Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Friday 22 April 1983

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

Prayers

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Petitions

Public Utilities (Standing Charges)

9.34 am

It gives me great pleasure to present a petition on standing charges in public utilities, and a petition in similar terms with 23,000 signatures from pensioners in the west midlands. The petitioners draw attention to

the national call for the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity supplied to pensioners,

and to the policy of raising gas prices by 10 per cent. more than inflation. They point out that

pensioners received no allowances on November 1980 or November 1981 to cover the 25 per cent. and 22 per cent. increases in gas prices in the 12 months following each date respectively.

The petition further refers to the almost

400 per cent. increase in gas standing charges for pensioners on fixed incomes, which has been and still is a major hardship.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will pass the Standing Charges of Public Utilities to Pensioners (Regulation) Bill, at present awaiting its Second Reading, as soon as is possible.

I hope that the latter sentence will be noted by the Government Whips later today.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs Anna Hughes (Husband's Death)

9.35 am

I present the petition of Mrs. Anna Hughes, who is petitioning the House on her own behalf. She does so because of the circumstances surrounding her husband's death when he was left unattended, or did not get to hospital, for more than one hour and 50 minutes. She wishes to draw attention to the circumstances of the matter, and is anxious that there should be a process whereby she may have a judicial review of the matter, as the processes of legal aid are no longer open to her. She asks the House to consider also what effects in law would arise from a consideration of this case.

Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will assist your petitioner to bring the matter to judicial hearing and will consider the implications for the reform of the law.

To lie upon the Table.

Bill Presented

Generic Substitution (National Health Service)

Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Mr. William Hamilton, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Gerard Fitt, Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mrs. Renée Short and Mr. A. W. Stallard, presented a Bill to permit a dispensing pharmacist to substitute a generic substitute for a medicine prescribed by a general practitioner in the National Health Service unless the general practitioner specifically orders that such a substitute may not be dispensed: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 137].

Orders Of The Day

Diseases Of Fish Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Clause 2

Infected Waters

9.37 am

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

(Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 37, at end insert

'This subsection does not apply to Scotland.

(3A) In Scotland any person who—
(a) is the occupier of any inland waters;
(b) carries on the business of fish farming in any marine waters;
(c) has a right to fish for salmon in any marine waters; or
(d) has a right of fishing in any private non-navigable marine waters,
which are in a designated area, shall be entitled, on application, to be supplied by the Secretary of State free of charge with a report of the evidence on which the order was made.'.

This is a straightforward amendment, the effect of which is to disapply paragraph (3) of new subsection (2) in Scotland, and to provide specifically for the persons in Scotland whose fisheries or fish farming businesses are, in any designated area, to be entitled to receive as of right copies of reports of the evidence on which designation orders are made. Its purpose is to provide that holders of rights of salmon fisheries in marine waters in Scotland, or holders of any private rights of fisheries in non-navigable marine waters, shall be entitled to receive such reports.

The amendment is intended to provide for the appropriate distribution in Scotland of the reports of the evidence on which any order is made by the Secretary of State designating an area as infected or likely to become infected. It goes further than the provision for England and Wales, hence its need. It is necessary to recognise the privately held rights of salmon fisheries in Scotland and other privately held rights of fisheries which may subsist in non-navigable marine waters. The holders of such rights are in no different position from the holders of such rights in inland waters who are occupiers of inland waters by virtue of the definition in section 10(1) of the 1937 Act and as such are entitled to receive reports.

Accordingly, particularly given the scope of the proposed power to designate areas which extend beyond any one fish farm or cage used for fish farming in marine waters, it is right that reports of evidence should be made available to the fishing interests that are affected by such an order.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I do not envisage that restrictions on legitimate fisheries in such waters could or would be imposed under the power to prohibit movements of live fish and other things. The amendment arises from the different situation in Scotland that I have described and seeks to protect the legitimate rights and interests of those concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear the position of the river Tweed which is subject to separate legislation as a boundary river between England and Scotland? If he cannot do that today, will he make sure that the matter is considered in another place?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the river Tweed occupies a special place in fisheries legislation. The interest now extends beyond the Tweed because there is another river on the estuary on the west which is not so clearly defined and which has given me some cause for anxiety. It would obviously be stupid to apply two different sets of legislation if it were possible to avoid it simply because of the geographic position of that river and the difference in the law on either side of the border.

I have checked the position of the river Tweed and, without going into detail, I understand that no difficulties should arise. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to mention his concern about this and I shall take another look at the position before the remaining stages of the Bill are taken. If there are any causes for doubt or worry, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman and consider how they may be appropriately dealt with. However, it should not cause any difficulties or problems.

With those few remarks, I commend the amendment to the House and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), with his ordinary fishing interests as well as his fish farming interests, will regard this as a sensible amendment and will be able to support me in recommending my hon. Friends to accept it.

How will the amendment affect the individual rod angler on the river?

The amendment should not particularly affect them. As my hon. Friend will know from his knowledge of fisheries on the north-east coast of Scotland, the amendment arose because the salmon netsmen who will be most affected by the legislation made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They were worried that there might have been an element of discrimination against them in the Bill. I hope that there would not have been, but they made a legitimate point and my right hon. Friend thought the amendment right. Therefore, the amendment is intended to protect the interests of many of my hon. Friend's constituents. If he finds, when he returns to his constituency later today, as I know that he will, that that is not the case, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to reconsider the matter.

9.45 am

The amendment deals with infected waters and the power to designate such areas. I rather feel that I will spend my time this morning saying that I am delighted to accept the amendments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister. I certainly shall be delighted to accept this one.

It might be worth while to say a word about the amendment for clarification. The new section 2(1) provides:

"If, at any time, the Minister has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any inland or marine waters are or may become infected waters, he may by order designate the waters and such land adjacent to them as he considers appropriate in the circumstances."

It appears that the amendment applies specifically to Scotland and that the Bill covers England and Wales.

I was interested to hear the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) about rod fishermen. We have certain peculiarities in Scottish estuaries which apparently do not exist in England. For example, because hydro boards took over stretches of rivers and put dams across them the riparian owners who lost their salmon fishing rights on those stretches were then given netting rights on the estuaries and allowed to net for salmon. I assume that the amendment will apply to anybody who had such a netting right on an estuary.

What is the position of rod fishermen in estuaries with a mixture of salt and fresh water where species such as trout will survive in a reasonable degree of salinity? Some organisations may have fishing rights in stretches of such rivers—for example, the Tay. Would such people be covered by the amendment?

Having said that, I am more than happy to accept the amendment. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to reply to the few points that I have made.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) for welcoming the amendment. I am happy to provide him with the assurances for which he asked. He asked about those who are affected by works on a river. The category to which my hon. Friend referred will be covered by this amendment and will not be affected in any way.

In my response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), I referred to netsmen because representations have been made from that source to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. That interesting problem arises in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East where there are several important salmon rivers. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire that not only netsmen but the holders of the rights of salmon fisheries in marine waters or holders of any private rights of fisheries in non-navigable waters will be entitled to receive the reports. That does not apply just to one category of fishermen but specifically refers to the holders of the rights and to the way in which they may be exercised. However, for the technical purposes of the amendment, that is secondary. The amendment seeks to cover the position referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 42, after 'person', insert 'intentionally'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 4, 5, 9, 14, 47 and 48.

The amendments are relatively sraightforward. Any contraventions of certain provisions in the Bill and the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 must be shown to be intentional on the part of the person involved. The amendment does not relate simply to fisheries or fish disease legislation, but is in accordance with Government policy and that of the Home Office, in particular. Without the amendments, it would be an offence for someone to take foodstuffs out of a fish farm that was subject to a movement restriction order, even if that person did not know that the vehicle that he was driving carried or contained foodstuffs for fish. The amendment will rectify the position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who has promoted the Bill, did not intend that people should find themselves unintentionally committing a technical offence. The amendments fairly meet the purposes of the Bill and are in line with Government policy generally. I commend them to the House.

The House intends, as did the Committee on which I was lucky enough to serve, that a person who accidently breaches the provisions of the legislation should not have the entire force and majesty of the law brought down on their shoulders. Has my right hon. Friend the Minister any evidence that those involved have made efforts to transport fish in the manner in which the Bill is designed to prevent? The spread of disease in that way can be costly, not only to the individual concerned and the entire fishing industry, but to the tourist attractions of the area. If my right hon. Friend knows of any intention to deceive in that way, will he inform the House?

I am more than happy to accept the amendments. Clearly, people are innocent until they are proved guilty. It would be easy for people to make a mistake and break the law without the word "intentionally" appearing. I can think of many instances where people remove fish or eggs from a Dish farm or take foodstuff into a fish farm when delivering to several units in one area and do not realise that an order prohibits such action. I should hate to think that the Government would put anyone in the position of unintentionally breaking the law and finding themselves in serious trouble.

The amendments are useful and important to those supplying fish food and other requirements to fish farms. I wish to ensure that if somebody inadvertently delivers to a fish farm, neither he nor his company will be prosecuted. The same point applies to travellers attending farms to sell equipment and chemicals used in fish farming. I must have an assurance that if such people inadvertently break the law by entering a fish farm subject to an order, they will not be penalised. I welcome the introduction of the word "intentionally", and I trust that the House will accept the amendments.

Although I welcome most of the amendments, will the Minister tell the House —:l am specifically speaking to amendments Nos. 47 and 48—how an act of obstruction can be other than intentional, and why it is necessary to add "intentionally" to the present wording?

I appreciate the welcome given to this group of amendments, especially by my hon. Friends the Members for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) and Harborough (Mr. Farr). As to the question of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), it is possible to obstruct unintentionally as well as intentionally. Technically it is possible to do so. I have heard the hon. Gentleman argue on many occasions for clear legislation. Alas, I cannot lay claim to be a lawyer or to have any legal training, but if the legislation is clear, ordinary mortals will be able to understand its intention. That intention is that nobody should be guilty of an offence if they have done something unintentionally. I hope that the hon. Member for Durham will agree that it is better for ordinary laymen to know precisely where they stand. The hon. Gentleman may be right, technically and legally, in what he says, but even so it helps if legislation is as clear as possible. To that extent, it is only sensible to include this provision.

10 am

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked whether I had any evidence to show that people might attempt to deceive, and pointed out that unless such deception could be proved, they might be protected by the amendment. I have no evidence of that, and I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are founded. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire would agree that if people tried to gain protection from this provision and to deceive in any way, it would become apparent quite soon. As has rightly been said, it is not just a question of a straightforward offence. People's livelihoods are involved if there is any spread of disease. I admit that people have done things that they should not do. Indeed, I have heard of instances involving animal diseases. However, the evidence for it tends to come to light. If anyone were sufficiently ill-advised as to adopt such a course, it would, I hope, quickly become apparent and be dealt with in the appropriate way.

The cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire mentioned are very similar to the example that I gave of a lorry driver carrying foodstuffs and acting unintentionally, without any knowledge of the situation. The same would apply to a traveller or representative of a firm, who would be covered in the same way if he had clearly acted unintentionally. The industry has its own forms of protection. It is a small and fairly closely knit industry, although there is fierce commercial competition. Everyone realises that the prevention of disease is to the advantage of all. Those who serve the industry including, for example, lorry drivers who supply goods and services, and the representatives of commercial firms, have a general awareness of the risk of spreading disease and the consequent effect on livelihoods. I know from my experience of agriculture that those with any interest in the industry, or who are connected with it in any way, are ultra careful when any disease is apparent, and alter their routine and so on to ensure that the risks are reduced and removed.

Therefore, I am happy that we have not relaxed, but protected the rights of the individual in the knowledge that all those connected with the industry will behave responsibly and are unlikely to commit an offence, even inadvertently. I hope that what I have said will meet the assurances sought and that the amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 36, after `person', insert 'intentionally'.

No. 5, in page 4, line 33, after 'he', insert `intentionally'.—[ Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 3

Infected Waters: Preliminary Precautions

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'shall forthwith' and insert `may'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 11 and 12.

I hope that the House will accept this group of amendments. The amendment seeks simply to clarify the intentions of the Bill. The subsections to which the amendments relate—new subsections 4(1) and 4A(1)—carry forward the wording of the 1937 Act. However, we recognise that that wording could be interpreted as making it mandatory for an inspector to impose movement restrictions every time he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that waters are infected.

The power, as drafted, is extremely inflexible. Anyone with experience will bear me out when I say that it is not a good idea to be inflexible when dealing with fish diseases. It is important to ensure that legislation is properly drafted and clear, and that there should be a reasonable and sensible degree of flexibility. As drafted, the Bill is inflexible. In some cases, that would be undesirable as all that may be necessary is information about the disease. Therefore, the purpose and effect of the amendment is to make the serving of preliminary precautions notices discretionary, thus bringing the provision into line with the discretion already available to the Minister in relation to the power to designate areas in clause 2. It might be said that, by giving that discretion, we are weakening the legislation or making it less clear, but I believe that the Bill will ultimately be more effective if there is that flexibility. It is also sensible, in that inspectors can use the powers appropriate to the circumstance. I hope that the amendment will also be welcomed by the industry. Indeed, I think that it will welcome such flexibility of approach, because it is better for it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire will see the amendments as an improvement to the Bill that will aid the working of the powers to control disease.

I welcome the Government amendments and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) will also welcome them. The amendments introduce a sensible measure of humanity. They make all the proceedings much more flexible which will lead to less "aggro" and friction between the authorities represented by the inspectors and the individuals involved.

In Committee I drew attention to the difficulties that arise out of a non-flexible system. I hope that the Minister will explain how the inspectors will decide how to act. We are right to replace the words "shall forthwith" with "may" in clause 3. Without flexibility and the word "may" the inspectors would not be able to use their common sense. The word "may" allows inspectors flexibility in both the critical areas—inland waters and coastal waters. The inspectors have a massive burden on their shoulders when dealing with disease.

It may not be appropriate to introduce a code of practice, but it would be a good idea if the Minister could publish a letter containing what matters he considers the inspectors should take into account when making up their minds.

The amendments are critically important. They give the inspectors necessary flexibility, but we should not ask them to make up their minds how to act under the legislation without guiding them. I am sure that if guidance is not provided officially by the Department, the inspectors will ask for it and they should receive it. I hope that when that guidance is given to the inspectors the Minister will also make it available to the House.

Of all the Government amendments, I welcome these most. I was at a conference in Oban three or four weeks ago and fish farmers severely criticised me for drawing the Bill so tightly. They rightly said that if the industry and Government were to get on together a flexible approach must be adopted. The amendments provide that flexibility. The industry was worried about the Bill as it stood. It will be happier when it learns how the Bill is to be changed.

So long as there is an agreed procedure between Ministry officials and people in the industry we can go a long way towards stamping out the many problems associated with disease in fish farms, not only in Scotland, but in England and Wales.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) I shall be interested to hear how the inspectors will decide what to do in each case. We shall put a great responsibility on their shoulders if we ask them to decide whether to do something about a particular problem. The amendments do not slacken the Bill's powers and they will be warmly welcomed by the industry.

10.15 am

I am happy to respond to my hon. Friends. I agree that flexibility is important because different action is often appropriate when dealing with different diseases. Inspectors will act according to which disease is suspected. It would help the House if I explained the procedures. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friends that operating flexibly will take care of the interests of those directly concerned and inform a wider public.

The fish disease laboratory or one of my Department's veterinary investigation centres is usually the first to learn that a notifiable disease may be present on a site. The information is usually given by a fish farmer, a private veterinary surgeon or a water authority.

As soon as we hear that a notifiable disease may be present, arrangements are made for someone from the fish diseases laboratory or from the local veterinary investigation centre to visit the site and, if appropriate, to take samples of the fish. The samples are examined at the laboratory and if the presence of a notifiable disease is confirmed, the normal action for that disease is taken. That action will vary in accordance with the disease and the appropriate control. If movement restrictions are necessary the fish diseases laboratory will immediately issue a 16-day notice and perhaps subsequent notices under clause 4. The notices are sent by recorded delivery, the initial notice being under cover of a letter explaining that a named, notifiable disease has been found and that movement restrictions are being applied. Lists of movements of fish both on and off the infected sites may be required. Attempts are then made to determine whether the disease exists on contact sites.

Immediately following the issue of the 16-day notice, the laboratory will notify my Department which will, if appropriate, prepare the infected area orders. The amendments relate to the need for different action for providing information and sampling.

The infected area order is an administrative order made under clause 2. This order declares the specified area to be infected and prohibits the movement of live fish, live eggs of fish and foodstuff for fish from the site without my Department's prior written consent. My Department will notify the occupier that the order has been made. It will also notify the water authorities, the National Water Council and the National Farmers Union. A trade notice will be issued. The order is published in the London Gazette as required by the Diseases of Fish Regulations 1937. I describe this in detail because I think it is much better to describe the full procedure and so answer the particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.

rose—

I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I hope that this reassures him, not only that the matter is dealt with sensibly and flexibly at the different stages, but that anyone who has an interest is kept fully informed at the appropriate stage of what is happening. It is important that people should know what is happening.

Is it appropriate to advertise these facts in the London Gazette? Would it not be much more appropriate if the valuable action that my right hon. Friend will cause the Department. to take were advertised instead in the press or other media rather than in the London Gazette, which has a traditional ring about it and, I imagine, is of little use in this respect?

It has been our experience over a number of years that this is the appropriate way to proceed. If one did not use the London Gazette, one would not be certain that the information would be published. It is important to have a central point where the information is published so that those who have a direct interest — they may be from fisheries organisations and so on — know that by obtaining copies of that one publication they can be kept abreast of what is happening. One has no certainty that a notice issued to the general press would be published. If it is known that the information is available in one publication those who have a direct interest in these matters will know what is happening.

The procedures are based on experience and practice over the years and show that, at the different stages, depending on the information that has been received, and on the results of the sampling and testing that is carried out at the laboratories, a whole series of different courses of action may flow, particularly with regard to the type of disease that may be found. It might not be appropriate if an inspector were restricted by having simply to follow one course of action forthwith. Putting the extra flexibility into the Bill should help and reflects what inspectors already endeavour to do in practice and the type of approach that the industry prefers and has found to be of benefit to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) said that he had received representations on this matter directly from those involved in the industry who felt that the Bill as drafted had been too narrowly drawn. I accept that the practices that could flow from the Bill do not limit the powers of the inspector to control diseases or to inform people and will make their action more effective. I am encouraged that this is welcomed by the industry as well. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 4, line 43 after 'and', insert

'(if the inspector serves such a notice) he shall'. —[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 3 after second 'no', insert 'live'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 13, 16, 17, 27 and 29.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for grouping the amendments, because their purpose is the same.

In Committee I made it clear—I have also made it clear at all times in the discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), and those who have helped him and have participated in the debates—that we wished to limit the scope of the Bill to the most important areas where the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 has been shown to be out of date. We could, of ers ofcourse, have taken the opportunity to extend the powers in many other directions. I recognise that, in principle, there may be a case for controlling the disposal of dead fish, parts of fish or of dead fish eggs. However, I do not think that the case has been made out for that and, therefore, I think that we should limit ourselves to keeping the powers that we are seeking in proportion to the threat that may be presented. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to limit the powers under the Bill, in relation to live fish or to live fish eggs, to the existing law and, as a result, to keep the purposes of the Bill in line with our intention to bring up to date the present legislation.

While no specifically strong recommendations have been made to us about it, if dead fish, parts of fish or dead fish eggs were, in an unforeseen case, to present a hazard, I would be very surprised if fish farmers and fishermen did not follow the reasonable guidelines or codes of practice. The best reassurance that I can give to the House is that, in the exercise of existing powers, we have not seen this to be a special problem or difficulty. Therefore, in the interests of the general purposes of the Bill, I think it is better to keep this narrow aspect—as with so many other aspects—running on the same lines as before. I do not think that the amendment weakens the Bill or weakens the powers that my hon. Friend is seeking to introduce. For the sake of the conformity of this part of the Bill with other parts of it, I would rather this amendment be made. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept it.

10.30 am

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for explaining the purpose of the amendment, which deals with an issue on which we did not touch in Committee. It seems strange that my right hon. Friend considers the issue sufficiently important to justify tabling and introducing the amendment. We are considering amendments Nos. 8, 13, 16, 17, 27 and 29, all of which seek to insert "live" in front of "eggs". I should not have thought that a dead fish egg would be of concern to anyone. In any event, is my right hon. Friend not attaching rather too much weight to this "problem"? Who would bother to move dead fish eggs anyway? I listened to him carefully but I could not understand why the exception should be made. I consider the Bill to be perfectly satisfactory in its present form. In the absence of an explanation of why he wants to concern himself with dead fish eggs, I could not support the amendment if a Division were called.

I tend to support much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). However, I do not like parting company with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I understand his purpose in bringing the Bill into line with existing legislation. I am worried about some nasty diseases on the continent of Europe which are not yet found in Britain. I pray that they will never get here. It is excellent specifically to control the movement of live fish and live fish eggs, but it is worrying that the movement of dead fish is not controlled. For example, if a fish farmer found that his fish had contacted one of the nasty diseases to which I have referred, he might very well want to sell them before it was discovered that he had the disease on the farm. The fish could be perfectly edible while carrying a disease that would kill other fish. Someone in that position might, virtually intentionally, spread disease by moving dead fish in those circumstances.

My right hon. Friend has been much involved in updating much of our other animal health legislation. Foot and mouth disease can strike bovine animals. If that happens, the slaughter policy dictates that the animals are put down on the farm. That means that there is no chance of the disease even moving off the farm. If a beast dies from anthrax, if must be burned and buried on the farm so that there is no chance of anthrax spreading elsewhere.

At present, we have a reasonable control of most diseases, but in future there may be diseases around that we want more tightly to control by stopping the movement of dead fish, parts of fish or dead fish eggs so that we can stop the diseases spreading. I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's reply.

Is my hon. Friend aware that grave concern has been expressed about the importation of fish and fish eggs to Britain and the relevant control measures? It has been reported that it is regarded by many of those in authority that the import controls on fish and fish eggs are extremely lax. Possibly this is one of the major reasons for the diseases that we are now experiencing.

I have heard reports to that effect. I have heard that dead fish that are brought into Britain for the table in some instances possibly carry disease. Most of our powers of control over imports are contained in the Animal Health Act 1981 and, therefore, have not been written into the Bill. We have not had a chance so far to consider exactly how the import controls will work. I know that the industry is keen that something should be placed on the record. If my right hon. Friend catches the eye of the Chair on Third Reading, he may have the chance to explain how imports are being controlled.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has said, there is some worry about imports and control measures. Having given the matter careful consideration and having spoken to many within the Ministry, I am now pretty satisfied that the Minister has all the powers that he requires. The problem lies with appointing a sufficiently large inspectorate to ensure that nothing can come into the country that might be diseased.

We shall widen the debate considerably if we have a general debate on imports. However, I recognise that it is a matter of concern to the industry. It may be possible to discuss the issue on Third Reading. At this stage I do not want to delay progress on the amendments. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), or anyone else, wishes to raise the matter on Third Reading, I shall be happy to respond. It would be helpful to clarify the control powers.

We are seeking to bring the Bill into line with previous legislation. If I had felt that there was a necessity for wider powers covering dead fish, I would not have tabled and introduced the amendment. I have sought not to extend powers unnecessarily where the extension of powers has not proved to be necessary. It is helpful to provide clarification by ensuring that no one need fear prosecution over the movement of dead eggs, especially where no risk is involved.

The principal problem lies with the movement of fish, whether live or dead. That is the area in which there are particular risks. We have no wish, in introducing legislation of this sort, to interfere with the orderly marketing of dead fish. The issue is better illustrated by considering dead fish rather than dead eggs. In most instances at the marketing stage fish are dead, and if we introduced powers that were too wide we could find ourselves interfering with the legitimate movement of dead fish commercially for eating. If the risks had been sufficient to justify including a definition of movement, we would have taken the opportunity of incorporating one within the Bill

Those problems have not arisen and, given that we do not want to interfere with the orderly marketing of dead fish for legitimate purposes, the legislation has been drafted as in the past and I think we should continue on that basis. This series of amendments seeks to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) cited the control of animal diseases on agricultural farms. There are times when dead material must be dealt with in a particular way. I urge my hon. Friend to refer to subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 2A, under which we have powers in appropriate circumstances to direct a fish farmer to remove dead or dying fish from waters. The illustration I have given should be a reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. We have the necessary powers to deal appropriately with the circumstances to which he referred.

I hope that the House will feel that the powers we have are adequate—in practice, they have proved to be so—to deal with the various situations that could arise. Accordingly, my hon. Friend will, I hope, feel that he need not press the matter to a Division. These proposals are broadly welcomed by the fish fanning industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 5, line 25, after `who', insert 'intentionally'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 39, at end insert

'This subsection does not apply to Scotland.

(6) In Scotland if any person entitled to take fish from any inland waters, or employed for the purpose of having the care of any inland waters, has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the waters are infected waters, it shall be his duty forthwith to report the facts in writing to the Secretary of State, or, if the waters are situated in the area of a district board and are not a fish farm, to the board; and if without reasonable excuse he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence.'.

Subsection (5) of new section 4 provides for the reporting of suspicions of disease in inland waters to water authorities or, if the waters are fish farms, to the Minister. This subsection applies to Scotland by virtue of section 11 of the 1937 Act, subject to the references to "water authority" being read as "district salmon fishery board". The wording was not wholly appropriate in that, whereas there are water authorities throughout England and Wales, in Scotland there are districts for which no boards have been set up.

10.45 am

Accordingly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland thought it best to set out the position for Scotland in a separate subsection. If the amendment is accepted, in waters which are not fish farms, reports will be made to the district board, where a district board exists, or, in the absence of such a board, to the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is an appropriate amendment which clarifies and takes full account of the somewhat different position that exists in Scotland in circumstances where there is no district board. No new power is being taken here. We are just making sure that the powers we already have in the Bill are properly exercised and appropriate.

Having listened with interest to my right hon. Friend's comments, I find it rather odd that, the clause having been considered carefully in Committee, this change should be proposed. Therefore, some of the responsibilities being inserted by the new subsection deserve closer examination. It requires, for example, any employee in Scotland involved in the care of inland waters to report if he has reason for suspecting that there is disease in those waters, and that brings us back to the question of notification and the promulgation of a new law.

This is an excellent Bill, which I hope will reach the statute book at an early date, but we are putting every employee on every inland water in Scotland at risk of committing an offence unless he reports his suspicions of a disease in the waters under his control. The situation is even more onerous, possibly misguidedly so, because it is not good enough to say that a gillie on the upper Dee, having left the waters for which he is responsible, should telephone the Department and leave a message on its answering machine in Edinburgh or elsewhere saying, "I think there is some sort of disease in my beat on the Dee." That is not adequate. It must be reported in writing.

It is farcical for the House to make such rules, because people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland would not bother to write letters to Ministers in such circumstances. If one made a phone call without effect, that would be the end of it. Indeed, a telephone call would probably do more harm than good because, if one telephoned and did not then send a formal letter, one would be committing an offence. Knowing that most busily employed people simply would not take any notice of the disease, but would leave it for somebody else to find. Therefore, the wording is unfortunate in requiring any employee to make a written report. It is unreasonable, asking too much and, if put on the statute book, will tend to bring the law into contempt.

What will be the penalty for the offence? I have studied the Bill as it left Committee. Certain clauses list the penalties for offences concerning shellfish. I understand that we are concerned with all diseases relating to fish. Therefore, I should like to know the penalty for the offence with which we are concerned here. I think that it is £200, but, having checked the Bill as amended, I cannot be sure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter. It seems unreasonable to expect anybody employed on any river in Scotland to write a letter forthwith to the Department in Scotland.

As I said, a gillie — generally a person of high intelligence and great ability — may, with his professional knowledge, notice something wrong in the water. But it is not only a person with that expertise who will commit an offence if he does not report suspicions. If a humble employee cutting weeds on the Dee in summer sees something that he suspects may be wrong, he will be guilty of an offence if he does not immediately write a letter to the Department reporting his suspicions.

I submit that this is a typical case of introducing a law that can never be enforced and which, if it is enforced at all, will probably do more harm than good.

Will the Minister clarify the following point? The amendment provides:

"This subsection does not apply to Scotland.

(6) In Scotland if any person entitled to take fish from any inland waters, or employed for the purpose of having the care of any inland waters, has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the waters are infected waters, it shall be his duty forthwith to report the facts in writing to the Secretary of State, or, if the waters are situated in the area of a district board and are not a fish farm, to the board".

Does that mean that in the last circumstance the person is not required to write to the Secretary of State as well as to the board?

The answer to my hon. friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) is yes. I am glad to give him that assurance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) has raised more substantial points about the amendment. I do not think that the provision is as momentous as he implied. He fairly and rightly said that we must ensure that any powers of this kind are reasonable and sensible. There is, however, nothing in the amendment to increase or extend the powers in the Bill. We simply wish to ensure that the powers in this part of the Bill apply properly to Scotland in administrative terms. Unfortunately, despite the assiduous scrutiny given to the Bill in Committee, that point had been missed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has Scottish responsibilities that I do not have, has taken this opportunity to ensure that the Bill is correctly drafted in that respect.

The powers to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough referred are already in the Bill and were agreed by the Standing Committee of which he was a member. Moreover, the powers are also in the 1937 Act. Therefore, they have been in operation for more than 40 years and they have not given rise to the problems envisaged by my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful information about the 1937 Act, which had slipped my memory. As that Act is now being superseded in part, can he tell us how often the provisions now being continued in the Bill were acted upon? According to my information, they have been disregarded in practice for more than 40 years.

I cannot give that specific information at such short notice, but I will look into the matter and let my hon. Friend know, as it is clearly relevant. I am advised that the power, which has existed since 1937, has been necessary. Therefore, I hope that at this stage my hon. Friend will be prepared to accept that it is right, especially as it has been in operation for so long.

My hon. Friend also asked about penalties. At present, the penalty for an offence is £200, but, if amendment No. 49 were accepted, the maximum penalty would be raised to £500.

My hon. Friend feels strongly that the powers should not be used indiscriminately. I shall try to discover the extent to which they have been used in the past. I remind him, however, that the employee may demonstrate "reasonable excuse" for not acting. There is that safeguard and protection for the employee if there are reasonable grounds for not reporting the circumstances, so the power is perhaps not quite so draconian as my hon. Friend suggested.

With those assurances, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'serve' in line 43 and insert

'waters—

(a) he may'.

No. 12, in page 6, line 3, after '(b)', insert

'if the inspector serves such a notice he shall'.

No. 13, in page 6, line 8, after second 'no', insert 'live'.

No. 14, in page 6, line 33, after 'who', insert `intentionally'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 6, at end insert—

`(6) In Scotland if any person who
(a) has a right to fish for salmon in any marine waters; or
(b) has a right of fishing in any private non-navigable marine waters; or
(c) is employed for the purpose of having the care of any waters mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above,
has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the waters (excluding any marine waters in which a cage used for the purposes of a business of fish farming is situated) are infected waters it shall be his duty forthwith to report the facts in writing to the Secretary of State; and if without reasonable excuse he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence.'.

The amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, relates specifically to Scotland. My hon. Friend and I considered the effect of the Bill on fishery interests in marine waters other than farming in sea cages, which is already covered.

In Scotland, some valuable salmon fishery rights, which are held privately, extend to marine waters. The main purpose of the Bill is to deal with fish diseases, primarily in relation to fish farming—the drafting was quite right in that the problems arise most acutely in that sector—and in discrete units to which restrictions can be applied in practice and, I hope, to good effect. Nevertheless, we felt that the obligation to report suspicions should also be placed on holders of such private fishery rights in marine waters. The amendment puts the position beyond doubt and thus, I hope, clarifies the purpose of the Bill, but it in no way changes its general purposes.

I, like other hon. Members, am anxious that, in technical amendments such as this, we may be merely extending powers. This amendment simply restores what applied in the 1937 Act. I am sorry to have to make these amendments to my hon. Friend's skilfully drafted Bill. I hope that he will agree that, when we identify gaps or deficiencies, it is right to make the appropriate amendments. I do not in any way wish to spoil his Bill.

11 am

I support amendment No. 15. My right hon. Friend carefully answered my point on amendment No. 10 about it not being fair that a humble river employee should have the full majesty of the law brought on his shoulders. My right hon. Friend has reassured me to some extent about such people being protected. Nevertheless, it is my experience that in the more than 40 years during which the 1937 Act has been in operation that obligation has been more ignored than respected.

It is always a bad thing simply to transfer provisions from one rather ancient Act to a new Bill, especially if those provisions have decayed and been almost completely ignored because, on the ground, the river or the estuary, it is impractical to put them into action. I hope that the Bill will bring a breath of fresh air into the industry.

I should like my right hon. Friend to take a more enlightened view of amendment No. 15. It is all very well for the House to pass such measures—we have done a good job — but how will they be transmitted to the places where the people concerned congregate? How will they know about the responsibilities that we are putting on their shoulders today?

Amendment No. 15 provides that:

'(6) In Scotland if any person who
(a) has a right to fish for salmon in any marine waters; or
(b) has a right of fishing in any private non-navigable marine waters; or
(c) is employed for the purpose of having the care of any waters mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above,
has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the waters, (excluding any marine waters in which a cage used for the purposes of a business of fish farming is situated) are infected waters it shall be his duty forthwith to report the facts in writing to the Secretary of State.'

The least my right hon. Friend can do today is to assure us that those responsibilities will be printed on the back of the licence that the legal fisherman holds. Unless the Department attempts some form of communication with the people who fish in Scotland, this section will be ignored. How will visitors to Britain who fish in those waters know their responsibilities unless it is printed on the back of their licence?

My right hon. Friend should take a real interest in the subject and say, "We have a brilliant colour photography section in the Department which produces excellent wall charts that are available to schools, education departments, and departments of agriculture throughout the country and show different agricultural diseases." That section recently produced an excellent colour chart of all the diseases of edible and non-edible fungi that was sent to schools in many country districts.

Why cannot those experts be employed to produce a chart which shows the types of diseases that people should look out for when they are fishing in marine or non-navigable marine waters? It is all very well to show on the back of the licence that the holder is required to report any disease when he sees it, but most fishermen who are legally active in those waters would not recognise a disease when they saw it without some guidance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who has piloted this Bill successfully so far, is an expert on fish diseases but not many people who fish would recognise more than one or two straight away. A colour chart should be put up on a wall in such places as club houses, pier heads, coastguard offices and pubs where the people who will be subjected to the requirements of the new subsection are likely to congregate. The chart should show the diseases that we are worried about and describe the fish that might suffer from them and the symptoms. Moreover, the chart should be written in language that any Tom, Dick or Harry can understand, without the aid of a dictionary or a complicated science or biology handbook so that he can recognise the symptoms when he sees them.

I beg the House not simply to put on to the statute book again a section that has been largely ignored and is 46 years old. If we are to include a section of that defunct legislation in the new Bill, I hope that, this time, it will be accompanied by a departmental effort to explain to people on the ground in Scotland what their responsibilities are so that they can recognise the symptoms of the diseases which they should look for. Apart from that reservation, I support the amendment.

This is my first opportunity to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) who has produced an important Bill which will be of great benefit to the industry.

Many of the people who hold licences and fish in the waters that we are discussing will be tourists. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has done the House a service by drawing attention to the fact that it is critical that, if someone is to fish in those waters, he should be aware of his obligations and responsibilities.

It has often been said in the House that we need to attract tourists to Britain. Amendment No. 15 relates to Scotland. That wonderful country has great benefits to offer the tourist industry. If visitors to Scotland take the opportunity to fish, I believe that they will be responsible people and accept the obligations that are put upon them.

It would be foolish to set out the conditions on the back of the licence. People are not hooked on the idea of looking at the back of the licence. However, the Department is able to provide literature which can be displayed at fishermen's gathering points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, it is vital that the information is available.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the Department in Scotland should make available to the Scottish tourist authorities copies of the leaflets, wall charts or colour charts that I have suggested should be produced, so that anyone going to fish for the vanishing salmon will know what to look for?

It will come as no surprise to the House to know that the hon. Member for Harborough and I are kindred spirits, particularly on this subject. He must have the gift of prophecy, because the point that he has made in his intervention was one of those to which I intended to direct the Minister's attention. If the people who use the waters are asked to accept the liabilities placed upon them, the Department should accept the responsibility of producing the necessary information for fishermen. As my hon. Friend suggested, the ideal channel of communication is the tourist board.

I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestions in a positive way. I am sure that he will have the full support of the House, because it is a good Bill.

I am well aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). I welcome their interventions because I know of their deep interest in fishing matters. Although I do not have direct responsibility in Scotland for the matters that they raise—they are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland —none the less I have two major salmon fishing rivers in my constituency. I also have the lower stretches of the river Dee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough referred.

If certain events take place later today concerning the changes in constituency boundaries, I may find that I have an interest in the whole of the river Dee rather than simply the lower part of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) is unfortunate in that his constituency does not contain the river Dee, although it has other excellent salmon rivers. I am sure that he must be envious of me concerning the river Dee, although, as I said earlier, I do not fish, so that I do not take advantage of the great opportunities available to me in that respect.

I entirely agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West concerning visitors to Scotland. We want to see people enjoying the important fishing assets, which bring a great deal of benefit to the areas concerned. We also want to ensure that those who enjoy the fishing meet their responsibilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough referred to the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 as being defunct. We are, of course, making many changes in the Act. My hon. Friend may think that some of the powers under the 1937 Act are not being exercised. We are extending its powers and they are certainly not defunct. Therefore, I should not like to let some of his remarks go unchallenged. It might have been thought that the existing powers were not being exercised. I understand that reports are made regularly under the provisions of the 1937 Act.

I do not have the exact figures available but I believe that the fisheries interests, including employees such as bailiffs, regularly report suspicions to the responsible Departments. I understand that in Scotland about 40 reports a year are made. Therefore, we are not extending a defunct power or a power that is not used in practice. Those who have responsibilities are fully aware of them and are exercising them.

We are moving into a very different position from that under which the 1937 Act operated. I believe that that is what inspired my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) to introduce the Bill. Many of the problems relating to fish diseases are totally new, not only in fish farming but in the wild.

11.15 am

I pay tribute to the architects of the 1937 Act. Some of its powers may not have been thought necessary at the time, but they anticipated that eventually it would be necessary to have greater control over fish diseases. In recent years the powers have become very relevant and necessary. Therefore, I make no apology for extending the powers. They are being operated under the present legislation and it is now necessary to have the new legislation that my hon. Friend has introduced.

The responsibilities to which my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Dudley, West referred rest on those who have the right to fish; they do not extend to the casual tourist. I am unable to give an assurance at this stage concerning the suggestion that those responsibilities should be made widely known. As I have said, the responsibilities are relatively narrow and apply only to particular people. In Scotland, reports are made regularly, so that those on whom responsibilities fall are fully aware of them. I shall draw my hon. Friend's suggestions to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that he may consider whether the responsibilities should be made more widely known. I entirely accept the point that it is unsatisfactory if the responsibilities are not understood by those who should be exercising them. I hope that the amendment will bring about an improvement in that respect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

Termination Of Tenancies Acquired By Succession

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 7, line 10 after `keeping', insert 'live'.

No. 17, In page 7 line 13 after 'containing', insert live'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 7, line 13, at end insert

'"district board" has the same meaning as in the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1828 to 1868;'.

I do not think that the amendment need detain the House. It is simply a matter of clarification. It provides a definition of "district board". Since that expression will now appear on the face of the 1937 Act rather than by a simple reference in the section dealing with the application of the Act to Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) and I considered it desirable to define it along with the other expressions in section 10(1).

The definition contained in the amendment simply reflects that already provided for in the existing section 11 (b) of that Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

Taking Of Shellfish From Certain Areas

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 8, leave out lines 14 to 20.

The amendment removes a provision which we believe to be unnecessary. As the Bill is drafted, clause 6 provides for a new section 12(3) (b) to be inserted into the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. This applies the power to make orders prohibiting the depositing or taking of shellfish to Crown interests in waters or land in Scotland.

The time that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) had for the preparation of the Bill was a little limited. At the time, it was thought that if orders prohibiting the taking of shellfish were to apply to oysters and mussels in Scotland, where the right to take them belongs to the Crown but may be granted to others, it would be necessary to have a specific Crown application to that effect.

Following inquiries and after a further study of the matter, it appears that orders under section 12 of the 1967 Act, including orders made under the amendment being made by the Bill, can be made to include land or oyster or mussel beds belonging to the Crown without the need for a specific application clause.

I appreciate the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire in drafting the Bill so carefully, but I have to advise him that in this case he has been a little too careful and has extended the Bill more widely than is necessary. This provision duplicates powers that we have already. I hope that he will accept from me that where powers are clear already, it would be unfortunate to put them in twice. I believe in economy of legislation. I hope that in that sense my hon. Friend will find the amendment acceptable.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that explanation. I admit that I was wondering why this provision was being deleted from the Bill. What my right hon. Friend has just said clarifies the position not only for me but for others who will read our proceedings on the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for moving the amendment and for explaining the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

Information About Shellfish

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 8, line 28, leave out clause 7.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 to 26, 28 and 30, and 34 to 42.

This group of amendments is fairly important, although, as a matter that we discussed in Committee and on which I gave certain assurances, I hope that the House will feel that we have already had a considerable opportunity to deal with it.

In Committee, we discussed the importance of obtaining information about shellfish farming, and I undertook to seek to bring forward proposals at a later stage to provide powers for England and Wales similar to those for Scotland. I am glad to say that that has proved possible. These amendments provide for unified arrangements in respect of England, Wales and Scotland to enable Ministers to make orders requiring information about shellfish farming.

As with the proposed powers to require information about inland fish farms and sea fish farms, it will now be possible, in respect of shellfish farming businesses, to require the registration of such businesses, the furnishing of specified information, the keeping of records and the retention of those records for up to three years. This requirement will also relate to shellfish farming in inland waters, which is a relatively new development, such as crayfish farming. It will provide valuable information which until now has not been available to Ministers.

The purpose of this group of amendments is not in dispute. I am sorry that it was not possible to introduce the amendments at an earlier stage, but it has always been my wish to have these powers, and I sensed that it was also the wish of the Committee. Given certain unfortunate recent developments of disease amongst shellfish, it is important to have these powers. I would have been bitterly disappointed if we had not been able to use the Bill to extend these powers in the way that I have described.

I hope that I have met the will of the Committee and that my hon. Friend and the House will accept the amendments.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has been able to move these amendments. It was my intention originally to cover shellfish farming in this way in the Bill. However, it is difficult for a Back Bencher to draft complicated provisions such as these, even with the tremendous help that I was given.

In Committee, I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) managed to include provisions for Scotland, but even then we did not manage to cover England and Wales. Today, my right hon. Friend has been able to cover England, Wales and Scotland in one clause, which is extremely satisfactory. The industry is delighted that this has proved possible. It feared that we should be unable to deal with shellfish in the way that we wanted, but these amendments have done it. What is more, they have cut down the number of words in the Bill, which is always good in legislation. I welcome the amendments warmly.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

Power To Require Information About Shellfish Farming In Scotland

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 10, line 21, leave out clause 8.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 9

Power To Require Information

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 11, line 22, leave out from 'information' to 'with' in line 23.

No. 23, in page 11, line 38, at end insert—

'In this subsection "fish" does not include shellfish.'

No. 24, in page 12, line 14, at end insert—

'In this subsection "fish" does not include shellfish.'

No. 25, in page 12, line 14, at end insert—

`(3A) An order under this section may require any person who carries on a business of shellfish farming (whether or not for profit)—
(a) to register the business in a register kept for the purpose by the Minister
(b) to furnish in writing to the Minister such information as may be specified in the order in relation lo any activity carried on (whether in marine or inland waters or on land) for the purpose of cultivating or propagating shellfish in the course of the business, and in relation to shellfish deposited in or on or taken from such waters or land in the course of the business,
(c) to compile such records as may be so specified in relation to the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) above, and
(d) to retain for such period (not exceeding 3 years) as may be so specified any records compiled in accordance with paragraph (c) above.'

No. 26, in page 12, line 16, leave out 'or (3) (a)' and insert, `, (3) (a) or (3A) (a)'.

No. 27, in page 12, line 29, after 'of', insert 'live'.

No. 28, in page 12, line 29, leave out '(other than shellfish only)'.

No. 29, in page 12, line 33, after 'of', insert 'live'. No. 30, in page 12, line 35, leave out from 'not): to end of line 36.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

11.30 am

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 12, line 44 leave out 'and Wales'.

With this, 'it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 32, in page 12, line 45 leave out 'and Wales'.

No. 33, in page 12, line 46 at end insert—

'(aa) in relation to Wales, and any marine waters adjacent to Wales, the Secretary of State;'.

No. 44, in Schedule page 15, line 2 at end insert—

'1A. In section 1(3) of the 1937 Act (Minister may grant licences as to certain imported fish) for the words from "Minister" (in the first place) to "Minister')" (in the second place) there shall be substituted "Minister".'.

No. 50, in page 17, line 3 at end insert—

'6A. In section 10(1) of the 1937 Act (interpretation) after the definition of "marine waters" there shall be inserted—

"'the Minister' means—
(a) in relation to England, and any marine waters adjacent to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;
(b) in relation to Wales, and any marine waters adjacent to Wales, the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to Scotland (including the marine waters thereof), the Secretary of State.".'.

The object of this series of amendments is to make clear the role of the Secretary of State for Wales in the enforcement of this Bill, because under the 1937 Act he was not in existence. Amendment No. 44 is an archetypal example of crisp drafting. It states:

'1A. In section 1(3) of the 1937 Act (Minister may grant licences as to certain imported fish) for the words from "Minister" (in the first place) to "Minister')" (in the second place) there shall be substituted "Minister".'.

The amendment improves the Bill immensely and I am proud to be associated with it.

The amendments are purely technical and clarify the role of the Secretary of State in the importation of fish eggs and fish, and in the general supervision and requirement of information under the Act.

It may be helpful if I respond to this amendment now, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) as promoter of the Bill, may also wish to respond.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) asked about appropriate ministerial responsibility, and this series of amendments deals with his question. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the amount of work that he must have put into the drafting of the amendments. It took me some time to understand them, especially amendment No. 44, and I needed much advice as to whether they were appropriate. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that his amendments are not only correct in purpose, which is to clarify the position, but correct in detail. He has improved the complicated wording of the Bill, and I congratulate him on his skilled drafting. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendments, not only as a tribute to the ability of the hon. Member for Durham as a parliamentary draftsman, but because the Bill has been improved by them.

I am delighted to accept the amendments, especially as the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) is my parliamentary pair. Anything that he does to help me may be reciprocated later. After his performance in reading out amendment No. 44, I am sure that we shall see him on television on Sunday nights with Esther Rantzen in "That's Life", saying, "Here is a piece of legislation that we should all know about."

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 12, line 45 leave out 'and Wales'.

No. 33, in page 12, line 46 at end insert—

'(aa) in relation to Wales, and any marine waters adjacent to Wales, the Secretary of State;'.—[Mr. Mark Hughes.]

No. 34, in page 13, line 3, after 'kind', insert

', and includes any brood, ware, half-ware, spat or spawn of shellfish'.

No. 35, in page 13, line 3, at end insert

'"shellfish farming" means the cultivation or propagation of shellfish (whether in marine or inland waters or on land) with a view to their sale or to their transfer to other waters or land'.

No. 36, in page 13, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (b).—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 10

Information: Enforcement

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 13, line 17, leave out '8 or'.

No. 38, in page 13, line 21, leave out '8 or'.

No. 39, in page 13, line 25, leave out '8(5) or'.

No. 40, in page 13, line 28, leave out '8(5) or'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 11

Disclosure Of Information

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 14, line 2, leave out '8 or'.

No. 42, in page 14, line 3, leave out 'either of those sections' and insert 'that section'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 13

Short Title, Commencement And Extent

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 14, line 30, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 31 and insert

'(except this section) shall come into force on such day as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and an order under this subsection may appoint different days for different provisions or different purposes.

(2A) An order under sbubsection (2) above may include such transitionals or savings as appear to that Minister and the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order, but nothing shall be so included if it would conflict with subsection (2B) or (2C) below.

(2B) The definitions of "infected" and "infected waters' contained in section 10(1) of the 1937 Act immediately before the coming into force of section 4(6) above shall continue to have effect on and after its coming into force (subject to any order made, after its coming into force, under section 13 of the 1937 Act).

(2C) The coming into force of sub-paragraph (1A) of paragraph 5 of the Schedule to this Act shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before its coming into force.'.

The amendment is designed to ensure a reasonably smooth change to the new provisions of the Bill. The amendment is in four parts. The first part will provide for the Act to come into force by appointed day order, and the order may appoint different days for different provisions or purposes. This will mean that, instead of the Act coming into force two months after Royal Assent, which is the usual practice, it will be possible for Ministers to have flexibility over the commencement date. However, no order can be made to bring the Act into force before two months after Royal Assent.

The second part of the amendment, 2A, allows for the appointed day orders to include any transitionals or savings as Ministers consider appropriate to facilitate the change to the provisions of the Bill. This power will be especially useful when the Act comes into force, as it will then be possible for any action taken under the 1937 Act to be preserved for such time as specified in the order and so avoid any vacuum in restrictions before the new provisions of the Bill can be applied. That is obviously sensible when bringing in new legislation to replace that already in existence.

The third part of the amendment in 2B is a "savings" provision, and is necessary because section 13 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 provides for the notifiable diseases to be modified by Order in Council. Under this section, two statutory instruments — 1973/2093 and 1978/1022—have been made to specify those diseases that are notifiable and come under the definition of "infected". However, section 13 of the 1937 Act is amended in clause 4(6) of the Bill to replace the slow and cumbersome Order in Council procedures with the quicker and more efficient order-making by negatve resolution procedures. Because of this amendment, the statutory instruments referred to above will fall, and with them all the notifiable diseases brought in to be covered by the 1937 Act. The amendment therefore retains or "saves" —hence the use of the technical term "savings" — the present definition of "infected" until such time as an order is made under section 13 as amended by the Bill.

Fourthly, part 2C of the amendment is required because, with the increase in penalties provided by the Bill, it is necessary to ensure that those increased penalties are not applied to offences committed before the provisions come into force. This is in accordance with normal practice.

I have dealt with this important amendment in some detail, because it provides guidance for those who may be affected by the Act, or by orders laid under it when it comes into force. The amendment also details the procedures that will be followed, especially where new orders will replace existing powers. The amendment not only clarifies the Bill but gives me an opportunity to explain the Government's intentions. I hope that the House will accept it.

This is an excellent amendment and I thank my right hon. Friend for moving it. As this is mostly enabling legislation, will my right hon. Friend keep in close contact with the industry, which is delighted to see this legislation? However, there are slight worries about its operation and it would do much good if discussions took place as new orders were being considered.

I am delighted to give my hon. Friend those assurances. As he knows—I commend him for it—the Bill gives Ministers much more flexibility in dealing with fish diseases. Such flexibility has been urged upon us by the industry because fish diseases create not static but developing situations. Experience has shown that we need flexibility to deal with new diseases, and I welcome the powers given by the Bill.

Equally, having been granted that flexibility, the responsibility is on Ministers to ensure that those powers are exercised responsibly and in the best interests of the fish farming industry. I give the assurance that they will be. We have in the past consulted the industry fully on these matters, and we consulted it fully on the Bill. It is my intention, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments who will be associated with the Bill, that its powers will be exercised only after the fullest possible consultation with the industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule

Further Amendments Of 1937 Act

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 15, line 2, at end insert—

'1A. In section 1(3) of the 1937 Act (Minister may grant licences as to certain imported fish) for the words from "Minister" (in the first place) to "Minister')" (in the second place) there shall be substituted "Minister".'.—[Mr. Mark Hughes.]

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 15, line 33, leave out

'for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—'

and insert

'after "power" there shall be inserted "(to the extent that he does not have it apart from this subsection)."

(3A) For paragraph (a) of subsection (2) there shall be substituted—'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 46.

The amendments are consequential upon changes made to the Bill in Committee. The changes were necessary because the concept of occupier could not be extended satisfactorily, particularly to cover coastal waters. As a consequence, definitions of inland and marine waters were introduced. In general, the powers given by the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, as well as new powers contained within the Bill, would apply to all inland waters and to fish farmed in cages in marine waters.

Since the Committee stage we have had an opportunity to re-examine the effect of those definitions. In general, they work well, but we have discovered some unforeseen effects. It is in order to deal with that that we have tabled the amendments, which I commend to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 15, line 41, at end insert—

'(ab) to inspect any marine waters in which fish of the salmon family or freshwater fish or the eggs of such fish or foodstuff for fish are likely to be found, and to take therefrom samples of any such fish, eggs or foodstuff or of water, mud, vegetation or other matter;'.

No 47, in page 16, line 3, at end insert—

'(4A) In subsection (2) for "obstructs" there shall be substituted "intentionally obstructs".'.

No. 48, in page 16, line 13, at end insert—

'(7) In subsection (4) for "obstructs" there shall be substituted "intentionally obstructs".'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 16, line 29, at end insert—

'(1A) In subsection (1)(amount of fine) for the words from the beginning to "; and" there shall be substituted "Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982); and".'.

This is a minor tidying-up amendment. When the Criminal Justice Act 1982 was passed, the penalties under section 8 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 were converted from a maximum fine of £50 to a level 3 fine of £200 on the standard scale as defined in the 1982 Act. The Bill uses level 4 of the Criminal Justice Act as the basis for fines and the amendment simply brings previous offences under the 1937 Act on to the same scale rate as those in the Bill.

Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). He has a much greater legal knowledge than I. I have had the amendment checked by those who advise me, and it appears that the Bill will provide for penalties higher than those currently applicable under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the same penalties to both, given that they are intended to deal with a similar problem. I gladly accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I am grateful to him for tabling it, and I hope that the House will accept it.

I welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 17, line 3, at end insert—

'6A. In section 10(1) of the 1937 Act (interpretation) after the definition of "marine waters" there shall be inserted—

"'the Minister' means—
(a) in relation to England, and any marine waters adjacent to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;
(b) in relation to Wales, and any marine waters adjacent to Wales, the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to Scotland (including the marine waters thereof), the Secretary of State.".'. —[Mr. Mark Hughes.]

11.45 am

I beg to move amendment No.

51, in page 17, line 4, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—

`7. For section 11 of the 1937 Act (application to Scotland) there shall be substituted—

"11. In the application of this Act to Scotland, for references to a water authority there shall be substituted references to a district board.".'.

This amendment replaces section 11 of the 1937 Act with a new and simpler form which reflects the amendments already made by the insertion of a new definition of the word "Minister" in amendment No. 50. The only provision needed now is that which translates the references to water authorities in the 1937 Act to references to district boards.

Amendment agreed to.

11.46 am

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the third time.

It is a great honour for a Back-Bench Member to take a Bill through the House. It can succeed only with the Government's support and, even more important, the support of all hon. Members. I take this opportunity to thank all those who have taken part in debates in the House and in Committee and for the helpful and cordial manner in which it has been discussed. I also thank the Minister because I know that he has had a heavy week, having been in Europe at the start and getting back just in time to take the Bill through its remaining stages. I also thank the many people behind the scenes who have worked so hard in drafting the legislation.

This is a popular Bill. It has the industry's full backing, the Government's full backing, and I think the backing of all hon. Members. I sincerely hope that it has. It also has the backing of rod fishermen throughout Britain. Fish farming is a rapidly growing industry and rod fishing is a rapidly growing sport — perhaps the fastest growing sport in Britain today — but rampant disease could decimate both if we are not careful.

The 1937 Act has served us well until now, but it was really introduced to cover salmon and trout, and matters have developed since then. It was my predecessor in Bute and North Ayrshire, Sir Charles MacAndrew, who helped to put the 1937 Act on the statute book. Perhaps history has turned a full circle. It is just in time, because Bute and North Ayrshire will disappear as a constituency at the coming election.

Modern times and intensive farming have changed the position of disease. Just as in any livestock industry, the more intensive it is, the better management has to be. Britain has a proud record on animal health and most of the legislation that protects it has been updated. Therefore, it was time that we brought fish legislation up to date as well. We have fought to keep disease out of Britain and when it has come in we have stamped on it hard. We were right to do so and Britain has a record second to none in livestock health.

The Bill will go some way to update the control of fish diseases. There are a few who would prefer no legislation at all and I have heard from such people. They say, "Let it get into the rivers and lochs and the strong will survive.". I utterly reject that. It is no argument for an industry such as we have. For any industry to operate satisfactorily it must have rules to work by. The fish farming industry needs the discipline of this enabling legislation so that action can be taken to keep out the more virulent diseases such as VHS and others which could come in from the continent. If steps are not taken, there may not be an industry to protect.

Legislation is only the start. The way in which the legislation is enacted is the important feature and throughout the Bill I have tried to ensure some discretion for officers who have to operate it. I am delighted with the Minister's response because he has tried to be flexible. The legislation will work as it ought only if the industry, Government Departments, veterinary officers and scientists work together in a flexible manner.

When I began to draft the Bill, I wanted, first, the proper and complete control of imports; secondly, a tight but flexible control of disease in Britain; and, thirdly, the registration of fish and shellfish farms. Those three factors have been included in the Bill, and more besides. Clause 1 gives the Minister total control over live salmon imports. The Animal Health Act 1981 provides him with satisfactory powers to control imports. The industry is worried about this matter, and, although I can give any number of assurances, at the end of the day the Minister has the power to decide issues. I am sure that the controls that are required now exist.

Britain now has a satisfactory control on movement. It was suggested before today that the controls were too tight. The Government amendments have eased the position, and I am sure that the industry will be delighted. The industry must remember, as the Minister said, that this is an enabling Bill and that orders can be varied according to circumstances. As a result of the Minister's assurance, talks can take place between the industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that difficulties can be cleared up after the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will.

The industry was worried by the Bill, but I am sure that much of that worry has been relieved today. I trust that the industry will control some of the problems with which the Bill does not deal. It was suggested that the Government might control the movement of equipment, but it was found impossible to draft legislation that would do that or invoke some form of compensation in a Bill of this nature as it is a Private Member's Bill. Those subjects will be discussed in future between the Minister and the industry. Perhaps at some future date legislation will deal with that problem.

As to registration, a list will be produced of every fish farm in Britain, thereby ensuring that the new controls will be effectively operated. The Government must know where fish farms exist because fish farms are being established about which the Government have no knowledge.

It is satisfying that the Government have come forward with an amendment on shellfish registration. Towards the end of last week, I was beginning to feel that that would not be dealt with. It is extremely satisfactory that Britain is subject to shellfish farm registration. For the first time, there will be a complete register of all fish farms. This is a first-class move of which the industry strongly approves.

I am greatly relieved that the list of notifiable diseases is to be constantly reviewed and that the Minister can add to or delete from it. That shows the flexibility of the Bill.

The extraction of water from rivers and pollution are topics that myself and the industry wished to be dealt with in the Bill, but they are vast subjects and require separate legislation. They could not be tackled in a Bill of this type.

The Bill is a good basis for future legislation. As promoter of the Bill, I am more than satisfied with what has been achieved. Fish farming and especially shellfish farming are rapidly expanding industries. They will create jobs in rural areas such as my own as well as high protein food for the table. Fish will be produced for rivers, lakes and for anglers to test their skills. Much scientific knowledge will be gained which Britain can impart to underdeveloped countries desperately in need of protein food. The Bill goes a long way to protect the industry which needs the chance to grow in the future as it has done in the past. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

11.56 am

The Bill is specifically concerned with tightening the existing controls over the movement of fish where disease or even a risk of disease exists. Its main aim is to update the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and to bring some control and order to the massive growth of fish farms in Britain.

Fish farming has grown considerably in recent years, especially trout farms, producing fish for the table and for the many still water lakes and, in turn, satisfying the demands of increasing numbers of anglers involved in the sport of fly fishing. As an angler, I participate in all forms of fishing—game, salmon, trout, coarse and deep-sea—and I am deeply worried about the spread of fish diseases.

The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) is to be congratulated on piloting through the Committee legislation which will be of great value to all involved in the rearing of trout and other species covered by the Bill—fish farmers, anglers and consumers.

Coincidentally with the Bill's passage through the House, hon. Members have witnessed the concern expressed about the outbreak of whirling disease. That disease in fish is caused by a parasite entering the soft skull of trout fry thereby upsetting its balance and causing it to swim in circles. The disease has no real effect on trout that are more than 20 weeks old or three inches long, because, the skull having hardened, the parasite cannot penetrate it. However, the spores of whirling disease can be found in larger trout that have survived and survivors can carry the spores and pathology for life. I hasten to emphasise that those adult trout, whether they are dispatched to a table or to a trout lake and then caught by an angler and consumed, are harmless to people. I should imagine that during the outbreak of whirling disease I have caught and eaten a few that have contained the spores of that disease.

Since March 1981, the Ministry has declared 64 sites to be infected by whirling disease: 58 in England, four in Wales and two in Scotland. The Ministry has served on those sites a notifiable disease order and stopped all movements of fry and fish. The fish farmer who is served with such an order must take steps to remove dead or dying fish. He is advised how to dispose of them, and he must then carry out the policy of the Ministry, which is to slaughter the fish and disinfect the trout farm. The farmer has no option but to kill the fish, most of which go to the table, rather than to send live trout to the fish farms, and he loses by that action. The extent of the disease covers 64 farms out of more than 500.

History has shown that whirling disease is not new. An outbreak occurred in Scotland 10 years ago. Indeed, it is likely that in England and Wales the disease has been prevalent for some time, but it has been sensibly managed without any adverse effects upon fish farming, the production of trout, or the consumer. Fish farmers who have learnt to live with whirling disease on their farms and have graded the fish before taking them out of the hatcheries have no trouble. With good management, careful screening and grading, fish and fry that have been affected are cleared out and fish more than 20 weeks old have been reared and sold either for the table or for trout lakes.

We are witnessing the slaughter of thousands of fish because 64 areas are being cleaned out and disinfected. Businesses are in ruins because there is no compensation. It is not possible to secure insurance against whirling disease, mainly because the fish farmers must kill the fish themselves. It is not possible to insure aganst whirling disease although some notifiable fish diseases can be covered. If whirling disease could be insured against, that in itself might be some comfort to the fish fanner in present conditions.

The Government have a policy of disinfect and slaughter for animals. Why do they not therefore have such a policy for trout and offer compensation as long as the policy of disinfect and slaughter remains? The Minister will probably say that the Government do not force fish farmers to slaughter their fish, but when the notifiable diseases order has been introduced they have no choice. They have to kill the fish to clear them out. I must stress that the method in use is an overkill when one considers what can be done with good husbandry and the sensibly controlled release of fish.

Apart from the 64 sites that have been positively identified, I gather that the Ministry has in its possession the names of more than 100 angling waters that have received fish from affected sites. If that is true, on what basis have they been released? Is there a policy of release? Only seven sites have had movement restrictions lifted, and they cannot have fed 100 angling waters. Do I take it, therefore, that the Ministry, without a ministerial declaration, is accepting the policy that I advocate—the freedom to release trout from infected areas if they are more than 20 weeks old, thus recognising that they are disease-free?

As an indication of the overkill policy—the issuing of official notifiable diseases orders—I understand that at the sites confirmed by the Ministry 80 per cent. of the fish farmers had never seen any visual symptoms of the disease. On only 10 per cent. of the sites was there any mortality. Even then, the owners of half of them believed that death was due to other causes. Indeed, on one site fish had not been brought in for five years, which means that the whirling disease parasite had probably been there all the time. Of course, table and lake fish will have been moved from that fish farm during that period without any noticeable harm to anyone.

Is it not possible — indeed, likely — that the fish farming industry has lived with whirling disease for some years without it causing any disturbance, massive loss of trout stocks, the closure of scores of fish farms or serious financial problems for the fish farmers? What of experience elsewhere in the world? Whirling disease exists in other countries, but it has not caused any problems for the still water lakes that have received the fish. What have the scientists told the Minister about the experience of other nations that have weathered this fish disease without any apparent harm to more than some trout fry, particularly when they adopt the practice of rearing the young in fibre glass or concrete tanks? I am glad to say that that practice is growing in this country and that the disease can be controlled in that way.

No doubt the Minister is aware that a survey of more than 30 fish farms affected by whirling disease found that they had 12·5 million fish. Given that 64 fish farms are subject to notifiable diseases orders, there are obviously millions more fish involved. It is estimated that the total direct loss through the destruction of fish, the cost of cleaning out, disinfection costs, and the replacement of stock on those 30 farms is £250,000. However, the total cost, including other losses from cancelled orders, the sale of dead fish to the table—instead of live for restocking and sport—is about £1 million.

The Ministry does not seem to heed the business and financial losses of the farms that it has marked out with a whirling disease notifiable diseases order. The Ministry has apparently panicked. At the very least, it has been extremely cautious. It probably has inexperienced field men compared with the years of experience held by fish farmers who have successfully dealt with and controlled whirling disease. As a result the Ministry's advisers have probably dropped panic briefs on the Minister's desk. They have thought it an epidemic and reacted with an overkill policy of disinfect and slaughter, irrespective of the damage done nationally and the ruin of the fish farming industry that is left in its wake.

Before the Bill is given its Third Reading, the Minister should rethink his policy and consider compensation. He should also issue guidelines on the release of adult fish. I am sorry that I have used this occasion to make my points, but, of course, they are germane to clauses 2 and 3, particularly in relation to the movement of diseased fish. I believe that I have made out the case. I hope that it will be recognised that there is no real danger from whirling disease. I believe that with a sensible farming policy, grading from the hatchery and controlling the movement of fish, whirling disease is not a scourge or epidemic to worry about. If that is so—and I believe it to be—whirling disease can and should be deleted from the notifiable diseases list.

Finally, I should say to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire that it has been a pleasure to serve on the Diseases of Fish Bill. I have co-operated with my Committee colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) in helping to enlighten many others on the dangers of nylon monofilament gill nets, the possible carcinogenic harm to anglers if they use chrysoidine dye to colour their maggots, and the mysteries of whirling disease. The Bill has my blessing, but I hope that my advice about whirling disease will be accepted.

12.5 pm

I add my congratulations to those of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on introducing the Bill and piloting it through the House so successfully. It has suffered major surgery. Indeed, I believe that two and a half clauses relating to shellfish have, as a result, disappeared. However, I am glad to say that the Bill has still survived.

In 1980 I introduced a Bill—now the Deer Act—that suffered similar surgery for very necessary reasons. However, it survived and went on to the statute book. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend's Bill will also find its way on to the statute book. I thoroughly welcome it. It is a narrow Bill in so far as it relates particularly to the diseases of fish. In Committee we held several interesting debates on whether we should include the cause of such fish diseases. Some diseases are caused by an unknown growth or microscopic spore. However, some of us felt that it might have been useful to include measures in the Bill to prevent diseases from beginning.

Although I welcome the Bill, which goes as far as it can in that respect, I am sorry that it does not give the Minister power to take action to limit a known, major cause of disease to fish, and particularly salmon. I refer to the use of a monofilament net. I accept that the Bill's short and long titles are worthy and correct. I am sure that the parliamentary pundits are right to say that as the Bill involves fish diseases, it is not right to refer to tackle, even though it can be proved that the monofilament net often causes disease. Because of its lurking presence and failure to break down when it is lost or comes adrift in a storm, it can cause continual trouble, destruction and disease to salmon and other travelling fish for many years. However, we could not include that in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is one of the three major enemies facing salmon in British waters. Many of the more minor diseases, such as the old UDN disease—which was very prolific 10 or 15 years ago—caused hovoc at the time, but today's salmon face three main enemies. First, the salmon must reach Britain by surviving the onslaughts made on Greenland's breeding stock by Danish fishermen and others. The onslaught is decimating the breeding stock. That hurdle is of growing importance and is making life much more difficult and hazardous for salmon. The salmon then have to survive the estuarial invisible monofilament net that is lurking just below the surface. After overcoming those two hurdles, the fish may encounter a third because parts of Scandinavian and Scottish waters have an acidity level that is unacceptable to fish life. Those three problems are not dealt with in the Bill, but they will command further attention.

The Bill refers to whirling disease on which we had an interesting discussion in Committee. A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the effects of the disease in their constituencies. The Minister undertook to ensure that Ministry officials would adopt a sympathetic attitude when dealing with the disease. As the right hon. Member for Barnsley said, people can be put out of business by the regulations. The Minister assured the Committee that his officials were humane, which none of us doubted, and that they would interpret the regulations in a humane way by recognising that a person's livelihood can be at stake. After that assurance by the Minister, whose word I always take without hesitation and with blind faith, it is disappointing to learn that grave difficulties are still experienced because movement permission is not being granted.

The difficulty is caused because, although the departmental officials are approving movements, the water authorities fail to follow the Department's advice and instructions. I urge the Minister to examine that important problem. Surely, if the water authorities are advised by ministerial experts that movements can take place without danger, and in view of the nationwide research facilities connected with the Department, the decisions should not be left to small bureaucrats who take no notice of departmental advice and place an embargo on trade and movement.

Imports of fish have been mentioned today. I have learned much during the passage of the Bill and I understand that import controls for fish need to be brought up to date. If we introduce more sensible import controls we shall simultaneously take a big step towards domestic disease control. Without doubt many diseases are rife on the continent and elsewhere. We should keep them out of Britain as far as we can. I hope that the Minister will undertake to tighten fish import controls when the Bill is enacted.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire on coming top of the ballot so frequently. I hope that he will be placed high in the ballot in the new Parliament.

12.15 pm

It will seem strange to the House that a Northern Ireland Member should speak on the Third Reading of a Bill that applies only to Great Britain, but I welcome the Bill because it provides the key to a door that has been shut in Northern Ireland since 1937. Since then it has been impossible to import live salmon to Great Britain from Northern Ireland. The Bill seeks to remedy that by allowing the Minister to approve imports under licence and strict control.

Fears have been expressed by fish farmers arid others in Great Britain about the possibility of bringing in disease from Ireland by allowing fish imports from there. I should like to allay some of the fears.

The basic legislative framework for fish farming in Northern Ireland is the Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Act 1966, which incorporates all the provisions contained in this Bill, and more. Northern Ireland fish farmers operate under stringent conditions and are under the control of Government scientists and veterinary surgeons.

Standards for importing fish are strict enough to satisfy anyone, no matter how dubious he may be. The principal concern by fish farmers and others in Great Britain is about importing salmonids into Ireland, north and south, from elsewhere. There is an unjustified fear that the imports are subjected to little or no control. The general policy of the Republic is not to permit any imports of that kind. Only one batch has been allowed. That was a one-off case in 1982, approved to fulfil the requirements of a new salmon farm in Donegal. The Dail's approval had to be obtained and the importation was permitted only under stringent conditions, details of which were supplied to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in Dublin which co-operate closely for the protection of animal health.

The Dublin Department first satisfied itself about the standards of veterinary health control in Norway — it regards them as second to none in Europe. The Department's senior fish pathologist visited Norway and, following extensive investigations and discussions, was satisfied by the Norwegian CVO that all notifiable diseases were absent from the stock. Certification was subsequently provided and 30,000 salmon fingerlings were free of all notifiable diseases.

The Republic's pathologist was present when the fingerlings were packed and was therefore in a position to ensure that only stock to which certification applied were dispatched. He accompanied the consignment by air to Dublin and on to Fanad where the fingerlings were isolated under quarantine conditions until smoltification, which took three months.

Isolation was in a small lake from which a single stream flows over 100m of glacial boulder deposit directly to the open sea. There were no indigenous salmonids in the lake, no migratory fish could enter the lake and during the quarantine period, samples were taken every two weeks and subjected to tests for all notifiable diseases, with negative results throughout. The stock was again examined before being released into sea cages for on-growing.

It will be clear from that that the most stringent conditions apply. I hope that the expert review which the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Ministry officials in Great Britain are conducting will soon be completed and that when it is, the statutory licensing requirements will be put into operation.

It is unjustifiable that salmon fish farmers in Northern Ireland should be deprived of the opportunity to send their stock to other parts of the United Kingdom when, so far as anyone can judge, there is no danger of disease entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland or, indeed, from Ireland generally. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what progress his Department has made with the investigation into the dangers so that the matter can be cleared up once and for all and licences issued to Northern Ireland fish farmers.

12.21 pm

Section 1 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 has done much in the past to safeguard the stocks of wild and farmed salmonids in Great Britain. It has effectively banned the import of live fish, which can act as carriers of disease with no easily detectable symptons. It has allowed the import of salmonid ova under licence with the subsequent control of the ova's development to hatching. The period of the ova development, hatching and subsequent early feeding stage is the portion of the life cycle in which fish diseases carried in the ova are most likely to manifest themselves and kill the batch. The importing of ova under licence gives an opportunity for any diseased imports to be identified and destroyed.

Clause 1 of the Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), for which I was pleased to act as a sponsor, can be quoted in this context. During the first sitting of Standing Committee C my hon. Friend said:

"I am looking to the future when very unpleasant fish disease could come to this country … That would be an essential weapon in the fight against the most virulent diseases, VHS and IHN. Those are notifiable diseases that fortunately have not yet reached these shores."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 2 February 1983; c. 22–23.]

Under clause 1, the Minister will have power to permit the importation of live salmonids. Those fish may well be the carriers of the very diseases to which I have referred. The virile pathogen being undetectable, the risk of disease is unacceptable. If the Minister does not take the power immediately after the enactment of the Bill it will be too late, because, once the disease has arrived here, he will not be able to act in time.

The best safeguard for wild stocks is to retain section 1 of the Diseases of Fish Act or to ensure that the power in the new Bill is used by the Minister, as it rigidly prohibits the import of live salmonids.

The second major problem associated with a more flexible import policy could well put our indigenous salmonids at risk from competition from introduced non-indigenous salmonids. Their introduction into our rivers by angling clubs or netting companies could be deliberate or accidental, as fish do escape from fish farms. The latter is a regular occurrence. If these "introduced" Pacific salmon established a self-sustaining run in our rivers, they would compete with British salmonids. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currenly contemplating the introduction of Pacific salmon to certain British rivers. The House would like to hear what stage has been reached in those considerations.

The Atlantic salmon, which is a valuable resource to Great Britain and to Scotland, in particular, is already under severe pressure. The unwarranted risk of introducing diseases through non-indigenous competitive salmonids is therefore unacceptable. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can give the House an assurance that the powers granted to him under clause 1 of the Bill will be as adequate as those in the 1937 Act to safeguard against the possibility of the importation of diseased fish.

I wish to support some comments on the Bill that have been made by the National Farmers Union. In general, it has welcomed my hon. Friend's Bill and the assurances given by my right hon. Friend in Committee. The National Farmers Union believes that it will provide Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials with important additional measures for the control of disease. However, fish farmers see these new measures only as an overall Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food approach to fish disease, prevention and control.

At present, the industry is wide open to the introduction of diseases, which would devastate not only fish farming but established angling waters, through the import of infected dead fish. This matter was referred to on Second Reading, but my right hon. Friend gave no indication of the Government's intentions in Committee. The National Farmers Union and other interested bodies believe that administrative considerations may delay any moves in this direction. The National Farmers Union believes that the Government's disease control measures will be successful only if supplemented by sensible import measures introduced in the near future. Therefore, it is important that the House should obtain an assurance of the Government's intention.

The Bill, if it is passed by the House today, will provide the opportunity to remove certain diseases from the list of notifiable diseases. My right hon. Friend has not told the House which diseases will be downgraded, or how soon any such changes will take place. Some fish farmers and veterinary surgeons believe that current policies on notification of certain diseases are having an unacceptable effect disproportionate to any possible benefits. There is a considerable danger that the good will with which the fish farmers have greeted my hon. Friend's Bill may evaporate unless my right hon. Friend can give the House an assurance that he will seriously consider the concern that the National Farmers Union has expressed.

The Bill has been accepted as a great step forward in the control of fish diseases. I am sure that the House will give it a safe passage on Third Reading in order that the legislation should reach the statute book at the earliest possible moment. I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing an important measure which can only do good for fish farming in this country. I am sure that hon. Members who have fish farming interests in their constituencies will be delighted with my hon. Friend's Bill.

12.28 pm

I ask the indulgence of the House for two minutes and no more.

First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on the introduction of this important Bill. I regard it as important because it is necessary to educate people about disease among fish of all kinds, including those bred in artificial and natural habitats. The Bill will do that. In particular, clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other parts of the Bill will contribute to a gently enforced understanding of how disease comes to fish in both natural habitats and fish farms. As a nation 99 per cent. of whose population consumes fish, we need to have an understanding of those matters.

The differences between fish and other animals living in natural and artificial surroundings must be understood if our society is to appreciate the direction in which it is going in terms of civilisation and the general way of living. The Bill does exactly that.

I am especially anxious that people should understand the matters to which I have referred, including schoolchildren. Many children keep aquaria. They do not know about artificial fish farms, but they know about the natural habitat of fish. If they were taught about disease and the natural way in which fish can live in fish farms, I believe that many of them would show enterprise and set up fish farms. That would lead to profit for themselves in the form of employment and would benefit the nation by providing more food. That would do nothing but good.

12.30 pm

I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Bute (Mr. Corrie) on his success in winning the ballot and on the great skill that he has shown in piloting the Bill through Second Reading, Committee and Report to Third Reading. I wish the Bill every success as it goes to another place. I hope that it will reach the statute book very soon.

I take up the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I confess that at the beginning of the Bill's passage I was happy to see whirling disease on the list of notifiable diseases. However, the evidence that has been brought to our notice—notably by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), but I have made further inquiries myself—shows that skilful fish husbandry and skilled veterinary care can make it inappropriate merely to provide for destruction without compensation. We pressed hard in Committee for the provision of compensation if the Government were to insist upon the economic destruction of many fish farms. If the technical, veterinary and husbandry advice that is now coming forward means that the destruction policy was unnecessary, the Government must take additional blame for having caused the death of the fish and the ruination of fish farmers unnecessarily. They did so because perhaps at that stage they were ill advised.

Earlier this week I spoke to the chief executive of the Northumbria water authority. It had a large stock of young trout that contracted whirling disease in its own nurseries. The trout were all destroyed, but it is possible that had they been kept with care they would have survived to adulthood in large numbers without becoming an infection risk if they had been sent out to the rivers.

At the beginning of the Bill's passage there was widespread fear that Ireland could be a source of infected fish material. I took that advice and I believed it. However, the evidence from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and from other sources, both in Dublin and in the Northern Ireland Office, assured me that the standards of hygiene and the quality of the marine environment and the land-water environment required and maintained in Ireland do not present a risk of importing disease to Britain. I hope that the Minister will give us further informaton on the possibility of granting licences for the importation of Irish salmonids.

Finally, it is the will of the House of Commons that the use of monofilament gill nets should be brought under effective control. I hope that the Minister of State will give a clear undertaking that he recognises that that should be done, and done speedily. It is the overwhelming view on both sides of the House that such nets are unacceptable and should be removed at the earliest possible moment. I wish the Bill well, but I regret that part of the good will to get it through the House meant that we could not insert provisions in it to bring monofilament gill nets under effective control. We shall continue to press on every possible occasion for effective control of these dastardly instruments.

12.35 pm

To answer the queries that have been raised about monofilament nets, I urge the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who follows matters of a scientific and technical nature with knowledge and care, not to exaggerate the situation. It would not he appropriate to deal with the matter now at length, but there is no evidence of a causal connection between certain types of tackle and disease. While it is accepted that all nets cause injury, there is no evidence that this type of net causes proportionately more damage than other kinds of net.

As the House knows, this is a matter about which I am concerned. However, I am not prepared to take action unless it is based on proper scientific and technical advice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham would agree that, simply because one has a certain feeling in an important area like this, to take action which was not soundly based scientifically and technically would be wrong.

I have already initiated an inquiry into the matter. I have received a preliminary report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, and that bears out what I have said about the evidence. However, I accept that the report is of a preliminary nature, and I am therefore awaiting the final conclusions of the inquiry, which is being carried out by experts. I repeat that, while we do not have evidence of the kind of allegations that have been made in the House today, I assure hon. Members that I am concerned arid will keep an open mind on any final conclusions that may be reached.

As for imports from Northern Ireland, as I informed the Committee, my right hon. Friend and I have instructed our fishery scientists and veterinary experts to consider the ban under the 1977 Act. I cannot give precise information about progress on the issue, but work is in hand. it will take some time and, as the House knows, we have in the meantime taken the necessary legislative steps to deal with it once the inquiry has been completed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for the welcome he gave to the steps we have taken.

My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) referred to the danger from imports of disease and asked whether our powers were adequate to deal with it. I appreciate that there has been uncertainty about the operation of the Animal Health Act 1981 in relation to fish imports. I have rested my case on the powers that are available under that Act. It is a complicated measure and I will briefly describe how the relevant provisions work because I feel it is important to reassure the House on the subject. After all, if the powers were not adequate, extra powers should have been taken. Section 10(1) of the 1981 Act enables Ministers to make orders for

"preventing the introduction or spreading of disease into or within Great Britain through the importation of … animals and carcases … and … other things, whether animate or inanimate, by or by means of which it appears to them that any disease might be carried or transmitted."

The word "animals" is defined for the purposes of that provision in subsection (4), and it includes

"fish, reptiles, crustaceans and other cold-blooded creatures",

which obviously covers live fish and shellfish. Dead fish and shellfish, whether whole, gutted or parts — that covers the whole area of description—are covered by the reference to "carcase" in section 10(1)(a), a term which is defined in section 89(1) of the Act.

The eggs of fish, another source of infection to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East referred, are covered by the reference to "other things" in section 10(1). By section 10(4) "disease" is not restricted by the definition in section 88 of the Act. Section 10(2) provides:

"Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred"

by the section, the order may, among other things,

"prohibit or regulate … importation … make different provision in relation to different cases; and … make provision with respect to any of the matters specified in Schedule 2",

which includes exemption by means of licences.

It has been suggested that an enabling order must be made before the 1981 Act can be used to control fish imports. I am advised that that is not the case. An order to control fish imports under that Act can be made at any time. It is not necessary to introduce prior procedure. The House and those who have spoken today as well as people outside take this matter seriously. I, too, take it seriously and I am fully prepared to use the powers of the 1981 Act if that proves necessary.

Section 10(6) of the Act provides that orders under that section are to be laid before Parliament after they are made, so action can be taken quickly to prevent the import of diseased fish or shellfish. Indeed, I go slightly further. I have it in mind to use those powers to control imports of ungutted trout and possibly salmon. Again, I hope that that meets the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East. I believe that this will be very important in our efforts to keep out very virulent diseases such as VHS, or IHN, which could be extremely bad for our fish stocks. I have no intention of banning all imports of ungutted trout and salmon, but I feel strongly that sensible controls should be applied and I have asked the Department to pursue the matter urgently.

The powers exist. I am prepared to use them. I hope that those assurances make it clear that what may at first sight appear to be a deficiency in the Bill can be dealt with in other ways.

The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Durham referred to whirling disease, which has also given rise to concern. I believe that developments in that area show that in regard to fish diseases we have to move with a changing situation. I assure the House that not only I as Minister but my scientists and administrators understand that practices may have to be changed as circumstances change. Indeed, as I hope to show, we have already been prepared to do so.

Clearly, when there was evidence of an outbreak of a new disease, albeit on a small scale, it would have been irresponsible in the extreme not to take action to try to deal with it. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barnsley accepts that. At that stage we did not know how serious the threat was or how widely the disease might spread and it would have been irresponsible not to try to control it. There was no question of panic, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was. We tried to deal with the matter sensibly and responsibly, as I believe has been generally recognised.

Since we first identified the disease, more sites have been found to be infected and claims have been made about more distant origins in this country than the evidence at first suggested. I acknowledge that. As I said in Committee, I have asked my officials to review our policy towards controlling this disease. I assure the House that if there are better methods I am anxious that they should be adopted. We are dealing with a moving situation. As part of the review my officials have already held a number of meetings with interested bodies. Only two days ago a seminar was held at which representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union, water authorities and angling interests were able to put their views and discuss with my scientists the dangers posed by this disease. When they submit to me their recommendations for future policy on whirling disease, my officials will take into account those discussions and the data collected by the fisheries scientists who re-tested the sites affected by whirling disease last autumn. That also demonstrates that we are flexible and, I hope, sensible and practical in our dealings with the problem

I understand the circumstances as several hon. Members have made representations to me and I have received considerable correspondence on the problem. I understand the anxiety of and costs to those who are affected. Therefore, we have announced modifications to our policy on movement from sites that are subject to control as soon as we have been able to justify them. We shall consider movements from infected sites to another infected fish farm, any fish farm that is operated by a water authority or to any other waters, provided that the relevant water authority has granted its consent under section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

Anxiety has been expressed about different water authorities adopting different stances towards such movement. I hope that the type of seminar that I mentioned earlier will help towards a better understanding of the disease and more uniform policies. I am also aware of the difficulties that fish farmers encounter when water authorities which operate section 30 of the 1975 Act stop movements from one infected farm to another. In the Consultation Paper on the Review of Inland and Coastal Fisheries in England and Wales, which I initiated and a copy of which is in the Library, I proposed that we examine section 30 powers so that they could be modified to take account of their application to fish farms. Therefore, another area of difficulty is already being considered.

Until such time as appropriate legislation can make that change, I do not have powers to review those decisions. I hope that what I have said about whirling disease shows that I am taking sensible steps, avoiding unnecessary and dangerous risks to this growth industry, and that the modifications which we have already introduced are sensitive to the real anxieties and financial worries of those who are affected by it.

I do not want to deal with slaughter and compensation in detail today as it raises much broader issues which were the subject of the consultation paper that I mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) said, I do not believe that that is an appropriate subject for this Bill. It is being considered in another context and I assure the House, especially the right hon. Member for Barnsley, that I shall consider the matter carefully in relation to other consultation processes that have already taken place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), whom we welcome to the debate at this late stage of the Bill, and other hon. Members raised several points about the operation of the Act and its orders which I shall bear in mind.

I conclude by joining right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire on presenting an extremely useful Bill. It is an important milestone in the development of fish farming in Britain. It updates much of the legislation in the light of knowledge and gives us flexibility to deal with new knowledge about and developments in disease. What my hon. Friend has done with the support of many people outside the House will be of enormous benefit to the future of fish farming. We all pay tribute to the work that he has put into the Bill and the skilful way in which he has carried it through. I hope that the work of Government Departments justify the hopes that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed.

I should also like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate on the Bill in its various stages and not least the officials and scientists who have worked extremely hard in the background and on a short time scale. They have done a great deal of work on an extremely important piece of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Young Persons' Rights Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.49 pm

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In presenting this important Bill, I am aware, as is the House, of the enormous problems facing young people today. Many of us believe them to be the greatest problems of the 1980s. I am sure that the House would wish to address itself to those problems.

If the measures proposed in the Bill are approved. Parliament will, as stated in clause 1(1),

"(a) ensure opportunities for work, or training for work, for all persons aged between sixteen and nineteen years;

(b) ensure educational facilities for all persons below the age of nineteen years; and

(c) provide a cost of living allowance net of essential expenses for all such persons."

The proposals are made at a time when the high national level of unemployment is extremely unpleasant and represents a challenge to the House. I know that there is much discussion nowadays—and rightly so—about the role of the family within our community, but when the Prime Minister refers to those matters she might usefully recall that it cannot be helpful to a family if there are within it one or more young persons who find no prospect whatever of a job or of any industrial or commercial future. In that context, youth unemployment is a great blow to the family, and I invite the House to consider the problem in that way.

In Britain today, 287,757 young people are unemployed, and 250,000 young people are involved in youth opportunities programmes, so that in reality over 500,000 young people are not in real jobs.

The prestigious publication "Social Trends" recently said that youth unemployment in the United Kingdom had reached a staggering 25 per cent. For 16-year-olds it is nearer 50 per cent. Young people leaving school at 16 make one job application after another, the chances of getting an interview are few and far between, and they think that they have no future whatever. Even if, in later years, they manage to find job opportunities, the earlier years of unemployment will be a scar on their lives, and upon our community. This the Bill seeks to remove.

In pockets of the United Kingdom there are very great problems. In some areas, such as Liverpool and Northern Ireland, unemployment is in the region of 80 per cent. That is an appalling picture and a social challenge. I know that the House will want to consider it and respond to it.

In my constituency the decline in employment opportunities has been very noticeable since the Government were elected. In March 1980, 642 people were unemployed. The figure is now 967. The interesting feature is the increase in the number of people involved in youth opportunities programmes. In March 1980 in my constituency the number was 705. The most recent figure is 1,022. Therefore, the problem is almost evenly divided between those young people who cannot find jobs and those young people who are involved in youth opportunities programmes as a substitute for jobs.

What are we doing as a nation and as a society to provide better opportunities? The figures that were recently made available to the House in a parliamentary reply about young persons entering apprenticeships do not represent the kind of hope that we want to see but a very steady decline, which is a sad reflection on the Government and their policies. In 1977–78, 110,000 young people entered apprenticeships. In 1978–79, the figure was 113,000. After that we saw a steady decline. In 1979–80, the figure was down to 90,000; in 1980–81, it went down to 60,000; and in 1982–83, it went down to 45,000. That is hardly a sign that training for skills and preparing skilled workers for the upturn that we are promised so frequently are really in the Government's mind.

In Scotland, we have severe problems in terms of apprenticeship opportunities. The number of persons entering craft and technical apprenticeships approved by the construction, engineering, road transport and shipbuilding industries training boards in Scotland dropped from 8,607 in 1979 to 5,295 in 1982.

Given that position not just in Scotland but in one part of the country after another, it is astonishing that young people are so profoundly patient. We should congratulate them on their forbearance given the problems that they face and the lack of hope that Government policies represent. We hear much talk of the youth problem, but youth is not the problem. It is society that gives young people problems. Young people want the status, income and choice to which they are entitled.

I have no desire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to interfere too much in your leisure time and that of the House, but I recommend as a sign of the views of young people a recent pop record entitled "Mad World", which was recorded by a group whose name, Tears for Fears, is perhaps significant. The words of the song are:

"I find it hard to take

When people run in circles.

It's a mad world, a mad world."

Is it surprising that young people take that view?

The number of young people in various youth training schemes, however adequate or inadequate they may be, is cloaking the real figures and the underlying frustration and resentment among Britain's young people. The Government's scheme is not what the MSC described as a permanent bridge between education and employment. Instead it is a gangplank into the shark-infested waters of life on the dole. None of these young people entering the various Government schemes has the slightest assurance that the time spent on the scheme will be meaningful and that real jobs will result from it.

Frances Traynor, a young lady of 17 from Ayrshire, wrote to the Glasgow Herald recently, and I thought that her letter spoke volumes. She said:

"I left school in May 1982, with six 'O' grades and four Highers expecting to have a better chance than most in the job stakes. Two months later … I was at the end of my tether, desperate to work and to prove my worth to an employer. I wrote letters by the dozen, haunted the Jobcentre, and still nothing. Finally I gave in and went on the Youth Opportunities, surely one of the worst schemes ever devised. I have worked a 40-hour week for £25 alongside people who earn three and four times that. Nine times out of 10 another person is needed, but the employer is content to have free labour for six months, dump you and employ another gullible school leaver who thinks £25 is a great wage."

She was not alone in her criticism. An article in The Scotsman on 28 February stated:

"The Government's Youth Training Scheme was accused at the weekend of giving 60 per cent. of school leavers a year's training and then putting them back on the scrapheap without a job. The claim was made at the weekend by Mr. James Thomson, past president of the Educational Institute of Scotland, when he addressed the institute's Lanarkshire Association. Mr. Thomson said that the future for young people had never been so bleak. He said that the Youth Training Scheme would provide employers with a vast pool of labour paid for by the taxpayer and renewable annually. 'The opportunities for abuse by unscrupulous employers of young people could create a threat to the existing employment structure,' Mr. Thomson said."

Those are important opinions, and I hope that the Government will give them due regard. The Secretary of State for Defence announced recently in the House the new "lads' army." Again, I am compelled to say that this is no substitute—nor will the country regard it as a substitute — for a buoyant economy that gives hope and opportunity to Britain's youngsters. I go a step further and say that to many young people it is a sign of the exploitation to which they rightly take grave exception. The Government will be saving £19 a week for each recruit by asking trainees to work like young soldiers. They will not pay £44 a week, however, but an allowance of £25. The introduction of what has been called "Heseltine's dole queue squaddies" is a monstrous waste of millions of pounds that could be better spent on creating jobs and flexible, broadly-based training in the community.

It is deplorable that the British Youth Council, which does sterling work in this area and in others, and the Youth Training Board were not consulted on those proposals. The British Youth Council issued an interesting statement which I draw to the House's attention:

"As is now usual with announcements on the subject of youth training, this one is based on no consultation whatsoever with the bodies, such as the BYC and the TUC, who devised the Youth Training Scheme. It is outrageous that on a matter of such controversy, the Youth Training Board was not even informed, far less consulted. Is the prospect of 16 year old YTS trainees patrolling the streets of Ulster or doing garrison duty in the Falklands what the Youth Task Group had in mind when it made its proposals for the Youth Training Scheme? There has got to be more to YTS than just getting the unemployment statistics down."

Even the youngsters who have had the good fortune to find a place in a youth opportunities programme scheme have great difficulty in paying their expenses. It is a disgrace and a scandal that for £25 a week many young people work in jobs that are temporary, boring and repetitive, lacking in challenge and offering no promotion prospects. If their travel costs are just less than £4 a week, they cannot claim for any of them, so they take home £21 a week. They must reflect on the thought that if they were receiving supplementary benefit, they would get £18·90 a week—a mere £2·10 less—for not working at all. But, of course, they do want to work, and the Governement should be offering opportunities for jobs. Not only that, they should be encouraging public bodies of all kinds to be doing exactly the same. I include under that heading the Civil Service. I know that the Prime Minister made an announcement the other day to the effect that she will be taking a trainee into the Cabinet Office. Many people wondered which Minister she was going to demote. But Britain must look for something more tangible and lasting than another cosmetic effect.

It is disgraceful that young people are being denied entry into the Civil Service and other public bodies when almost every right hon. and hon. Member knows that DHSS and Department of Employment offices are bursting at the seams because they do not have the necessary staff to deal with the problems. The number of jobs lost in the Civil Service has been represented as a triumph from the Dispatch Box time after time. The Prime Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends should have another look at the Civil Service and give young people, not the prospect of blatant job substitution—which I regard the trainee's post in the Prime Minister's Office to be — but the chance to enter the Civil Service, to develop careers, and to become in time HEOs, SEOs, principals and so on. In my time in the House I have not seen many people in posts at those levels who come from comprehensive schools. We in the Labour Party have no doubt won the argument about comprehensive education but we have to go a step further and ensure that young people who have been educated at comprehensive schools are given the same opportunities in the Civil Service, public service, banking and so on, that is given to those in the private sector.

There is a growing conviction that we have not properly planned for changing employment patterns; for micro-development; for the changing role of employment and its relation to leisure. There has been no obvious and acceptable strategy in Britain's social and educational fabric. We have allowed cuts in local authority expenditure on education; industrial boards to be axed; university places to disappear; and apprenticeships to collapse. We have also seen a chaotic system of benefits, awards and bursaries for training and education. Above all, as many of Britain's young people believe, we have seen a tax on the wage levels of our young workers. The Guardian recently said:

"While the Government fails to tackle this problem, rather than aggravate it by abolishing many of the industrial training boards, there will remain the sad suspicion that it is rather more interested in cosmetic effects on the dole queues than in remedying long-standing deficiencies".

Young people will ask — training for what? Young people on these schemes are not protected by the law. They have no legal status, as a trainee is neither a student nor a worker. Thus, race relations, health and safety and equality of opportunity legislation does not apply. It is not enough to do as the Manpower Services Commission does and make the agency responsible for the scheme sign a contract to act as if the law did apply. The case of Daily v. Allied Supplies demonstrated that it is legal for an employer to prevent a young black trainee from operating her cash register just because she is black.

The slogan of the Jobs for Youth campaign is: "Give us a future." That is a polite request, given the problems that young people are facing and the challenge to the Government and the House, and who are we to deny that future to Britain's young people? If we leave young people with nothing to do they will have nothing to do with us and many will not blame them for that.

The problems that I have outlined for the most part invite their own solutions. My Bill represents a contribution towards solving those problems. Young people, recognising that the next decade and beyond can be a tremendous challenge— a decade of opportunity, not gloom—will seek, if the Government assist them, the type of future that they want and deserve.

1.11 pm

I warmly and sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on introducing the Bill. The Bill reflects great credit upon him and he is wise to bring such a relevant measure to the Floor of the House, because the subject affects all constituents.

This is one of those rare occasions upon which hon. Members can say, "I have read and re-read the Bill", because it is a small Bill—almost a pearl of wisdom. It is appropriate that the House should debate the Bill now. The hon. Gentleman painted too gloomy a picture, but he has given the Government a wonderful touch of inspiration. The fact that the Cabinet is to take on a trainee will prove to be a great source of encouragement. There are 320 trainees on the Government side of the House. After the general election, there will be 350 waiting to serve in the Cabinet.

I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the background to the Bill. It is important that the House should examine historically how young people's opportunities begin. My research reveals that in 1978 the Labour Government introduced the youth opportunities programme, which gained the universal support of the House and of the country. I applaud, without shame, the measures that were taken. They were sound, sensible, responsible and, more importantly, compassionate for those in difficulties.

The Conservative Government took upon themselves the mantle of those responsibilities. The concept was to focus firmly on young people who would be unlikely to get jobs without help. The initial concept of the scheme was that, by acquiring experience of work and a range of basic skills, young people would be assured of a better start to their working lives. All hon. Members would applaud that.

It is interesting to reflect how compassionate the Government have been in following the lead which, as I have readily acknowledged, was given by the Labour Government. A total of 1·5 million young people have benefited from the programme. That is a staggering figure.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie outlined some of the problems and difficulties. He used press cuttings and the experiences of individuals who had gone into the scheme and come out disillusioned to support his case. Every hon. Member will take that very seriously. It is a reflection of the Government's serious intent that there should be a Minister on the Front Bench to reply to this debate.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie has correctly and honourably outlined the financial implications— which have been accepted—of helping young people. In my work in my constituency I have always tried to help and to show a sense of dedication. In 1978–79, when the scheme was first introduced, expenditure was £63 million. It is projected that the Government are spending £500 million in the current financial year on support for the programme. The programme is important, and it is money well spent. However, more importantly, the House has a moral responsibility to care for those young people who leave school and cannot find jobs.

What are the chances for someone on the youth training scheme? It would be foolish beyond belief to take isolated cases. We have a responsibility to paint a global picture, with the qualification that the situation may be different in individual constituencies. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie made a quite horrific statement. I had great sympathy with what he said about 80 per cent. youth unemployment. No hon. Member would condone that. If that is the situation in his constituency, it gives rise to great alarm and concern. By introducing the Bill, he has accepted his constituency responsibilities in a most honourable way. Out of every 10 young people who go on to the scheme, five will find employment within six months, two will be on educational programmes and, within another three months, another one of the 10 will have gained employment through his own initiative. Given the national figures, which cannot be challenged, it is reasonable to assume that, for every 10 young people who go on the scheme, eight will be in employment after nine months and two will still be unemployed.

What is the date for those figures? Do those who find jobs after the scheme always keep them?

I am most happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman, because I know from his service in the House that he takes his duties responsibly, particularly when it comes to caring for young people. The figures that I have cited relate to the period from June 1980 to July 1981. However, I cannot say how many jobs subsequently go by the board.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has been a tremendous deterioration in the situation facing young people since those figures were collected? The figures were much higher in 1978–79 and still higher in 1979–80. The position has deteriorated. The hon. Gentleman misleads himself if he thinks that those figues relate to the current position.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I always have the highest regard for his comments. If he will exercise some kindness towards me, I shall deal with the current position and explain what is happening in my constituency.

It is unwise to say that people on the scheme have no chance. An expression used a few minutes ago could be the motto for this small measure. The expression was, "Give us a future." If that is the cry from young people in Britain, I for one am prepared to support it. I want to hear young people say, "The Government and politicians should give us a future." I want young people to have a future, but I want it to be real. I do not want their future to be propped up by Government aids and subsidies. I want young people to have a real opportunity to do a real job with real training and real career prospects.

We were elected to act for our constituents and to represent their views in the House. I hope that it can be said of me that I represent my people. My constituency is in the west midlands, in the centre of the black country and at the heart of the engineering industry. In October 1982 over 9,000 16 to 19-year-olds were unemployed in the local travel-to-work area. That was out of a total of 49,000 unemployed. As the result of the depression a steelworks in my constituency was closed with the loss of 3,500 jobs. The north of my constituency has been torn to shreds by the closure of the Bilston steelworks. In the centre of the constituency the Cookley steelworks was closed before 1979. The blackest day in the history of my constituency was 17 November last year when the finest steelworks in the country, Round Oak, was closed with the loss of 3,500 jobs.

Let no one point a finger at me and say that I do not understand unemployment. I live in my constituency and I worked in the engineering industry there for 22 years before being elected to the House. My constituents are my people and I represent them here. The young people are equally my responsibility. I accept my responsibilities.

By January 1983 the total of 9,000 young unemployed had dropped by 5 per cent. Let us not be prophets of doom, because in the past three months in my constituency unemployment has dropped consistently, but only marginally. It is now under 11 per cent. How does that affect young people? On 10 March 1,900 school leavers were registered as unemployed in the travel-to-work area in my constituency. Many of these young people should find their way into the youth opportunities programme. That is why I applaud the fact that we are to spend £500 million instead of £63 million on the programme. The Government have a solemn responsibility.

I believe that the Manpower Services Commission, especially in the west midlands, has already identified the problem. I commend the MSC—it is unusual for me to start paying it compliments—on its recent publication drawing attention to labour market trends during 1983–85. If any fair, reasonable and responsible person reads it, he will realise that there is a real sign of hope. This bears directly on the cry of young people to be given a future. The area manpower board has already introduced two schemes. By the grace of God it has a further 10 schemes, which I hope will be implemented quickly.

I say without shame that I cannot in any circumstances challenge clause 1(1)(a). The Bill is a lasting tribute to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. I shall always associate myself with clause 1(1)(a).

Are the Government compassionate?

No.

Do they have a feeling for our young people?

No.

There are cries of no from the packed Opposition Benches. I say that they do their young people a great disservice.

That is right. That is what the Government do.

The Government are accepting their responsibilities with honour and at great financial cost. We do not shirk the battle when young people say, "Give us a job, give us a future."

I am delighted to announce that on 4 May my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is to visit my constituency. It is a sign of the Government's concern and responsibility for the region in which I serve. My hon. Friend will tour youth opportunities programmes and see the problem at first hand. I could never ask anything more of a Minister than to see the situation at first hand.

That will please the Under-Secretary of State.

We shall give my hon. Friend a cordial welcome. Following his visit he may feel disposed to consider the problems in my constituency with an even greater sense of compassion.

The Government have wisely appointed a Minister with special responsibilities for the west midlands. This is the first public opportunity that I have had to pay a warm and sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. My hon. Friend served in the area as a councillor and he has worked in the engineering industry. He will certainly be welcomed.

If the Bill has served no other purpose, it has gently prodded Her Majesty's Government to respond to the situation. In that spirit I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. The Government will respond to the people who say, "Give us a future." The Government will give them a positive future and career prospects. In that spirit I support clause 1(1)(a), but the other provisions of the Bill are adequately covered. They have proved to be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, because so many of those aspects are being implemented.

Again, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie on drawing the attention of the House to his interesting, worthwhile, relevant and well thought out Bill. In view of the importance of tomorrow, perhaps I may say that it has certainly been a Scottish day today, because the Diseases of Fish Bill has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) and the Young Persons' Rights Bill by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie.

1.30 pm

I should like to add my warm and heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on a short, sharp, precise and necessary Bill. I believe that the Bill will be of far greater use to the country, and in particular to young people, than the short, sharp shock treatments that have failed, by and large, to stem the rise in youth crime figures. I believe that, if the Bill were implemented, the youth crime figures would fall. It is clear that the devil gives work to idle hands.

Unemployment among young people is staggering. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) said that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie painted a picture gloomier than the reality. The hon. Member for Dudley, West comes from the west midlands and eloquently described to us the economic position in the west midlands. I come from a more fortunate area, the south-east, but even in the south-east the unemployment figures have doubled since the Government took office.

We should also consider the attitude of Governments to youth. With exceptions, the failure of politicians of all parties and, again with exceptions, the failure of large parts of the trade union movement and society in general, have alienated young people from the social, cultural, political and economic life of the country. I believe that specific action must be taken now to remedy that. Again, that is why I welcome the hon. Gentleman's Bill.

We should consider two points. At 16, young people should have, as of right, a real opportunity and the economic independence to choose between work, education, training, work experience and community service. There should he no element of compulsion. We should ensure closer contact between the schools and the community. In the multiracial society of the United Kingdom there should be greater provision for mother tongue teaching and the teaching of English as a second language.

The hon. Member for Dudley mentioned the youth opportunities programme. Its original concept—to help young people without training to get a start in life—has been left so far behind as to be almost out of sight. I believe that the youth training scheme will do likewise. I should like briefly to remind the House of a story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and, respecting his roots, I will not attempt to go into character. My hon. Friend received a letter from a farmer who was angry about a number of matters. He said that he wanted his free boy. He had been down to the local employment exchange where he was told that he could not have one. He said, "Well, if I cannot have a free boy, I want a free maid. Farmer Jones up the road has one and Farmer Brown down the road has one. I want my free boy." What he meant was that he wanted someone from the youth opportunities scheme. While we continue to have schemes that put young people into work for a limited time on wages that are even lower in some circumstances that sweat shop wages, the training and education of young people will fall into disrepute.

Any money spent on YOP, YTS or any other scheme will count for naught if it cannot be sustainable over the long term and provide a permanent base from which a young person can work. The Government's approach to training is inadequate. First, it does not cover those who enter employment; secondly, it is not long enough; and thirdly, it does nothing for the retraining of adults—and let us remember that the young people about whom we are speaking will be adults before we know where we are.

Consideration should be given to combining the training functions of the Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission. The first task should be to reform and rationalise the whole area of youth training so that provision is available for the whole age range 16 to 19, offering all l6-year-olds who want it a two-year course leading to a certificate of training. There should be a complete reform of the apprenticeship system so that it is based on the attainment of well-delivered standards of performance and not on the time-serving craftsman status, and it should be open to people of all ages who can demonstrate those attainments. People who have obtained a certificate of training or been on the youth training scheme should be able to go on, as of right, to an apprenticeship scheme. There should be increasing use of the sandwich principle for college courses with an investigation into the possibility of an open tech based on the Open University.

The hon. Gentleman is saying that if someone has a qualification, he should as of right be able to get apprentice training. What if it is known that there will not be jobs in that trade when the youngster has finished training? There is no open sesame. Should not apprenticeships be geared to the possibility of work at the end of training?

The hon. Gentleman is right. In addition, all training should be geared as an ongoing concept. I am proud of my polytechnic training. I was trained along certain lines and I qualified in a certain profession. We have geared our training hitherto to a specific job for life. We must now be looking at the whole system of training in terms of a person doing a job for a number of years —perhaps for life, but riot necessarily so—so I accept the point the hon. Gentleman makes.

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman or did not hear him properly. Did he say he wanted an open tech? If so, he should be aware that we have an open tech based on the Open University.

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I was not aware that there was an open tech, and if I was not aware of it, it must be keeping a very low profile. The concept of the open tech I see is the same concept as the Open University, and I look forward to the Minister enlightening us further on that when he replies to the debate.

The Government are disposed to provide neither proper and long-lasting job opportunities nor adequate training facilities to fit this generation of young people to be the skilled technicians, designers, innovators and managers of the future. That is disgusting. We must face the fact that we may have a lost generation. If we have much more Toryism, the silver spoon will count for more than real ability. More dangerously, the Government are, I believe, in many ways deliberately creating a lost generation by their policy of splitting society in two between the haves and have-nots. If we have such a lost generation, we shall have people with no proper skills, no effective experience and no likelihood of any. If that occurs, it will be a recipe for anarchy.

1.39 pm

I join those who have warmly thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) for introducing the Bill. It is a great initiative.

It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), who seemed to wish to support the Government by destroying them at every turn, or the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), who called for an open tech, which already exists and is probably the only initiative of value that the Government have taken. I suggest that the Liberal party should follow the developments in manpower planning in this country rather than going into a cave somewhere and trying to draw up ideal systems that do not relate to what is happening.

The problem of youth unemployment is massive and it is becoming worse month by month. The hon. Member for Dudley, West is wrong. There is no room for complacency. The situation that will be faced by any Government in September, October or November this year is grim indeed — and if it will be grim for the Government it will be far more so for the young people.

In January, 1,226,000 young people under the age of 24 were unemployed, and 285,500 of them had been unemployed for more than a year. The situation among school leavers is grim. There seems to be no way in which the target of 400,000 places needed for the youth training scheme will be reached by September. The Government have antagonised employers and unions alike by their general economic policies, so that it is difficult to obtain full co-operation at local level. Not even Saatchi and Saatchi can persuade employers and unions to provide the necessary places. I regret that very much indeed.

I do not share the negative approach of the Liberal party. I believe that we need a strong youth training scheme. The Labour party is committed to developing the youth training scheme into a two-year student traineeship. The youth training scheme is not an unemployment scheme. I hope that the Minister will emphasise that today. Its aim is to provide what we have lacked in this country for many generations — a scheme whereby all school leavers receive both training and education—and to get away from the situation in which only those whom society regards as the brightest and best receive further education and training. That is why there has been common agreement among trade unions, employers and Government that a youth training scheme is needed.

I do not wish any of my criticisms of the Government to make it harder for them to implement the scheme. The TUC supports the scheme. The Labour party wishes to improve it, but supports the principle of it. It is very important indeed that we have such a scheme.

Other schemes have not been so successful. Indeed, other schemes that the Government have dreamt up are half baked. For example, the young workers scheme which was Professor Walters' brainchild—brain damage would be more apt — was designed to cut young people's wages and, therefore, according to the Government's logic, create jobs. So far, at the enormous cost of £59 million, it has been estimated that only 16,300 jobs have created for young people and that 6,500 jobs have been taken from older workers. That is what I call throwing money at the problem without getting value for money. Therefore, Professor Walters' crackpot scheme has turned out to be another flop. If Ministers in the Department of Employment had had the strength to face up to the Cabinet Office and had had the backing to say of Professor Walters' scheme, "It will not work," we should have avoided the waste of that money which could have been better spent.

It would be better to use the money on post-youth training scheme subsidies to ensure that 18 to 19-year-olds — perhaps even 20 to 24-year-olds — also get work. Young adults are having it rough. The Minister and the hon. Member for Dudley, West should be aware that, in my experience, the placement rate from the scheme is getting worse. I should like the Minister to produce current figures that relate to 1982–83 rather than those for 1980–81. If he did, the hon. Member for Dudley, West would have a shock because the placement rate is far too low. Almost three out of 10, or 29·4 per cent., of 18 and 19-year-old men are out of work and on the dole. They should take note of that. It is an astonishing figure. There is no grant scheme for them. Nor is there any youth opportunities programme or youth training scheme for them.

The Government's record of neglect is despicable. They have wasted time with a hare-brained scheme to get the unemployed to work for dole money plus expenses. That completely unacceptable scheme has delayed relief for the young unemployed for months. The Government then abandoned a successful but minute community enterprise programme and introduced a community programme which is utterly inadequate.

The Government should have built on success rather than wasted time introducing a less effective scheme which did not have the same support and will not win the same support. The community programme, which was introduced last October, should provide 130,000 places a year. By February, of the 61,623 approved places, only 38,000 had been filled. Those 38,000 places are to provide for over 1 million long-term unemployed—people who have been unemployed for a year or more. The Government's provision is 38,000 places on the community programme plus some places still left on the community enterprise programme.

It is not surprising that there are difficulties in making progress. First, the design of the scheme has fundamental faults. Sponsors—mainly local authorities and voluntary organisations — have been shackled by complications. Not only are they forced to combine part-time and full-time jobs; the restrictive £60 a week average wage puts them into a financial straitjacket. Secondly, it fails to provide an adequate training element, especially for the highly trainable young adults, and for that reason it has been unattractive to many sponsors. It makes no sense whatever not to link employment and training programmes, especially for young adults who could benefit from skills and training grafted on to getting paid in a temporary job.

The Government should now admit that they have got it wrong in trying to deliver immediate and constructive help to the long-term unemployed. There are better methods than those that the Government have adopted. The whole programme should be recast so that the current weaknesses are overcome and the long-term unemployed, especially young adults, get a better deal.

First, the £60 average wage cost restriction should be abolished to bring it into line with the average wage cost of the real community enterprise programme. Secondly, the number of full-time places should be boosted so that all should have the choice of full-time places paid at the rate for the job. Thirdly, there should be a proper training element and budget to promote adequate training opportunities for long-term unemployed people who are in the programme.

Incidentally, the job-splitting scheme, which is also supposed to help the unemployed, is a wasteful flop. By 25 March the Government had spent £338,000 on advertising the job-splitting scheme. By 8 April only 199 applications had been approved, creating 398 part-time jobs. That is another example of the Government pursuing ideology and throwing money away on a scheme without any reference to getting value for money. One thing is certain; the Government are not getting value for money from the job-splitting scheme.

The levels of unemployment, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdie and underlined by the hon. Member for Dudley, West, are heartbreaking. So, too, are the long periods of unemployment being suffered. As I have said, 285,500 under-25s have been unemployed for more than a year. Through time, the length of unemployment being suffered by people is increasing. That is a grave problem which the Government must face.

As I have said on several occasions, there is an enormous difference between being unemployed for a month or six weeks and being unemployed for 12 months or two years. My preoccupation for many years has been with the long-term unemployed, and their numbers are growing considerably. Have the Government weighed up what the growth of long-term unemployment means in personal terms? Have they any idea of the misery and desolation being caused among this vulnerable group?

I doubt whether Ministers understand that. I doubt whether day trips to Dudley will bring them this understanding. I used to go to Dudley to visit the zoo, but my day trips to Dudley brought me about as much understanding of the lives of the animals in the zoo as a day trip to Dudley will bring the Under-Secretary of State an understanding of what it is like to be unemployed for one or two years at a stretch and to be living in families where often several members are unemployed at the same time. Do the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary understand the financial and social plight of young jobless adults? After 12 months' unemployment, few have any savings. How can they have? After 12 months' unemployment, they receive no unemployment benefit. They receive only supplementary benefit which for them is a pittance.

Let us consider the facts. Anyone in that position who is living at home receives only £23·65 a week. I ask the Under-Secretary of State how anyone can marry on that sort of money. That is an important question for the 18 to 25-year-olds. By their policies, the Government are breaking not only people's spirits but their hearts. When the Government deal with the young unemployed—the 18, 19 and 20-year-olds—they are totally heartless.

I ask the Government, as I have asked them before, how young adults can get a decent start in married life on such an income. If the girl is working, the man loses all benefits when he marries. We must consider the enormity of the situation for many young couples, not just those in the west midlands, which has suffered more than any other region, and where the appointment of a Minister to save the west midlands is regarded as a sick electoral joke.

The hon. Member for Dudley, West, in his election speech earlier, did not say that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry who has been appointed Minister for the west midlands, during proceedings on the Telecommunications Bill, had so little regard for jobs in the west midlands that he was prepared to allow jobs in telecommunications equipment manufacturing to go to Japan in the name of ideology. I did not wish to discuss that subject, but I was provoked by the hon. Member for Dudley.

I am completely unaware of what went on in Committee with the Telecommunications Bill. During my speech I said that the fact that the Government have appointed a Minister with responsibility for the west midlands should be applauded. It is a little unfair for the hon. Gentleman to say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will learn nothing about Dudley from a day trip. My hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in the affairs of the west midlands, has received deputations and has gained knowledge of the problem. A visit to Dudley is a further step to see the problems at first hand.

If the Minister has taken an interest, that probably means that the position will become worse. Unemployment in the west midlands has trebled since 1979, and the hon. Member for Dudley, West said that the greatest disaster in the history of Dudley happened last year. What response to that disaster did the hon. Gentleman get from the Under-Secretary of State who is, it is said, taking such an interest? Did he say that he would help the people of Dudley? If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee that discussed the Telecommunications Bill. he would have realised that Ministers are prepared to destroy the British engineering industry in defence of their theories and ideology. I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not have that salutary experience.

Young adults cannot get a decent start in married life. Until the position is changed in November, the girl cannot even claim family income supplement. Love on the dole is as rough in the 1980s as it was in the 1930s. The only real hope for those youngsters lies in the election of a Labour Government who would be dedicated to the creation rather than the destruction of jobs, and who would restore the pride and initiative of young men and women by giving them work, training and education. Young people say, "Give us a future," but only a Labour Government will do that. Only the Labour party has said that it will provide an allowance to all those who attend school. Only the Labour party has said that it will provide effective student training, and only the Labour party can provide Ministers who will know what can be implemented to give all our young people hope and a better future.

2.5 pm

As the Bill relates specifically to 16 to 19-year-olds, I intend to devote my remarks to them. I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will understand if I do not immediately address my remarks to the schemes to help long-term unemployment. If I have time, I shall do so at the end.

Will the Minister give us the assurance that he will talk this afternoon not only about 16 and 17-year-olds but about the plight of 18-year-olds?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I intend to talk about the Bill. However, he will not expect me to agree with his remarks about the schemes that have been developed to help long-term unemployment, nor, indeed, do I. His remarks about the community programme were rather misplaced because substantially more people will be able to benefit from that than were able to benefit from the community enterprise programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) applauded, as did all the hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate, the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) for introducing the Bill because it gives the House the opportunity to discuss a vital subject—young people, their employment and training. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to reply to what has been an interesting debate. I assure the House, in particular the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, that I am in no way complacent. He said that there was no room for complacency, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West was not, and indeed is not, complacent about the problem.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said that youth is not the problem, and I agree. But I was somewhat bamboozled—I use the word advisedly—by certain parts of his speech. He attacked the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme, yet in the opening clause he refers to "training for work". The aims and objects of the Bill are somewhat different from what he said in his speech.

I was saying that I am not in favour of a cosmetic exercise. I suggested that the various youth training schemes are substitutes for real jobs. By giving the figure of the appalling decline in apprenticeships for engineering, shipbuilding and so on, I tried to suggest that young people in Britain want a Government policy which will lead to real jobs.

The hon. Gentleman draws me on a subject which I had intended to deal with later, but I can assure him that the Government see the youth training scheme as a training measure and not, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked me to say, as a special employment measure. It will succeed or fail according to the training that it offers.

I am also extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie because the Bill is so short and not difficult to read through. The hon. Gentleman referred to costs, but then went on to the £25 allowance. However, on its face, the Bill would appear to demand a large increase in public expenditure, which in turn would create inflationary pressures. It would lead to higher interest rates, which would make it more difficult for companies to make profits, and would lead to fewer jobs.

rose—

I wish to develop my speech a little more.

The Bill must be seen in the context of what the Government are doing. The Government have a significant set of programmes for young people. They range from the vast youth training scheme—vast in terms of numbers and budget—to the relatively small community industry scheme. The Government acknowledge that young people and school leavers face a problem.

School leavers are in special difficulties. The obvious answer, with which hon. Members would not disagree, is that they should find a job with related training. Jobs arise only in companies that produce goods and services of a quality and at a price that consumers wish to buy.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) said. I may be wrong, but I thought that he entirely missed that straight economic fact of life. Jobs do not grow out of thin air. They grow and survive in flourishing companies.

Britain has exported jobs during the past 10 to 20 years, as I am sure hon. Members will agree. We no longer produce manual typewriters because they are imported from the far east. There are no United Kingdom manufacturers of combine harvesters or motor cycles. When they were manufactured in Britain, jobs and apprenticeships were available to youngsters.

The Minister has raised an important point about costing. The Bill states:

"The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a scheme".

The Minister must inform the House of the costs of the Government scheme. Furthermore, there is an obligation on him to tell the House how much it costs this country to keep so many young people unemployed and to pay for so many shoddy jobs that produce nothing for those young people or the country.

I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks about costs, and the cost related to the passing of this Bill, absolutely incredible. The hon. Gentleman is the promoter of the Bill, yet he is not able to tell the House how much his scheme is likely to cost! If any Minister proposed a Bill on that basis and could not answer the question that I am putting to the hon. Gentleman, that Minister would not survive in office for long. The position is the same when dealing with a private Member's Bill. The House is entitled to know the answer.

Will the Minister answer my question? How much does it cost to keep young people on the dole?

I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman quietly and with interest. I am entitled, as the Minister replying, to put my points to him.

Britain has been extremely good at exporting jobs. The problem is not one of new industries emerging and old industries going but of existing industries having to change. Employment in the railways during the past 20 years has halved whereas employment in air transport has nearly doubled.

Therefore, we must train youngsters for change and flexibility in the future. The purpose of the youth training scheme and other Government measures related to the objectives of the new training initiative are exactly that. It is not a party political point that in the past Britain's record on training has not been good enough. For example, more than one in three youngsters has had, until now, no training or further education. By comparison, more than eight out of 10 youngsters in France and Germany have received further training or education since leaving school. That is bad for Britain, and that is why the Government have acted quickly.

The youth training scheme is an enormous programme to remedy the situation at a vast cost to the taxpayer of about £1,000 million a year—a little less in the first year, and a little more in the second year. It is a genuine training scheme that tries to give youngsters something positive to offer the changing job market at the end of the year. It will also give employers a better equipped and more adaptable work force.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, as a Minister in the Department of Employment when the youth opportunities programme was introduced, will know that the youth training scheme was inevitably born out of that programme. I agree that it has been a great success and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie read out a letter classing it as

"one of the worst schemes ever devised".

The Labour Government introduced a good scheme and we have built substantially on it.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie is a little out of touch with what youngsters who have been on the scheme think of it. According to the most recent survey, three out of four youth opportunities programme trainees felt that the scheme had been useful. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a pretty good rating. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the youngsters voted with their feet and joined up quite willingly in vast numbers. According to the latest available figures, 485,000 youngsters joined the youth opportunities programme between April 1982 and January 1983. That demonstrates clearly that, whatever the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie may think, they think that the scheme is good.

Does not the Minister agree that, if there were an opportunity for regular and sustained employment in the foreseeable future, youngsters would prefer that to any youth opportunities programme that lasted for only a short time?

As I said earlier, it would be better if more permanent jobs were available. However, the hon. Gentleman apparently refuses to accept the reality that jobs exist only in certain conditions. The Government's economic policy is directed towards creating those conditions and I am happy to say that we have achieved some success.

The £25 allowance has been mentioned. If that was not sufficient, I have no doubt that youngsters would not be joining as they are. I do not wish to be critical of the youth opportunities programme because it has served a good purpose, but it was never meant to be permanent. It is time to move on. We must have a better equipped and better trained work force. That is why the youth training scheme is being developed.

The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West called for the introduction of an open tech for training. I am sorry that his party does not realise that such a programme has already been developed following the recommendation of a task group in 1982. I am sorry that he does not realise that this year we have approved spending of about £3·7 million, but I am glad that we have the support of at least one half of the alliance.

Obviously the open tech is adopting a low profile. How many open tech schemes have been introduced and how many students have enrolled this year?

Ten schemes have been approved, with two further support schemes. I cannot say how many students have enrolled. The programme is satisfactory and we shall watch it carefully because we think that it has exciting potential.

The youth training scheme has the support of all interested parties. Political parties of all shades support it, although some individuals may not. It has the support of employers and trade unions, although in some localities some trade unions find it difficult to support. It certainly has national trade union support, for which I am grateful. It has the support of local authorities, education services and many voluntary organisations.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to the Saatchi and Saatchi advertising campaign. We have advertised on a significant scale. I am happy to say that, because of that advertising campaign, and much else besides, we are on the road to achieving our ambitious 460,000 target. There is still some time to go, so I do not wish to sound complacent because efforts might be relaxed a little. Both the hon. Gentleman and I want to achieve the target.

We are talking about a training programme. It will be more comprehensive than the youth opportunities programme. It will be of higher quality and be more constructive than anything that has gone before. It will provide each youngster with a certificate which will show prospective employers what a youngster can achieve. Youngsters will have a record of achievement with a real meaning in the world of work.

The scheme will guarantee an early offer of a place. We have undertaken to offer a suitable place by Christmas this year to every youngster leaving school at the minimum age who remains unemployed. In addition, the scheme will cater for unemployed 16 and 17-year-old school leavers and some unemployed 18-year-old school leavers. We have set ambitious targets. We have allocated enormous resources to the scheme.

Perhaps most important of all, literally thousands of committed people in the Manpower Services Commission and potential managing agents are working enormously hard to get the scheme off the ground and to make it work properly. As I travel around the country, I am delighted by the reaction from those who are involved in ensuring that the scheme has the right quality of training and is wholly appropriate to the youngsters who will join. Delivery is our goal and, for the sake of our youngsters, we cannot afford to relax in any way on delivery. A great deal of work must still be done in a relatively short time because 460,000 places is a big target.

Will there be 460,000 places, or 400,000 places for 460,000 people? I think that our debate will confuse the people outside.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight. There will be 460,000 entrants to the scheme, but about 400,000 places.

As the House is aware, the Government are playing their part through the Civil Service and the armed forces. In the Civil Service, there will be an as yet undefined number of places in the Royal Mint, the royal dockyards, the royal ordnance factories, the Procurement Executive, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the ordnance survey, the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commodities division, the Offshore Supplies Office at Glasgow, the Forestry Commission, Customs and Excise, particularly at Southend, some common services including computers, in Government research activities, in museums and galleries, at No. 10 Downing Street, and of course in the Manpower Services Commission itself.

The armed forces scheme will be run by the Ministry of Defence and will not be under the wing of the Manpower Services Commission and the youth training board. In the Royal Navy, there will be places for 500 people; in the Army, there will be places for 3,700; and in the Royal Air Force, there will be places for 1,000 people.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie attacked the scheme. I wish to make it clear to him that the scheme is completely voluntary. There will be no coercion and no conscription. The hon. Gentleman will find that, when the scheme is open to applicants, the 5,200 places will be well over-subscribed. I shall be amazed if they are not. A great many families throughout the country realise the training potential of the armed forces for their 16 and 17-year-olds. Of course, at this stage it is a debating point, but I shall be amazed if there are not many more applications than places available. The trainees in the armed forces scheme will be subject to normal service discipline and the same basic training as regulars.

We are taking other measures for the 16 to 18-yearolds, the most exciting of which is the pilot scheme—the new technical and vocational education initiative. This is being developed by the MSC in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science. Fourteen pilot projects are being developed in association with local education authorities and locally based industry.

Contrary to what some have predicted, I am happy to say that we have had a fantastic response to this initiative. About 64 proposals have been put to us by local education authorities and 14 of them have been accepted provisionally. If it proves to be a successful pilot scheme—

It being half past Two o'oclock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 29 April.

Disposal Of Dead Bodies Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 1 July.

Education In Prisons Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 1 July.

Standing Charges Of Public Utilities To Pensioners (Regulation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 1 July.

Housing Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 July.

Resale Of Gas And Electricity Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Salmon Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Crown Estate (Foreshore And Seabed) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Buyers' Premium (Abolition) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Public Opinion Polls (Prohibition At Election Times) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Insolvency (Special Arrangements) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Fair Wage Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill Lords

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Coroners' Juries Bill

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Christopher Price.]

Committee upon Friday 29 April.

Citizens Advice Bureaux

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Lang.]

2.33 pm

When I told people over the past few days that I had secured this Adjournment debate, their response was, "Surely the Government have shot your fox. The Minister has changed his mind. There is to be a radical reassessment of the Government's attitude towards the citizens advice bureaux movement in general and to the national body in particular." But no such assurances have come from the Minister's lips.

One of my reasons for introducing the debate is to obtain from the Minister some substance for the rumours. When he made his famous, or infamous, statement 10 days ago, he left the House and the country with headlines such as,

"Advice Centres To Go On Trial"

That uncertainty and element of kangaroo court judgment of the bureaux have evoked anger and, in terms of the Minister's actions, perplexity, because the House was left entrely dissatisfied.

The Minister invited so many spectres to his feast of innuendo about the citizens advice bureaux movement that I make no apology for asking him again, 10 days later, to present a considered view and policy. In the papers and gossip were innuendoes about financial mismanagement, political bias and general inefficiency.

I warn the Minister that bland assurances of his confidence, love and admiration of the citizens advice bureaux movement will not do. In view of the reports and inferences during this unhappy episode, we need more than words today. There must be a recognition—1 think it has been evident elsewhere on the Government Front Bench — that the Government get a very good deal indeed from the CAB services.

I shall not weary the House with statistics. Suffice to say that there are 914 bureaux which attract 12,500 volunteers, and it is calculated that the voluntary contribution they make is worth £23 million to the country. Every hon. Member who works in his constituency recognises the immense data bank that the national bureau operates. If the Government tried to operate a similar system, it is estimated that it would cost £50 million. Those of us who had the benefit of seeing that operation could not but be impressed with its efficiency and relevance to many of our fellow citzens.

I have spoken of the massive voluntary effort that goes into the movement. Only 20 per cent. of bureaux have full-time organisers, and most of the bureaux exist on an annual budget of about £10,000. In 1974–75, they attracted about 1·8 million inquiries; last year 5 million; arid it is expected that there will be an increase this year of a further 12 per cent. In Stockport that means an increase from 13,000 to 17,000 or 18,000.

I hope the Minister realises the value for money that the Government are getting. I hope he also realises, if he tries again to trot out the story of the extra grants the Government have given to the movement in recent years, that the CAB movement has had to absorb the cancellation of the Government grant to the consumer advice centres of about £4 million.

We are talking of a voluntary movement which operates at the sharp end of the work we do in Parliament. It looks at housing and social legislation and the effects of unemployment, and then it must answer to the individual who comes in for help. I therefore want from the Minister a response which takes into account that increased work load, but I want something more. The Government's decision to put the advice bureaux movement on a short leash—of six months in terms of the money available—has many implications in terms of planning, staff morale and how the movement uses its money.

The Minister knows how the grant is spent: 30 per cent. goes on the bureaux, 55 per cent. on the support services and only 15 per cent. on administration. I am confident in saying that the Minister knows that because he has representatives on the key bodies of the movement and they give him that information. He must therefore say why such a draconian short leash has been placed on the movement. He knows that it is not just a question of ministerial responsibility. If public money is used, we want Ministers to ensure that it is not abused. Equally, however, he knows that if a Minister takes specific action of this kind, the general feeling is that there is no smoke without fire.

I ask the Minister today to remove any doubts as to the financial probity of the administration of the national body. He can do that quite simply by restoring the annual grant immediately. That is the least that he can do. If he cannot do that today, whatever he says in press briefings or in other places, he will continue to have trouble in the House. That is a fair and friendly warning to him.

The Minister must also realise that the citizens advice bureaux movement is basically a local movement, so the innuendo, gossip and tittle-tattle that has occurred requires ministerial guidance. I ask him to send out a circular—if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has to do it for him, so be it—about the citizens advice bureaux, calling the attention of local authorities to his confidence in the movement and his hope that they will continue to support it and look sympathetically on its present campaign that every bureau should have at least one full-time organiser.

It is amazing that a service that would probably cost about £70 million if the Government tried to administer it is provided by the movement for about £6 million and that 80 per cent. of the bureaux operate without a full-time officer. On local authorities and finance, I hope that the Minister has pondered carefully in the 10 days since the mauling that he received from hon. Members in all parts of the House.

On efficiency, as the Minister well knows, the national association and the bureaux welcome an examination of their efficiency, but they and the House must know quickly who is to carry out the inquiry, what the terms of reference and the time scale will be and to whom it will report. As I have stressed many times, this affects 12,500 volunteers and hundreds of thousands of people who want confidence in the citizens advice bureaux movement. The Minister cannot allow doubts as to its efficiency and impartiality to continue beyond today. If there is to be an inquiry, he must tell us how it will be conducted If the service is examined properly, I sincerely hope that the inquiry will be entitled to recommend increases for the movement as well as commenting on possible improvements in efficiency.

Much press interest has been attracted by the suggestions of political bias. It is a fact of our public life that the kind of person likely to volunteer to serve with a citizens advice bureau is almost equally likely to turn up as a justice of the peace, the organiser of a junior football team or an active member of a political party or action group. It is nonsense to start looking for hobgoblins and generating fears because an active voluntary member of a citizens advice bureau turns out in his or her free time also to be active in some other aspect of public life. We all know of justices of the peace who run football clubs, are chairmen of local party associations, and so on. As I have seen in my postbag and from travelling round the country, the Government's attitude has made people ask themselves whether they can remain active in their local Conservative associations and give their best to citizens advice bureaux. We should get that problem nailed and out of the way. It is not good enough that there should be a smear of political subversion.

The CAB movement goes to extraordinary lengths to maintain its impartiality. The Minister must realise that CABs have a second role which has been encouraged by successive Governments. It is:

"To exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services, both locally and nationally."

People who work in CABs are likely to explain whether the Government's legislation is not working or is working unfairly at the sharp end. The Minister must recognise that, when his colleagues frame their legislation, they depend on an amazing feedback system which CABs provide. He should know that it is not politically motivated.

Behind the argument about financing, efficiency, motivation and the virtues of volunteers, there is another fear which Mr. Ian Waller described accurately in last week's Sunday Telegraph. He said:

"I am inclined to acquit Dr. Vaughan of personal bigotry but his attitude seems to me to reflect a streak of it apparent in some circles in the Government and the Conservative Party today—that anyone not dedicated to it (and even to the true faith of Thatcherism within it) is suspect. It is a disturbing trend, alien to the traditions of British politics and Tuesday's reaction showed the Commons' distaste for it."

Quite so. Those who detect some of the Prime Minister's fingerprints in this action will have the satisfaction of knowing that those fingers have been burnt by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Nevertheless, there remains the suspicion that the Prime Minister's approach to government is a perversion of Churchillian rhetoric—malice in defeat and revenge in victory. If nothing else, the House's reaction to what the Minister has done has told voluntary and independent bodies that we shall defend their independence.

I hope that the Minister will underline that and that other Ministers will learn the same lesson. From that point, we can build. After this shabby episode is put behind us, we should aim for a citizens advice movement that is well funded, well briefed and perceived by the Government to be truly neutral and objective.

rose—

Order. It is normally the convention that the Minister has his full time in which to reply.

2.48 pm

I have followed the speech of the hon.

Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) closely. He has made several points clearly. I congratulate him on that and agree with what he said at the end of his speech.

I welcome the debate as it gives me an opportunity to voice yet again the Government's strong support for the CAB service and to deal with the misunderstandings that have arisen recently. The hon. Gentleman asked for a recognition of a good service. I am glad to give that. The Government have consistently said that they admire the CABs. We respect and value the work that they do. Together with NACAB, they carry out an important national and local job. As I have said before, they provide a fine example of volunteers from all walks of life working with professionals for the good of the community. We respect, admire and support that. There can be no question about that. I put this first in my reply because it is so important, and it was not very widely reported after my statement the other day.

As I said in my statement to the House, the bureaux, with their huge number of volunteers, are managed and funded locally by the local authorities. The Government support is through our grant to the national association —the central body. One measure of that support has been the rapid increase under this Government in the size of grant from £1·85 million in 1979–80 to £6·04 million in 1983–84. I say publicly that that is surely a measure of the confidence that we have in the movement. It reflects our considered view that the citizens advice bureaux provide an essential and a highly cost-effective service of general and consumer advice at a time when it is desperately needed.

The origin of the recent controversy is both interesting and important. It came in an article in The Sunday Times. Unfortunately, if appeared without any contact with me and was incorrect. First, it misunderstood the grant position. There has been no cut and there has been, in my view, no question of a cut. Second, it suggested that my actions were because of political activities by the chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That is totally incorrect.

My actions have in no way been influenced by Mrs. Ruddock and I welcome the opportunity to repudiate publicly any suggestion that I have impugned or intended to impugn her conduct in connection with the performance of her duties at the Reading CAB. I accept that there are no grounds for suggesting that her CAB behaviour is open to criticism. I say that for the second time very clearly and publicly, because it is important.

Even allowing for inflation, the increase in the grant has been substantial, and it is surely my responsibility to ensure that the contributions from taxpayers are used as effectively as possible. It was partly with that in mind that I recently commissioned the National Consumer Council report on advice services generally.

The question of Government funding is of fundamental importance. The current annual grant allocation to NACAB of up to £6·04 million is higher than for the previous year. As the House knows, I judged it right to authorise the spending of up to half that amount for the first six months, and during that time to examine the allocation of the funds in the planned review. It is not a cut, and I wish to make that perfectly clear. Nor, as I have assured NACAB, is there any question of disrupting the planning and funding of central support services for local bureaux in the year as a whole.

My prime concern is with the allocation and the general use of the money. I have a clear duty to satisfy myself that the most effective possible use is being made of the substantial public funds involved. NACAB itself accepts that and has said so.

It has been suggested that the current controversy could undermine the confidence of some local authorities in the CAB service and reduce its commitment to bureaux funding. That would be highly regrettable, and I welcome the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on that subject. I shall look at his suggestion about a circular.

I make it absolutely clear that the devotion of the 10,000 volunteers who work in the bureaux is beyond question. They have our complete backing and I expect local authorities to continue to give them full support.

Let me turn now to the other aspect that I will not disguise for a moment has concerned me—assertions of attitudes which, if true, call into question the organisation's commitment to impartiality. This concern is not new. I thought it right to mention the existence of these complaints to the chairman and to seek her unequivocal assurance that they were unfounded and that impartiality was essential in the service. I was glad to see the resolution of the association's national council, adopted last month, which reaffirms

"the politically impartial nature of the CAB service and undertakes to investigate thoroughly and diligently any alleged breach of this principle."

Moreover, NACAB has recently reviewed and consolidated the guidelines on impartiality for the use of all bureaux. These make the position very clear, and I have been assured by Lady Ricketts that any breach of them will be effectively investigated.

My concern all along has been for the principles followed by the service on this question of political impartiality; and I have seen the task of dealing with any suggestions of failure in individual cases to measure up to the association's own rules as a matter for it to resolve and not for me. This has informed my attitude from the beginning.

I come now to the way forward. Both NACAB and I are agreed that there should be an early and independent review. This was foreshadowed in my statement to the House the other day. The review will have two purposes: first, to ensure that within the funds available the national association is able to give the best possible service and support to local CABs; and, second, to ensure that the money available is spent in the most effective way. I am anxious that it should be completed as soon as possible. I am consulting the officers of the association on the terms of reference and composition of the team, and I assure the House that I shall make an announcement shortly. I see the urgency now of getting on with this, and in no way do I want to increase anxieties and uncertainties by delaying it. I shall of course take into account many of the useful points made by the hon. Gentleman in the debate.

In the meantime, I must ensure that sufficient funding is available, and I have discussed this again with NACAB. I have no wish to create unnecessary problems or to interrupt the good work on such matters as training which is financed by the Government's grant aid. I am aware of the difficulties that could arise from this, and the bureaux will tell hon. Members who inquire that I have given them an assurance of my concern about this and the urgency of knowing where we stand.

I hope that what I have said today will have gone a little way towards keeping this matter in its proper perspective and a fairly long way towards clearing up some of the misunderstandings, because misunderstandings there have been.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has nothing to say about funding, because I warn him that if that is his last word on funding he is in for a tremendous row? Wherever it is said—in press briefings or in any other circumstances—the House wants to know how he intends to fund the CAB movement past his six months' deadline. He has only two minutes in which to do it.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's warning. I have made it clear—I hope that he will do the same—that there is no question of a cut. I have also made it clear that we have determined the annual grant of £6·04 million —again there is no question of a cut—but that I am discussing the best use of those funds. The early part of the year does not require the full amount already allocated, so I suggest to those who are misled into great anxiety on this matter that this need not be as controversial a matter as they believe. I am fully aware of the urgency of letting people know where they stand. The hon. Gentleman does not need to tell me that.

Surely it is right that I pay tribute to the invaluable work of the citizens advice bureaux wherever and whenever I can. That is most important because of the nature of their work and the way in which they carry it out. Surely it is right to see a clear difference between voluntary work in local bureaux, paid for locally, and the central work by NACAB, which is paid for by the Government. It must be right to review those central funds from time to time, and it is also right that, when people express concern to me, I should seek reassurance from NACAB.

It would be a tragedy if loyal supporters and workers of the movement were to become alienated by the allegations, all the more so if that has happened because of any misunderstandings. I appeal to everyone to guard against that danger. What the citizens advice bureaux offer is, in my view — I know that it is shared by hon. Members—too precious to allow it to be devalued in this way.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member asks a question and the ministerial response is unsatisfactory, there is a formula whereby he stands up and says that, because of the nature of the reply, he will ask for an Adjournment debate. When an hon. Member has already obtained an Adjournment debate and receives a totally unsatisfactory reply, with the Minister flannelling and avoiding the real issue, how can he go further?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. The Minister is responsible for his speech. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough, and is ingenious enough, to know that there are other ways of raising such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

Volume 41: debated on Friday 22 April 1983

House Of Commons

Prayers

Petitions

Public Utilities (Standing Charges)

Mrs Anna Hughes (Husband's Death)

Bill Presented

Generic Substitution (National Health Service)

Orders Of The Day

Diseases Of Fish Bill

Clause 2

Infected Waters

Clause 3

Infected Waters: Preliminary Precautions

Clause 4

Termination Of Tenancies Acquired By Succession

Clause 6

Taking Of Shellfish From Certain Areas

Clause 7

Information About Shellfish

Clause 8

Power To Require Information About Shellfish Farming In Scotland

Clause 9

Power To Require Information

Clause 10

Information: Enforcement

Clause 11

Disclosure Of Information

Clause 13

Short Title, Commencement And Extent

Schedule

Further Amendments Of 1937 Act

Young Persons' Rights Bill

Disposal Of Dead Bodies Bill

Education In Prisons Bill

Standing Charges Of Public Utilities To Pensioners (Regulation) Bill

Housing Bill

Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill

Resale Of Gas And Electricity Bill

Salmon Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill

Crown Estate (Foreshore And Seabed) (Amendment) Bill

Buyers' Premium (Abolition) Bill

Public Opinion Polls (Prohibition At Election Times) Bill

Insolvency (Special Arrangements) Bill

Fair Wage Bill

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill Lords

Coroners' Juries Bill

Citizens Advice Bureaux