deputy Speaker, I have no knowledge of those matters. All that I am concerned with is whether the Division has been called correctly, and I am satisfied that it is in order.
      The House having divided:Ayes 63, Noes 2.

      Division No. 296]

      [2.17 pm

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Austin-Walker, John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Barnes, Harry

      McWilliam, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Malone, Gerald

      Bendall, Vivian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Berry, Roger

      Merchant, Piers

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Burt, Alistair

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Patnick, Irvine

      Clappison, James

      Raynsford, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Conway, Derek

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dover, Den

      Sproat, Iain

      Dykes, Hugh

      Stern, Michael

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Trend, Michael

      Garrett, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Waterson, Nigel

      Gunnell, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Whittingdale, John

      Hodge, Margaret

      Willetts, David

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Wood, Timothy

      Keen, Alan

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Knapman, Roger

      Mr. Gyles Brandreth and

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Mr. George Kynoch.

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      NOES

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Cox, Tom

      Mr. Roger Evans and

      Mr. Michael Bates.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Bill to be further considered upon Friday 21 October.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for further consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be further considered upon Monday 18 July.

    ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY LEASEHOLDERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Not moved.

    WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    REGULATION OF COSMETIC SURGERY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    HEREDITARY PEERS (DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    CONTAMINATED LAND (REMEDIATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    TAMPONS (SAFETY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 21 October.

    LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    FREEDOM TO ROAM (ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    CHILDREN ACT 1989 (PROHIBITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    FINE DEFAULTERS (RESTRICTION OF POWER TO IMPRISON) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    TREASURE BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 February].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 21 October.

    PUBLIC CONVENIENCES (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    UNFAIR DISMISSAL (INSOLVENCY OF EMPLOYER) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

    TRADE BOYCOTTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PUBLIC INQUIRIES (IMPROVED PROCEDURES) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 October.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 19th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 and Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to the draft Conservation (Natural Habitats,& c.) Regulations 1994, respectively, not later than one and a half hour after each Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this morning, a statement was made about the important matter of Government consultation on discrimination against disabled people and a document was placed in the Vote Office. I do not know whether it is a Command Paper and therefore I cannot tell whether it will be formally placed before Parliament. Can you ascertain whether that is so? Will the facts in the paper that is laid before the House, particularly those on page 13, be examined by a Select Committee?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no information on the main point. I can cause inquiries to be made.
  Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his statement this morning, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said that the Government had always opposed rights-based legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. Given that, on Second Reading, not a single hon. Member—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: This is quite irregular. That is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must be guided by me.

  Palestinian Refugees (Lebanon)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  2.35 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: A visit by members of the parliamentary Labour party to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and Jericho provided many memories: the destruction still so overpowering in the centre of Beirut; the quiet tension of the artificial border on the Golan heights; the sense of progress in Amman; and the atmosphere of fresh celebration, liberty and hope on the streets of Gaza and Jericho. Yet for me, as a member of that party, no memory will be more lasting or more poignant than that of a visit to the camps of the Palestinian refugees at Shatila and Burj El-Barajneh in Beirut.
  Our Lebanese hosts were not encouraging when we said that we wanted to go there, but they recognised our determination and the strong wish of Lionel Brisson, the director of United Nations Relief and Works Agency affairs in Lebanon, to meet us at the camps.
  The discussion that we held with the group of residents who represented them all gave us the starkest reminder of the distance that the peace process has to travel. The men whom we met had lived in compulsory exile for 46 years. They were stateless; they were not allowed to obtain jobs outside the camps; and they could not get education beyond secondary schools. They lacked those most basic rights, but they had great dignity.
  Some of the older men showed us their British birth certificates. Two of them produced documents showing that, under the British mandate, they served in the police force. Others had spent the whole of their lives in the camps and had no reason to suppose that they would ever see the villages around the lake of Tiberias which their parents called home.
  Given their experience and the role that Britain, under a Labour Government, had played in their fate, they were surprisingly free from rancour; however, they were more critical, and I think more fearful, of the current peace process, for they could see that it had passed them by. Perhaps it would develop, but the more it did and succeeded, the more they would be left trapped in time, but without space. They would be the long-term victims, first of war and then of peace. They also know that there is now a concentration of resources from many nations on Gaza and Jericho, but that means fewer resources for them. They are the real losers in the peace process.
  It is easy to cast stones: at Lebanon, because refugees in Syria and particularly those in Jordan have a far better deal; at Israel for bombing and raiding the camps during its invasion as far north as the outskirts of Beirut; at the PLO, as the fate of these people was not remotely on the agenda in the negotiations; and at ourselves for our role in the creation of the problem. It is easy to cast stones, but it is not constructive. We must address what measures we ought, through the United Nations, to argue for and be prepared to contribute to in the short and long terms.
  The members of the camp council whom we met made it clear that they supported Hamas, which was to be expected. The policy of destroying Israel made sense to them. How else, they argued, could they recover their homelands? But they recognised that that was not on our
  1354
  agenda or on those of Lebanon, Syria or Jordan. It is a political and military non-starter, so how can we prevent these refugees from becoming the forgotten of the region?
  First, we must accept that they are not simply Lebanon's responsibility. Lebanon makes it quite clear that they are unwelcome and that, however long they have stayed, they cannot settle. That exacerbates the refugees' problems. Many of the Lebanese camps suffered enormously during the Israeli invasion and in the Lebanese civil war. Shatila was almost destroyed, as was two thirds of Burj-El Barajneh.
  The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has spent money on building blocks of flats in Shatila, replacing with homes the rubble left by Israeli raids. It wants to build more, including schools and infrastructure for water and sanitation, but the Lebanese Government say no. Permanent structures create a feeling of permanence and that cannot be allowed, so far more people live in and among the debris than need be the case.
  It is true that Beirut has massive reconstruction problems: years of huge expense lie ahead. It is also true that, after the disastrous civil war, the balance between the Christian and other communities is delicate and would be upset by the acceptance of about 300,000 Palestinians as citizens. Lebanon cannot act alone, but must be part of a comprehensive solution.
  United Nations resolution 194 affirms that Palestinian refugees have the right either to return to their former areas or to be compensated for their losses. The Jordanian parliamentarians whom we met affirm their continuing support for that resolution to be implemented as part of a lasting peace settlement. Jordan, of course, has far more than the 300,000 refugees in Lebanon—it has upwards of 1 million. The parliamentarians made it clear that the settlement of the refugee issue on a comprehensive basis was for them an absolutely integral part of the peace process.
  Britain, too, should confirm its support for resolution 194 and work for its acceptance by all parties. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as Israel and the PLO, will have to reach accord if the region is to gain the level of stability that will enable all the nations involved to give economic and social development the priority that they could have if all national securities were guaranteed. That cannot happen if the 1948 exiles are simply ignored or if those in Lebanon, who are the ones with the greatest difficulties, remain the only group not affected by an agreement. They would then become irrevocably committed to a radical solution, but without any of the means of achievement or even self-expression, let alone of escape.
  We must accept that, historically, the United Kingdom has a level of direct responsibility, which I am sure we will be glad to share with our European partners. We must support UNRWA and ensure that, in stepping up the aid we provide to the new Palestinian authority—the Minister is well aware of my support for the measures taken to assist it—we must be careful not to remove aid from the work that UNRWA is doing with refugees, especially its budget for Lebanon.
  There are real worries about that budget. It has not kept pace with local inflation and the Palestinians say that in the closure of a hospital, in reduced levels of health care and in the contributions that they are asked to make, there is evidence of a reducing budget.
  We should be willing to back the agency's planned capital programme for the camps. We should raise with it

  1355
  the current concerns of the Palestinians, and we should use our relationship with the Lebanese Government to get permission for that capital work to go ahead.
  Britain is currently 10th on the list of contributors to UNRWA. We do not sponsor specific projects. It would be timely to back one of the new facilities needed and give it the level of support that would ensure that it was provided. In those circumstances, the Lebanese Government would give permission for the work to go ahead. I am sure that it is much easier in this country to get public backing for a school or a housing project than it is to get aid for general purposes.
  I was one of the first group of parliamentarians to visit Beirut for 20 years. We found Britain well regarded because our embassy, unlike most others, stayed open throughout the civil war. As Prime Minister Hariri told us, that should provide opportunities for the involvement of British firms in the huge programme of renewal. However, it also gives us the ability to ask questions about the status of the refugees.
  Our ambassador played a direct part in ensuring that we visited the camps. We should say that, while we fully understand why Lebabon denies citizenship for internal reasons, the legal status of the refugees should give them the rights of residence, shelter, work, education, health, social security, the protection of the law and democratic freedom. We must recognise that Lebanon alone cannot deal with that and that solutions within a wider context are essential—solutions guaranteed and underpinned by a UN framework.
  Visually, Beirut is still disturbing, but the experience of Shatila and Burj-El-Barajneh and our talks with their people was not just physically but emotionally unsettling. The peace process has brought flickers of hope to many. We must work to stop it bringing, at the same time, despair to others.
  Britain, in Europe, has an important role. Historically, we know the region and its peoples. We must strengthen those forces and agencies for conciliation and help Lebanon to improve the prospects for all who live there, including those who, after 46 years, are still unwelcome guests.
  2.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am glad that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) has chosen to raise this important subject on the Adjournment. I am also glad to see two of my hon. Friends here: my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has a particular interest in the middle east, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is well known for his concern about all matters relating to Israel.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the problem of refugees in the middle east goes somewhat wider than outlined by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell)? Does he accept that, in the immediate aftermath of the formation of the state of Israel, there were also a large number of Jewish refugees, and that the difference between the state of Israel and the state of Lebanon was that Israel provided jobs and houses for the Jewish refugees? Is it not a pity that Lebanon, Syria and Jordan did not do the same for the refugees that they received?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has shown his customary ingenuity in making the point that I knew he wanted to raise. However, it enables me to welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is also here. He, too, has a well-known concern for the affairs of Israel.
  The serious problems of the 1948 Palestinian refugees have always been a major concern of the international community. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency—UNRWA—was set up to deal with just those problems. UNRWA established its headquarters in Beirut in May 1950 and, since then, has played a significant role in the lives of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon.
  UNRWA provides services to some 2.8 million registered refugees in the region. Those services include basic education, health, social services and income generation. The United Kingdom sits on the seven-member advisory commission to UNRWA in Vienna and we fully support its work throughout the region.
  UNRWA quoted the number of registered refugees in Lebanon as around 335,000 at the end of last year. Of these, more than 150,000 live in 12 camps run by UNRWA, and 95 per cent. of the Palestinians living in UNRWA refugee camps in Lebanon are 1948 refugees.
  No one doubts that the hardships faced by the Palestinians who went to Lebanon in 1948 have been especially severe. Not only did they leave their houses in 1948, but they subsequently found themselves in the middle of a brutal civil war. The horrors of the massacres in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps are known to us all. UNRWA itself was forced to move its headquarters from Beirut to Vienna.
  The refugees in Lebanon today still find themselves in a difficult political environment, in many ways outside the society that hosts them. That problem was described by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South. UNRWA is working to rehouse refugees who have been displaced from property in which they sheltered during the war, property which the Lebanese are now hoping to restore to its rightful owners during the process of reconstructing Lebanon.
  Although the delicate situation in Lebanon has affected the situation of the Palestinians there—through no fault of their own—we must recognise the contribution made to those refugees by their hosts. We welcome that help.
  We are concerned about the continuing difficulties in the south of Lebanon, not least because they periodically affect the refugee population. We are supporting fully the peace process which we hope will lead to a permanent peace settlement. We have welcomed Israeli Government statements to the effect that they have no claims on Lebanese territory or water resources. We hope that they can be translated into action and look forward to the full implementation of Security Council resolution 425.
  We have consistently called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon as provided for in the Taif accord. In this context, we have been encouraged to see the Lebanese armed forces play a far more active role in maintaining peace and security in Lebanon. They will have a key role to play in the establishment of lasting stability.
  Lebanon has now embarked on an ambitious programme of reconstruction which the British Government whole-heartedly support. There is a renewed mood of confidence, and British companies are actively participating in the reconstruction process. We recognised the progress that Mr. Hariri's Government had made when we restored Export Credits Guarantee Department cover in

  1357
  January. Since then, the political situation in Lebanon has remained stable. The enormous progress made should have a beneficial effect on the lives of everyone there.
  There is a widespread perception—one to which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South referred—that the 1948 refugees are the forgotten victims of the breakthroughs in the middle east peace process that have taken place in the past year. They have not been forgotten by either the negotiators or the aid agencies.
  The 1993 declaration of principles signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel provided for discussion of the 1948 refugees as a permanent status issue. Permanent status talks are to begin on or before 4 May 1996. Other permanent status issues include settlements and Jerusalem. While those are some of the most difficult issues, they are also some of the most important to an overall settlement and there is no danger of their being overlooked.
  The declaration of principles stated explicitly for the first time that the peace process and the negotiations of permanent status would lead to the implementation of resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242 affirms the necessity of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem. We will do all we can to ensure that the peace talks address that issue.
  We continue to stress to all our interlocutors the importance that we attach to a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement. That is not to say that a solution to the problem will be easy or quickly found, but we are urging all parties to proceed with all speed to reach solutions to the refugee question on both the Palestinian and the Lebanese track. In that context, we welcome the recent progress on the Jordanian track, and greatly welcome the speech made by His Majesty the King of Jordan.
  We will continue to urge progress on all aspects of the peace process, including the multilateral tracks. We participate in all the working groups of the multilateral talks, not least the refugee working group. In April, a mission went to the refugee camps in Lebanon. UNICEF is also involved in projects for the Lebanese through the working group.
  The European Community is holding its second inter-sessional activity of this working group in Bristol next week. It will work on an inventory and assessment of the assistance available to all refugees. We very much hope that progress in the peace talks will enable Lebanon to join in the multilateral talks, and particularly the refugee working group.
  Our assistance to UNRWA is mostly in the form of a contribution to the regular budget. At present, we contribute £6 million annually, which makes us the fifth largest donor. Our contribution is used by the Commissioner-General to meet his general priorities, rather than being earmarked for specific needs.
  To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, our contribution is more useful if it is
  1358
  available for general needs. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is sometimes easy to find money for specific projects. Schools and housing were the two examples that he gave. By making it available for general needs, we make money available for what might otherwise be seen as somewhat less glamorous causes.
  Mr. Gunnell: I accept what the Minister says. I accept that we put in a considerable amount of money. I wondered whether perhaps some additional specific aid might be given. I agree that public support is more easily gained for specific aid, but I do not suggest that we should reduce the amount that we give to the general UNRWA budget.
  Mr. Hogg: I understand that. The impression I gained from the hon. Gentleman—I am not being critical about this—was that he suggested that we should focus more than we do on special projects. I make the point that there are advantages in putting the money into the general spending policy because that requirement is less glamorous. The Commissioner-General finds it more difficult to find support for general outgoings than for specific projects, which attract general support.
  We also contribute to UNRWA through the EC. The EC contributes at present about 30 million ecu a year, of which the UK's share is around one sixth, or about £6 million a year.
  UNRWA's peace implementation programme, which was drawn up in response to the declaration of principles, deliberately included provision for refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. In Lebanon, there is a health programme, an education programme and a relief and social services programme.
  Our own bilateral programme also addresses the situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon. Recently, the Overseas Development Administration agreed to spend nearly £200,000 in support of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon.
  The largest part of that funding is going through the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians—MAP—which works closely with the refugees and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in the area of health. They are working on projects to restructure health services and develop primary health care and medical training in south Lebanon.
  We also provided £10,000 in emergency aid through MAP to the Palestinians in Lebanon after the Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon last July. That is another example of a situation where we cannot solve the root cause of the trouble, but we can, and do, play our part in easing the symptoms. This is always in parallel with the political pressure on the parties to reach agreement between themselves to solve the underlying dispute.
  That is the approach which we will continue to adopt. Our support for all tracks of the peace process will continue unabated, both politically and economically. Only the success of that peace process will be able to find a permanent solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. We hope that that settlement is not long in coming.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Royal Courts of Justice
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on the new extension to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand; how much has been spent on facilities for(a) members of the public, (b) plaintiffs' prosecution witnesses, (c) defendants and defence witnesses, (d) solicitors and barristers, (e) judges and (f) administrative staff.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The works cost of this scheme amounted to £15.4 million including VAT. No elemental cost breakdown of the areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers can be produced without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Civil Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to announce the findings of his Department's 1992 review of the organisation and management of civil enforcement agencies.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 23 June,Official Report, column 247. The consultation exercise raised a wide range of difficult issues. The Lord Chancellor is continuing to give consideration to these, and is not in a position to say when an announcement will be made.

  Small Claims Procedure
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce paper arbitrations into the small claims procedure.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans at present to introduce paper arbitrations into the small claims procedure.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has in this Parliament to raise the small claim court limit from its current level of £1,000.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor will review the monetary limit for automatic reference into the county court arbitration procedure later in the year. No new figure has yet been decided and no date for implementation has yet been set.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the consultants used by his Department on standard development work associated with NVQs in each of the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, together with the specific subject areas on which they worked, the cost of each contract and whether these contracts were publicly advertised and tendered.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Travel-to-Interview Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the eligibility for the travel-to-interview scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Andrew Smith, dated 15 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about extending the eligibility for the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS). I am replying in the Chief Executive's absence.
  We are presently considering a package of changes to improve the working of the Scheme within available resources. In doing so we are re-examining many of the rules which cause people most concern. These include rules about the salary level cut-off point, the duration of the job applied for and help where a second or third interview is necessary for the same job. In making such changes we have first to be sure that the Scheme remains an incentive for unemployed people to widen their job search and that it does not subsidise activity which would, in any case, take place.
  If it is possible to redevelop the scheme in the way we wish, we would hope to be able to introduce the changes this year.
  I hope this is helpful.

EDUCATION

  Special Education, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when his Department received the city of Manchester's proposals for reorganising special education in the city; when he will be responding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Manchester city council notified the Department on 20 July 1993 of its intention to reorganise special education in the city. Formal proposals were submitted to the Department on 1 October.

  The council was notified on 31 March 1994 of the Secretary of State's decision to approve the reorganisation of the Ewing special school. On 11 July, the council was informed that the Secretary of State had given qualified approval, subject to the satisfactory completion of building work, to the reorganisation and closure of other special schools in the city.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many nursery units and nursery schools have been granted capital funding in each of the last five years; and what was the total amount of funds granted to nursery units and nursery schools in capital allocation in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Nursery education does not represent a separate category in the distribution of annual capital guidelines to local education authorities. Authorities' plans for spending on nursery classes and schools are taken into account in the formula calculation of the ACG category covering improvement and replacement work. Capital spending at all county and controlled schools is entirely the responsibility of LEAs.

  For voluntary aided and special agreement schools the governors are responsible for building work and may claim grant of up to 85 per cent. on their expenditure. The table sets out the number of new nursery units approved for funding since 1989–90, together with projected allocations for total governors' expenditure:

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  Year

  Number of new units

  Governors' Expenditure (£000)

  11989–90

  5

  898

  11990–91

  5

  913

  1991–92

  13

  1,109

  1992–93

  13

  1,089

  1993–94

  19

  1,202

  21994–95

  10

  1,023

  1 Projects flowing from statutory proposals approved after the annual capital announcement were not recorded separately and may be omitted from the 1989–90 and 1990–91 statistics.

  2 To date.

  Figures are not available for funding work within existing aided school nurseries.

  The allocation of capital grants to grant-maintained schools is now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the Funding Agency to reply to the hon. Member.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Gordon McNally
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 274, (1) on what three dates he attended functions at which Mr. Gordon McNally was present; at what location he attended functions at which Mr. Gordon McNally was present; and for what purpose and in what circumstances the functions were held at which both he and Mr. Gordon McNally were present;

  (2) in what official circumstances he has been photographed in a group with Mr. Gordon McNally.

  The Prime Minister
  The three large functions which I attended, at which Mr. McNally also attended, were on 29 September 1992, 13 November 1992 and 23 March 1993. Photographs are often taken at such events and may have been taken on each occasion.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has sought the views of the Data Protection Registrar in relation to the possible introduction of a national identity number; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to introduce a national identity number. The question of a national identity card scheme is kept under review. If we decided to introduce such a scheme there would be a full consultation exercise.

  Ex-service People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 377, if it is his intention at present or at any time in the future to implenent the resolution of the House of 1 July on welfare of ex-service people.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no such plans at present.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Bodies
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to hold further public consultation on the future of English Nature and the Countryside Commission for England.

  Mr. Atkins
  The public consultation which has already taken place produced well over 300 replies, which have been taken fully into account by the study group considering the possible merger of the Countryside Commission and English Nature. There are no plans at present for a further round of consultation.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the final report of the study group on the future of English Nature and the Countryside Commission for England will be published; and if he will also publish the evidence submitted.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to consider the issue of the report further once he has made up his mind on the results of the study. Copies of responses to the consultation will be made available in the usual way when a decision is announced.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the study group on the future of English Nature and the Countryside Commission for England has completed its report; and when he expects to make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes. My right hon. Friend will make a statement when he has had an opportunity to draw his own conclusions from the study.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the London Ecology Committee in relation to the study group on the future of English Nature and the Countryside Commission for England, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The detailed submission from the London Ecology Committee was one of well over 300 responses received to the public consultation. All the views expressed have been taken fully into account by the study group.

  Safer Cities
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to make an announcement about proposals for further safer cities projects.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce that, as part of our undertaking to meet existing commitments to programmes now coming within the single regeneration budget, we propose to set up another 20 safer cities projects in this financial year.

  The areas invited to participate in the next wave are:

  Bolton

  Bournemouth

  Brighton

  Camden

  Easington

  Great Grimsby

  Hackney

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Newham

  Norwich

  Oxford

  Portsmouth

  Sandwell

  Scunthorpe

  Southwark

  Wansbeck

  Westminster

  York

  Each of these areas has above average rates of recorded crime and significant evidence of deprivation.

  Subject to confirmation of support for a project from each of the key local agencies—local authorities, police and probation service—we shall shortly seek tenders for their management from organisations with experience in crime prevention and project management.

  In addition to the running costs being met by the Department of the Environment, each project will have access to grant funding of up to £100,000 a year, for three years, to support local crime prevention and community safety initiatives.

  We expect the projects to be set up towards the end of 1994.

  Funding for these projects represents an existing commitment under the SRB, and is additional to resources set aside for initiatives starting in 1995–96, approved in accordance with the bidding guidance issued on 14 April 1994, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the Building Regulations 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is today laying before Parliament the Building (Amendment) Regulations 1994. The main purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the requirements of part L of the Building Regulations 1991 for the conservation of fuel and power; to improve part F on ventilation; and to simplify part A on structural stability. They also introduce a new regulation 13A to regularise unauthorised development.

  In revising part L, the aim has been to reduce CO2 emissions from buildings by incorporating cost-effective
  780
  measures, but to do so in a way which does not introduce unacceptable technical risks and maintains some flexibility for designers. The Building Research Establishment estimates that the changes will improve the energy performance of space and water heating in houses by some 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. compared with current building regulations standards, with similar improvements in the non-domestic.

  The revisions to part F have been introduced to improve and simplify the current provisions for ventilation in dwellings and to provide builders with a wider range of options on how this can be achieved. Requirements for non-domestic buildings are included in building regulations for the first time to reflect the relevant requirements of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 so that new building work should not require subsequent adaptation.

  To provide sufficient time for the industry, including builders, designers and building control bodies, to assimilate the changes, parts L and F will come into force on 1 July 1995.

  The revision to part A simplifes the requirement relating to disproportionate collapse of certain public buildings without detriment to safety. The new regulation 13A has been introduced to allow local authorities to certify building work which should have been subject to control but was previously unauthorised. The local authorities will be able to charge fees for carrying out this new task-fees which will be prescribed in new regulations to be laid before Parliament shortly. The revision to part A comes into force on 1 September 1994, and the new regulation 13A on 1 October 1994.

  Copies of the new editions of approved documents F and L and the related cost compliance assessments have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Waste Shipments Regulation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue guidance on the EC waste shipments regulation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment has published a circular, DoE circular 13/94, giving guidance on the implementation of the EC waste shipments regulations and the associated Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. The circular will assist waste regulation authorities and the waste disposal and recovery industries to follow the requirements of the new system.

  The final text of the circular reflects the outcome of public consultation on a draft document issued in March, and incorporates various changes to meet the concerns and interests of industry, local authorities and the public. The circular explains the provisions and administrative procedures of the waste shipments regulations and United Kingdom regulations, describes the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved in the shipments process, and offers guidance on issues such as the options available for the provision of financial guarantees, and local authorities' administrative charges.

  A compliance cost assessment has been undertaken in relation to the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. Copies of both circular 13/94 and the compliance cost assessment have been placed in the Library.

  The new system strengthens controls over transfrontier shipments of waste in the interests of protecting human

  781
  health and the environment. We are confident that the guidance in this circular will help both industry and regulators to get to grips with the demands of the new regime.

  Pennine Bridleway
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision on the proposed Pennine bridleway.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today signified that he is minded to approve the Countryside Commission's report in respect of the Pennine bridleway, with modifications to the route as submitted by the Commission.

  Further consultation will now take place with the local authorities through whose areas the route passes to confirm their agreement to the modification put forward.

  Coastal Zone Policies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recent consultation exercise on coastal zone policies.

  Mr. Atkins
  In October 1993, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office published two discussion papers on coastal issues: "Managing The Coast" and "Development Below Low Water Mark". Both papers were prepared with the full co-operation of all relevant Departments. They fulfilled the commitments made by the Government in their response, Cm 2011: July 1992, to the report from the Environment Select Committee, April 1992, on coastal zone protection and planning.

  Extensive comments were received on the two papers and reflected a wide range of views. I am today arranging for those comments and a summary of them to be made available in my Department's Library.

  The Government recognise the heightened importance attached to effective management of the coastal zone, and to ensuring that a balance is achieved between the commercial, environmental, leisure and other demands—for example, military needs—on such areas, in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.

  Following full consideration, we remain confident that existing statutory systems—including the specialised sectoral controls which apply offshore—are the most effective means of regulating development in the coastal zone. Accordingly, in recognition of the distinct needs of land and marine environments, we believe that a case has not been made for any general extension below low water mark of the jurisdiction of town and country planning legislation. However, we shall keep under continuing review the scope for making appropriate improvements to present arrangements: for example, to ensure maximum transparency and liaison in the decision-making process. We shall also consider further the scope for addressing some more detailed points raised in responses to the recent consultation exercise.

  However, we accept that there is concern in some quarters that new means of taking an overview of the impact and development of policies towards the coast are required, and that increased emphasis should be placed on the wider management of the coastal zone on the basis of defined goals and objectives.
  782
  We have already taken a number of initiatives to improve the planning and management of the coast: for example, publication of planning policy guidance note 20 on coastal planning; the launch last autumn of a strategy for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales, recent proposals for a revised regime for the dredging of marine aggregates, and more broadly, the continuing role of the interdepartmental group on coastal policy, which provides a vehicle for effective liaison on coastal zone matters within central Government.

  We have also laid before Parliament regulations to implement the provisions of the EC habitats directive, which include a new approach to the conservation of certain internationally important marine areas, and have supported the work of the nature conservation agencies in promoting the drawing up of management plans in a number of important estuaries.

  We now propose to take further measures to enhance the effective co-ordination of policies for the coastal zone in England. Responding to the call for clear and comprehensive objectives, we intend to publish within a year a statement of national policy guidelines for the coast. This will draw together in a convenient form policy guidance already provided on coastal issues. In turn, public and private bodies, agencies and organisations will be asked to have due regard to the principles set out in the proposed guidelines, when giving consideration to actions which may impinge directly, or indirectly, on the coastal zone.

  Secondly, reflecting the priority which we attach to informed discussion on coastal issues, we intend to create by the end of this year a standing forum on coastal zone management. It will have a broad and balanced membership, including central and local government, and commercial, conservation and recreation interests. We will consult on its membership and terms of reference. Such a forum should be an effective vehicle for promoting understanding of the national guidelines and building on liaison arrangements at regional and local level already established. It will complement, but not overlap with, existing ministerial meetings dealing with specific issues such as flood and coastal defence.

  Thirdly, in recognition of the growing role and coverage of coastal zone management plans, we believe there is a strong case for highlighting good practice and clarifying, where necessary, the interaction of the different elements of such management. The proposed forum will have an important role here in ensuring effective co-operation between the responsible bodies. We shall therefore set this work in hand, and, in addition, consider how best to monitor the management plans being developed locally.

  Lastly, we shall proceed with the proposed review of byelaw powers relating to coastal management, and broaden its scope to look more widely at the general issue of implementing coastal zone management and the relationship between the voluntary principle and regulatory support. We shall therefore establish an interdepartmental working party to consider these matters, and in undertaking its task the group will consult widely with interested parties.

  Colleagues in the Scottish Office are currently preparing a discussion paper on coastal policy which will reflect Scotland's distinctive circumstances. It is expected that this paper will be published in the autumn. Colleagues in Northern Ireland also hope to issue a consultation paper on coastal policy to interested parties later in the year, taking

  783
  into account the different local government framework which exists. The Secretary of State for Wales will consider the position in Wales.

  Linked with existing initiatives and measures, we believe that these proposals offer a sound basis for achieving increased responsiveness to the specific needs of the coastal zone, and will make a major contribution to helping reconcile conflicting pressures on this vital and potentially vulnerable resource.

  Procurement and Contractural Arrangements
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received a copy of Sir Michael Latham's final report of the joint Government-industry review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  Sir Michael Latham has now presented his final report, which was due this month, and I have received a copy. Sir Michael will publish his report on Monday 18 July and copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Sir Michael's report contains recommendations to Government, the construction industry and its clients about

  Quintiles of gross weekly household income

  Lowest twenty per cent.

  Second quintile group

  Third quintile group

  Fourth quintile group

  Highest twenty per cent.

  All households

  1992

  Lower boundary of group (£)

  —

  108

  213

  341

  515

  —

  Average weekly expenditure on water and sewerage charges (£)

  1·90

  2·30

  2·70

  2·90

  3·60

  2·70

  Percentage of weekly household expenditure

  2·00

  1·40

  1·10

  0·90

  0·70

  1·00

  1987

  Lower boundary of group (£)

  —

  82

  162

  260

  381

  —

  Average weekly expenditure on water and sewerage charges (£)

  0·60

  1·00

  1·30

  1·60

  2·00

  1·30

  Percentage of weekly household expenditure

  0·90

  0·80

  0·80

  0·70

  0·60

  0·70

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposal on the costing of environmental protection arising from(a) the Marrakesh meeting on the implementation of the Uruguay round by GATT and (b) recent EU council decisions he intends to put to the forthcoming meeting of the G7 in Naples.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  At Marrakesh in April, Ministers decided that the World Trade Organisation should establish a committee on trade and environment. G7 leaders at the Naples summit welcomed the new World Trade Organisation's work on trade and the environment.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment reported the outcome of the last EU Environment Council meeting in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) on 17 June, Official Report, column 671. G7 leaders at the Naples summit said that they supported the work of the Commission on Sustainable Development in reviewing progress in the implementation of the Rio process.

  They also welcomed the restructuring and the replenishment of the global environment facility and supported its choice as the permanent financial mechanism of the biological diversity and climate change conventions.
  784
  practical reforms to reduce conflict and litigation, and to improve productivity and competitiveness. The Government are now considering the report and the recommendations contained in it.

  A conference, organised by the industry groups involved in the review, is being held on 25 July. It will provide a platform for Government, the construction industry and its clients to give an initial response to the report's recommendations.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of family expenditure in each quintile of income was taken up by water charges in 1987 and 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The amounts and proportions of weekly household expenditure on water and sewerage charges for each quintile of income are given in the table for the United Kingdom for 1987 and 1992. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10p.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive replies to his two letters of 7 June concerning constituents ref. 09/06/94 and 08/06/94.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 July and understand that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, also replied on that date.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement before the summer recess regarding his proposals on private wheel clamping.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's current practice in respect of immigration officials passing on details of the claims of persons seeking asylum to the embassies of countries from which asylum seekers have travelled.
  785
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not our practice to disclose any information about an individual asylum application to the diplomatic post of the asylum seeker's country of origin.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the types of personal data held by his Department which relate to the administration of immigration procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce measures to give trading standards officers the power to control car boot sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Trading standards officers already have extensive powers to enforce legislation intended to protect consumers. These powers can be exercised at car boot sales.

TRANSPORT

  Steel Rolls (Lorry Transportation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if steel rolls are required to be secured to a lorry cradle during transportation along minor roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Steel rolls and the cradles upon which they are carried are both required to be secured to a lorry when they are in transit on any road.

  The safety of loads on vehicles used on roads is controlled by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Regulation 100(2) requires that any load carried by a vehicle be secured, if necessary, by additional restraints so that it is not likely to cause danger or nuisance by moving, falling or blowing off the vehicle. This would apply to steel rolls.

  Section 8 of the Department of Transport's publication "Code of Practice on the Safety of Loads on Vehicles" advises operators of the best way to secure metal rolls to their vehicles.

  Air Services (Liberalisation)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on developments on the liberalisation of United Kingdom-United States air services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am writing today to the United States Transportation Secretary saying that I am prepared to give exceptional approval for airlines to bring in new services to replace certain transatlantic routes which have recently been or are about to be suspended. I am therefore offering United States airlines rights to serve Manchester-Los Angeles and Stansted-New York-Chicago.

  I am making this offer in order to help to maintain services for consumers while we continue to seek to make progress in securing a wider liberalisation of United
  786
  Kingdom-United States air services. I hope that the United States will soon be in a posiiton to return to the liberalisation negotiations. This offer is a further demonstration of my determination to secure liberal changes to the current air services agreement in the interests of consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public service obligation grant awarded to Network SouthEast in each year since 1978, in both cash and 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the level of public service obligation grant spent on Network SouthEast since 1985–86. Figures are not readily available to split PSO by sector before 1985–86. Up to 1986–87 figures are shown for London and the south-east region.

  Year

  £ million Cash

  £ million 1993–94 Prices

  1985–86

  253

  388

  1986–87

  205

  304

  1987–88

  230

  324

  1988–89

  140

  184

  1989–90

  86

  106

  1990–91

  146

  169

  1991–92

  355

  384

  1992–93

  575

  595

  11993–94

  371

  371

  1Subject to audit.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs have been incurred by his Department in developing road schemes subsequently abandoned in respect of(a) Preston southern and western bypass, (b) Hereford bypass, (c) Durham western bypass, (d) the A40 north of Oxford and Headington bypasses and (e) the A40 Longford-Gorsley improvement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: As the information requested relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 12 July 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the costs incurred in developing road schemes subsequently abandoned in respect of (a) Preston Southern and Western Bypass, (b) Hereford Bypass, (c) Durham Western Bypass, (d) the A40 North of Oxford and Headington Bypasses and (e) the A40 Longford-Gorsley Improvement.
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  a. Preston Southern and Western Bypass.

  1·62

  b. Hereford Bypass—this scheme has not been abandoned; it is a Priority 2 scheme in the revised Roads Programme.

  c. Durham Western Bypass.

  2·00

  d. The A40 North of Oxford and Headington Bypasses.

  2·196

  e. The A40 Longford-Gorsley Improvement.

  5·500

  These costs include consultants' fees, preparation costs, surveys, advance land purchase and VAT.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bilateral Aid Programme
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid programme was spent last year in(a) sub-Saharan Africa, (b) India and (c) South Asia; and how much the Oversease Development Administration plans to spend in each year to 1996–97 in these places in (a) cash prices, (b) real terms and (c) as a percentage of the relevant year's bilateral aid programme.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  Actual expenditure figures for the last financial year, 1993–94, are not yet available. United Kingdom bilateral aid expenditure figures in 1992–93, the latest year for which actual data are available, are:

  1992–93 Prices £ million

  Percentage of Total Bilateral Aid

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  509

  137

  of which: Country Programmes

  285

  21

  Other Bilateral Aid2

  224

  16

  India

  115

  18

  of which: Country Programmes

  92

  6

  Other Bilateral Aid2

  23

  2

  South Asia (excluding India)

  145

  111

  of which: Country Programmes

  99

  7

  Other Bilateral Aid2

  46

  4

  Other Regions

  439

  132

  of which: Country Programmes

  174

  13

  Other Bilateral Aid2

  265

  19

  World Unallocated3

  166

  12

  of which: Other Bilateral Aid

  166

  12

  1 The corresponding figures as a percentage of bilateral aid allocable by region are higher.

  2 Other bilateral aid is made up of Aid and Trade Provision, Food Aid, Disaster Relief, Debt relief, Non-Project Technical Co-operation, Drugs Assistance and CDC Investments.

  3 "World Unallocated" comprises block grants to the British Council, Natural Resources Institute, VSO, NGOs, Research Institutions and Commonwealth Organisations based in the United Kingdom.

  For 1993–94 and subsequent years, no breakdown is available for sub-Saharan Africa, India or South Asia. Figures are available for Africa, including North Africa and the middle east, and for the whole of Asia and the Pacific. The table shows planning figures for bilateral country programmes only for these two areas. These figures are not directly comparable with the figures for 1992–93.

  Country programmes only

  Percentage of total country programmes

  Cash prices

  1992–93 prices

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  Africa (including North Africa and Middle East)

  1993–94

  330

  320

  47

  1994–95

  344

  324

  45

  1995–96

  315

  286

  45

  1996–97

  284

  252

  44

  788

  Country programmes only

  Percentage of total country programmes

  Cash prices

  1992–93 prices

  Year

  £ million

  £ million

  Asia/Pacific

  1993–94

  254

  246

  35

  1994–95

  248

  233

  33

  1995–96

  227

  206

  32

  1996–97

  217

  192

  33

  These planning figures include an allowance, additional to the overall figure agreed in the public expenditure survey, to compensate for expected slippage of expenditure. For this reason, and because of the many detailed changes that take place over a period at country level in the rate of spending, actual spending will vary from the figures shown.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government first received(a) a draft copy and (b) the final version of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on the United Kingdom's aid programme published on 5 July; and what plans there are to respond to the criticisms contained in the OECD report.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We received a copy of the draft version of the report on 24 February and the final version on 5 July. The intervening period was required for the OECD to circulate the draft to other members for comments, and to fit publication into its printing schedule. Overall the OECD report recognised the many strengths in the "highly concessional and business-like" United Kingdom aid programme. We are continually looking for ways to improve efficiency and in doing so we shall take into account the conclusions of the OECD review.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Japan (Technology Agreement)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 4 July,Official Report, column 80, what discussions took place on civil nuclear science and technology co-operation during his visit to Japan in June; and if he will place a copy of the United Kingdom-Japan science and technology agreement of 13 June in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My visit in June was to attend the seventh Carnegie group meeting of Science Ministers and advisers of G7 countries. This informal biannual meeting has a wide-ranging agenda and useful discussions took place on strengthening international co-operation and on progress with major science projects, including some in the field of civil nuclear research. However, no bilateral discussions took place.

  I have arranged for a copy of the United Kingdom-Japan science and technology agreement to be placed in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to improve the opportunities for employment and career development of disabled people in the civil service.

  Mr. David Davis
  The civil service has had a code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities since 1985. The code has done much to improve the position of disabled people in the civil service, but we have recognised that still more needs to be done. For this reason, on 15 July the code will be replaced by a programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for disabled people.

  The programme provides a framework which will help Departments and agencies recruit, retain and promote people on merit, regardless of disability. It also provides detailed action checklists to help Departments and agencies make the best possible use of their disabled employees. The programme for action is accompanied by a stand-alone support document, "Focus on Ability", which offers practical advice on how to implement the programme.

  In addition, the approval of the Privy Council is currently being sought to an amendment to the civil service Order in Council, which will permit Departments and agencies to offer disabled applicants encouragement and assistance in the selection process, such as a guaranteed interview, and thus enable those Departments and agencies that wish to do so to sign up to the Employment Service's two-ticks symbol.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Planning (Ecclesiastical Exemption)
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the future of the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area control.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today laid before Parliament an order under section 60(5) and 75(7) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 defining the future scope of the exemption in England and Wales.

  As foreshadowed in my reply to my right hon. Friend on 17 December 1992, Official Report, column 370–71, a measure of exemption will be retained only for those church buildings which are covered by denominations' own arrangements for the control of works, where those arrangements satisfy our code of practice. Statutory procedures already exist for the Church of England; other denominations which are in the process of setting up arrangements are the Church in Wales, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Baptist Union of Wales and the United Reformed Church. Buildings of all other denominations and faiths will from 1 October 1994, when the order is due to come into force, be fully subject to normal listed building and conservation area control.

  Where the exemption is retained, its scope will be reduced. Subject to what is said below, it will apply in future only to buildings whose primary use is as a place of worship, and to objects or structures attached to their exterior or within their curtilage to the extent that these are
  790
  not listed in their own right. Where such objects or structures are listed in their own right, they will be fully subject to normal listed building control. My right hon. Friend and I came to the view that this was the most appropriate method of demarcation, taking into account the need to minimise duplication of control with the internal systems of the denominations concerned and, in relation to tombstones, the concerns expressed about possible inconvenience for the bereaved.

  To ensure reasonable parity of treatment between exempted and non-exempted bodies, we propose directions to bring within conservation area control tombstones, memorials and monuments not covered by the ecclesiastical exemption but below the current control limit of 115 cu m. To minimise any practical inconvenience, this extension of control will relate only to tombstones and so on erected before 1 January 1925.

  Special arrangements will apply to cathedrals of the Church of England. In this case, the exemption will cover the cathedral itself and buildings, objects or structures which are located within an area designated by me after consulting the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England and which fall within a precinct indicated by the Commission under the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. It will also cover places of worship elsewhere within the precinct, and tombstones elsewhere within the precinct which are not listed in their own right.

  The new arrangements will be summarised in planning policy guidance notes, to be issued in due course. Details of the exempted denominations' procedures will also be circulated to all local planning authorities. Plans showing the designated English cathedral areas have been sent to those local authorities concerned.

  As mentioned in the previous statement, our intention is to monitor these arrangements and review them after two years.

  The present exemption is also to be continued for the time being for certain categories of ecclesiastical buildings, mainly belonging to the denominations mentioned. My officials are writing to the bodies concerned to invite them to consider how works to such buildings should be controlled in future. These categories include buildings within Church of England peculiars, buildings of religious communities, school and other institutional chapels, and buildings of certain Scottish denominations within England and Wales.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 37, whether an immunodeficiency virus has ever been communicated from cattle to humans; why no tests are done on imported milk; what tests are done on United Kingdom produced non-pasteurised milk; whether bovine immunodeficiency virus has been found in non-pasteurised milk; and what assessment she has made of whether BIV is killed by (a) pasteurisation, (b) sterilisation and (c) ultra heat treatment.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence that an immunodeficiency virus has been communicated from cattle to humans and there is no evidence that bovine immunodeficiency-like virus affects humans.
  791
  Experimental efforts to grow BIV in human cells have failed. Two United States laboratory personnel who accidentally had needle stick injuries with BIV infected cell material some five years ago have shown no signs of illness as a result. In the absence of any risk to human health from BIV, we do not consider it necessary to test milk for the virus. Raw cow's milk produced in the United Kingdom is subject to hygiene and quality checks for example for plate counts, antibiotic residues and added water. In addition, raw cow's milk sold for drinking in England and Wales is subject to strict microbiological standards, for plate count and coliforms, under the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations 1989. We are not aware that BIV has been isolated from unpasteurised milk either here or abroad. It is known that lentiviruses are susceptible to heat treatment. Studies have been commissioned at the Central Veterinary Laboratory on the inactivation of BIV in milk by pasteurisation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 37, if she will now require testing of all milk imported from other EC countries to ensure that it complies with EC directive 92/46 on milk hygiene and that it is free of bovine immunodeficiency virus.

  Mr. Soames
  EC directive 92/46 allows milk to be traded within the EC if it meets requirements in the directive and bears the EC health mark. Under the EC veterinary checks regime, it is the responsibility of the exporting member state to ensure that only products meeting these requirements enter intra-Community trade. An importing member state can carry out nondiscriminatory checks at destination unless there is suspicion of an infringement of requirements in the directive, in which case spot checks, including sampling, can be carried out at any stage. However, it would be a barrier to trade and contrary to EC law to check for bovine immunodeficiency-like virus, which is not referred to in the directive.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Intervention Board performed against its targets for 1993–94; and what key performance targets Agriculture Ministers have set the agency for 1994–95.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Intervention Board's performance against its key targets in 1993–94 was as follows:

  1993–94

  Target (per cent.)

  Performance (per cent.)

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  98·0

  99·9

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98·5

  98·8

  Running cost efficiency gains

  2·5

  4·5

  Improvement in productivity

  5·0

  8·0

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0·40

  0·03

  To main expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limits

  —

  Met

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  5·0

  6·5

  792
  In agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I have set the following targets for 1994–95:

  Per cent.

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  98·5

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98·5

  Running cost efficiency gains

  2·5

  Improvement in productivity

  6·0

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0·40

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limits

  —

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  5·0

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the 1993–94 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is due to be published.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  I am pleased to report that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's annual report and accounts for 1993–94 was published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House

  The report charts the continuing success of the directorate as a next steps agency, and I would like to congratulate the chief executive and his staff on their considerable achievements during the year.

  Food Stockpile
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the destination of the donation of biscuits from the strategic food stockpile; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  During the past three years more than 30,000 tonnes of high-energy biscuits have been donated from the strategic food stockpile administered by my Department. The biscuits were subject to stringent quality testing prior to release for donation. They were donated to some 20 United Kingdom-based charities to help the starving and homeless victims of serious disasters in more than a dozen countries in Africa and eastern Europe, particularly to help relieve the plight of the civilian population in the former Yugoslavia.

  The final 5,000 tonnes of biscuits will be donated to the United Nations World Food Programme through the Overseas Development Administration over the coming months. This is a step towards the liquidation of the strategic food stockpile by March 1996.

  The biscuits would provide sufficient food for over 250,000 people for a year. To provide similar aid at today's prices would cost in excess of £20 million and represents a significant contribution to the United Kingdom's response to disaster relief.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Political Talks
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which dates he met representatives of the Irish Government since 1 September 1993 to discuss political developments in Northern Ireland.
  793
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have held such discussions with the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, at six meetings of the intergovernmental conference on 10 September and 3 November 1993, 28 January, 10 March, 25 April and 17 June 1994, during a visit to Dublin on 5 March and in the margins of the opening of the Shannon-Erne waterway on 23 May.

  I was also present on 3 and 15 December 1993 and 19 February 1994, when these matters were discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Reynolds, the Irish Prime Minister.

  Perceived religious affiliation

  Type of Employee

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  Not known

  Total

  Full-time

  29

  22

  4

  55

  Part-time

  24

  13

  7

  44

  Information on the Roman Catholic : Protestant ratio in each of the employment catchment areas for the three homes is not readily available.

  Recipients of Benefit in Northern Ireland

  Current1

  1991

  1981

  Total population= 1,628,000

  Total population= 1,601,400

  Total population= 1,637,700

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Housing Benefit

  137,621

  8

  168,000

  10

  n/a

  —

  Attendance Allowance

  49,237

  3

  41,400

  3

  18,300

  1

  Invalid Care Allowance

  18,736

  1

  10,600

  1

  700

  2—

  Disability Living Allowance

  67,080

  4

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  Disability Working Allowance

  159

  2—

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  Mobility Allowance

  n/a

  —

  17,000

  1

  6,900

  2—

  Child Benefit (Children)

  488,372

  29

  459,700

  29

  482,600

  31

  One Parent Benefit

  30,890

  2

  26,400

  2

  20,800

  1

  Family Credit

  19,952

  1

  15,300

  1

  n/a

  —

  Family Income Supplement

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  10,700

  1

  Income Support

  222,621

  14

  203,700

  13

  n/a

  —

  Supplementary Benefit

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  161,600

  10

  Industrial Injuries Benefits

  9,574

  1

  10,200

  1

  8,200

  2

  Sickness Benefit

  4,183

  2—

  3,898

  2—

  18,100

  1

  Invalidity Benefit

  87,813

  4

  58,800

  4

  32,600

  2

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  14,334

  1

  13,400

  1

  n/a

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  893

  2—

  500

  2—

  14,085

  1

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  100

  2—

  100

  2

  400

  2—

  Unemployment Benefit

  14,595

  1

  18,900

  1

  41,200

  3

  Widows Benefit

  11,129

  1

  12,800

  1

  15,100

  1

  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  10,200

  1

  1 Most recent information available—mainly May 1994.

  2—denotes less than 0·5.

  1971

  1984

  Total population = 1,540,400

  Total population = 1,450,000

  Benefit

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Family allowance (children)

  308,100

  20

  270,100

  19

  Widows' benefits

  15,100

  1

  15,900

  1

  Guardians allowances, orphans' pensions and children's allowances

  290

  1—

  329

  1—

  Supplementary benefit

  108,395

  7

  n/a

  n/a

  National assistance allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  58,324

  4

  Residential Homes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are employed on(a) a full-time and (b) a part-time basis at the residential homes of the Southern area health board; how many i n each category at each home are (a) Protestants, and (b) Roman Catholics; and what is the Roman Catholic/Protestant ratio in each of the employment catchment areas for the three homes.

  Mr. Ancram
  The table below gives a breakdown of staff by perceived religious affiliation in the three residential homes within the Armagh and Dungannon unit of management which is the only remaining directly managed unit within the Southern board's area.

  Benefits
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the resident population are in receipt of benefits other than retirement pension; and what were the numbers in(a) 1964, (b) 1971, (c) 1981 and (d)

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is provided in the tables:
  795

  1971

  1984

  Total population = 1,540,400

  Total population = 1,450,000

  Benefit

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Recipients

  Percentage of population

  Insured persons absent from work due to:

  Sickness

  42,000

  3

  35,000

  2

  Industrial injury

  1,400

  1—

  1,100

  1—

  1Denotes less than 0·5. per cent.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by wave(a) the number of non-executive directors of NHS trust hospitals and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust hospitals, by salary band.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on appointments to HSS trusts in Northern Ireland is set out in the table:

  Chairmen

  Non-executive directors

  Band 1 £19,285

  Band 2 £17,145

  Band 3 £15,125

  Wave 1

  5

  1

  —

  —

  Wave 2

  43

  3

  4

  2

  Wave 3

  114

  —

  1

  2

  1One non-executive director post remains to be filled.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Northern Ireland in each year from 1990 to 1993; what was the total number of maternities in Northern Ireland in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete infra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conceptions.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19931

  Sets of

  (a) Twins

  267

  315

  258

  293

  (b) Triplets

  5

  6

  8

  9

  (c) Quadruplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Quintuplets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (e) Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maternities

  25,338

  26,058

  25,425

  24,828

  (i) IVF2

  (a) Twins

  12

  11

  4—

  4—

  (b) Triplets

  2

  1

  4—

  4—

  (ii) GIFT3

  1 Provisional.

  2 These figures are the results of IVF by year of conception.

  3 GIFT was available in Northern Ireland in only 1986 and 1987.

  4 Not known.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Agencies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the United Nations Secretary-General has made in respect of moving the UN Relief and Welfare Agency and other agencies; what sites he has suggested; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on this.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Secretary-General has proposed moving UNRWA's headquarters from Vienna to Gaza. We will discuss this proposal with other donors represented on UNRWA's advisory commission. We have seen no proposals to move other agencies.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make special representations to the Burmese Government for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  With our European Union partners, we will underline our very serious concern about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's continued detention on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of her house detention.

  East Timor
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received from the retired Australian diplomat James Dunn in relation to loss of life in East Timor; what reassessment he has made of the situation there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We can find no record of any communication from Mr. Dunn in the last three years. Research of earlier files would involve disproportionate cost.

  Middle East
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments on the Jordanian track of the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Hurd
  We warmly welcome the recent decision by Jordan and Israel to initiate detailed discussions in the region on the elements of an eventual peace agreement. We similarly welcome King Hussein's decision, communicated to members of Jordan's Parliament on 9 July, that he and other Jordanian leaders should hold direct talks with Prime Minister Rabin and other Israeli leaders. I understand that discussions on border, security and water issues will begin on 18 July and that Foreign Minister
  797
  Peres plans to meet the Jordanian Prime Minister and the United States Secretary of State, on the Jordanian side of the border on 20 July, to discuss economic issues.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects an announcement to be made by the Kuwaiti Government in respect of orders for United Kingdom ships; and what size and type of vessel is involved.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Kuwaiti Government is currently considering bids for eight 42m fast patrol boats from British, French and German shipyards. Vosper Thornycroft are a leading contender.

  I am unwilling to speculate when an announcement is likely to be made as the Kuwaiti Minister of Defence has recently stated that the bids are still under consideration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of claims and recoveries to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last five years; and how much of each of these was in relation to defence exports.

  Mr. Needham
  The total value of claims and recoveries to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Claims £ million

  Recoveries £ million

  1989–90

  912.9

  229.1

  1990–91

  967.5

  224.9

  1991–92

  954.1

  187.2

  1992–93

  734.3

  157.1

  11993–94

  517.5

  177.0

  1 Provisional.

  ECGD does not record claims and recoveries by industry sector. It is thus not possible to provide the breakdown which the hon. Gentleman has requested.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has held with representatives of regional breweries with regard to the tie system and public house management.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor I have recently had discussions with the regional brewers about the tie or public house management. However, my officials are in regular contact with individual regional brewers and Independent Family Brewers of Britain, which represents many local brewers, on a number of issues of concern to the brewing industry.

  I am aware that some brewers are concerned that the EC Commission may bring forward proposals to amend or rescind regulation 1984/83, which concerns beer supply agreements. The regulation is due to expire at the end of 1997 and the EC Commission has said that it will not begin
  798
  to review it until 1996 at the earliest. The Government will, of course, take into account the views of all interested parties when considering any proposals that the Commission may bring forward during that review.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of a revision of the tie system on employment prospects in regional breweries.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Regional brewers have benefited greatly from the guest beer provision of the 1989 beer orders, which has enabled many to sell their cask-conditioned beer in tied pubs owned by the national brewers. They have also been able to acquire pubs sold by national brewers who were obliged to reduce the size of their tied estates to comply with the provisions of the beer orders.

  Directors' Fees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, further to his letter dated 11 July 1985, concerning pay of directors in answer to the written question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whether he will now publish his letter, dated 11 July 1985, with the two enclosures, concerning the emoluments of the chairmen and highest-paid directors of large industrial and commercial companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The letter was published on 25 July 1985,Official Report, columns 730–32.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, further to his letter dated 11 July 1985 about the pay of directors of plcs in answer to the written question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (1) whether he will publish a table showing the same information for the most recent years for which corresponding figures are available;

  (2) whether he will bring the two tables concerning the emoluments of chairmen and highest paid directors of plcs enclosed with his letter up to date with the full figures for 1983 as mentioned there together with those for subsequent years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available. It ceased to be compiled from 1990, and obtaining information for 1983 to 1990 from archive data could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what direct benefits will accrue to the United Kingdom from the liberalisation of the electricity market in the European Union.

  Mr. Eggar
  Liberalisation of electricity markets will put downward pressure on electricity prices and will help to provide a level playing field in electricity supply in the European Union, particularly for energy-intensive industries. The opening of markets will create new investment opportunities for the United Kingdom electricity companies which do not exist at present.

  Local Authorities (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which local authorities have been approached by his Department for their views on the contracting out of
  799
  trading standards departments and/or environmental health enforcement; what proposals were made by those authorities; and what position his Department took on such proposals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]My officials approached the trading standards departments of the City of Westminster and the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Bromley. None of the authorities is proposing to contract out its trading standards function; however, the London borough of Bromley is considering contracting out some trading standards work. My Department has noted the position and continues to monitor developments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the major reasons for the increase in the amounts recovered by the compensation recovery unit between 1990–91 and 1993–94;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the main sources of income from the compensation recovery unit;

  (3) from how many asbestosis victims the compensation recovery unit recovered money in 1993–94; and what were the amounts involved.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the compensation recovery scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 14 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking (a) the main sources of income for the Compensation Recovery Unit (b) from how many asbestosis victims the Compensation Recovery Unit recovered money in 1993–94 and (c) what are the major reasons for the increase in the amounts recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit between 1990–91 and 1993–94.
  During the financial year 1993–94, £81.9 million was recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU). The main sources of this income were as follows:

  £ millions

  Benefit

  Amount

  Invalidity Benefit

  35.2

  Statutory Sick Pay

  16.7

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  9.2

  Income Support

  5.8

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  5.5

  Sickness Benefit

  3.5

  Disability Living Allowance

  2.8

  Mobility Allowance

  1.1

  The remaining £2·1 million was made up of the following benefits:Unemployment Benefit, Attendance Allowance, Constant Attendance Allowance, Retirement Allowance, Family Credit, Severe Disablement Allowance, Disability Working Allowance and Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance.During the same period the number of asbestosis cases where recovery was made by the CRU was 157 and the total amount recovered in relation to these cases was £408,665.There are two main reasons for the increase in the amounts recovered by the CRU between 1990–91 and 1993–94:firstly, the number of claims notified to the CRU has increased significantly over the years by some 49 per cent. since 1991;
  800
  secondly, the Compensation Recovery legislation only relates to accidents or diseases which occurred on or after 1 January 1989. Settlements which occurred in 1990–91 resulted in recovery of benefits which had been paid for one or two years only. As the more protracted claims come to settlement, up to five years of benefits are now being recovered.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Formula
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to changing the child support formula so that children from the first and second families of the absent parent and any stepchildren for whom he or she may be caring are all treated equally when a maintenance assessment is carried out.

  Mr. Burt
  It is a basic principle of child support that, once his or her own personal living costs are met, the first duty of a parent is the support of his or her own children. Where an absent parent has stepchildren in his current family, the stepchildren's natural father has prime responsibility for their support.

  However, although the main child support formula does not treat stepchildren as the absent parent's own by making allowance for their living costs, their needs are taken into account when the protected income calculation is made. This ensures that the absent parent and his family will remain significantly above income support levels after the payment of child support maintenance. The changes which we introduced in February increased this protection and will be particularly helpful to absent parents with step-families.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims of disablement benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis or emphysema have been made by persons currently on income support benefit since September 1993; how many of these claims have been successful; and in which circumstances it can be financially advantageous for those suffering from chronic bronchitis or emphysema to be successful in claiming disablement benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Industrial injuries disablement benefit is payable in addition to other incapacity and disability benefits, but is taken into account in assessing entitlement to income-related benefits.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to ensure that those in receipt of chronic bronchitis or emphysema disablement benefit receive this payment as compensation for a prescribed disease or illness which they have suffered.

  Mr. Scott
  The industrial injuries scheme provides non-contributory, non means-tested, tax-free benefits on a no-fault basis to workers disabled by industrial accidents or prescribed diseases. Industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, as prescribed, is payable on this basis.

  Housing Expenditure Cuts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish an estimate of the effect on social security expenditure and tax revenues of
  801
  reductions in Department of the Environment housing expenditure between 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available. The link between reductions in Department of the Environment housing expenditure and social security expenditure and tax revenues is not direct and is affected by the complex interaction of a number of factors.

  Year

  Rent Rebate

  Rent Allowance

  RPI

  Eligible Rent2

  Percentage increase

  All Tenants

  Housing3 Association

  Other Private

  £

  Eligible Rent2 £

  Percentage increase

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  May 1988

  18·84

  —

  21·32

  —

  —

  —

  4·2

  May 1989

  20·57

  9·2

  24·29

  13·9

  —

  —

  8·3

  May 1990

  23·62

  14·8

  29·42

  21·1

  —

  —

  9·7

  May 1991

  27·29

  15·5

  35·75

  21·5

  —

  —

  5·8

  May 1992

  30·48

  11·7

  41·67

  16·6

  36·54

  48·57

  4·3

  Data Sources: The Housing Benefit Management Information System annual one percent sample of May in each year and the Employment Gazette, which provides figures based on the increase in the Retail Price Index from May of the previous year to May of the year shown.

  1 Figures on the extent to which increases in spending on rent rebate and rent allowance are due to increases in rents over inflation are not available.

  2 Data on rent paid is not available, therefore, the information relates to the amount of rent eligible for Housing Benefit.

  3 Discrete information for Housing Association tenants was not collected before 1992.

  Family Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a table setting out the number of people who have taken up the disregard in family credit to meet part of the cost of child care, as announced in the Budget, divided between(a) male and female claimants and (b) those who were already in work before the introduction of this reform and those who have moved from unemployment into paid employment since its introduction; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the number of people who have taken up the disregard in family credit to meet part of the cost of child care, as announced in the Budget; what his estimate is of the average additional amount of family credit which they will each receive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We plan to introduce the child care disregard from 4 October 1994. Our best estimates are that about 150,000 families will benefit from it, of whom about 100,000 will already be in paid work and about 50,000 will move into work of 16 hours or more. The extent of additional help will depend in individual cases on earnings, on the cost of the child care and on whether family credit is received alone or in combination with housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table setting out his estimates of the cost in 1994–95 of the disregard in family credit to meet part of the cost of child care, as announced in the Budget, as it affects(a) expenditure on family credit, (b) total expenditure on social security, including any offsetting reductions in spending on other benefits and (c) the public sector borrowing requirement, including any offsetting reductions in spending in other areas and any increase in tax revenues; and if he will make a statement.

  Rent Rebate and Rent Allowance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table setting out for every year since 1988–89 how rents paid by claimants of(a) rent rebate and (b) rent allowance, divided between those claimants who are housing association tenants and those who are private sector tenants, have risen relative to the retail prices index; how much of the increase in spending on each of these benefits is accounted for by such increases above inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table1.

  Mr. Burt
  The full-year effects of the proposed child care disregard in family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance, to be introduced from October 1994, are expected in the longer term to be as follows:

  £ million pa

  (1) Increase in Family Credit expenditure

  +250

  (2) Savings on other benefits, mostly Income Support

  -190

  (3) Net increase in Social Security expenditure

  +60

  (4) Offsetting increases in Tax and NI revenue

  -30

  (5) Net increase in Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

  +30

  Pensions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how work will progress on his proposals for the new requisite benefits test for contracted-out salary related occupational pension schemes as set out in his White Paper "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions" published on 23 June.

  Mr. Hague
  A technical consultation paper is being issued today. The paper seeks views on the detailed criteria of our proposals for the new requisite benefits test, including definitions of pensionable salary and the role of scheme actuaries. It is being issued to a number of interested parties and is available to others on request. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Public Sector Assets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), of 30 June,Official Report,

  803
  column 678, if he will allocate the public sector assets to broad areas of spend, distinguishing between the Government and non-governmental public sector in cash and real terms for the years specified.

  Mr. Portillo
  Table 8.2 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", Cm. 2219, provided a detailed breakdown of public sector asset creation by spending sector and function between 1987–88 and 1992–93. Table 1.8 of the "Statistical Supplement to the

  Public sector capital by spending sector and function, 1989–90 to 1996–97 in real terms1

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  plans

  plans

  plans

  Central Government Own

  Defence

  663

  566

  638

  649

  707

  700

  -100

  500

  Overseas services including overseas aid

  85

  90

  124

  147

  174

  100

  100

  100

  Agriculture, fisheries, foods and forestry

  173

  633

  497

  429

  454

  200

  200

  200

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  797

  750

  604

  531

  625

  700

  700

  700

  of which: Regional and general industrial support

  500

  395

  313

  224

  264

  300

  300

  200

  National roads

  1,824

  2,254

  2,142

  2,196

  2,278

  2,100

  2,000

  2,000

  Other transport

  68

  35

  33

  36

  43

  —

  —

  —

  Housing

  1,206

  1,813

  2,194

  2,559

  2,044

  1,600

  1,500

  1,500

  Other environmental services

  232

  221

  240

  404

  448

  300

  300

  200

  Prisons

  450

  527

  451

  355

  293

  300

  200

  200

  Other law, order and protective services

  255

  278

  277

  294

  278

  300

  200

  200

  Education

  541

  576

  633

  629

  842

  800

  1,000

  1,100

  National heritage

  160

  180

  200

  191

  170

  200

  500

  500

  Hospital and community health services

  1,671

  1,769

  1,589

  1,402

  1,064

  500

  600

  500

  Other health and personal social services

  142

  152

  163

  185

  135

  100

  100

  100

  Social security

  372

  332

  353

  356

  386

  300

  300

  200

  Miscellaneous

  510

  629

  655

  419

  498

  500

  400

  400

  Total central government

  9,148

  10,802

  10,793

  10,781

  10,442

  8,800

  8,100

  8,600

  Local Authorities

  Agriculture, fisheries, foods and forestry

  43

  55

  46

  9

  33

  —

  —

  —

  Trade, industry, energy employment

  15

  9

  12

  9

  26

  —

  —

  —

  Local roads

  1,279

  1,106

  1,215

  1,283

  1,494

  —

  —

  —

  Other transport

  246

  174

  139

  186

  180

  —

  —

  —

  Housing

  2,635

  1,414

  1,966

  1,688

  1,460

  —

  —

  —

  Other environmental services

  1,257

  1,211

  1,334

  1,370

  1,579

  —

  —

  —

  Law, order and protective services

  376

  304

  331

  359

  361

  —

  —

  —

  Education

  1,038

  916

  914

  904

  902

  —

  —

  —

  National heritage

  510

  383

  301

  234

  296

  —

  —

  —

  Personal social services

  228

  201

  172

  166

  205

  —

  —

  —

  Total local authorities

  7,627

  5,773

  6,430

  6,208

  6,536

  5,500

  5,000

  4,750

  Public Corporations

  Electricity industries

  2,600

  2,487

  788

  542

  426

  300

  100

  100

  British Rail

  685

  1,031

  1,337

  1,523

  1,067

  800

  700

  600

  Other nationalised industries

  2,146

  1,236

  1,066

  1,366

  1,396

  1,200

  1,200

  1,300

  Other public corporations

  772

  1,097

  1,356

  1,705

  2,243

  2,800

  2,700

  2,700

  Total public corporations

  6,204

  5,851

  4,547

  5,136

  5,133

  5,200

  4,800

  4,800

  Allocation from the reserve

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  300

  600

  900

  plus national accounts adjustment

  1,204

  450

  628

  1,076

  1,003

  900

  900

  900

  Total public sector

  24,183

  22,876

  22,398

  23,201

  23,114

  20,750

  19,500

  20,000

  11992–93 prices.

  Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has, for the latest tax year, of the number of people over retirement age(a) who pay no income tax at all, (b) who pay income tax only at the 20 per cent. rate, (c) who pay more than (i) £100, (ii) £500, (iii) £1,000 and (iv) £3,000 in income tax in the year.
  804
  Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", Cm. 2519, provides a similar breakdown of public sector capital spending, on a national accounts definition, between 1988–89 and 1996–97. Annex A to chapter 5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95" explains the relationship between asset creation and the national accounts definition of capital spending.

  The table gives a breakdown of public sector capital spending, on a national accounts definition, in real terms between 1989–90 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates for 1994–95 are:

  Numbers (millions)

  (a) Non-taxpayers aged 65 or over

  6·2

  (b) Taxpayers aged 65 or over liable only at 20 per cent.

  1·1

  805

  Numbers (millions)

  (c) Taxpayers aged 65 or over with liabilities of

  (i) over £100

  2·7

  (ii)over £500

  1·8

  (iii) over £1,000

  1·2

  (iv) over £3,000

  0·4

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he intends to restore the monthly return of trade statistics reporting British trade on a comprehensive basis;

  (2) what are the reasons for the delay in the publication of United Kingdom trade figures with individual EU countries and with the EU as a whole; and when he hopes to be able to publish these figures on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Central Statistical Office restarted publication of monthly estimates of the total value of the United Kingdom's visible trade with the world, including figures for trade with the European Community, on 11 October 1993. Since then, it has published aggregate details for trade with the European Community for every month, including details for trade with individual countries, 10 weeks after the end of the month. This information is available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the Library of the House. The full detailed statistics for every month are made available approximately 14 weeks after the end of the month through marketing agents appointed by Customs and Excise. It is planned to reduce this delay in publication to 10 or 11 weeks by the end of March 1995.

  Comparable statistics for trade with countries outside the European Community are available six weeks after the end of a month. This difference in the availability of the two sets of statistics is due to differing systems of collection. The statistics on trade with European Community countries are not released until response from industry is such that the statistics are of an acceptable quality.

  House Builders Federation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the House Builders Federation; and when he next expects to meet it.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Chancellor last met the House Builders Federation on 22 September 1993. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present for further meetings with the Federation.

  EU Contributions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the United Kingdom's gross contributions to the European Union in 1995, after rebate; and what he expects will be the gross contribution in 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's gross contributions to EC institutions for the calendar year 1994 is set out in the "Statement on the 1994 Community
  806
  Budget" Cm. 2486, which was published in March this year. The Government's estimate for the calendar year 1995 will be published in next year's statement.

  "The Arts and Compulsory Competitive Tendering"
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to respond to the report "The Arts and Compulsory Competitive Tendering" commissioned from the consultants Positive Solutions Ltd.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1994, c. 599]: I have been asked to reply.

  Last year, I commissioned Positive Solutions to undertake a study of management practice in local authority arts facilities and ways in which it might be improved.

  The consultants have produced a thorough report, reflecting extensive consultation with local authorities, arts organisations, the commercial sector and others: a copy is being placed in the Library. Taken with the recent Arts Council survey of local authority expenditure on the arts, it shows that local authorities are very significant supporters of all forms of arts provision, both through direct assistance of artists and entertainers and through the provision of facilities for arts events either in purpose-built venues or in other general purpose facilities. I am pleased to pay tribute to local authorities' work in ensuring a high quality and innovative arts sector, accessible to all.

  The report shows that there have been significant improvements in local authorities' management of arts facilities. Since the Audit Commission's report on arts and entertainment in 1991, greater attention is now paid to such matters as the definition and communication of arts policies and the control of expenditure against agreed plans and targets.

  Nevertheless, there is general agreement that performance varies greatly between authorities and that there remains considerable scope for management improvements. There is also further scope for authorities to encourage the growth of private sector competition in the longer term.

  I therefore propose to review with local authorities a detailed programme of voluntary mechanisms for implementing management improvements where they have not already been adopted. Specific areas to cover include identification of a client-side function within authorities; development of performance indicators similar to those developed by the Audit Commission for other areas of local authority services; establishment of service level agreements; monitoring of performance against agreed performance targets; mechanisms for effective consumer feedback; and scrutiny of staff terms and conditions. In addition, as means of promoting competition I shall explore with local authorities mechanisms to encourage them to introduce efficiencies of scale through cluster management and to exercise customer choice within the internal market of their facilities.

  I shall aim to conclude this review by the end of 1994–95, with a view to implementing its conclusions from the following year. I would propose to assess the progress which authorities have made on this voluntary basis in two years' time.

  I am confident that the resulting changes will improve management standards in arts facilities and be to the benefit of users, artists, local authority staff and local taxpayer alike.

HEALTH

  Police Surgeons
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the standard of treatment given by police surgeons to detainees compared with standard national health service treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Arrangements for the provision of services of police surgeons are a matter for individual police authorities. I understand that police surgeons are predominantly national health service general practitioners. There is no reason why the standard of treatment given by police surgeons to detainees should be any different from that given to NHS patients.

  Trust Membership
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by wave(a) the number of non-executive directors of NHS trust hospitals and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust hospitals by salary band.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the numbers of trust chairmen by salary band is not available centrally. The number of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts by wave is shown in the table.

  Chairmen

  Non-executive directors

  First Wave

  49

  246

  Second Wave

  91

  458

  Third Wave

  136

  668

  Fourth Wave

  143

  707

  Surgical Cases
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of patients admitted for day case surgery in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March for (i) inguinal hernia repair, (ii) arthroscopy of the knee, (iii) cataract extraction and (iv) laparoscopy with sterilisation had their condition successfully treated by that surgical intervention;

  (2) what proportion of patients admitted for surgery in (a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March in (i) general surgery, (ii) urology, (iii) trauma and orthopaedics, (iv) ear, nose and throat, (v) ophthalmology, (vi) oral surgery, (vii) plastic surgery and (viii) gynaecology whose condition was successfully treated by that intervention.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. General practitioners and local health authorities are encouraged to collect information on outcomes at local level to judge the quality of service provided. The Department has a range of initiatives aimed at developing and promoting methods to support this function. These are described in a leaflet on the work of the central health outcomes unit, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of patients admitted to hospital in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March for surgery
  808
  subsequently died before discharge in (i) general surgery, (ii) urology, (iii) trauma and orthopaedics, (iv) ear, nose and throat, (v) ophthalmology, (vi) oral surgery, (vii) plastic surgery and (viii) gynaecology;

  (2) what percentage of patients admitted to hospital in (i) England, (ii) each regional health authority and (iii) each hospital or trust between January and March for (a) acute myocardial infarction, (b) congestive heart failure, (c) pneumonia/influenza, (d) stroke, (e) sepsis, blood poisoning, (f) hip replacement/recontruction, (g) prostatectomy, (h) gall bladder removal, (i) initial pacemaker insertion, (j) maternity, (k) angioplasty, (l) coronary artery bypass graft and (m) all admissions, subsequently died before discharge;

  (3) what percentage of patients were admitted to hospital in (a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March 1993 for surgery who lived for not less than (A) 90 days, (B) 180 days and (C) one year after their operation in (i) general surgery, (ii) urology, (iii) trauma and orthopaedics, (iv) ear, nose and throat, (v) ophthalmology, (vi) oral surgery, (vii) plastic surgery and (viii) gynaecology;

  (4) what percentage of patients admitted to NHS hospitals between January and March subsequently died before discharge in hospitals with (a) 1 to 49, (b) 50 to 99, (c) 100 to 299, (d) 300 to 499, (e) 500 to 999 and (f) 1,000 plus beds.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information by regional health authority in England on the percentage of patients in the acute sector who died in hospital was published in table 17 of the Department of Health statistical bulletin entitled "NHS Hospital Activity Statistics: England 1981 to 1991–92". A copy is available in the Library. Post-operative deaths which occur after patients have been discharged from hospital are not linked to the hospital records.

  Consultants (Choice)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS patients referred to hospital between January and March were given a choice of consultant;

  (2) what proportion of NHS patients (a) requested and (b) were granted a second medical opinion following a diagnosis by a consultant between January and March.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available. The patients charter includes the right for a patient, when his or her general practitioner thinks it necessary, to be referred to a consultant who is acceptable to the patient; and to be referred for a second opinion if the patient and the GP agree that this is desirable.

  Out-patient Consultations
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of patients attending accident and emergency departments in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March were treated by an accident and emergency consultant;

  (2) what proportion of patients attending out-patient clinics in (a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March were seen (i) by consultants and (ii) by other health staff.
  809
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. It is for individual consultants to make professional judgments about how their case load is shared with other members of their team.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each hospital accident and emergency department which restricted access to patients at any time(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in the first three months of 1994–95; and if she will indicate the number of occasions on which access was restricted in each case.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the opening hours of individual accident and emergency departments is not available centrally. Every health authority is required to purchase accident and emergency services which meet the needs of all patients who need these services.

  Angiontensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the expenditure and expenditure per head of population on general practitioner prescribed angiontensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in each region and family health services authority area in 1992–93, (b) the number of prescriptions per head in such areas and (c) the cost per prescription of such inhibitors in such areas.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Cold Surgery
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients admitted for cold surgery in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each NHS hospital or trust between January and March were (i) NHS patients of fundholding GPs, (ii) NHS patients of non-fundholding GPs and (iii) private patients in (1) general surgery, (2) urology, (3) trauma and orthopaedics, (4) ear, nose and throat (5) ophthalmology, (6) oral surgery, (7) plastic surgery, (8) gynaecology and (9) all specialties.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of producing each copy of the patients charter "Hospital and Ambulance Services Comparative Performance Guide"; how many were printed; and what was the total cost of distribution.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Some 150,000 copies of the patients charter "Hospital and Ambulance Services Comparative Performance Guide" were produced, at a unit cost of £1·63. The total cost of distribution was £42,000.

  Health Authority Mergers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on merging health authorities when there is not strong local support for mergers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ministers take into account a wide range of local views and the best interests of patients before deciding upon any proposal to merge health authorities.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are being held in local authority care as of 8 July whose parents are foreign nationals serving a prison sentence or being held on remand in custody in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Bowis
  No information is held by the Department concerning the nationality of parents of children looked after by local authorities. It is estimated that, at 31 March 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, a total of 240 children in England were looked after because one or both of their parents was in prison.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps she intends to improve standards in the personal social services.

  Mr. Bowis
  In accordance with plans previously announced, the Department is today issuing an invitation to tender for a project concerned with the definition of some possible standards of conduct and practice for those engaged in social services. We intend to use the outcome of this project to extend discussion of the social services issues raised in the final report of the General Social Services Council action group published by the National Institute for Social Work in 1994.

  I am placing a copy of the tender invitation in the Library.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in England and Wales in each year from 1990 to 1993; what was the total number of maternities in England and Wales in each year; and how many multiple births of each type in each year were conceived as a result of (i) in-vitro fertilisation, (ii) gamete infra-fallopian transfer and (iii) other forms of assisted conceptions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available figures for England and Wales are:

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Twins

  7,934

  8,160

  8,314

  Triplets

  201

  208

  202

  Quadruplets

  10

  10

  8

  Quintuplets

  —

  2

  1

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  Total number of maternities with multiple births

  8,145

  8,380

  8,525

  Total maternities

  701,030

  693,857

  683,854

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Information on multiple maternities is not yet available for 1993.

  Information on the number of multiple births attributed to assist reproduction is not available. However, some information on multiple pregnancies for 1990 and 1991 is published in the first and second annual reports of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and in earlier reports of the HFEA's predecessors, the interim licensing authority. Copies are available in the Library.

  811
  Information relating to 1992 will be published later this month in the next annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Birth Weights
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1993,Official Report, columns 799–800, what further research her Department has funded in response to the proposals for collecting data about children who were very low birthweight babies in the Audit Commission's report, "Children First".

  Mr. Sackville
  Government-funded research into neonatal intensive care and issues surrounding low birth weight continues to be carried out by the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In addition to the research work reported in my earlier reply to the hon. Member of 3 December,Official Report, columns 799–800, the national perinatal epidemiology unit is developing a full-scale project proposal on the detection of trends in morbidity and disability among seven-year-old children of different birth weights. The Department is also examining, through its public health information strategy a project to improve information on maternal and child health to support the Department's public health needs.

  Research Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 674, what plans she has to evaluate the first pilot research centre announced on 21 February; and what criteria and methods will be used in the evaluation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department's director of research and development will establish a steering group to oversee the work of the centre. Its terms of reference will include advising on the delivery of the research programme, its scientific quality and its continuing relevance to policy and practice, together with the effectiveness of the dissemination of research findings. In addition, the steering group will undertake formal reviews of the work of the centre based on the receipt of an independent peer review at particular points during the contract period and advise on action arising from the reviews.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 674, what plans she has to establish any further research centres.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall make an announcement in due course.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what autonomous powers NHS trusts have to determine geographical catchment areas within the district covered by a health authority which has a contract with the trust from which patients will be exclusively drawn; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.
  812
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest regulations or guidance which govern decisions as to the appropriateness of a person to serve as the chair or non-executive of an NHS trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to instruct national health service trusts to produce and publish separate audited accounts for their commercial activities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  All national health service trusts publish annual accounts, as far as possible, in line with best commercial practice and the Companies Acts. We have no plans to instruct them to produce and publish any additional and separate audited accounts.

  Epsom District General Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with Epsom district general hospital over the treatment of patients with a history of mental illness.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Royal Free Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she or officials of her Department have had with(a) officials from the Royal Free hospital, London, (b) officials from Camden and Islington district health authority and (c) representatives of general practitioners in Camden and Islington regarding the decision of the Royal Free hospital to restrict routine admissions to patients of general practitioners practising within the area covered by the former Hampstead health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has started her review of the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  A review of the agency status of the Medicines Control Agency has now started. As a next steps agency, the performance of the MCA will be evaluated and MCA activities will be subjected to the normal prior option tests set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review", Cm. 2430, copies of which are available in the Library. Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the MCA and its work would be welcome and should be sent by 23 September 1994 to Kate James, MCA Review Team, Room 360C, Skipton house, 80 London road, London SE1 6LW.

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she has authorised in the access arrangements to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' computers.

  Mr. Sackville
  The British Computer Society reviewed the confidentiality and computing arrangements for the
  813
  1991 census, and its report was published in a White Paper in 1991, Cm 1447, copies of which are available in the Library. The society's report commended the arrangements that had been made to secure the processing of the census, but also recognised that significant changes to computer access mechanisms and procedures would take place in the 1990s. The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys also recognised that advances in information technology would provide opportunities to improve the availability of the wide range of statistical information which it holds. The society's report had recommended a further review after the main census processing was complete. In 1993, the Registrar-General commissioned such a review from Insight Consulting, who are independent security consultants. In the light of their report, I have agreed, in principle, that information which OPCS would normally provide to central Government agencies by other means—and only that information—may also be directly accessible to them on the OPCS mainframe computer. For other users, information may be directly accessible only from a separate computer not connected to the OPCS mainframe.

  In addition, the Registrar-General has engaged Secure Information Systems Ltd. to advise on technical and management issues. With their help, arrangements are being put in place to guard against unauthorised access to personal information held on OPCS's computers.

  I have also agreed that, if the results of market testing require this, and subject to the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, data managed by OPCS may be processed by contractors, either on OPCS's computers or elsewhere. Any such contractors will be subject to the same stringent confidentiality requirements as OPCS's own staff.

  The Registrar-General and I are confident that the precautions taken will enable OPCS to provide a welcome increase in the availability of information while continuing to manage the data in its care in accordance with best practice, to maintain security and confidentiality of those data, to meet fully the provisions of data protection legislation, to honour the guarantees of confidentiality of personal information, and to comply with its published statement of policies on the security and confidentiality of personal information.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much the Cardiff Bay development corporation spent on legal fees in each year in the period 1983 to 1993;

  (2) how many legal actions were initiated by the Cardiff Bay development corporation which were (a) discontinued and (b) settled out of court for each year in the period 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the corporation to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 July,Official Report, column 465, what consultations he has had with the relevant local authorities in relation to the winding up of the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and what
  814
  proposals he has made for independent arbitration in relation to the value of the land and other assets to be transferred to the local authorities when no agreement can be reached between the local authorities and the corporation.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office will be consulting local authorities about this after the reorganisation of local government has been implemented.

  Redundant Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons the selling price of redundant national health service hospitals is not made publicly available after completion of the sale.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of individual land and property sales are commercially sensitive and may impact on future potential sales. In some instances, the purchaser and vendor may agree a confidentiality clause in the sale contract.

  Agricultural Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost in 1993 in Wales of payments under(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium, (c) the beef special premium, and (d) the hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  1993 Estimated outturn £ million

  1994 Provision £ million

  (a) Sheep Annual Premium

  125·7

  121·7

  (b) Suckler Cow Premium

  17·1

  21·5

  (c) Beef Special Premium

  16·0

  20·82

  (d) Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  32·0

  28·9

  Total

  190·8

  192·92

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost in 1993 in Wales of payments under(a) the environmentally sensitive area scheme, (b) the nitrate sensitive area scheme, (c) the farm and conservation grant scheme, (d) the pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes, (e) the woodland grant scheme, (f) the farm woodland premium scheme, (g) the orchard grubbing scheme, (h) the optional five year set-aside scheme, (i) the habitat scheme, (j) the moorland scheme, (k) the countryside access scheme and (l) the organic aid scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is in the table:

  £ million

  Scheme

  Expenditure 1993–94

  Expenditure forecast for 1994–95

  (a) Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme

  1·541

  6·399

  (b) Nitrate Sensitive Area Scheme1

  —

  —

  (c) Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme

  6·200

  6·900

  815

  Scheme

  Expenditure 1993–94

  Expenditure forecast for 1994–95

  (d) Pilot Beef and Sheep Extensification Scheme

  0·027

  0·027

  (e) Woodland Grant Scheme

  1·200

  1·300

  (f) Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  0·057

  0·204

  (g) Orchard Grubbing Scheme

  nil

  nil

  (h) Optional Five Year Set-Aside Scheme

  0·349

  0·405

  (i) Habitat Scheme

  nil

  0·500

  (j) Moorland Scheme

  nil

  nil

  (k) Countryside Access Scheme

  nil

  nil

  (l) Organic Aid Scheme

  nil

  0·170

  1 This scheme is not applicable to Wales.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the publication of the district auditor's report of April 1994 into the allegations of travel expenses fraud and public and private work recompense procedures at the Health Promotion Authority for Wales; what proposals he has to respond to the district auditor's recommendations; and what response he has made to the district auditor's request for legal advice on the application of the guidelines on privately negotiated fees and contracts arising from work done in Health Promotion Authority time.

  Mr. Redwood
  The only representations that I have received concerning the publication of the district auditor's report have been from the hon. Gentleman. The district auditor made a number of recommendations to the authority. I understand that the authority has accepted all these recommendations and either has already implemented them or are in the process of doing so.

  My Department provides legal advice to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and as part of this function obtained counsel's opinion on the points raised by the district audit service. This was provided to the authority on 27 May 1994.

  Management Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the final outturn for the management costs line in his departmental costs for the year 1993–94; and if he will list each of the management cost reduction initiatives he has undertaken in each quarter of that year and the savings estimates for the consequences of each of them(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in a full year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office appropriation accounts for 1993–94, including details of administration costs, are due to be published by the National Audit Office in October. The Welsh Office is committed to improving its cost-effectiveness, and efficiency savings of at least £3.8 million—5.5 per cent. of running costs—were secured in 1993–94. A breakdown of these savings is not available in the form requested, but the main gains reflect the absorption of new work, improved purchasing procedures and the rationalisation of accommodation.

  Tourism
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Wales tourist board in relation to the number of hotels and other tourist enterprises in receipt of loans from the board who requested suspension of repayments in each of the years from 1988 to 1993; and how many suspended repayments during that period before recommencement were for(a) one year or less, (b) one to two years, (c) two to three years and (d) more than three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  None on these specific matters. The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  (i) Requests for suspension of loan repayment:

  1988

  Nil

  1989

  Nil

  1990

  Nil

  1991

  Nil

  1992

  4

  1993

  1

  (ii) Length of time before recommencement

  (a) 1 year or less

  4

  (b) 1–2 years

  1

  (c) 2–3 years

  Nil

  (d) More than 3 years

  Nil

  Mid-Wales Development Grant
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 July,Official Report, column 464, what consultations he has had with the Welsh local authority associations in relation to the transfer of the Mid-Wales development grant to the relevant local authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials will be contacting the local authority associations soon.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for strengthening the guidelines for the formation and conduct of joint venture boards established to further the urban regeneration aims and objectives of the Welsh Development Agency and other parties; and what representations he has had in relation to the confidentiality of information supplied by private companies to joint venture boards chaired by agency personnel.

  Mr. Redwood
  Operational guidelines for the Welsh Development Agency are kept under review and I have recently approved revised guidelines covering its urban development function. I have received representations about the agency's involvement with the Cynon Valley joint venture and the confidentiality of information supplied by private companies. These matters are being considered as part of the investigations put in hand by the agency.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the use of letters of comfort or their telephoned equivalent by agency staff involved with joint venture boards to assist third parties in the acquisition of land for urban regeneration purposes.
  817
  Mr. Redwood
  I have had none.

  Local Government (Wales) Bill
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the date of the interim meeting with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the purpose of drafting amendments to clause 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill[Lords].

  Mr. Redwood
  I have nothing to add to my replies of 26 May,Official Report, column 235 and 28 June, Official Report, columns 516–11.

DEFENCE

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 4 July,Official Report, columns 82–83, which reactors were the source of the plutonium for the test.

  Mr. Aitken
  The military reactors at Calder Hall and Chapel Cross.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 4 July,Official Report, columns 83–84, regarding the use of plutonium from the United Kingdom in the United States of America, whether any undertaking was given by the United States Government in 1964 that plutonium produced in the United Kingdom from civil reactors would not be used in United States of America experimental nuclear explosive devices.

  Mr. Aitken
  The assurance was that plutonium from United Kingdom civil reactors would not be used for weapons purposes. We understand the term "weapons purposes" in this context to include experimental nuclear explosive devices.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions since 1964 his Department has requested British Nuclear Fuels, or its division within the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, to co-process weapons-grade plutonium from electricity board reactors along with that arising from the dedicated military reactors at Calder Hall or Chapel Cross.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have no record of ever having made such a request.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) RAF and (b) RN Sea King and Wessex search-and-rescue helicopters are expected to be available in (a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997;

  (2) how many (a) RAF and (b) RN Sea King and Wessex search-and-rescue helicopters were available, serviceable or being serviced on 1 January 1994 and how many are expected to be available, serviceable or being serviced on 31 December 1994;

  (3) how many (a) RAF and (b) RN Sea King and Wessex search-and-rescue helicopters were available, serviceable or being serviced in 1993.
  818
  Mr. Hanley
  For the RAF the total number of SAR helicopters available, serviceable or being serviced, were as follows:

  1993

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1994

  Sea King

  17

  17

  17

  Wessex

  17

  16

  11

  On current plans, the RAF will have the following numbers of SAR helicopters deployed in the United Kingdom:

  1 April 1995

  1 April 1996

  1 April 1997

  Sea King

  17

  23

  23

  Wessex

  9

  6

  Nil

  A total of five Sea Kings are normally made available by the Royal Navy for the search and rescue task. As SAR is not a primary task of RN helicopters, however, future availability cannot be determined with any precision.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions or protocols govern RAF Wessex search-and-rescue helicopters missions at night or in bad weather; and how they differ from those in respect of the RAF Sea King search-and-rescue helicopters.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member

  Redundant Military Sites
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations his Department have to clean up redundant military sites before disposing of them.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no statutory requirement fully to restore land offered for sale. It is my Department's policy, however, to seek to identify instances of contamination on sites allocated for disposal and this information is made available to prospective purchasers and will be taken into account in agreeing the sale price. Decontamination work is generally limited to the removal of ordnance and other contaminants such as explosives, radioactive and microbiological materials on which a civilian contractor could not be expected to have appropriate expertise.

  Proof and Experimental Establishments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations his Department has given to the environmental impact of siting an ammunition demilitarisation and disposal facility at the proof and experimental establishment, Shoeburyness.

  Mr. Aitken
  The facility has received accreditation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The local authority was also consulted and supplied with all relevant information including transport movements, noise data and meteorological analysis.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has done of the cost in terms of(a) infrastructure and (b) recruitment at transferring the NATO small arms regional test centre from proof and experimental establishment, Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The European regional test centre uses facilities which are required for national purposes. There
  819
  would be no separately identifiable costs were it to transfer with other small arms work. A decision on the location of the ERTC is for the NATO authorities.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total revenue and operating cost of proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Aitken
  Gross operating costs at proof and experimental establishment, Pendine in financial year 1993–94 were £7·157 million. Receipts over the same period totalled £2·259 million.

  Salisbury Plain and Otterburn
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which regiments that use multiple-launch rocket systems and AS90s are likely to train with them on(a) Salisbury plain and (b) Otterburn; where the regiments will be based; where their multiple-launch rocket systems and AS90s will be stored; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is one AS90 regiment at Tidworth and one at Topcliffe. MLRS regiments are based at Catterick and Larkhill and it is intended that a further regiment will be based at Ouston from late 1995 when it returns from Germany. Equipment will be collocatecd with these regiments.

  It is planned that they will conduct their AS90 and MLRS training at Salisbury plain, Otterburn and Catterick.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the remit for the environmental impact assessment for his Department's proposals for Otterburn; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements he is making for consultations with (a) statutory organisations, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) individuals concerning his Department's proposals for Otterburn; what are the stages of this consultation process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is our intention to appoint independent consultants in August to carry out a full environmental impact assessment in accordance with the provisions of Department of Environment circular 15/88, to consider the effects of our proposals for Otterburn. This is expected to take approximately four months to complete. As part of the EIA, the consultants will seek the views of the local planning authority, statutory bodies, and other interested parties. In addition, my officials will provide briefings to voluntary organisations. The formal consultation process is a matter for the local planning authority, after submission by my Department of a notice of proposed development.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to develop dry training at Otterburn in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  While the proposals which I announced on 23 June,Official Report, columns 250–51, will not involve an increase in dry training at Otterburn, the pattern of dry training carried out there is likely to change. In addition, we are currently considering our overall requirement for dry training in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to conduct a public inquiry into his Department's proposals for developments at Otterburn; and if he will make a statement.
  820
  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's proposals for the development of the Otterburn training area will be submitted to the local planning authority, for its consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Department of Environment circular 18/84. If the local planning authority raises objections to the proposed developments, the matter will be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine whether a public inquiry should be held.

  Military Training
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review has been conducted concerning the future military training requirements in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The structure and content of training for all three services is kept under constant review to ensure that it meets present and future operational requirements. For example, I announced on 7 July,Official Report, column 263, a wide review of how and where Army-sponsored training is conducted.

  In addition, in accordance with recommendations contained in the 36th report of the Committee of Public Accounts dated 26 April 1993, my Department is carrying out a study to compare the requirement for Army training land with existing capacity. This study is due to be completed shortly.

  Rocket Systems
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the regiments which use(a) AS90s and (b) multiple launch rocket systems; how many are attached to each regiment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery and 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery are equipped with AS90. Each regiment currently has 24 guns, which will rise to 32 guns in 1995. Only 24 guns will be manned during peace time for training.

  The 5th Regiment Royal Artillery, 32nd Regiment Royal Artillery and 39th Regiment Royal Artillery are to be equipped with the multiple launch rocket system. Each regiment has 18 launchers.

  McCarthy and Sons (Torquay)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if McCarthy and Sons (Torquay) Ltd. is eligible to participate in his Department's contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  Provided that McCarthy and Sons, Torquay, meet the MOD's contract terms, including security requirements, there is no reason why the company should not be eligible to bid for MOD contracts.

  F3 Tornados
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter of 22 June, when he expects to commence civil legal action against Brecom in relation to the Airwork damage to the F3 Tornados at RAF St. Athan.

  Mr. Aitken
  Work to investigate the damage caused by Airwork and to compile the technical and cost evidence necessary to support a claim is not yet completed. It will be some time therefore before the appropriate action to prosecute a claim for compensation can be commenced.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Sir John Blelloch's inquiry report was received by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report was received by officials on 1 July 1994.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when a copy of the report of Sir John Blelloch was sent to his Department's Police Federation for consultation purposes;

  (2) if he will list those to whom the report of Sir John Blelloch has been circulated for consultation purposes since its receipt by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Sir John Blelloch's report has been circulated widely both within my Department and within other interested Government Departments. Copies have also been sent to the Association of Chief Police Officers, to staff associations representing the MOD police including the Defence Police Federation and to trades unions representing the MOD guard service. These were provided on 14 July. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House. Consultation on specific proposals will be undertaken in due course in the normal way.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is his intention in relation to the consultation timescale and procedure for the report and recommendations of Sir John Blelloch, to follow the practice of the Home Secretary in consulting on the report of Sir Patrick Sheehy in respect of allowing the Police Federation to be consulted fully prior to decisions being taken at ministerial level;

  (2) if he will publish the report and recommendation of Sir John Blelloch into the future of his Department's police.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on 14 July,Official Report, columns 760–61.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests have been received from his

  (a) Hospital and Community Medical Staff; by health board: at 30 September

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  7,302

  7,312

  7,475

  7,441

  Argyll and Clyde

  434

  424

  436

  463

  Ayrshire and Arran

  340

  347

  368

  384

  Borders

  95

  95

  100

  106

  Dumfries and Galloway

  179

  185

  191

  193

  Fife

  281

  314

  320

  312

  Forth Valley

  284

  289

  297

  277

  Grampian

  739

  756

  769

  759

  Greater Glasgow

  2,087

  2,035

  2,064

  1,984

  Highland

  254

  256

  258

  250

  Lanarkshire

  483

  487

  514

  500

  Lothian

  1,349

  1,318

  1,349

  1,396

  Orkney

  17

  17

  17

  17

  Shetland

  15

  17

  15

  20

  Tayside

  649

  669

  665

  694

  Western Isles

  18

  17

  24

  24

  CSA

  78

  81

  81

  78

  State Hospital, Carstairs

  —

  5

  7

  9

  822
  Department's Police Federation about advancing the consultative procedure in respect of the contents of the report and recommendations of Sir John Blelloch.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Defence Police Federation wrote to the Department on 4 July 1994 requesting an early copy of the report by Sir John Blelloch. It was provided with a copy of Sir John's report on 14 July 1994.

  Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency has been set the following key targets:

  1. Review the assessment of Military Core Capability and Report by 1 July 1994.

  2. Increase the Agency's efficiency by making 0·5 per cent. saving against 1993–94 outturn net operating costs.

  3. Improve the percentage of mail moved by the MOD Mail Service that meets Quality of Service standards by 0·5 per cent. against target.

  4. Complete Phase 2 of the DPCS Market Testing Plan.

  5. Following the necessary consultations, implement the Mail 2000 recommendations, and report progress by 31 March 1995.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures and list for each of the last four years by region the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the tables. It should be noted that tables(c) and (d) are extracts from table (b).
  823

  (b) Qualified Nursing staff; by health board: at 30 September

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  42,459

  43,011

  43,123

  42,344

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,055

  3,159

  3,220

  3,188

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,394

  2,493

  2,436

  2,422

  Borders

  799

  791

  829

  842

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,310

  1,336

  1,349

  1,365

  Fife

  2,436

  2,497

  2,513

  2,604

  Forth Valley

  2,294

  2,338

  2,473

  2,329

  Grampian

  4,566

  4,586

  4,709

  4,160

  Greater Glasgow

  9,042

  8,850

  8,642

  8,534

  Highland

  1,809

  1,831

  1,843

  1,798

  Lanarkshire

  3,954

  3,970

  3,809

  3,758

  Lothian

  5,979

  6,053

  6,073

  6,162

  Orkney

  175

  184

  188

  201

  Shetland

  175

  192

  187

  188

  Tayside

  4,117

  4,128

  4,241

  4,154

  Western Isles

  285

  284

  280

  324

  CSA

  69

  53

  58

  63

  State Hospital, Carstairs

  —

  266

  273

  252

  (Qualified nursing staff) of which: (c) Midwives, by health board: at 30 September

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  3,051

  3,357

  3,393

  3,426

  Argyll and Clyde

  272

  321

  343

  338

  Ayrshire and Arran

  154

  277

  261

  262

  Borders

  45

  43

  42

  43

  Dumfries and Galloway

  105

  104

  103

  113

  Fife

  179

  195

  203

  207

  Forth Valley

  155

  177

  205

  208

  Grampian

  312

  323

  337

  317

  Greater Glasgow

  673

  710

  666

  671

  Highland

  158

  164

  164

  163

  Lanarkshire

  277

  298

  300

  315

  Lothian

  398

  427

  441

  452

  Orkney

  9

  9

  8

  9

  Shetland

  12

  11

  10

  10

  Tayside

  280

  280

  292

  302

  Western Isles

  22

  18

  18

  16

  (Qualified nursing staff) of which:—(d) Health Visitors; by health board: at 30 September

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  1,612

  1,585

  1,533

  1,519

  Argyll and Clyde

  124

  132

  127

  127

  Ayrshire and Arran

  118

  111

  98

  99

  Borders

  27

  26

  25

  26

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35

  31

  30

  29

  Fife

  122

  117

  123

  123

  Forth Valley

  91

  90

  92

  86

  Grampian

  175

  174

  171

  161

  Greater Glasgow

  309

  301

  276

  266

  Highland

  54

  50

  49

  54

  Lanarkshire

  174

  173

  166

  171

  Lothian

  237

  241

  238

  237

  Orkney

  6

  5

  5

  4

  Shetland

  8

  8

  7

  6

  Tayside

  124

  116

  118

  121

  Western Isles

  8

  10

  8

  9

  (e) Administrative and Clerical Staff (excluding managers); by health board: at 30 September

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  16,918

  17,459

  18,363

  18,914

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,338

  1,351

  1,491

  1,496

  Ayrshire and Arran

  865

  895

  960

  981

  Borders

  252

  265

  285

  291

  Dumfries and Galloway

  421

  458

  477

  494

  Fife

  778

  824

  853

  969

  Forth Valley

  672

  704

  755

  785

  824 825

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Grampian

  1,569

  1,657

  1,722

  1,705

  Greater Glasgow

  3,692

  3,742

  3,891

  3,975

  Highland

  595

  631

  658

  666

  Lanarkshire

  1,184

  1,204

  1,247

  1,313

  Lothian

  2,652

  2,659

  2,697

  2,855

  Orkney

  26

  26

  28

  29

  Shetland

  48

  51

  56

  61

  Tayside

  1,460

  1,516

  1,623

  1,569

  Western Isles

  53

  58

  75

  79

  Common Services Agency

  1,313

  1,394

  1,518

  1,613

  State Hospital, Carstairs

  —

  24

  27

  33

  (f) Administrative and Clerical Managers; by health board: at 30 September

  Number

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  1,069

  1,312

  1,677

  2,094

  Argyll and Clyde

  78

  81

  105

  124

  Ayrshire and Arran

  52

  58

  90

  114

  Borders

  17

  19

  24

  28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  29

  36

  49

  53

  Fife

  62

  76

  82

  110

  Forth Valley

  52

  60

  69

  92

  Grampian

  100

  135

  178

  207

  Greater Glasgow

  169

  221

  273

  345

  Highland

  39

  50

  70

  85

  Lanarkshire

  66

  65

  80

  116

  Lothian

  119

  135

  184

  275

  Orkney

  5

  6

  6

  6

  Shetland

  6

  8

  8

  8

  Tayside

  102

  112

  138

  147

  Western Isles

  9

  11

  12

  19

  CSA

  164

  237

  302

  356

  State Hospital, Carstairs

  —

  2

  7

  9

  Child Mortality Rates
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list child mortality rates for each assigned social class within each health board area.

  Deaths of persons aged 0–15 by social class and health board area Scotland 19931

  Social class

  Total

  I

  II

  III

  VI

  V

  Not stated

  (non manual)

  (Manual)

  Scotland

  665

  21

  95

  34

  166

  83

  54

  212

  Borders

  9

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  20

  —

  3

  1

  6

  4

  1

  5

  Fife

  41

  1

  3

  4

  14

  6

  6

  7

  Forth Valley

  34

  2

  6

  2

  7

  5

  1

  11

  Grampian

  50

  —

  9

  3

  14

  9

  4

  11

  Highland

  32

  4

  5

  33

  6

  1

  3

  10

  Lothian

  93

  4

  12

  8

  22

  8

  7

  32

  Tayside

  49

  1

  3

  1

  10

  9

  4

  21

  Orkney Islands

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Shetland Islands

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Argyll and Clyde

  58

  3

  7

  4

  13

  2

  8

  21

  Ayrshire and Arran

  51

  1

  4

  1

  19

  7

  3

  16

  Greater Glasgow

  150

  3

  24

  4

  38

  18

  10

  53

  Lanarkshire

  71

  2

  13

  3

  15

  11

  6

  21

  1 Provisional.

  826
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Mortality rates are not available. The table shows the number of children who died for each assigned social class within each health board area. Children whose parents' occupation is unknown are shown in the "not stated" column.

  Redundant Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons the selling price of redundant national health service hospitals is not made publicly available after completion of the sale.
  827
  Mr. Stewart
  In Scotland the selling price of NHS and other property is publicly available when the purchaser's title is recorded in the general register of sasines or the land register, as required by law. It is for the NHS body managing the transaction to decide, in the light of the circumstances, whether price details can be released at an earlier stage, bearing in mind the fact that information on property disposals may be commercially sensitive.

  Police
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to give evidence to the Home Office's review of police care and ancillary tasks; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Home Office review relates only to England and Wales. Further work will be undertaken by the Scottish Office, including consultation with interested parties in Scotland, once the Home Office review has been completed.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by wave(a) the number of non-executive directors of NHS trust hospitals and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust hospitals, by salary band.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  Remuneration £

  Number of Non-executive Directors

  Number of Chairmen

  NHS Trust first wave

  5,000 per annum

  10

  —

  17,145 per annum

  —

  1

  19,285 per annum

  —

  1

  Second wave

  5,000 per annum

  75

  —

  15,125 per annum

  —

  1

  17,145 per annum

  —

  6

  19,285 per annum

  —

  8

  Third wave

  5,000 per annum

  110

  —

  15,125 per annum

  —

  1

  17,145 per annum

  —

  11

  19,285 per annum

  —

  10

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes were made to the allocations to any of the trusts, directly managed units or other areas in Lothian for capital building programmes or for revenue during the past eight months.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested spans two financial years. Revenue allocations are subject to numerous revision by the management executive during the course of a financial year. The original 1993–94 revenue allocation to Lothian health board was £358·175 million. By November 1993 it had been adjusted to £401·554 million and by March 1994 stood at £406·533 million. The original 1994–95 allocation was £364.805 million and is currently £419·642 million.

  Lothian health board's original 1993–94 capital allocation for its building programme, including provision
  828
  for its directly managed units, was £24·429 million. Changes to the allocation by the management executive were limited to projects that had a total cost of more than £1 million. These accounted for £12·708 million of the 1993–94 capital allocation. By November 1993 and March 1994, that sub-allocation stood at £11·202 million and £10·002 million respectively.

  The West Lothian NHS trust was the only trust in Lothian in 1993–94. Its opening capital was £3·080 million and its business plan income forecast was £63·639 million. At November 1993, there had been no change to the capital allocation and by 31 March 1994 the allocation was £2·896 million.

  The 1994–95 allocations for all Lothian NHS trusts currently remain as notified to them on 8 February 1994.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there were in the capital revenue allocations to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh or to the priority services unit in Lothian in the past eight months.

  Mr. Lang
  The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh priority services unit were directly managed units under Lothian health board until 1 April 1994. Lothian health board's initial 1993–94 capital allocation included specified project provision of £2·245 million for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and £4·065 million for the Edinburgh priority services unit. Lothian health board was responsible for the financial management of the specified projects, although allocation adjustments for underspends on projects with a total cost of more than £1 million were subject to Scottish Office approval. Details of the allocation changes for the Royal Infirmary and the priority services unit projects with a total cost of more than £1 million, as approved by the NHS executive, are set out in the table.

  The 1994–95 capital allocations for both the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust and Edinburgh Healthcare NHS trust currently remain at the levels notified to them by the Scottish Office on 8 February 1994.

  Table to show changes to 1993–94 capital allocations for projects with a total cost of £1 million or more

  £ million

  Opening allocation

  Final Approval

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  Liver Transplant Unit

  0·170

  0·246

  Dental Hospital

  0·700

  0·243

  Residential Nurses Homes

  0·000

  0·657

  Edinburgh Priority Services Unit

  Royal Edinburgh Ward Upgrade

  0·765

  1·235

  Gogarburn Hospital

  2·000

  2·110

  Royal Edinburgh Hospital

  1·000

  1·424

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the capital allocation for all trusts, directly managed units and other areas in Lothian for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (2) when the capital building programme allocation to Lothian health board was determined for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  Lothian health board was notified of their capital building programme allocation for 1993–94 in a letter dated 20 December 1992, and a letter dated 17 December 1993 for 1994–95. The allocations for all other health boards were notified on the same dates.
  829
  The capital allocation letter for health boards covers their hospital building programme, equipment and information technology provision. The letters for NHS trusts, issued on 16 February 1993 and 8 February 1994 respectively, provided their overall external financing limit and included details of the capital provision used in calculating the limit.

  The information requested on capital allocations is set out in the table.

  1993–94 Allocations to:

  Current 1994–95 Allocations

  £

  £

  Lothian Health Board (Gross allocation)

  24,429,000

  4,969,000

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  2,896,000

  2,003,000

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  —

  1,368,000

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  5,416,000

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  —

  1,472,000

  Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  6,673,000

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  6,166,000

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings took place between Geoffrey Scaife, chief executive of the health service in Scotland, and officials of Lothian health board this year; what were the dates and times of those meetings; if he will make available the minutes of those meetings; and what action was taken as a result of those meetings.

  Mr. Lang
  The chief executive of the NHS in Scotland meets regularly with representatives of all health boards, both individually and collectively in a variety of settings. Since the beginning of this year the chief executive has met Lothian health board representatives on six occasions to discuss a wide range of issues. Formal minutes of the meetings were not taken as a matter of course, any decision or action required being dealt with by subsequent correspondence.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the Treasury rules with regard to capital expenditure and revenue expenditure programmes in the health service in Scotland; and whether all expenditure by Lothian health board within the last eight months was within these rules.

  Mr. Lang
  The NHS in Scotland is subject, like other public sector bodies, to the relevant rules and guidance set out in "Government Accounting" a copy of which is in the Library. The expenditure of Lothian health board is subject to annual statutory audit which provides a check on its regularity and propriety. The board's annual accounts for 1993–94 have still to be audited.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish minutes of the meetings at which capital allocations to trusts, directly managed units and other areas were discussed between Lothian health board and the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Lang
  There were no formal meetings between the Scottish Office and Lothian health board to discuss the capital allocations to either the board and its directly 830
  managed units or the Lothian NHS trusts. Allocations are determined by the management executive on the basis of details submitted by the board and, in the case of NHS trusts, the capital proposals in their annual business plans. Account is taken of the relative service priorities for the NHS as a whole, individual health boards' purchasing intentions and agreed strategic objectives.

  Shipping Services
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to(a) publish and (b) announce his response to the consultants' report on the future of shipping services to the northern and western isles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have recently received the report of KPMG Management Consulting on subsidies for shipping services in the highlands and islands and I am studying carefully its conclusions and recommendations. However, it is too early for me to say when I will be in a position to announce any decisions in response to the report. The report contains a considerable amount of commercially sensitive information which was made available to the consultants on a strictly confidential basis, and would not therefore be suitable for publication. I shall, however, give consideration as to whether it would be possible to publish the main findings and conclusions of the report without breaching commercial confidentiality.

  Planning
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish his consultation paper on the review of the Scottish planning system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published a consultation paper on the review of the Scottish planning system. Copies will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Under the banner of the citizens charter, my general aim is to stimulate discussion on ways in which the effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness of the system can be improved. This is the first step in a wide-ranging review which will help to set the agenda for the development of the planning system in the years ahead.

  The review will not address the underlying structure of the present system or the Government's proposals for local government reform in Scotland; its focus will be on matters of procedure and practice. In that context, my specific aim is to assess the adequacy of the decision-making process in terms of its openness, fairness, consistency, speed and accountability to all interests; the extent to which current procedures help or hinder that process; the degree to which development plans and development control promote development and conservation objectives and in so doing add to the quality of the natural and built environment; and the adequacy of the arrangements for monitoring the decision-making process and for measuring the achievement of objectives, targets and standards of service.

  The consultation paper poses a number of questions to assist those who may wish to comment. However, there is no pre-determined agenda; the Government will welcome comments on any aspects of the system. Thereafter the outcome will be made public, and the Government will indicate how they propose to take matters forward.
  831
  I should make it clear that no significant changes will be introduced until after the reorganised authorities are firmly in place. However, the review is designed to pave the way for any longer-term changes that may be necessary to achieve the high standards now set by the citizens charter. That means a more responsive and efficient system to give the public, developers and Government alike confidence in the plan-making and decision-making process, in the quality of the outcomes, and in the standard of service that is being provided.

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many former patients discharged from compulsory detention by way of(a) the Mental Welfare Commission exercising its powers under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, (b) appeals granted by a sheriff or (c) the Secretary of State accepting a recommendation by the Mental Welfare Commission, over the past seven years have been subsequently subjected to a compulsory detention order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases during the past seven years of a patient having a restriction order placed upon his or her detention the Mental Welfare Commission has recommended to the Secretary of State that such an order be lifted; of these, how many were accepted by the Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: One. The Commission's recommendation was considered as part of the process which led to the patient's conditional discharge.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients have been discharged from compulsory detention by way of an appeal to a sheriff in each of the past seven years; in how many such hearings before a sheriff the patient was represented by a lawyer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients have been discharged from compulsory detention by way of the Mental Welfare Commission exercising the appropriate power it has under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 in each of the past seven years; of such discharges, how many were brought about by a request from a patient to have his or her detention reviewed by the Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The numbers of patients so discharged are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  11993–94

  0

  11992–93

  1

  1991

  2

  1990

  0

  1989

  5

  1988

  3

  1987

  5

  832
  1The Commission's annual report statistics are now produced on a financial year basis.

  The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has no record of the number of these cases which were brought about by a request from a patient to have his or her detention reviewed.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for which ailments electro-convulsive therapy is recommended; what guidelines are issued to hospitals and consultant psychiatrists concerning the use of electroconvulsive therapy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: Electroconvulsive therapy is most commonly used to treat severe intractable depressive illness. It is very occasionally used to treat acute schizophrenia.

  ECT is covered by the consent to treatment provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and guidance on these requirements is contained in "Notes on the Act", in the "Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 Code of Practice", which includes as an annexe guidance produced by the Mental Welfare Commission and in the NHS Executive's booklet "A Guide to Consent to Examination, Investigation, Treatment or Operation".

  Guidelines on "The Practical Administration of ECT" were published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 1989. The observance of these guidelines is recommended in the training of all doctors administering this form of treatment.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what records are kept by the Scottish Office concerning the frequency of the employment of electro-convulsive therapy by hospitals and consultant psychiatrists in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: This information is not recorded centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice and guidance is normally given to a psychiatric patient or members or his or her family or others with an interest in his or her welfare concerning to the employment of electro-convulsive therapy and his or her right to refuse electro-convulsive therapy in favour of an alternative form of treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The principles of the general law of consent to treatment for physical disorders apply to any proposed treatment for a voluntary patient's mental disorder, and the doctor is required to explain to the patient, before he signs a consent form, the nature, purpose and likely effects of the treatment, and why he should consent to it. In the case of electro-convulsive therapy, the explanation given should clearly indicate that the treatment can be refused and that the patient may withdraw his consent at any time, even before the first treatment is given. The doctor should also make himself available to answer any questions that the patient, or their carer, may have about the treatment. A leaflet produced by Royal College of Psychiatrists also provides answers to questions about ECT commonly asked by patients.
  833
  The position of detained patients is regulated by part X of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. In the case of ECT, the Act requires the consent of the patient and the certification by a medical practitioner—either the responsible medical officer or a practitioner appointed by the Mental Welfare Commission—that the patient is capable of understanding its nature, purpose and likely effects and has consented to it; or, alternatively, the certification by a medical practitioner appointed by the Mental Welfare Commission, other than the RMO, that the patient is not so capable but that, having regard to the likelihood of alleviating or preventing a deterioration in the patient's condition, the treatment should be given.

  In certain circumstances ECT may be given without consent or a second opinion in cases of urgency, for example where it is immediately necessary to prevent a serious deterioration in the patient's condition, or to alleviate serious suffering or to prevent the patient from being a danger to himself or others.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that those psychiatric patients who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy over the past 20 years have suffered no long-term deleterious effects from such treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]Research by Weeks, Freeman and Kendell, 1980, found no long-term deleterious effects from electro-convulsive therapy.

  Later research—Freeman and Cheshire, 1986; Benbow, 1988; Malcolm, 1989; and Cheshire, Freeman and Chiswick, 1991—indicated a high level of patient satisfaction with the results of treatment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists also reports that more than eight out of 10 patients respond well to ECT treatment, making it the most effective treatment for severe depression, and that most patients recover their ability to work and lead a productive life after their depression has been treated in this way.

  A sub-group of the CRAG/SCOTMEG framework for action working group on mental illness is currently considering ECT and its report in the form of "good practice" guidelines is expected in the autumn.

  Firearms (Deaths)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many murders were committed in Scotland in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and of these, how many persons were killed by(a) shotguns, (b) handguns and (c) other firearms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The table details the number of recorded homicides in Scotland and shows the number of recorded homicides involving firearms, broken down by type of weapon use, 1990 to 1992.
  834

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Homicides

  81

  89

  137

  Homicides involving firearms of which:

  (a) shotgun

  0

  3

  5

  (b) handgun

  3

  0

  0

  (c) other

  0

  4

  1

  Total

  3

  7

  6

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people charged with causing the death of another person by the use of a firearm of any description in Scotland had authority to possess that firearm in each of the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: Information on persons charged with causing the death of another person by the use of a firearm and the authority to possess a firearm is not collected centrally. However, information is available on homicides involving firearms recorded by the police and the authority of the accused to possess a firearm. The table details that information.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Homicides involving firearms

  3

  7

  6

  Cases where the accused held a valid firearm certificate

  1

  1

  0

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Inquiries throughout my Departments have not identified any such occasion.

  Health Service Properties
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of undertaking all the identified backlog in repairs and in maintenance of health service properties.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The responsibility for management and maintenance of the health service estate in Scotland rests with provider units, and it is for them to make estimates of this kind. However, the latest annual survey estimate is that at 31 March 1993 the appropriate expenditure required to improve the physical condition of the essential estate was £270 million including backlog maintenance and other work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) in the sheriff court in Scotland, or

(b) in a county court in Northern Ireland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) he has held judicial office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2107

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2108

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(14) For the purposes of this section—

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

"the court" means—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNALS: COSTS
  MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNALS: COSTS
  HOMICIDES BY THE MENTALLY ILL
  HOMICIDES BY THE MENTALLY ILL
  PSYCHIATRIC HEALTH SERVICES
  PSYCHIATRIC HEALTH SERVICES
  BUILDING REGULATIONS: AMENDMENTS
  BUILDING REGULATIONS: AMENDMENTS
  WASTE SHIPMENTS: CIRCULAR
  WASTE SHIPMENTS: CIRCULAR
  COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION: MANAGEMENT
  COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION: MANAGEMENT
  PENNINE BRIDLEWAY PROPOSAL
  PENNINE BRIDLEWAY PROPOSAL
  AFRICA: AID
  AFRICA: AID
  MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS: JORDAN
  MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS: JORDAN