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

The Bill has all-party support. It is designed to bring into legislation a number of safety at sea measures which are at present subject to Member certificates or notices issued by the Department of Transport, but which are not mandatory, and other measures to strengthen the regulations governing safety at sea.

I shall deal with the clauses, leaving clause 3 until the end, as it is one of the most important parts of the legislation. Before going into the detail of the clauses, I think that it would be right for me to explain why, with the co-operation of colleagues on both sides of the House, I decided to introduce the Bill.

The legislation is not intended to apply to yachts or similar craft, or to ferries.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed by the Royal Yachting Association and other yachting interests that the legislation might have applied to yachts and other pleasure craft? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will move amendments in Committee that will make that point clear?

When the Bill was drafted, it was not intended that its provisions would affect yachts or similar craft, or that it would apply to ferries. This morning I received a number of suggested amendments from the parliamentary draftsman to the Royal Yachting Association which will clarify the position for the association. I am perfectly happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) the assurance that he seeks. I hope that that makes the position clear to all yachting organisations. The Bill is not intended to affect yachting associations.

Those of us from fishing constituencies often visit the relatives of fishermen who have gone down to the sea and have not returned. On many occasions we are asked to introduce safety at sea measures. Requests have been made for legislation, rather than recommendations, by the Department of Transport. The sad incidents on the Ocean Harvest in October, the Bon Ami in December and the Mhairi L last February led me to decide to introduce the Bill.

This morning I received a letter from Mrs. Helen Maxwell, who is in hospital in Dumfries and whose son was on the Mhairi L. She expresses the great hope that the Bill will help to save fishermen. She says:

"We will grieve for our lost sons for the rest of our days … We know you are fighting for all the fishermen in Scotland. So my thoughts and prayers will be with you."

I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Andrew Thomson, Mr. Terry Hayward and other management and staff at Dunlop-Beaufort in Birkenhead for their great help and cooperation not only in drafting parts of the Bill but in giving me an insight into the vast detail investigated by that firm in connection with technical research and production of safety at sea equipment. I should like to thank also Mr. Barnes of Berndept Electronics, Electronics Marine, and others who have been such a help to me with respect to the distress beacon. Those firms, especially Dunlop-Beaufort, were kind enough to assist me in the safety at sea exhibition which was held yesterday in the Palace of Westminster. I am grateful to all my colleagues who saw the exhibition. It was a first-class presentation and gave us many opportunities to see the problems with which the Bill deals.

I should also like to thank Mr. Harry Barrett, the managing director, and Mr. Ian Strutt and the staff of Fishing News for the tremendous amount of research that they carried out. They provided me with information about accidents and fatalities involving fishing vessels at sea. Other people, too numerous to mention, have my thanks for the help, encouragement and co-operation they gave me in presenting the Bill.

Clause 1 relates to the fitting of a float-free emergency radio beacon, which will increase safety at sea as it will automatically transmit on aircraft frequencies 121·5 MHz and 243'MHz prepared for sarsat-satellite homing. The emergency beacon will float free and activate automatically should the vessel sink. There is seldom time to broadcast a mayday message for long enough to provide a reliable radio fix for search and rescue agencies if the vessel sinks. Even if there is time, such a radio fix will indicate only the point where the vessel was lost.

Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with Her Majesty's Coastguard on that part of the Bill and the way in which those signals might communicate with its co-ordination facilities and search and rescue functions?

I am grateful for that comment. I have not so far discussed the matter with HM Coastguard It is my intention, and I am sure that of my hon. Friends who support the Bill, that if the Bill receives its Second Reading we shall consult widely with all organisations involved, to ensure that when the Bill returns to the House on Third Reading we shall have had the fullest discussions so that all the points that must be made about distress beacon signals are fully covered. That will ensure that fishermen have additional facilities, if they can be operated by HM Coastguard.

By fitting a hydrostatic release unit to the radio beacon, the system is activated by water pressure as soon as the vessel sinks. That action releases the lashings which hold the beacon canister securely in the deck-mounted cradle. Once the lashings are loosened, the two halves of the spring-loaded canister break open, allowing the self-buoyant beacon to float free from the sinking vessel. At the same time, the operation activates the beacon transmitter, which then broadcasts on the civil and military air distress frequencies.

If vessels are fitted with those emergency position indicating radio beacons—commonly called EPIRB—it means that they will aid the maritime and aircraft rescue services in pinpointing the location of the sinking vessel. That is an important factor, because on many occasions when the vessel goes down the problem is to pinpoint its position. Rescue services then have to search over hundreds of square miles to try to find the vessel. That will be an important factor once the beacon has been established as a type that can be used for identification.

Signals can be identified at distances up to 100 miles. Aircraft will not be constrained by the prevailing conditions or the size of the vessel in distress. Distress signals from the beacon can be transmitted for at least 72 hours. That is another important factor. If the beacon can continue to transmit once the vessel goes down, it means that civil and military aircraft can get to the scene and alert fishing and other vessels in the disaster area. Beacons are a must for fishing vessels. They can save lives at sea. For that, if no other reason, they should be fitted.

As long ago as 1981 the Department of Trade reported a change of policy with regard to the fitting of EPIRBs. Until then, the Department had felt that their use gave fishermen too much confidence. The Department announced that the use of those distress beacons would greatly improve the chances of locating persons when a vessel had gone down. However, the Department did not bring in the necessary legislation; it merely recommended their use on fishing vessels. The Bill seeks to compel the use of approved distress beacons to save more lives. I hope that the Department of Transport, which is now responsible for shipping, will ensure that that requirement is enforced if the Bill becomes law.

Clause 2 will require fishing vessels of between 30 ft and 300 ft to have on board sufficient life jackets for the crew and any passengers. It will also require that life rafts should have hydrostatic release units fitted, so that the life raft will inflate automatically and float free if the vessel sinks. Most vessels carry life rafts, but not all have hydrostatic units fitted. If lives are to be saved, it is vital that the fitting of those units should become compulsory.

There may well be no opportunity free a life raft if it has been stored on the deck or on top of the wheelhouse. If the hydrostatic unit is used, it is guaranteed that the life raft will come to the surface. A life raft with a unit attached has a painter made fast to the weak link system of the hydrostatic unit. The location of the HRU is such that it is readily accessible and is located on the seaward side of the vessel. When submerged to a depth of 1·5 m to 3·7 m, the hydrostatic unit operates automatically. Freed of its lashings, the container rises to the surface, paying out the inflation painter line as it goes, but retaining it to the HRU by means of the weak link. It is the combination of the rising container and the sinking vessel which provides the painter tension which activates the gas cyclinder and starts inflation once the free painter line is paid out. As the vessel sinks, the weak line will break, releasing the life raft from the vessel. The weak link breaking strength is such that the raft is not dragged under by the sinking vessel, thus ensuring that survivors have another chance of being saved at sea. Without that essential piece of equipment, the chances of survival at sea are slim. In that connection, I should like to refer to the loss of the MFV Mhairi 1 in the eastern section of the Irish sea on 20 February 1985. The Department of Transport report on that sinking was published in December 1985.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, technically, the report was not published, although a number of us pressed that it should be published officially? It was presented to the Secretary of State for Transport. Some of us are anxious that it should be published and that its recommendations should be widely known.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to say that he might wish to refer to that tragedy. I agree that the report was not published, but it should be published, because the public are entitled to see such reports. We are here today to try to obtain more safety at sea. If we can encourage people and in particular fishing organisations, to read such reports, they will know what the Department proposes to do about such matters.

Paragraph 6.7 of that report stated:

"Lives might have been saved had the ship's life rafts been fitted with hydrostatic release units so that they floated free when the ship sank. Merchant shipping notice M1173 recommends that such units are fitted in fishing vessels, and the tragedy of Mhairi L underlines this advice."

The Department of Transport report merely restates that the fitting of such units is a recommendation and not mandatory. We seek to introduce legislation which will make the requirement mandatory.

As my hon. Friend goes through the various devices, will he tell us approximately what percentage of vessels carry them, without legislation, and what percentage are foolhardy enough not to do so?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for asking that question. Unfortunately, I cannot give him those figures. I can only confirm that very many vessels do not have those devices. There is an urgent need for them to be fitted. We should not simply recommend that, but should make it mandatory. That is what I am seeking in my Bill.

Paragraph 5.2 of the report stated that a trawl had fouled a cable, and as it was likely that all hands were on deck—I want to reinforce the fact that all were on deck —in an effort to clear the cable, they would have been thrown into the water. As the vessel's life rafts were not fitted with hydrostatic units, and so did not inflate and float free, there is no doubt that the crew could not have survived for long. That terrible tragedy, which resulted in the loss of five fishermen's lives, illustrates how vital it is that the Department of Transport recommendation should now become obligatory.

If the cost of the unit were prohibitive, I could understand resistance from the fishing industry. However, a new hydrostatic unit, such as that approved by the Department of Transport, costs about £80. The unit also attracts a 25 per cent. grant from the Sea Fish Industry Authority and is tax deductible as a business expense. Is that too much to pay for saving the life of a fisherman? Is it too much to pay to avoid the tragedy of the widows and children left on shore? For too long we have relied on "M" notices to implement safety at sea measures that will save lives. Now is the time to introduce legislation that will allow fishermen to return from their dangerous work to the safety and comfort of their homes and families.

As I said earlier, I shall not deal with clause 3 now, because of its importance to the Bill. I shall deal with it later.

Clause 4 deals with wheelhouse visibility. I wish to make it quite clear that the clause is intended to apply to new vessels or to vessels undergoing major overhaul. Existing vessels will be exempted form the clause, because I am aware of the problems that its application could cause, especially to the inshore fishing fleet. I have been persuaded to exempt fishing vessels because I was made aware that many of those vessel owners had already taken steps to ensure that safety at sea measures would be incorporated in any modernisation.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified the position and confirmed that the clause will apply only to new constructions. Can he enlighten me on the meaning of subsection (3), which states:

"No such vessel shall be constructed nor repaired to return to sea".

Does that not cover existing vessels? There would be strong opposition to that from fishermen because of the expense of covering welldecks on fishing boats if existing vessels were obliged to fall into line with the provisions of the clause.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. An amendment will be introduced in Committee to provide for existing vessels to be excluded from the clause. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands that, because of the time factor and the method of drafting of the Bill—it must be done by hon. Members, not by the parliamentary draftsman—it was impossible to have full consultation. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matter will be dealt with.

The clause will require new and modernised vessels to be constructed in such a manner that the view from the conning position in the wheelhouse is not obscured by the superstructure. It is important for the safety of the crew that all new vessels or major modernisations should be so designed and capable of operation that the person in control of navigation has his view of the horizon obstructed as little as possible.

The boat builders must endeavour to foresee every operational condition for which the vessel is designed, with particular regard to the trim. For major modernisation, there is a requirement for the boat builders to ensure that any modification does not impair the visibility from the wheelhouse. It might be that, to achieve that end, the wheelhouse would have to be raised from the deck to maintain at least the previous standard.

The advent of new electronic equipment fitted for navigation and fish detection within small wheelhouses has curtailed forward visibility, which has caused collisions, with disastrous results. The clause is yet another measure to ensure safety at sea. It should be welcomed by the fishing industry.

Clause 5 deals with load lines. Fishing vessels are exempt from the legislation on load lines laid down in the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Act 1967. The reason is that fishing vessels are not loaded in the peaceful atmosphere of a port, when it can readily be seen when cargo is overloaded. When vessels are loaded at sea, it is difficult to observe whether they are depressed below the load line.

There is a provision that each vessel should have a stability book giving details of such information as maximum weight of cargo in various conditions. There is also legislation on the safety of fishing vessels, in particular the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970. The trouble is that load lines are not compulsory for fishing vessels, and if we want safety at sea, we must turn our minds to that aspect.

In a written answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—I am pleased that he is in his place this morning—on 15 February 1979 Mr. Clinton Davis, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, said that the working group on the occupational safety of fishermen had recommended the marking of safe working loads on fishing vessels, usually called the Plimsoll line. He said that work would be put in hand immediately in consultation with all interests concerned. That was 1979, but no legislation has been introduced.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) also raised the matter of the Plimsoll line with that same Minister during the Committee stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1979. He was assured that the question of load lines on fishing vessels carrying our bulk shipping was being actively considered. If we are to have safety at sea, that active consideration should have been concluded long before now.

I can understand the operation of a load line in port, where the water is flat and the lines in the water can be seen by someone standing on the shore. However, I cannot understand the operation of a load lire at sea, when the sea may be rough, and someone would have to get off the boat and stand on some other object to see whether the vessel had reached the load line.

We must recognise that modern vessels, with a massive amount of new machinery, must have some sort of a Plimsoll line to ensure the correct loading of the vessel. They must be able to measure capacity and the extent to which the loaded vessel will drop in the water.

Cargo vessels similarly do not remain in port all their lives—they go to sea and sail in rough waters. However, the Plimsoll line is applicable to them so it can equally be applied to fishing vessels.

I am grateful the hon. Gentleman for making the very point that I wished to make.

Surely the point is that if a vessel is loaded in a harbour it is possible to see in the calm water the effect of loading on the Plimsoll line, whereas it is more difficult to see the effect of loading when it takes place at sea. I think that that is a point that my hon. Friend will want us to discuss further in Committee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will take account of what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said.

The Plimsoll line is a means of persuading the captain to conform to loading regulations. The Minister is right, but it is practical to measure the weight of cargo taken on board a fishing vessel even in seas that are less than calm.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If a fishing vessel has a Plimsoll line, the inspectors will be able to see whether a fishing vessel is overloaded as it comes into port. Not long ago, there was a dreadful incident in the south-west in which a bucking fishing vessel went over because the catch shifted. How many more vessels must topple over, and how many more crews must drown, before we have legislation requiring load lines? Too many lives have been lost because of overloading. Clause 5 must be considered seriously, because history has proved the need for it. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that we will consider the matter in Committee. As I have said, the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for East Lothian raised the issue in 1979, but still nothing has been done.

Clause 6 covers smaller fishing vessels. It would ensure safety at sea for the crew. Clause 6(a) and (b) are at present implemented by most vessels because they are part of an M notice issued by the Department of Transport. Many of the vessels already carry a lifeboat or life raft, which is highly commendable, but they should be required to be fitted with a hydrostatic unit. The clause would make compulsory the wearing of lifejackets when working on deck and the provision of 10 per cent. extra lifejackets in case of loss or damage.

The size of fishing vessel to which the clause refers has suffered more than any other in terms of loss of life. The additional requirement is just another chance to ensure that a father returns to his wife and children, or that a son returns to his mother and father. The cost of a lifejacket is negligible compared with the cost of a fisherman's life. I hope that the clause will be welcomed by everyone in the fishing industry.

Clause 7 deals with debris at sea. Ever since the discovery of North sea oil, fishermen have experienced serious problems because of debris dumped at sea. I am aware of a fund called United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, which is supposed to deal with compensation claims by fishermen when a vessel's gear or catch are damaged by debris. Fishermen's problems were illustrated by a recent incident concerning the MV Faithful PD67. For those who do not know, PD67 means that the vessel comes from Peterhead, which is the largest fishing port in Europe and in my constituency.

The vessel is owned by my constituent, Mr. Walter Milne. He encountered oil-related debris at sea. It was a hawser which had been severed at both ends by cutting or burning. It took 32 hours to tow the obstacle back to Peterhead, and when the crane lifted it out of the water, its identity was established. My constituent was quite right when he told me about the sheer stupidity of those who had dumped the debris, in view of the danger to the vessel, the danger to his crew and the loss of his catch and of his gear. For 23 years Mr. Milne has watched with concern the dangers of dumping debris at sea. His view is shared by the whole fishing industry. He rightly says that fishermen will still be fishing in the North sea long after the oil men have gone; that is if many of them survive the dangers of dumped debris.

What are the chances of compensation for fishermen? The cost to Mr. Milne was £30,000. Loss of gear amounted to £8,000, crane hire to remove the debris was £650, divers' costs to inspect the damage were £475, additional fuel used to tow the debris back to Peterhead was £1,400 and the value of fish lost was £20,000 as the Faithful was pair trawling with the MV Sunlight, and both vessels lost their catch.

Mr. Milne applied for compensation. Did he get full compensation? No. He was offered, as he put it, "pennies rather than pounds". That is a scandal which the fishing industry has had to bear for far too long. I accept that proving who dumped the debris will not be easy, but if there was legislation under which to prosecute and fine culprits, and provision for full compensation for the owner of the vessel, that would be a major step forward and could prove to be a deterrent which rids fishermen of this great problem.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about getting rid of this hazard, and the clause is helpful, as it refers to debris from whatever source. Will he confirm, however, so that there is no misunderstanding in the oil industry, that there is already legislation which makes it illegal for oil industry people to leave debris after a wellhead has been closed off? There is firm legislation to ensure that the oil industry does not create such hazards for fishermen, so the clause is aimed at other parts of industry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not sure whether the point that he is trying to drive home is entirely covered by present legislation. I am led to understand that if an oil company wants to dispose of a rig which is no longer used for drilling, and the well has been closed off, it seeks the authority of the Department to lower the rig to the sea bed. That is not necessarily a satisfactory solution when dealing with debris. What my hon. Friend said must be taken on board by the Department, because, when the rigs are finished and the oil has dried up, there will be a massive amount of debris from skelton rig and other pieces on dismantling, which cannot be retrieved no matter how much care is taken. We should be careful, therefore, as debris could become an even bigger problem. As we have said many times, fishermen will be there long after the oil has gone. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to protect and safeguard the future of the fishing industry.

There is a drafting error in clause 8. It should provide:

"All persons of age 50 or less who sail in fishing vessels for the first time shall undertake".

The words "for the first time" have been omitted.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has limited the clause to those aged 50 or less, and has not included all entrants?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was advised that few people want to go into the industry for the first time when they are aged over 50. If the hon. Gentleman can provide examples and thinks that the limit should be raised, I should be happy to consider the matter in Committe.

Some years ago the Sea Fisheries Training Council reported that more than half of all United Kingdom fishermen had never had any training in survival, fire fighting or first aid, and that many school leavers went to sea without any instruction. The response to that was immediate, as the industry saw the need for safety at sea. During a period of two years, 3,200 fishermen were provided with a one-day course in survival at sea and fire fighting. The courses were arranged by a network of training centres which were set up near the main fishing ports. I have visited the centre in my constituency, which is run by Mr. William Milne, a training officer at Peterhead, where the north-east of Scotland training centre is located. The courses are excellent and give fishermen the necessary safety at sea knowledge to cater for any eventuality. The trouble is that the courses are not compulsory.

While I accept that the number of fishermen who have had no training in safety at sea is not now 50 per cent. of those who go to sea, it remains too high. One bad cog in the wheel can prevent any engine from running smoothly, and one fisherman on a vessel who is untrained in survival at sea can be a great danger to his fellow crewmen. The courses are neither difficult nor time consuming. If we are to ensure that all who sail in fishing vessels have had training in safety at sea, legislation must ensure that the training schools continue to exist and that the work carried out by dedicated officers is put to use.

That is an important point, because at present the courses are financed by the Manpower Services Commission and the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I understand that the MSC will be phased out in 1986, so some means will be required to finance the courses thereafter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that matter on board and say how the courses will be financed when the MSC goes out of existence.

Clauses 9 to 16 cover miscellaneous matters which are self-explanatory. Some clauses will need to be amended in Committee, particularly clause 12, under which the owner or skipper of a vessel should not necessarily be liable for the action of others. I shall be pleased to make such amendments, as in a Bill of this mature the drafting is bound to require revision. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his helpful suggestions about that clause and others. I am grateful to him for helping me consider matters before, rather than after, today's debate.

I return to clause 3, which deals with the compulsory wearing of life jackets on deck. I am well aware that when the clause was announced fishermen resisted it. That was mainly because they were unaware that the life jackets were not the traditional type which handicap men working on deck but are a new model which is neither cumbersome nor a problem to work in. It is a harness manufactured by Dunlop-Beaufort and is extremely useful. Unfortunately, time did not permit consultation with the fishing industry, which I should have liked, but fishermen will have ample time and opportunity to test this type of life jacket.

I apologise for arriving late, but I am afraid that Brisih Rail delivered me late, so I missed most of my hon. Friend's speech. Clause 15(3) states:

"For the purposes of section 7 'vessel' includes",

and then gives the definition. Why is that definition limited to clause 7, and what would the difinition of "vessel" be in clauses 3 and 1?

I shall consider that point in Committee and have it clarified if necessary. If my hon. Friend would like to comment further, he should drop me a line before the Committee stage, and I shall certainly consider his points.

The new design has been geared to the needs of fishermen. Too many lives have been lost at sea because fishermen could not get at their life jackets when disaster struck. Hon. Members who are involved in the fishing industry know that most fishermen have a life jacket on board, but under their pillows. I make no criticism of that. Although they have one, they cannot get at it when they need it. Many fishermen have been lost overboard because they were not wearing a life jacket. In many cases when a man falls overboard he strikes his head, is knocked unconscious and cannot reach a life line. When a man falls overboard, unconscious or otherwise, this new life jacket will automatically inflate. It inflates only when it hits the sea and the automatic release triggers the action. It can also turn a man over to be face up. Therefore, he will not drown, even if he falls in unconscious.

Fishermen must seriously consider wearing life jackets. I am aware that it is not the custom to wear life jackets on deck, but, as with seat belts in a car, it requires only one person to be saved when wearing a life jacket to prove the need for them. It will be difficult to persuade fishermen to use them constantly, and it has been said that implementing the legislation will not be easy. I accept that. It will be said that the life jackets are too expensive, but what is the cost of a fisherman's life? How many more widows and fatherless children must there be before the message gets home that fishermen who ply their trade in hazardous conditions are loved and wanted at home? If they are drowned at sea, they leave only sad memories and dashed hopes.

It has been my sad experience to visit the sorrowing relatives of the men on Ocean Harvest, from Macduff, which went down in October 1985, and those on the Bon Ami, from Whitehills, which went down on 20 December 1985, both with the loss of all hands. Since 1977, 89 fishermen from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) have been drowned at sea. I wonder how many of those lives would have been saved if they had been wearing life jackets with an automatic release which would have kept them afloat until the rescue services arrived. Between 1961 and 1980 there were 909 recorded deaths at sea involving fishermen. This ever-escalating figure is too high to be acceptable. I cannot repeat often enough that the number of widows and fatherless children who are left to mourn a husband and father drowned at sea is far too great. It is our responsibility, as legislators and caring people, to create greater safety at sea, through means acceptable to fishermen.

I would not for a minute suggest that fishermen do not apply safety at sea measures when they are out in the cold, dark, waters, but they, like all of us, are only human. As the motorist has been protected by the use of safety belts, which now have a proven record of accident prevention, the time has come to move forward and introduce legislation to save lives at sea. Such legislation will be difficult to enforce, but so was seat belt legislation. Time, experience and habit will bring the wearing of life jackets into everyday use at sea.

The Bill is not the end of the line of legislation for safety at sea. The safety group will continue to make new recommendations in its report to the Secretary of State for Transport, who will in turn lay them before Parliament in accordance with clause 9. The Secretary of State has power under the Bill to make amendments in the interests of greater safety at sea.

I am well aware of the great responsibility that the presentation of the Bill to Parliament brings to me and my supporters. I am distressed that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation should say that

"quite explicitly they cannot support the Bill in its present form."

I have always had the highest regard for this organisation, and I am disturbed that it has made such a comment when the purpose of the Bill is to save the lives of fishermen.

I am glad to say that yesterday I met Willie Hay, the President, Sandy Baird and Gilbert Buchan and took note of their concern about some of the Bill's clauses. I expressed my hope that they would accept the Bill, in the knowledge that it was for their benefit and that of their fishermen. I accepted that they would want to make constructive observations and have a full and technical dialogue with me and my colleagues who will steer the Bill through Committee, and promised to consult them fully, just as I am sure my hon. Friends will consult the fishermen in their constituencies. I told them that I would be pleased to discuss all aspects of the Bill with the SSF and any others. However, I must make it clear that I and my colleagues have had the courage of our convictions in bringing these measures forward and that we intend to complete the legislation, after the fullest consultation with all concerned in the fishing industry during the Committee stage.

If the Bill saves more fishermen from drowning, if it means fewer widows, sorrowing parents and fatherless children, and less need for tears or mourning, it will achieve that which many of my constituents have asked me to do. I promised that I would introduce a Safety at Sea Bill if ever I had the opportunity to do so. I was given that chance, and I commend the Bill to the House, in the hope that it will have a safe passage to the statute book at an early date.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his good fortune in drawing a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and even more on the good purpose for which he is using that opportunity.

It has been said that the legislation proposed in the Bill will not eliminate the tragedies that take place at sea, and one accepts that. Far more sophisticated vessels than fishing boats, such as liners with the most up-to-date lifesaving equipment, can get into trouble. However well ships are covered by such safety devices, inevitably the loss of life can be fairly high.

In recent years there has been a horrendous tale of loss of life at sea in the fishing industry — a far more dangerous industry in terms of fatalities than even the coal industry. It has been aggravated in recent years by small vessels being obliged to go into more dangerous waters. We had the tragic loss on 20 December of the crew of the Bon Ami.

Mr. Willie Hay, the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, has said that Scottish fishermen are not irresponsible and that they consider the safety of the crew. I cannot see that the Bill implies anything to the contrary. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, many of us wore safety belts in cars before legislation made it compulsory. There is little argument about the improvement that the compulsory wearing of seat belts has made in reducing serious accidents and death on the road.

In the Fishing News of 7 February Mr. George Sutherland, chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said:

"The industry should be left alone to settle its own affairs."

With respect to Mr. Sutherland, that is what the House cannot agree to, although we accept that the fullest consultation with fishermen should be maintained during the passage of the Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has said that he will do that.

The clause about distress beacons cannot be argued against. It is extremely important that the site of an accident at sea should be pinpointed as early as possible. Sometimes, crew members are in the water and it is vital, especially in the kind of weather that we are having, that they should be got out of the water as quickly as possible. The period of survival in low temperatures is extremely short. The distress beacon is an excellent suggestion.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has said that life jackets are not at the moment worn at sea, and that is understandable, for a good reason. They are extremely bulky, and men gutting fish on deck and doing other work on the vessel would be hampered greatly. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see the life jacket proposed in the legislation. I think that men wearing such a life jacket could work, even on a fishing boat in rough weather, without any undue obstruction to their movements. It is hardly any more obtrusive than the braces that we wear to keep up our trousers. It can be inflated by the action of seawater, and, when inflated, has a tremendous bouyancy that would maintain a fisherman, even in his heavy clothing, for a considerable length of time.

I think that the life jacket is a wee bit heavier than the galluses that I am wearing. However, the kind of braces that a fisherman wears to hold up his heavy waterproof trousers are similar to the size and shape of the life jacket to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

I accept that point. I was not speaking entirely to the last millimetre when I spoke about braces. The life jacket is a bit bulkier than that. However, compared with previous life jackets, it is virtually nonexistent. It is a great improvement. I feel that, with due respect to fishermen, once they have started wearing them, they will not be aware of them most of the time.

Some fishermen have said that they will stow the new life jackets away, and they will never be used. That attitude may be met in all types of industry. In the woollen trade there is a process for dirty wool that is called "teasing" and the air is full of dust all the time. By law, woollen mills are obliged to provide face masks for men working in teasing houses. I recall going to one of those places where the men were not wearing their masks because, they said, it was easier to work without them. However, the masks had been provided to the men for their safety, just as the Bill suggests that life jackets be provided for the safety of fishermen.

Fishermen are independent, but I hope and am confident, that, in time, they will accept the necessity for wearing these life jackets at all times, especially because of the excellent feature that men who are washed overboard unconscious are turned over face up in the water. That is a great thing in itself. The Bill also deals with load lines. When there have been heavy shoals of mackerel, I have seen vessels coming into Stornoway harbour—no doubt this happens in other harbours as well—loaded so dangerously low down that the hawser holes were almost at sea level. Fortunately, the weather was good, but if a sudden gale had come up, the ship would have been swamped. It is a good idea to ensure that the safety level is not exceeded.

I am not so sure about the point about debris at sea. There will be many difficulties. Fishermen losing a net or a trawl will have to pinpoint it and go out and collect it at a later date, at considerable cost. I hope that in Committee that part of the Bill will be carefully examined. I have no doubt that in the meantime the fishermen will make known their views on that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the call for some form of legislation to deal with debris at sea has come primarily from fishermen because of the great problems that they have experienced? I illustrated during my speech the long length of cable that Mr. Milne's fishing vessel had to drag back to port. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that there should be legislation to compensate fishermen for that kind of incident?

That is a fair point. I am aware that fishermen have been annoyed about debris, particularly since the installation of oil rigs in the North sea. However, my point is that fishermen will be caught by the clause and made responsible for creating debris. They might not be very happy about that.

Apart from the life-saving devices and other measures that are proposed in the Bill, I hope that comprehensive training courses will continue. I am glad that the Bill contains a training clause. The course should include sea survival, fire fighting, first aid and aspects of radio communication connected with sea rescue. It was a mistake to abandon the Sea Fisheries Training Council, but 90 per cent. of the men in the Western Isles fishing fleet are now trained in survival methods. I hope that survival disciplines will eventually be incorporated in the Bill.

I welcome the Bill. It is essential, and the time for it is now. I wish the Bill a safe and speedy passage. The numbers of tragedies to which we have grown accustomed in recent years may be decreased by implementation of the provisions in the Bill.

It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow in debate the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I, too, welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). It is quite an achievement. Hon. Members receive very little practical help with the drafting of Bills. This Bill is highly technical, and my hon. Friend has had little time in which to prepare it. When we refer, therefore, to amending it in Committee, we are not doing my hon. Friend an injustice. He has made a Second Reading speech that deals with the general principles of the Bill which we can use to build upon in Committee.

Fishermen have underestimated the time that my hon. Friend has had to hold detailed consultations with them. I am glad that some of the fishermen were able to attend yesterday's exhibition. I hope that before the Bill becomes law the exhibition can be taken around the fishing ports so that other fishermen may see it.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have been advised that Dunlop-Beaufort has advised me that it will be willing to take the exhibition around all the fishing ports in the country to demonstrate its hydrostatic unit and life-saving jacket.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that the exhibition will come to Fleetwood, because the manufacturers of this equipment are in the north-west of England. All hon. Members want safety at sea to be improved, but we have to remember the fears of fishermen about the cost of this new equipment. Times are so hard for the inshore fishing fleet at Fleetwood that undue pressure on costs would make life very difficult for them. However, the cost of this new equipment could be alleviated by a grant. My hon. Friend said that a 25 per cent. grant will be made available for purchases from the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I hope that the grant will be increased to more than 25 per cent.

My hon. Friend is suggesting that the grant of 25 per cent. ought to be increased. A vast amount of money is spent upon air and sea rescue services when there is a disaster at sea. It may be possible for the cost of air and sea rescue services to be diverted to the provision of distress beacons and other safety at sea measures. Ultimately this could lead to the equipment being provided free to fishermen.

I very much hope that that will happen. However, the cost of this equipment has to be taken into account.

I am also concerned about the date when the Bill will take effect. It is to take effect within six months of the Bill becoming an Act. We shall have to look at that point in Committee. We must ensure that sufficient equipment is available by the time that the Act takes effect. I was assured yesterday at the exhibition that there would be few problems about that, but we must ensure that we do not introduce regulations before the fishermen can comply with them because the equipment is not available.

Clause 3 deals with the wearing of approved life jackets. The new style of life jacket was graphically described by the right hon. Member for the Western Isles and by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. It is a new departure. These life jackets will surprise fishermen who see them for the first time. They appear to be so easy to use without being a major encumbrance while performing fishing operations.

I support my hon. Friend's Bill. He has done a very good job, but I am sure that he will agree with me that during the Committee stage we can hone it and polish it until it is much better than it is now.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his good fortune in the ballot. I regard it as a rare privlilege to be one of the sponsors of his admirable Bill. I compliment him upon his moral courage and intellectual integrity during his searching re-examination of his approach to this deeply disturbing issue. He will not forget the incident when he gently chided me on 5 June 1984, when we were debating the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill. He said:

"I believe that there are sufficient safety powers in respect of the vessels that go the sea."—[Official Report, 5 June 1984; Vol. c. 245.]

I am gently chiding him now, although I admire his courage in coming back to the House with his Bill. I know how difficult fishermen can be to deal with. I speak with knowledge because I come from a family of fishermen. My mother was a fisher girl, and fisher girls are even more difficult to deal with.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Bob Allan and his colleagues in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation will re-examine their attitudes to this laudable and honourable Bill. In The Scotsman of 9 February 1984, a long article on fishing vessel safety, which is an important subject for Scotland, states:

"At the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Bob Allan, the chief executive, confessed to a degree of surprise at the figures"—

the figures of deaths and vessel losses. The article continued by quoting Mr. Allan:

"'Over the years we have been saddened and perplexed on the occasions when vessels are lost without apparent explanation.' In the wake of Holland-Martin"—

the committee of inquiry into trawler safety set up by Lord Wilson in 1969—

"everyone became very safety conscious and there had been a tremendous number of strides forward, with the Scottish fleet being more modern that the rest of the United Kingdom. 'Frankly, I don't think there is any more we can do, he said."

I have much respect for Bob Allan, but I regret to say that much more can be done. That is why I am privileged to be a sponsor of the Bill.

On Wednesday, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to give me some idea of the number of United Kingdom registered fishing vessels that had been lost since 1975. The figure is 424. That is an appalling loss of vessels and of men.

My first personal experience of tragedy at sea was when my uncle Midge died when the Hull trawler Boston Seafire encountered severe weather on its run down to Hull from the Norwegian fishing grounds. I remember as a young man several of my school friends losing their fathers when the Hull trawlers Lorella and Roderigo foundered off north-west Iceland in 1955. There have been many other losses. I remember also, because I had many friends on board the vessels, the three Hull trawlers that went down in 1968. That prompted the setting up of that useful and fine committee on trawler safety. One aspect of those tragedies that will stay with me always, which is why I welcome the Bill, is that only one man survived when those three trawlers foundered within days of each other. The mate of the Ross Cleveland, Harry Eddom, survived because he was wearing an immersion suit, albeit of a primitive kind.

I hope to be here for the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, but I have to go to Carlisle to take part in a televised debate on child abuse.

All the clauses are important, but clause 3, relating to the wearing of lifejackets, is an especially fine clause. I compliment the hon. Gentleman for helping to organise the display and demonstration yesterday. I put on one of the belts, and an official of the company inflated it. I was impressed by its lightness and the fact that it appeared, in the safe confines of the House of Commons Dining Room, not to impede or restrict movement of the trunk, arms and hands.

However, clause 3 should go further. Every vessel should carry immersion suits for each member of the crew. I believe that they cost about £300 each. I take on board what was said by the hon. Gentleman earlier, but every vessel should carry immersion suits. France, Norway, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany have regulations to ensure that immersion suits are carried on merchant and fishing vessels. I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain that that is the case. The clause should be amended to include the carriage of immersion suits. They will not always save lives, but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, if they save only a handful of lives, the costs—it is possible to obtain grants and tax relief on their purchase; but perhaps the Minister will correct if I am wrong—of acquiring, carrying and stowing the suits in a sensible place—not in the bunkers or tucked away in a locker under a bunk—will be worth while. As I said, the only man to survive in those dreadful tragedies off north-west Iceland was wearing an immersion suit. He clambered on to a life raft with three other members of the crew. Unfortunately, they were wearing only semmit and drawers. They all died, with the exception of Harry Eddom who was wearing an immersion suit.

Fishermen will not like me for saying that they should be compelled to wear safety helmets when working on the decks of their trawlers. They work in a harsh environment and the sea is never like Dylan Thomas's "fishingboatbobbing sea," or some the advertisements that persuade us to buy those horrible fish fingers. We should always buy fresh fish. The sea is almost always rough. On the last voyage that I made on an Aberdeen stern trawler, we were away for 15 days. I am a fair weather fisherman, but I had to suffer every day and night of that appalling trip in a force 5 or force 6 gale. Every member of the crew should wear a safety helmet when working on the deck of a trawler under those conditions. If they are worn on construction sites, why not on the decks of trawlers?

As the Minister stated in reply to a question that I asked earlier this week, accident and death rates among fishermen are far higher than in coal mining or construction. If I am lucky enough to be on the Committee, I give the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan warning that that is the type of amendment that I shall seek to make. It is essential that fishermen working in that harsh environment, on the heaving deck of a trawler, often with unprotected deck machinery, should have the benefit of safety helmets. The hon. Gentleman said that if someone is knocked overboard unconscious, a lifebelt would help him. If he is wearing a safety helmet, he might not be bounced over the side.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Sea Fisheries Training Council. I had the honour to serve on the council as an educational representative. I was thrilled and privileged to be part of a movement that developed training so widely in the fishing industry. I regret to say that the Government decided that it had to go. It was set up by a Labour Government. However, in fairness—I am almost as even-handed as the Social Democrats—the Government have given money to the Sea Fish Industry Authority to continue the training, and it must be continued.

All fishermen must be trained in survival techniques — not only in fire-fighting precautions, but in firefighting techniques. All fishermen should be medically examined annually and all young fishermen should undertake survival and fire-fighting training.

What is the position of the Department of Transport on the recommended code of safety for fishermen? I declare an interest, in that I was a member of the committee that produced this important booklet in 1976. Is it still in print and is it still distributed to skippers? If not, why not? It is a first-class code of safety for fishermen. The Merchant Navy has a code of safety which is much thicker than this booklet. What is the Department's position on protective gear for fishermen, especially safety helmets? Has research been undertaken into the effect on the stability of vessels caused by the conversion to shelter decks? I am not a naval architect, but I have often wondered about the problems created by such conversions. I welcome anything that makes the job of fishermen easier, but what will be the effect on stability?

Who will police the regulations? It is all very well to say, "You will carry a safety harness and safety helmets for the members of your crew," but we must ensure that fishermen comply with the regulations. Will we have a seagoing fisheries factory inspectorate, or will we ask the fisheries protection service, which does an admirable job in other areas, to police the regulations? I foresee immense difficulties. We all know of people refusing to wear protective gear in land-based industries. The Bill does not tackle that problem, but I am sure that it can be amended in Committee. I wish to hear the Minister's views on that. It is not true that many of the clauses could be dealt with by way of statutory instrument?

The Bill must be amended to strengthen it, but I give it a most sincere welcome.

I add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on securing first place in the ballot and on his choice of subject. Those of us who know him well are not surprised that he should have chosen to introduce a Bill on a subject that is dear to his heart. As a neighbour of his on the Moray coast, I can understand why. Like him, I have had the harrowing experience during my years in Parliament of visiting the bereaved, attending memorial services after the loss of vessels at sea and being conscious of the tragic heartache involved.

I pay tribute to my predecessor in the Banff part of my constituency, Mr. David Myles. He, too, took those duties seriously and discharged them with a quiet dignity that struck a warm chord on both sides of the House. It is also incumbent on me to pay tribute to the superintendents of the missions for the work that they do in those trying times, along with local ministers.

The concept of safety at sea and its promotion has, understandably, found support on both sides of the House today, and the Bill has an impressive list of supporters from all parties. It was also encouraging to see the number of hon. Members who visited the exhibition organised in the House yesterday, which enabled us to see the striking new equipment that is so relevant to the Bill.

I could summarise my position on the Bill by saying that I applaud its objectives, but I have several reservations about some clauses remaining in their present form. Perhaps I might deal with some of those in turn. In so doing, I join my hon. Freiend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) in saying that I do not attack my hon. Friend' s good intentions in drafting the Bill as he did. I know many of the restraints under which he had to work. However. as he recognised, some obvious flaws must be corrected and some definitions must be more tightly drawn.

Furthermore, if the Bill is to have the desired effect, Parliament must take the fishermen with it as far as it can. Given that there has not been full consultation with the leading fishermen's organisations, we must be ready to hear their point of view and do our best to work together to finalise legislation acceptable to all. I welcome the willingness of fishermen's leaders, such as Willie Hay and Sandy Baird, to enter into a dialogue with a view to making constructive suggestions as to how best to secure the passage of the Bill through the House in a form acceptable to the industry.

I am glad that my hon. Friend made it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to promote safety measures only on fishing vessels. Were that not the case, the Bill would be too wide-ranging and run the risk of attracting criticism from those with whom it is not primarily concerned.

Although clause 1, which deals with the provision of distress beacons, may not save the lives of fishermen, we should remember that it may lead to substantially fewer risks encountered by air-sea rescue services, such as the Nimrods from RAF Kinloss and the Sea King helicopters from RAF Lossiemouth, both in my constituency, and to which I also pay warm tribute for the work that they do. They are often required to search for long periods in wretched and dangerous conditions after a fishing vessel is believed to have gone down.

The clause will also help to relieve the heartache of the widows and parents ashore, many of whom have repeatedly told me of their anguish when their men's bodies cannot be found and brought home for a proper burial. Against that background, the cost of the beacon and the hydrostatic release seems small indeed.

Clause 3, which provides for the compulsory wearing of lifejackets, will be the most controversial measure. It is perhaps natural that an industry composed of individuals should be suspicious of such compulsory requirements. Men who spend their lives pitting their wits against the elements may think that they already take sensible precautions and resent being told what to do by Parliament. They have two key questions to ask. First, is there a design on the market which allows fishermen to carry out their essential duties with the minimum of discomfort and interference? Secondly, is there a design robust enough to withstand the normal rigours of their daily work? Many of us have seen the exhibition and tried on the new equipment. I hope that more facilities will be provided to allow such equipment to be readily seen and tried at first hand by fishermen round our coasts.

If there is such a design, could recent tragedies have been avoided by wearing such lifebelts? If there is evidence in the affirmative—I believe that there is—Parliament must be prepared to take the lead and, if necessary, impose its view on a suspicious industry. The parallel has been drawn with seat belts. I was a late convert to the compulsory legislation. To begin with, I considered it to be an intrusion on liberty, but the facts are chiels that win a day, and in this case clearly they have their place. The precise extent of any enforcement, the nature of any penalty and, more particularly, the question of upon whom any penalty might be imposed are surely matters better kept for further and fuller exploration in Committee.

With regard to clause 4, dealing with wheelhouse visibility, I am glad that my hon. Friend has made it clear that the clause cannot remain in its present form, that it will need substantial redrafting and that it will not apply to vessels already fishing. That will certainly allay a number of fears.

In conclusion, these few remarks will have shown my keen interest in the Bill, as well as my reservations about some of the clauses as they now stand. Those reservations can be fully explored in Committee. Meanwhile, I join in wishing the Bill, if not a wholly smooth voyage, at least a very worthwhile passage through the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious and damaging allegation by Mr. Alan Bristow last night that he was offered a knighthood if he would sell his shares in Westland, have you received any intimation of a statement from the Prime Minister today? If not, as the Leader of the House is in his place, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the wish of the House for an early and authoritative statement? There has been a denial by a No. 10 spokesman, but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, truth is stranger than fiction and misunderstandings occur. The matter should therefore be cleared up today ahead of a weekend of otherwise damaging speculation.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been authorised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to say that no authority to offer an honour to Mr. Bristow has been sought or given, and no approach has been made to my right hon. Friend that any such offer be considered. She has asked me to say that she would have dismissed any such approach out of hand as a total abuse of the honours system. No member of the Government nor anyone acting on their behalf has made any offer of an honour to Mr. Bristow or tried to bring pressure to bear on him in any way.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we understand from that statement that the Prime Minister was actually consulted on this occasion? Has she also consulted her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the chairman of Central Office?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement is as I have said and contains the remarks that I have been authorised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make.

rose—

Order. This is a point of order. It is not in order to cross-question on a point of order. If the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) wishes to speak, it must be on a point of order to me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an increasing habit for points of order, which seem to be raised with some understanding between the two Front Benches, to be used as an excuse. These questions of patronage are extremely important. As one who has stood aside from the patronage system and not allowed my party to be involved in it, I feel that I am entitled to make some comments.

The Leader of the House, with the authority of the Prime Minister, has made a very full statement. There are many questions to be raised about patronage. We know that 11 private sector industrialists who received peerages from 1979 to 1985 worked for companies which gave £1,850,000 to Tory party funds and that 44 of the 64 people working in the private sector who received knighthoods contributed—

Order. That is not a point of order for me. The right hon. Gentleman's opening words were entirely legitimate, but not his latter words.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for statements of this kind— they are, in effect, statements—to be made by the Leader of the House under the guise of points of order and then not to be subject to questioning? I believe that we have a legitimate—

Order. I was asked originally whether I had received any request for a statement to be made on this matter. I had not.

I wish to raise—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that he must raise points of order with me. I have ruled, and it is a well-known practice of the House that we cannot have an exchange on a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker I am referring to the way in which the House is being manipulated. The Leader of the House has read an authorised statement. I appreciate that you were not aware of what was happening and I am not in any way challenging you. I am questioning the practice between the two Front Benches whereby the shadow Leader of the House raises a point of order, as he is perfectly entitled to do and is right to do on a matter of such great importance, and this is followed by a detailed statement from the Leader of the House quoting the Prime Minister and using the authority of the Prime Minister. We are then asked to believe that we are not entitled to ask questions on that statement. This is the second time that it has happened this week.

Other parties in the House have rights, and the people of this country have rights. We are getting fed up with the conspiracy between the two Front Benches. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of minority parties and the wider public.

I know nothing about conspiracies between Front Benches. I received notice of a point of order from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. That was perfectly legitimate. He asked whether I had received a request for a statement. I have received no such request. I fully understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). It is up to him, if he wishes, to raise a point of order, which he has correctly done.

rose—

Order. There is nothing further that I can say on this. It is not a matter for me. I will take a different point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way associating myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), may I say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked on a point of order whether you had received a request for a statement. The Leader of the House replied to that on a point of order but then went on to make a statement which seems to us to have had nothing whatever to do with the point of order.

If the Leader of the House or anyone else rises on a point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, but then proceeds to make a separate statement, is it not in order for you to allow him to be questioned on that statement? Is it not a gross abuse of the House for the Leader of the House to shelter behind a point of order to avoid being questioned on a substantive statement?

It would not be in order for me to allow questioning, as that would be equivalent to allowing a private notice question or something of that kind. This was a point of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is accepted practice that when Ministers, including the Leader of the House, make substantive statements, not about the procedure of the House but on a substantive issue, as this clearly is, Members have the right to question the Minister concerned. The Leader of the House has just made a clear statement on a substantive issue, but we are denied the opportunity of questioning him. How can we have an opportunity to question the Leader of the House on the statement that he has made?

I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the usual channels, which are well recognised, are the place to ask for a statement on this important matter on Monday.

rose—

Order. This is a private Member's day. There is a statement to follow. There is nothing that I can say on this matter. It is not a matter for me. I am not party to a point of order or the response to it. It has nothing to do with me.

rose—

Order. I cannot answer questions on this. What can I say?

rose—

Order. There is nothing that I can say on this. I will take one more point of order from the Front Bench.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order.

The assurances from the Government would normally have been accepted had not the Prime Minister used the threat of withholding honours from civil servants who were in dispute during the Civil Service strike. There is an important point for the Chair. It must be a matter of great concern to the House and to you, as Speaker of the House, when such have been the activities of the Prime Minister and her Ministers— [Interruption.] This is a point of order, and I am coming to the point. Such a web of manipulation, evasion and connivance has been spun that even a hard-headed business man can seriously believe that a genuine offer was made to him.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going into the substance of the matter. I know nothing about offers being made to anyone.

The important issue, Mr. Speaker, is that the integrity of the House, as well as that of the Government, is involved. What we have seen this morning is the inability of the House to question Ministers on an allegation that it is essential, in the public interest, to have clarified as quickly as possible before too much damage is done both to the Government and, more importantly, to the integrity of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell us what action you can take to protect the integrity of the House. Secondly, I ask you to tell us whether you will ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on Monday.

It is not for me to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement.

rose—

Order. As this is a private Member's day, I shall take one question from Back Benchers in equity to them. I call Mr. Heffer.

I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure. I have always understood that whenever a Minister makes a statement in the House he has to do so on a point of order. That is done because the statement is being made during the normal proceedings of the House — for example, during a Second Reading debate or any other business. I have been a member of this place for 21 years and that has always been my understanding. The Minister having made a statement, Members have the opportunity to question him on it. It is your right, Mr. Speaker, to determine how long will be allocated to questions after the statement has been made, but when a statement is made surely Members have the right to ask the Minister questions on it.

I am bound by the rules of the House, and the House knows that I am the custodian of those rules. The matter was raised with me on a point of order and I had no knowledge that the Leader of the House proposed to say anything. He indicated to me—

rose—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman indicated, following the point of order of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that he wished to respond, and I allowed him to do so. I had no knowledge that that would happen. Mr. Peter Shore.

Another Front Bencher.

I wish to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have been placed in considerable difficulty. It is true that I rose in my place on a point of order. My purpose was to press for the Prime Minister to make a statement. The Leader of the House then took the opportunity of making a statement. It has been properly said that, if a statement is made, it must be subject to further cross-examination under the rules of the House. That is why I took the liberty of asking a supplementary question. I assumed that the Leader of the House had made a statement. We are either dealing with a statement, or a half statement, or with a point of order.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement and our inability to pursue it further, I press again for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister later today and not on Monday.

I have no responsibility for statements. If the Leader of the house wishes to make a statement, that is a matter for him, not for me. I dealt with the matter as a point of order.

rose—

As this is a Back-Bench Members' day, I realise that there is anxiety to protect that part of the business. I recognise also the more general point of interest that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Therefore, I suggest that the matter is proceeded with through the usual channels.

rose—

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Steel.

May I make a suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, to which I do not ask you to react immediately? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you read the report in the Official Report of these proceedings and the report of the proceedings that took place on Tuesday, when the Leader of the House made a business statement on a point of order. I ask you to read both reports and then to decide whether there should be a private discussion between yourself and the Leader of the House to stop the practice of statements being made in response to points of order.

That is a wise suggestion, but I do not know whether I should be involved. Perhaps it is a matter in which all the parties should be involved.

rose—

Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Gentleman.

This is a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order if it is directed to a different subject. I ask him to bear in mind that this is private Members' time.

I bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am concerned that those on the Front Benches have intervened on about six occasions while I have been in the Chamber attempting to raise a point of order. The occupants of the Front Benches should be concerned about Back Benchers' time as well. The Government should be concerned about Back Benchers' time. It is conceivable that if the business had proceeded in the proper way, the issue before us would have been dealt with by now.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the business statement was made the other day on a point of order, I took up the issue. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that most of those in the Chamber at the time agreed with me and took it for granted that the practice of making statements in that way would cease. We have witnessed this morning another example of the Government Front Bench, and the Leader of the House particularly, taking the opportunity to get away with making a statement without that statement coming under close examination.

I believe that it is the job of Mr. Speaker at all times to protect the interests of those on the Back Benches as well as those on the Front Benches, whether they are Privy Councillors or not. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wise if in future you used your discretion to ensure that you take the opportunity to penalise the Government, if they try to get away with this sort of tactic again, by allowing the House to question the Minister who has made the statement. If that is done, the Government will cease this practice.

There is a good deal of sense in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think also that the leader of the Liberal party has made a wise suggestion. We shall move on to the private notice question of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After consulting Hansard, may I say it seems that the only way that you can be relieved of the predicament in which you have been placed by the Leader of the House, who made what was clearly a statement on a point of order, is for him to repeat that statement with any other additions that he might wish to make after business today. There are precedents for that procedure. I would urge that that course be adopted. Having heard that, perhaps the Leader of the House will now say that he will comply with the Orders of the House because he has breached them and placed you in a difficult and embarrassing position.

He could do it now.

It would be preferable if he would do it now.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you clarify the difference of understanding about what constitutes a point of order? As I understand it, a point of order relates to procedure and not to the substance of any matter. When the Leader of the House rose, you were not to know whether he was courteously going to tell the House when the next statement about the matter he mentioned would occur. The House is aware that you in no way caused the difficulty, Mr. Speaker. In that case, would it not be for the benefit of all, and the procedures of the House, without taking any further time from private Members' business, for the statement to be repeated at 2.30 pm this afternoon so that the substance of the matter may be subject to the normal questioning after a statement?

It is not the responsibility of the Chair to call for statements, but I take the point. I understood that the leader of the Liberal party suggested that such matters should be discussed through the usual channels. That is perhaps the best method of dealing with them.

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about what action he intends to take in response to the disclosure that cocaine kits are being sold in London.

I share the concern that is felt by right hon. and hon. Members over this attempt to make money through the encouragement of drug misuse. I understand that such kits are made up of everday articles, the sale of which is not in itself an offence. The police would, however, respond immediately to any suggestion that illegal drugs were being sold with these kits. I shall review again the practicability of making the sale of these kits a criminal offence.

The Minister will be aware that the entire nation must have been shocked to see on last night's television news, and to read in today's press, how easy it is to buy cocaine snorting kits in London, following complaints by some of my hon. Friends about a similar abuse in Scotland. Is he aware that my assistant visited Carnaby street this morning and saw displayed in the shop window of an establishment named "Carnaby Centre" several items which could be employed for drug use, together with a promise of more being available in the basement, which is blatantly named "The Head Shock". We note what the Minister has said, but we require some commitment for action.

We ask the Government to consider inserting an amendment in the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill, or a provision in the Budget, or both, to seek to prevent these activities. The Home Secretary is the police authority for London and he will understand that we expect action from him to stamp out this scandal.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been extremely grateful to the Opposition, including himself and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for the assistance that they have given in facilitating the passage of the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill. I should like to have the chance of discussing this matter with him or the hon. Member for Erdington.

It seems that the problem of selecting the right vehicle for changing the law is not the central one. The problem lies in finding a way of penalising the sale of what is a collection of everyday items such as mirrors, which have a normal use. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that at a time when the entire community is outraged by the prospects of drug misuse—we saw on last night's news bulletin the damage that can be caused to newly born babies following their innocence in the womb by cocaine misuse—and the evidence that makes it clear beyond peradventure that cocaine is utterly destructive of life and not a champagne drug. Against that background, we should respond to the challenge and the affront to us all that is represented by the Carnaby street window display. I hope that we can have some discussions about that and bring forward a solution that the House would want to endorse.

I remind the House that this is a private Member's Bill day and, in fairness to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), I must draw attention to the fact that the statement concerns cocaine kits being sold in London and nowhere else.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in greater London that such kits, which are clearly designed for one despicable purpose, are readily available in shops in greater London? Does he understand that his statement will be warmly welcomed, provided that it leads to prompt and effective action to deal with the problem once and for all?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that there is a big difference between items which are sold individually which have all kinds of uses and a pack which is specially produced containing items for the specific use of taking drugs.

That is plainly the point that we must address in trying to see whether the prohibition can apply. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government supported the successful attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) last year to deal with the sale of glue-sniffing kits, although they contain the substance itself — glue — whereas these kits do not contain prohibited drugs. However, I assure the House that having seen on my visit last April the problems that the paraphernalia cause in the United States, no one is more enthusiastic than me to find a workable way of outlawing it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall set to the business of finding such an answer with appropriate vigour.

Does not this incident suggest that the Government's approach to the drug menace is not on sufficiently broad a basis and that we should look at dangerous drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and cannabis, to see who is marketing them, to whom and why there is a demand for each of them? Ought we not then to tackle each of the different markets and encourage people to resist the temptation to buy the drugs and not only prevent people from selling them?

That is exactly what we do. The Government have recently announced the continuation of a prevention campaign aimed particularly at heroin, that campaign having had most encouraging results for those most at risk — the teenage population. We have a sophisticated approach which recognises the differences between certain drugs and their attractiveness. I want to make it clear that, although we have focused on heroin as public enemy No. 1 in Britain, cocaine is every bit as grave in its impact and no one should be attracted to taking it by the fact that these rather twee little kits are available both here and across the Atlantic.

Does not the information demonstrate yet again the alarming spread of drug misuse in London? Therefore, is it not sad that the special drugs money initiative launched by the Secretary of State for Social Services has largely bypassed London? Will he now make representations to ensure that facilities in the capital for combating drug misuse are increased?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that money has bypassed London. It has not. He will know from his own community of the support that is being given to the City Roads project and to other community groups. Indeed, I visited Islington and sought to lend such weight as I have to the real efforts that are being made in his borough. I can assure him that the interests of London are in no sense being neglected.

Will my hon. Friend consider again whether existing powers give him the right to ban the sale of everyday items, bearing in mind that last year the Government used existing powers to ban the sale of 120 million erasers on the flimsy ground that they might encourage children to sniff them? Given the use of the powers then, why cannot exactly the same priorities operate for these kits?

Obviously, as part of looking again at the problem I shall take account of that, but I want the House to understand that this is a matter that the United States has already had to confront. There is no federal law prohibiting the sale of such paraphernalia in the United States because of similar difficulties. A recent development that is of some use is a draft model that has been produced by the drug enforcement administration for use by individual state assemblies. Obviously, as part of our efforts to find an effective way of dealing with the matter in the United Kingdom, we shall want to look at that. However, I urge the House not to think that the banning of items in everyday use such as a mirror, which even hon. Members would acknowledge using occas ionally in private moments, is an easy matter. We must be clear that we have made a distinction between those everyday items when sold together and those everyday items when sold separately.

The Minister and the Government lay great emphasis on the campaign that they are waging against drug abuse and the related activities, so why has it taken a television programme to highlight the problem in London before steps, in the form described in his statement, are taken? As the Government are taking steps in London, and as the Minister will have seen the early-day motion, will he put pressure on his ministerial colleagues for similar steps to be taken in Scotland as the same problem has existed there for some time now? The Edinburgh study, which I hope the hon. Gentleman has looked at, and the early-day motion, points surely to a causal link between the rising level of unemployment among young people and the rising use of drug abuse in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman makes a variety of different points and I cannot deal with them all beyond saying that no link between the taking of drugs and unemployment has been established. The taking of drugs is much more closely linked to pressure from friends and curiosity.

Of course, a television programme was not needed to draw our attention to the problem. I have already made it clear that I have been aware of the problems of paraphernalia from my visit to the United States. But we have tackled the problem of drug misuse by establishing priorities. For instance, a Bill dealing with the important matter of drug traffickers' assets is going through the House. Now that it appears that the paraphernalia problem is likely to be more of a feature in Britain than we expected might be the case, we shall obviously want to look again at the practicality of making it illegal. Not every dimension of a difficult problem such as drug misuse can be tackled at once and priorities have to be established.

There are Scots in London, and I am one of them. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) specifically mentioned Scotland. May I give some reflection on something which could be helpful?

No. The hon. and learned Gentleman should ask a question, not give his reflection.

Then let me ask a reflective question, Mr. Speaker. If a person invites someone into his shop to buy a bank robbery kit by advertising it, that would be a criminal offence at common law. Any assistance to commit a criminal offence is an offence. If someone invites a person into a shop to buy something which will help him to take a drug, that is also a criminal offence. Why are they not prosecuted in London?

I am not sure that my hon. and learned Friend's knowledge of the law of England quite matches his knowledge of the law of Scotland. As I have said, we want now to look at the practicality of making the sale of such kits unlawful. I know that that will receive the co-operation of all parties in the House. If an easy and practicable way can be found, it will be inserted in legislation. It can be said about all hon. Members that we are wising up to the problem only after a television broadcast, but now that the House recognises that this is a problem that may require legislative action we must look with all appropriate expedition at ways in which that might be done.

I can understand the Minister's difficulty, but will he sit down and look again with the Metropolitan police at the film taken in Carnaby street and decide whether an offence was committed, because some of us believe that it was?

If an offence was committed, I can assure the House that the police will be alerted to that and will need no prompting from me. I saw the film and it caused me considerable distress. I hope that I have shown to the House today that, just as we have tried to tackle with vigour other manifestations of drug misuse, we shall want to look at this one. That is something in which all of us will have a part to play.

The hon. Gentleman referred to expedition. Will he discuss the problem with the Minister for Health? Cocaine sniffing and use of these kits in London have become socially acceptable. In 1983, there were fewer than 100 deaths from the taking of heroin, methadone and the hard drugs but, in the past three years, there has been a flood. The Minister is right to give cocaine abuse higher priority than all other drug abuses.

The problem in the United Kingdom, as in other countries, is poly-drug misuse. Of the drugs that are misused, heroin is the most prominent, with amphetamines coming second. We have rightly been put on notice about the glut of cocaine available in South America and about the possibility of Europe becoming flooded with cocaine as a result of the drug traffickers' wish to develop a further market.

Although cocaine misuse remains a problem in the United Kingdom, in recent months there has not been the great growth in cocaine misuse that some had predicted. We are not at all complacent about that. Customs has four teams of specially designated officers to deal with cocaine, which has led to remarkable drug seizures. Obviously, we shall continue to look at all aspects of the cocaine drug problem, including this one, to ascertain whether more needs to be done.

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, pending fresh legislation, there are powers under the existing law to deal with this specific case? First, will the hon. Gentleman consider the law relating to incitement? Prosecutions for incitement are relatively rare. The facts of this case may well give rise to a prosecution for incitement. Secondly, will he consider the analogy of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 in the offensive weapons-type case, where a perfectly innocent implement becomes an offensive weapon and the onus of proof shifts? That power might also fit this case. Will the hon. Gentleman consider those two specific proposals?

I know that the solicitor for the Metropolitan police will want to look at all the legal points that have been made. This reminds me somewhat of President Lincoln at the height of the civil war who, on being told how easy it was to deal with certain matters, said, "The trouble is that all the best generals are writing for the newspapers". I know that the solicitor for the Metropolitan police, whose grasp of the criminal law is, no doubt, more than adequate, will want to look at these points. If it is as easy as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, action will be taken. If it is not as easy as he suggested, as I suspect, it may be for us to take action. That is the gravamen of what I have been saying to the House.

I have been asked to make a statement concerning the position of non-industrial Civil Service trade unions and their possible establishment of political funds.

Political funds are unnecessary unless the Civil Service trade unions are proposing to participate in party political activities or to campaign for or against political parties or candidates. Provided this is not the main purpose of their campaign material or activities, they remain free, like other trade unions, to spend money from their general funds to promote and to defend their members' interests. This was the position before the Trade Union Act 1984 came into force and remains the position now.

If, wholly unexpectedly, unions were to experience difficulties in the courts on challenges that money had been wrongly spent from their general funds of activities to defend or improve their members' terms and conditions of employment, the Government would be ready to contemplate changing the law.

Any union that proposed to establish a political fund would have to consult its members by secret ballot. It is important that, in casting their votes, all union members are fully aware that a fund is not necessary unless party political activities are planned. Union members should know also that the creation of such funds will not be seen as in keeping with the political neutrality of a Civil Service that has to serve Governments of any political persuasion. Moreover, in the Government's view, political affiliation — a further but separate possible step — would run wholly counter to this need for political neutrality.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Government's view is that these ballots are not about affiliation to the Labour Party? Is he aware that the question that members of some Civil Service unions are about to answer is set by the certification officer, a Government official? Does he agree that members of the Civil Service unions in question are being asked whether they should be allowed, not forced, to pay into a political fund?

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that, if it is acceptable for companies which advocate and benefit from privatisation to have a voice in Parliament through their links with Members of Parliament, it is right for those workers who will suffer and have suffered from privatisation to have a view?

Is it not plain that the proposition in the statement—that, if a union is taken to court on the ground that its general funds had been wrongly spent on activities to defend or to improve its members' terms and conditions of employment and the union suffers a massive setback in the courts, the Government will then consider the position — is completely unacceptable? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no union can possibly act on the basis of hope but no certainty that its activities are legal? The hon. Gentleman's comments are utterly and completely unreasonable.

Is it not quite staggering that the Government who have passed legislation and insisted on changes in the Trade Union Act 1913 have now made a statement which implies that they do not know what their own legislation means? If the Government are not sure what it means, how can the unions know?

As for the references to political neutrality, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Civil Service Union and the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, both of which are about to hold a political ballot, are in the "politically free" category? Is he aware that, when the Post Office was a Government Department, the then Union of Post Office Workers, which is now the Union of Communication Workers, and the then Post Office Engineering Union, which is now the National Communications Union, had political funds? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industrial Civil Service is represented by trade unions such as the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, and the Transport and General Workers Union, virtually all of which have political funds?

There can be no justification for the statement. The Minister should withdraw it at once.

The reason why I made a statement was that I was asked to make one. I congratulate the hon. Lady on having asked a series of questions that was considerably longer than my statement.

The provision in the Trade Union Act 1984 which brought the 1913 Act up to date has not altered the freedom of trade unions to promote or to defend their members' interests where the main purpose of such activities is not party political. Questions on interpretation of that legislation are, of course, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment.

Does the Minister recall that, during the passage of the 1984 legislation, we constantly complained about the ambiguity in the legislation on balloting for political funds?

No.

Yes. We pressed for a clear indication in the law that people should be allowed individually to contract in to political funds for the purpose of supporting political parties. The Government refused to do that. They brought this ambiguity on themselves. Surely the current position is that the political funds are not wholly in existence to support political parties. Indeed, the unions have won the ballots on the basis of that statement. The Minister is wrong. Have not the Government doubly brought this ambiguity on themselves by creating such antagonism, generally and individually, in the Civil Service?

The ambiguity to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not exist. There has not been a change since the 1913 Act. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to demonstrate, in terms of the wording of the 1913 Act compared with the 1984 Act, that such a change has occurred.

Why has it taken more than five months and a threat of legal action for the Inland Revenue to confirm that it will meet the obligations imposed by the 1984 Act on every employer to co-operate in the arrangements for holding these ballots on political funds? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Inland Revenue Staff Federation has received legal advice which is the total opposite of the Government's interpretation of the law, it would be better for the federation's members to establish a political fund in case a judge at some time in the future disagrees, as he would be entitled to do, with the Government's interpretation of the law? Is it not better for the union's funds to be safe than for the Government to be sorry?

The requests from the Inland Revenue Staff Federation are essentially matters for the chairman of the Inland Revenue. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the correspondence between the concerned groups. To determine the amount of assistance that it is reasonable for a Government Department to provide for campaigns relating to a ballot for a political fund and conduct thereof is a serious question. We are dealing with a novel issue.

Does the Minister realise that his statement was misleading? Does he recall that the 1913 Act, which established the need for political funds within trade unions, was a means of trying to constrain political activity, and it in fact failed? Does he remember that his 1984 proposals tried to put that right and failed yet again? Is not the statement a means of trying to redeem what has already been a complete failure? Is it not a fitting finale to a week of catastrophe for the Government which will herald a change not just of Prime Minister but of the party in government?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be going rather wide of the question that I am addressing. I repeat that the law relating to political funds in the 1984 Act has not changed from that in the 1913 Act.

Is that not a bare-faced attempt by the Government to head off the prospects of a victory in the ballots organised by the IRSF and CSU to establish political funds to defend their members' interests against the constant denigration by the Prime Minister and her Government of the Civil Service role? How can the Minister claim that a political fund leads, inevitably, to party political affilitation when a few moments ago he drew the distinction between a political fund and affiliation to a political party? Will he confirm that it is open to any trade union to establish a political fund without affiliating subsequently to a political party?

As I said in my statement, I acknowledge that separate issues are involved. The Government are making known their views about the establishment of political funds. Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, provided the law is complied with fully, the matter is entirely for the members of the trade unions involved.

Will the Minister confirm that the object of the exercise is to prevent Civil Service unions campaigning on issues which affect the future of their members? In those circumstances, is it not preposterous for him to suggest that he is not trying to inhibit such activity when he is talking about them spending money on the production, publication and distribution of any literature, document, film, sound recording or advertisement, the main purpose of which is to get people to do something—to wit, to vote? If the closure of a Civil Service unit is threatened directly by one political party and not the other, is it not absurd to say that the people working there cannot campaign and use their money to save those jobs by saying that they should vote for one person and not the other?

My constituency neighbour has missed the point. The purpose of the statement is to make it clear that the activities which the hon. Gentleman has described are properly fundable out of general funds.

The Minister made the point that the general fund could be used as long as it was not used for party political purposes. Has not the change that has taken place under this Government in relation to the Civil Service become party political? Was not one of the Prime Minister's earliest phobias the Civil Service, with a selective public pay policy and her campaign against public sector pensions? Are not the Civil Service unions genuinely questioning how far they can use their general funds to protect themselves against the Prime Minister's meddling?

The law remains the law. The purpose of the statement was to bring home the fact that the activities in which the Civil Service may wish to enter, provided they are not party political, can be funded out of general funds.

Is the Minister aware that as a result of his statement he has almost certainly given an added boost to the prospect of success in the ballots? Is it not a scandal that we have a Government who have been telling civil servants that it is their job to defend Ministers all down the line but that they are not allowed to defend themselves against the Minister by having a political fund? Why are civil servants picked out for special treatment? They occasionally have to suffer the sack. They have to fight for their wages. They have to do all the things that many other workers have to do. Some of them need to buy Labour Research, like the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Social Democrats who used all the information from it this morning for the point of order that he raised.

As I said in my statement, union members should also know that the creation of such funds will not be seen as being in keeping with the political neutrality of the Civil Service which has to serve Governments of any political persuasion. The Government have made the statement merely to have those issues of public interest in the public domain.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, I warmly endorse the spirit of the Bill whose Second Reading was moved by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I have listened intently to all the speeches, and I have come to the conclusion that the standard of the debate that we have in this place on a Friday often exceeds by a long measure some of the party political dogma and dog-fights that we have on other days of the week.

I start by paying tribute, as other hon. Members have, to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced the Bill. In a very short space of time, he has been assiduous in putting together a Bill dealing with detailed and important points. The House should rightly pay tribute to his continuing and genuine interest in a subject that affects not just his constituency but other parts of Scotland. Hon. Members have also referred to the exhibition that was organised in another part of the House earlier this week. It was extremely instructive. The hon. Gentleman also takes the credit for organising that exhibition.

The hon. Gentleman is correct in his main intention that underlies the essence of the Bill, which is that statutory requirements are now essential. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), who said quite rightly that we must attempt to take the industry and the fishermen with us on this matter. If there is disagreement and they do not want to operate statutory provisions, I believe that the House has a duty to take the lead and to make decisions, even if they are unpopular. However, we must obviously have full consultation with the industry.

Since coming to the House, I have been surprised at the amount of time that has, quite properly, been devoted to the structure of the fishing fleet, the common fisheries policy of the EEC, the details of quotas and so on. However, this is the first debate dealing with the specific question of safety at sea. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made an interesting speech on the matter. I know that, to his credit, he has raised the matter during Question time and on other occasions. We are certainly not having this debate before time.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan say that yachts would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has received a great deal of correspondence from the Royal Yachting Association, which has more than a passing interest in the Isle of Wight and yachting. In a letter on 3 February its chairman said:

"I can imagine riots on the ferries to the Island if all the passengers are made to wear life jackets in compliance with clause 3."

However, the hon. Gentleman's assurance should satisty the RYA and other interested parties.

I hope that there will be full and proper consultation. I quite understand that constraints on time have made it difficult to examine the fine detail of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has assured the House that he will consult on the detail before the Committee stage.

I hope that under clause 13, which deals with exemptions, we can include such events as local fishing festivals. The life jackets that are provided for in the Bill have been described as galluses that would suit the trousers of the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). If the Eyemouth herring queen were to come round St. Abbs head in Berwickshire next year wearing galluses, that would somewhat detract from the festival —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is physically demonstrating the life jacket to the House. I do not believe that it would add much to the ceremonial dress of the festival queen and her attendants. Such fishing trips—often with children on board—are undertaken only in fine weather, and the festival committee is a responsible body. Therefore, I hope that the herring queen and her equivalents in other local festivals will not have to wear the contraption that the hon. Gentleman has just waved above his head. I think that some angling trips, such as deep sea fishing, should also be excluded.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that clause 13 is a wide exempting clause. If the hon. Gentleman will remind me when we reach the Committee stage, we can discuss it then.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful response.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the industry has suffered some recent financial difficulties. When the European directive on mesh sizes comes into operation, the industry will face further financial liabilities. Therefore, we must remember that additional costs for installing the equipment provided for in the Bill could cause added difficulties to the industry. I am, however, aware that there are grants and tax concessions, but the industry has had to face many increased on-costs, such as fuel, and smaller vessels have suffered most from that. I hope that if the industry can demonstrate that the on-costs will be a critical factor in the difference between wide acceptance or wide reluctance, the Government will reconsider the grants and other incentives available through the Sea Fish Industry Authority.

I want further to clarify the point about exemptions. Clause 15 provides that vessels used other than for profit will be excluded.

That is good news.

Fishermen, by nature, are antipathetic to any additional bureaucracy or impositions that they think are unnecessary. They have to take risks which I would certainly never willingly take. I suppose that they get used to living in dangerous conditions at sea and so become a little blase or perhaps even complacent. Therefore, the House is right to take a close interest in all aspects of safety at sea.

I am aware that not all sectors of the industry are happy about the Bill, but they should now be satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's assurances to consider the detail in Committee. The Government should respond positively to the Bill. The hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) said that the Bill could be used as a basis on which to provide for other aspects of safety in the fishing industry.

No one has yet referred to the need for helicopters, especially in the north-west of Scotland. the Western Isles.

British helicopters.

Yes, we could use Westland helicopters. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has been very active in trying to obtain helicopters for that area.

The problems of sea debris are tackled well in the Bill. It is a positive and constructive step, which the industry should welcome. I know that training aspects are also causing concern. If the Manpower Services Commission withdraws some of its current support, that will be quite unforgivable. The Government should carefully consider that. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will say something about it when he replies to the debate.

I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the provision of an immersion suit, although I know that the costs of that could create difficulties for the industry.

The Social Democratic and Liberal parties welcome the Bill and look forward to continuing our discussions in Committee. I hope that we will achieve a Bill which not only fits the requirements of the industry, but measures up to the real fears that have been expressed in this interesting and useful debate. At the end of the day, hon. Members have a responsibility for ensuring that there is adequate legislation to deal with the safety of our fishermen who go down to the sea and do business in great waters.

I should like to add to the congratulations that have been heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). This is an extremely worthwhile Bill. The House's only regret at its passing into law is that we shall be deprived of the sight of my hon. Friend walking the Corridors of the House clad in a variety of interesting life jackets and bearing a distress beacon, no doubt because it is difficult to find him from time to time.

Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend has provided us with great interest and a fair amount of amusement occasionally during the past few weeks, but that is not to denigrate the great efforts that he has made in a short time to impress upon us the importance of the Bill. The Bill addresses an extremely serious matter, as those of us with constituency fishing interests are only too prepared to acknowledge.

My hon. Friend has been sensible to introduce a Bill that tackles several straightforward but nevertheless important issues. Clause 1 deals with distress beacons, the provision of which could have saved a great deal of time finding vessels in trouble. Delay has caused substantial loss of life. It is sad that the industry, which could have reduced the loss of life, has not acted as quickly as it should have done. We have an obligation to support legislation such as this if industries do not voluntarily take steps to reduce death or injury.

As for inflatable life rafts, my hon. Friend's useful provision will impose little cost on the industry. He was at pains to stress that little cost will be imposed on the industry or the masters of vessels by the Bill. Nevertheless, the changes will be exceptionally useful. He has given examples of how life could have been saved if such devices had been fitted.

There is some anxiety about clause 4, which deals with wheelhouse visibility. My hon. Friend has explained that vessels currently in use will not have to be modified except when they go into dock for substantial repair, and that the provisions will apply to new vessels. That explanation is useful. I am confident that the anxiety that the industry would face prohibitive expense, or that vessels would not be able to set to sea, as soon as the legislation went on the statute book will have been substantially relieved.

As for load lines, I cannot help but contemplate that, as a Mr. Plimsoll became rather famous for a certain piece of legislation, we might have the McQuarrie line when clause 5 becomes law. Perhaps the Bill itself will act as a testament to what my hon. Friend is doing. It has been said that it might be difficult to apply load lines at sea. My hon. Friend addressed that point when he said that inspectors would be able to see clearly whether vessels were overloaded when they came back to port. The Bill will encourage a habit among the fishing industry where there is none at present. The practice of overloading is occasional, but it would stop if it were known that there was a possibility of inspection and prosecution for regular overloading.

I am worried about clause 5. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) fell into my trap earlier. There is a difference between loading a vessel in flat water, where it can be seen when the weight pushes the McQuarrie line, if that is the appropriate thing, under the water, and loading the vessel with fish at sea. where there is not the slightest possibility of knowing at what point, were the water flat, which it most certainly is not, the line would be beneath the water. The test which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has suggested is that some nasty official can see that a vessel's McQuarrie line is below the surface back in the safe water of Aberdeen harbour. How is the fisherman to discover that the vessel is below the line when he gets back if he cannot tell when the load is put on?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who represents farming interests. If he represented fishing interests he would understand that fishermen know to the last cod what they can load. That is certainly true of those who sail out of Aberdeen harbour. The Bill would introduce a habit of not stretching the limit and therefore incurring danger. We are encouraging good habit and good practice. My hon. and learned Friend's fears will not be realised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan made another important observation. An increasing amount of gear is put on the decks of vessels, and it would be useful for the operators to see the effect that the gear has on the vessel's ability to contain the catch.

The provision of approved life jackets speaks for itself. The ones that I have seen in the useful demonstration that my hon. Friend has made available to hon. Members show that they are not the cumbersome items of apparel that they once were. They will not inhibit fishermen from carrying out their duties. Once again we are encouraging a good habit. My hon. Friend used the analogy of safety belts. Clunk-click every trip in the car has become a habit as well as a statutory requirement, and I believe that people would continue with the practice even if it were not legally required. I am not sure whether clunk-click is the right description, but the habit of wearing a life jacket will eventually become difficult to break.

I have some worries about the provisions concerning debris at sea. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the difficulties of drafing legislation, especially at such short notice, but, as drafted, there is absolute liability. It will be difficult to continue that. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that up in Committee. Some element of negligence must be introduced, or fishermen who sometimes have to cut gear or throw items overboard because of problems might be put in some difficulty. I know that my hon. Friend will address that matter in Committee.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting the Bill in one of the most able and comprehensive Second Reading speeches that I have heard. I do not want to make any allusions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, but if legislation were introduced on the same lines as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan has suggested in his Bill, the House would be most grateful. I congratulate him and wish him every success.

I join hon. Members in all quarters of the House who have congratulated the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his good fortune in the ballot and, especially, on his choice of subject for a private Member's Bill. It is no pun when I say that we shall give the Bill a fair wind.

One of the strengths of the House of Commons is that hon. Members come from different backgrounds, occupations and areas. It is amazing how, when hon. Members visit a constituency with which they have had no contact before their election, they become immersed in its work and begin to recognise the fears and anxieties of the constituents. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I probably know better than most the psychology, fears, anxieties, kinship, family affinities and communities of the fishing industry as we both come from fishing families. There were fishermen on both sides of my family. My late father went to sea at the age of 11 as a cook on the family drifter, Restless Wave, which sailed from Pittenweem. I spent many happy holidays as a youth, and even went to school for a short time, at Whitehills in the constituency of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Therefore, we have strong family connections with fishing, and when we hear of vessels, such as the Bon Ami, going down, it is not simply a statistic or a name flashed across the television screen, but families we have known for generations. We understand that kinship, and the heartaches of families whose kinfolk are at sea, waiting in weather such as we have today and wondering whether they will return.

Fishing has always been a hard and dangerous job and a tough life. My father always said to me, "Never go to sea." He would not necessarily have approved of my present occupation, but I am sure that he was glad that I never went to sea as a working fisherman. Conditions have improved and vessels are bigger and better built. There are much better navigational aids, weather forecasting and weather radio communications are better, and the work, which is still hard, has been helped by the invention and widespread use of hydraulic winches. Nevertheless, it is still a hard and dangerous business.

The statistics are chilling, and each time they are produced we wonder why they have not improved. I pay tribute to Dr. Mark Reilly of the department of community medicine at Dundee university, whose research work has helped to concentrate our minds on and brought together the facts. The loss of life and ships gives us great cause for continuing anxiety. The reports make it clear that fishermen are on average four times more likely to die in accidents than miners, and we have always regarded mining as the most dangerous occupation. Indeed, the mortality and accident rates for fishermen are much higher than for construction workers. Moreover, in mining and construction, the mortaliity and accident rates are improving, whereas in fishing they continue to grow worse.

In paying tribute to Dr. Reilly, would the hon. Gentleman not also wish to pay tribute to Professor Mair of Dundee university who has worked hard with Dr. Reilly to produce this essential information about the industry?

I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Professor Mair.

It is a fact of life that when a vessel is lost with its entire crew, it attracts the attention of the media, and involves the public. However, many individual fishermen go overboard, and they do not attract the same attention. Nevertheless the tradegy to the family is as great. We should not neglect to mention that, besides the loss of life, we are considering the severe accidents and injuries caused at sea. They must also be kept at the front of our minds. That is why I particularly welcome clause 9, which makes provision for a report to Parliament on all aspects of safety at sea, and for proposals for the improvement of existing regulations relating to safety at sea. We need a report, not merely "from time to time", but annually. I hope that in Committee the hon. Gentleman will accept an amendment to that effect.

Parliament is well aware of road accidents and injuries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when putting in scale the extent of accidents and injuries at sea, we should remember that road accidents and injuries are minute compared with accidents and injuries at sea?

I agree with the facts. I am not sure what conclusion the hon. and learned Gentleman draws, but my conclusion is that it does not make any difference whether 10, 15 or 1,500 people are lost, because we are concerned with safety and the prevention of death or injury, wherever it may occur.

One may draw an analogy between fishermen and motorists, in that they regret it when the law impinges on their activities and makes them do something which, to begin with, they regard as an infringement. The compulsory wearing of seat belts has attracted a great deal of publicity and many complaints, and there will undoubtedly be some expression of anatagonism about wearing lifejackets. But the number of lives saved and serious injuries prevented through wearing seat belts is a good example of how wearing lifejackets can have the same effect.

We need perpetual and eternal vigilance over safety at sea. It is many years since the Holland Martin report followed from the loss of the trawlers, the St. Romanus, the Kingston Peridot and the Ross Cleveland in 1968, all of which foundered within a period of 26 days. That was a spectacular event. The report produced many important recommendations, most of which are now incorporated in statute, but that was 18 years ago. We cannot simply produce a report on safety at sea when we have a series of major tragedies which excite public interest. I hope that we shall have annual reports.

Clause 5, which deals with load lines, has aroused much discussion. It may be argued that it is difficult to judge the load line, especially at sea when the water is never calm and the vessel is rolling, but too much is being made of that. Fishermen know within a relatively safe approximation how much fish they are carrying. Indeed, most of them know when the vessel is overloaded. But we need to compel them to take more cognisance of that, and to ensure that the pressures on them do not tempt them to go beyond the safety limit.

The matter is not as complicated as people suggest. I am no naval architect—I am sure that naval architects would tear my theories to pieces—but when a vessel is designed the designers have two points in mind. The first is stability. I believe that there is something called the stability line. As an engineer, I would call it the centre of gravity. We know precisely what the stability line is.

Naval designers have also to calculate what the roll of the vessel is, both loaded and unloaded, in different conditions. Clearly, there must be a calculation for the freeway, which has to be worked out in calm water levels. It is the level of the water compared to the height of the gunwale, so that, when the vessel rolls, it does not dip under and founder.

Those two calculations must be in the design of the vessels. In the more sophisticated shipyards there will be model testing. Much information is available. I am sure that the calculation can be done to provide a load line that is much more visible than the present Plimsoll line, which is a circle with three lines drawn through it. These lines represent tolerances in relation to when the ship is ballast or fully loaded. A broad band running two thirds around the hull of the fishing vessel could be used as a guide when the skipper is wondering how much fish he can take on board. I am sure that can be accommodated.

I am concerned about this matter. I can understand that overloading a ship could put it at peril. Of the accidents of which we know, is there any suggestion that the cause was that the catch had overloaded the ship to such an extent that it foundered?

Agreat deal of research is going on into that, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what research is going on in his Department. One of the difficulties is that it is rare to find a vessel that founders at sea. In many cases, when the vessel has gone, its precise location will not be found. One does not know the exact conditions in that spot, never mind the loading of the vessel. All these imponderables have an effect. There are accidents such as that of the Bon Ami, but that was a different case. Usually the vessel rolls in the sea, goes down, and nothing is known for several days.

A number of measures must be examined. There must be more rigorous regulations about reporting in. It is not unknown for skippers who have found a good shoal of cod not to report in because, if the news came over the airways, like seagulls other vessels would join, although that may be a rare occurrence. Reporting in would help to alert people to vessels foundering, especially if the men are afloat in water or on a liferaft. If they do not report in by a certain time, the Nimrod spotter aircraft and other vessels in the North sea could be on the lookout for them.

Clause 8, which concerns training for survival at sea, must be strengthened so that all entrants, not just new entrants, undergo survival courses as well as safety courses, which are also extremely important.

The new lifejackets are extremely easy to wear. The mobility and dexterity of those wearing them are not affected. We have been speaking jokingly about galluses. In case anybody needs a translation, they are braces. It is a pity that those who have not seen the exhibition will not know what the jacket looks like. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is holding one up, so hon. Members can see that it is compact. It would not affect people's movements or agility.

We need to incorporate a clause about medical examinations. In an occupation as dangerous as that of a fisherman, health can be extremely important. Therefore, I hope something can be done about this. I understand that Dr. Renfrew, who for many years was the port medical officer at Grimsby, has compiled a set of standards based on his experience. I hope that, as a result of that, regular health examinations will be required.

We can never eliminate the loss of life or of vessels. Fishermen describe lumps of water that suddenly descend on a ship in bad weather. Even design, security and the acumen of the skipper in charting his vessel through heavy waters cannot eliminate that. The Bill, however, deserves support.

I am disappointed in the SFF. I know Willie Hay, Gilbert Buchan and the others as well as anybody. I am sorry that they have taken a rather negative attitude towards the Bill. I should have been happier if they had taken the same view as that of the Transport and General Workers Union, which wrote to me to say that it gave its full support to the Bill. No doubt, it will suggest constructive amendments, but that care and interest in its members should be copied by the SFF. The Bill deserves support to prevent accidents to, and loss of life in, fishing vessels. I give it my full-hearted support, although we shall have to work hard in Committee to make it even better.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his initiative in introducing a Bill dealing with safety at sea, particularly the safety of fishermen and fishing vessels. I congratulate him also on his vigorous and persuasive exposition of the principles of the Bill, both in the Chamber today and to hon. Members in other parts of the House over the past fortnight. It is easy to be in favour of greater safety—who is not? The important distinction to be made is between those for whom this is merely an empty slogan and those who, like my hon. Friend, the Government and the fishing industry, are prepared to do something constructive to promote greater safety. Government and industry will continue to work closely on this, and I welcome the contribution that the Bill can make.

Last year I had direct responsibility in the Department of Transport for shipping matters, including fishery safety, and I was deeply concerned at the number of fishing vessels that were lost. The House has already heard that total losses between 1975 and 1984 inclusive come to some 424 vessels, and I confirm that, alas, those figures are correct. Happily, many of those losses of vessels did not involve injury or loss of life, but nevertheless this is still a serious problem. It must involve risk to lives, and we recognise the need both to ensure safety at sea and to improve the prospects for saving the lives of those involved in accidents.

It may be helpful if I give the exact figures of accidental deaths. They include those who died from drowning and also from other causes—for example, accidental death caused by machinery. Unfortunately, during the period 1976 to 1984 inclusive the number of deaths on fishing vessels of 24m and over amounted to 70. On fishing vessels of under 24m the number of deaths amounted to 175. The total of deaths during that nine-year period amounts, therefore, to 245.

I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in saying that these figures are unacceptably high. The number of deaths led me last year to meet the sea fishing safety group. At that meeting I called for further active work to be carried out into the causes and prevention of accidents in the fishing fleet.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan rightly drew attention to the widespread concern about the tragic loss of life in some recent casualties in the Scottish fishing fleet. In February 1985 the Mhairi L sank in the Irish sea with the loss of its five crew. The Department has issued a report which, among other things, supports two of the proposals in my hon. Friend's Bill—the carriage of emergency position—indicating radio beacons and the fitting of automatic release arrangements on inflatable life rafts.

I join my hon. Friend in his sadness and sympathy for the relatives. I personally met some of them in my room in the House. At their request, I arranged for an underwater film that had been taken when the vessel was located on the sea bottom to be shown in Scotland. I confirm that all the evidence shows that the crew of the Mhairi L were on deck. That has relevance for the Bill.

The Ocean Harvest sank off the north-east coast of Scotland in October 1985 with the loss of its crew of four. Most recently, and sadly, in December 1985 the Bon Ami ran aground off the north-west coast of Scotland. All of the crew of six were lost when the vessel broke up and sank, despite the gallent efforts of other fishing vessels to rescue them. Again the whole House has a sense of sadness and sympathy for the relatives of those involved. My Department is still investigating the two latter cases.

Experience suggests that losses are almost always due to a combination of circumstances. It is rare for there to be a simple cause with simple conclusions which would prevent further tragedies. Nevertheless, my Department is determined to establish as far as possible the reasons for these casualties and to see what lessons can be learned for the future.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that we should publish a full, detailed account of the investigation in the case of the Mhairi L and other vessels. It may help hon. Members if I explain the position. If we were to publish a full, detailed account of our preliminary investigation, people who in some way might have contributed to the accident would be inhibited from giving us a full, factual account of exactly what happened, because legal complications or charges of negligence might arise from their being outspoken. Our purpose is to get to the cause of the accident, to draw what lessons we can from understanding the cause and to make consequential recommendations.

If everything that everybody said were to be taken down and could potentially be used as evidence against them, we fear that people would be inhibited from coming clean on every aspect that they knew about. Therefore, we allow people to talk in confidence without the fear of exactly what they said being exposed in a report. However, we publish a report which gives an analysis, to the best of our ability, of our assessment of the causes of the accident, so that we may make the necessary recommendations that will help to prevent future accidents.

I have not looked at the details for some time, but after an inquiry it is possible that a skipper may lose his certificate. How does the preliminary inquiry fit in with that possibility? If there is the possibility of culpability or negligence being proved, everybody will be careful about what they say.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in some detail. As I have set out, the principle is to get to the bottom of the cause with the least inhibition on people contributing as fully as possible to help us to identify it. I am sure that we are agreed that that is the right way to proceed to obtain the maximun information possible.

It is helpful to put the proposals in the Bill in the context of the Government's record in promoting greater safety at sea and on fishing vessels. One matter which is clear from the record and which I believe should be emphasised is the prime importance of consultation with the fishing industry before safety rules are introduced, and close co-operation with the industry to ensure that rules are fully enforced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan will agree that there should be active consultation before and during the Committee stage.

Although safety is important, we must not lose sight of the costs for the Government and the industry, neither of which has a bottomless pocket. Before new safety rules are introduced, it is essential to ensure that, in a widely fragmented industry, full consultation is carried out to ensure what is practicable and cost effective. For that reason, and because of the speed of technological change, it is necessary to draft safety requirements in primary legislation without going into too much detail.

I shall comment later on some of the specific proposals in the Bill, but in that context I should mention that hydrostatic release units are now available in a form that need no servicing. They can be thrown away at the end of their useful life rather than be serviced at considerable expense. This illustrates the importance of allowing regulations to specify what type of equipment should be carried on a vessel, so that primary legislation is not overtaken by technological change. I am sure that hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, will recognise that fact. Old-fashioned and out-of-date concepts enshrined in legislation can be inhibiting, because we would have to wait for the opportunity of primary legislation to make the necessary changes required by modern technology.

It is now more than 10 years since the Department introduced safety requirements for the construction and equipment of fishing vessels of 12m in length and over. That action was prompted by the high level of fishing vessel losses at the time and the recommendation of the commitee of inquiry into trawler safety in 1969. Following the committee's recommendation, detailed requirements were introduced in the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 covering the design and construction of fishing vessels, including stability, weathertight integrity, structural strength and structural fire prevention, and their machinery and essential equipment, such as navigational aids, lifesaving equipment, fire extinguishing appliances and radio. Those rules applied to new vessels and to those in service. As a result, no fewer than 2,000 vessels had to be surveyed, which entailed an immense amount of work. I pay tribute to the work of the surveyors of the Department of Transport for carrying out what was not always an easy task.

The surveys were supposed to be renewed every four years, with periodic inspections in between. The initial surveys, with minor exceptions, have all been carried out, but it took almost 10 years to achieve, against the six years originally envisaged. Even then, it was necessary to defer the first renewal survey for a further four years. In spite of the length of time that it has taken to complete, I regard that as a significant achievement for the industry and the Department. It is also a cautionary tale. Unsurprisingly, fishermen do not always see eye to eye with us on the application of statutory requirements.

indicated assent.

I see that my hon. Friend agrees with me. However, over the years, especially through the work of the fishing industry safety group, which is widely representative of the interests of the industry, mutual respect and co-operation have increased in the common pursuit of improved safety at sea. At the same time, we have come to recognise that to reach declared objectives may take much longer and be more expensive than was first thought.

Objectives must be realistically defined, and a line must be drawn between what can be done and what should be done in an ideal world. What would have happened to the timetable for implementing the 1975 rules if, instead of catering for fishing vessels of 12m and more, the line had been drawn so as to include the remaining 5,000 fishing vessels within the statutory system of surveys? From the experience of how long it has taken to achieve surveys on 2,000 vessels, we must ask where we draw the line in seeking to apply regulations to all vessels, as some parts of the Bill do. We shall wish to consider that in Committee. We must remember that we could achieve perfect safety by the simple expedient of driving the owners of smaller vessels out of business altogether.

There has been insufficient improvement in the fishing industry's safety record, although progress has been made in some areas. The House will be interested to hear the statistics of non-fatal accidents on fishing vessels of 24m and over. In 1976 there were 813 such non-fatal accidents; in 1977 there were 609; in 1978 there were 573; in 1979 there were 413; in 1980 there were 207; in 1981 there were 97; in 1982 there were 90; in 1983 there were 64; and in 1984 there were 73. Members will realise that a reduction from 813 to 73 during nine years is at least an encouraging sign that progress has been made in that area, although there is still an unacceptable level of loss in the fleet and a completely unacceptable number of fatalities. However, the extended timetable for the completion of the existing statutory survey requirements for larger fishing vessels has delayed the full benefits of that programme for major vessel losses.

In response to the recommendations of the Holland Martin committee of inquiry and to other initiatives, the Department has taken other steps to promote the safety of fishing vessels and fishermen. I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that a comprehensive code of safety practice is available to fishermen. It was published in 1978, together with an illustrative safety booklet, which has recently been revised in consultation with the industry. I have here a copy of the booklet, which is obtainable at a cost £1·50 from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

I would also mention the medium wave, open line, ship-to-shore radio link for fishermen funded by the Department of Transport to provide a special listening watch and communications for vessels working in the North sea beyond the range of the Coastguard's VHF radio facility on the coast. The Department also funds a special three-day weather forecast for the North sea fishing fleet.

New regulations for the certification of skippers, second hands and engineers have recently been made to improve standards. In co-operation with—

On the radio link, it is well known in fishing ports that some skippers do not take advantage of it, although their vessels might be at sea for a week, because they are afraid of giving away the area in which they are fishing at any time. However, I agree that it is a useful aid.

I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have said both in the House and to the fisheries safety group that it is unsatisfactory that resources should be put into providing a service if people do not use it. I shall certainly value any encouragement that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, with their close contacts with the fishing industry in Scotland, can give to the use of the system. There is no point in incurring the expense for the provision of resources if those for whore the service is intended do not use it. I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that not nearly enough use is made of the facility, which would help considerably in ensuring greater safety for vessels at sea.

I have mentioned that the Department funds a special three-day weather forecast for the North sea fishing fleet and the new regulations for certification of skippers, second hands and engineers. In co-operation with the National Maritime Institute, the Department has produced films on the safety of fishing vessels with special regard to stability. These films have been widely shown and appreciated both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

Until recently, I had responsibility for the Coastguard service. One of the things that I was most anxious to achieve was cross-referencing of VHF distress calls. In the modern, much more sophisticated stations, instead of visible watching from the coast we have encouraged the installation of VHF radio on any vessel going out to sea within our coastal areas. Again, I stress the importance of using this facility as an absolute must for the safety of those on board.

We have had a system which enables us to identify the direction from which a distress call comes on a given line. We are now installing other stations which can also pick up the signals so that we can cross-reference by reference to a second line. Knowing where the two lines cross will enable us to identify much more precisely the area from which the distress call comes. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan will appreciate that additional safety facility. As a result of my insistence, I can today announce that by the end of this year five extra direction-finding systems will be in use in Scotland. This will be a considerable aid to search and rescue within the 30-mile limit around the coast.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Coastguard service. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan is absolutely right to seek to improve safety at sea and to increase to ability of people to survive with life belts, arrangements for identification of vessels, and so on. The constant watchfulness of the coastguards—both auxiliary and full time—who silently and without much public recognition constantly monitor and watch for distress signals, ready to send the search and rescue operation into action, is a service to which the Whole House will wish to pay tribute.

The timing is peculiarly fortunate in that in making that tribute to the Coastguard service I can pay special tribute to Tim Fetherston-Dilke, the chief coastguard, who is retiring after some 20 years in the service. I am sure that the House will wish me to record our appreciation of all that he has achieved and to wish him a long and happy retirement after a job well down.

We cannot rest on our laurels. When I had direct responsibility for marine matters. I opened a dialogue with members of the fishing safety group on what more needed to be done, and I am sure that that will bear fruit in due course. I commissioned research into the causes of fishing vessel casualties, and that will result in a report that will be available to the fishing industry safety group for its April meeting. I think that that will prove a useful means of examining closely a number of important issues.

The Department is carrying out, in close consultation with the industry, a comprehensive review of the 1975 fishing vessel rules to ascertain what changes need to be made. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan to hear that emergency position-indicating radio beacons, automatic release arrangements for inflatable life rafts and life jackets on fishing vessels below 12m are all under consideration already for further improving safety on fishing vessels. Due to my hon. Friend's decision to introduce the Bill, we have an opportunity to make progress in a number of these areas.

I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan confirm that his interest is in fishing vessels only and not in pleasure craft. Safety on yachts is important, but there are significant differences in the way in which fishing vessels need to be treated for safety purposes. I think that it is sensible for my hon. Friend to concentrate on fishing vessels on this occasion.

So that some of my remarks on the more specific proposals in the Bill are not misunderstood or regarded as criticism of my hon. Friend's intentions, I wish to emphasise how much of what he proposes is in train, is being done by my Department, or is under active consideration. It is fortunate that my hon. Friend has secured legislative time by his good fortune in the ballot for Private Member's Bills, which has enabled us to move forward rapidly. The Government believe that amendments can be introduced in Committee that will lead to substantial improvements to the Bill and, therefore, pave the way to improving safety on fishing vessels.

I think that we all recognise how difficult it is for Back Benchers to draft Bills. Any Back Bencher who has tried to draft a Bill, as I have, will appreciate the difficulties. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having tackled the substantial difficulties that are involved. However, there are a number of amendments that I hope he will feel able to accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) drew attention to the need for some of them.

Clause 1 is directed to distress beacons and provides for the compulsory carriage of EPIRBs. I am glad to say that, subject to redrafting to ensure that the provision relates only to fishing vessels in excess of 12m, the Government can accept the proposal. Indeed, they welcome it.

There have been many sudden and tragic losses at sea when the vessel, for whatever cause, may have been unable to send a distress message in any form. A radio-alerting beacon that would float free from the stricken vessel and automatically set an alarm has been seen by my Department as an urgent need. Despite much work being undertaken here and abroad, that goal could not be achieved using the conventional terrestrial radio systems. However, with the advent of satellites there has been a dramatic change, and we are on the threshold of one of the most significant contributions to maritime safety since the introduction of radio.

The signal from a radio beacon can be detected by an over-flying satellite, processed and passed down to a ground station, which in turn alerts search-and-rescue operations. The local user terminal is at Lasham, and it will be able to receive signals from distress beacons in virtually the whole of the search-and-rescue area for which the United Kingdom is responsible. Supplemented by similar terminals in Norway and France, it will be possible to cover all of the area in which our fishing vessels are likely to operate. From these signals it will be possible to identify the stricken vessel and locate its position to within 1 or 2 nautical miles.

What is the magic of 12m? I should have thought that the smaller the vessel, the greater the risk. Why will vessels below 12m be exempted?

The exact size of the vessel will be given careful consideration in Committee. Expenditure will be incurred and we must ensure that some boats going around within easy sight of the coast are not compelled to carry equipment which may be of greater value than the boat itself. One must be realistic, but I agree that that point should be examined. I am not dogmatic about 12m being the right length.

The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is covered in clause 6 on vessels of less than 12m.

We can look at such matters closely in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for replying to the point.

A specification for the distress beacon is being worked out urgently so that manufacture in quantity can begin. Three British firms have produced prototypes which the Department has used to evaluate the system. It is hoped that full-scale production can begin within a year. We shall have to consider in Committee the appropriate time for the introduction of that requirement in connection with the equipment on the appropriate wavelength for the Lasham monitoring arrangements. Clearly it would not be particularly appropriate to require it in respct of wavelengths which cannot be picked up with a system which is coming on stream so shortly.

Clause 2 provides that life rafts with automatic release equipment should be carried by a wide range of vessels. The Government cannot accept that requirement in respect of vessels other than fishing vessels, and then only with some qualifications. The present regulations already require that every fishing vessel of 12m in length and over must carry lifeboats or life rafts to accommodate at least the total number of persons on board. Fishing vessels of less that 12m are not at present required to carry life rafts, but they must carry lifebuoys. That requirement is at present under review. The Department is consulting the industry and has commissioned a research project which will deal, among other things, with the optimum siting of life rafts on board fishing vessels—a problem which is particularly relevant to small vessels.

My Department has for some time strongly recommended owners of fishing vessels to fit hydrostatic release units to all life rafts. We have not, however, introduced statutory requirements similar to those for merchant ships. This is because there are a number of practical difficulties which have to be overcome. The research project is addressed to these. When we have the results, and after proper consultation with the industry, we intend to make regulations that would make the carriage of life rafts mandatory in prescribed cases. I should emphasise that these requirements would relate to automatic release arrangements for life rafts and not simply hydrostatic release units. We cannot rule out that other float-free systems may be acceptable, or even preferable, for fishing vessels.

In summary, subject to appropriate amendment, the Government welcome clause 2 and would propose to use it to introduce regulations requiring the fitting of automatic release arrangements for life rafts as soon as practicable.

Clause 3 requires that persons in a wide range of vessels should at all times when on deck at sea wear an inflatable lifejacket of an approved type. The existing regulations already provide for the carriage of lifejackets on fishing vessels of 12m and over, and lifebuoys on fishing vessels of any lesser size, but the regulations do not require lifejackets to be worn all the time when on deck.

The regulations allow the use of inflatable lifejackets which meet specified requirements as well as the conventional non-inflatable type. I understand that such inflatable lifejackets have only recently been developed but that they should become generally available soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan has been helpful to hon. Members in demonstrating this type of lifejacket. Earlier this week must have been the only occasion—I am sure that it did not break the rules of the House—on which an hon. Member was seen in the Tea Room wearing a lifejacket, which was when my hon. Friend demonstrated it to me.

I can support the proposals that lifejackets for at least the number of persons on board should be carried on all fishing vessels. However, I have much more difficulty over a mandatory requirement for a lifejacket to be worn at all times when on deck and the requirement that the lifejacket must be of an inflatable type. In Committee and in consultation with the industry we must give careful consideration to whether an inflatable lifejacket might impose risks in connection with machinery, winding equipment, and so on, and to the problem of wear and tear. In short, it could impede work and lead to early deterioration and damage of the lifejacket. It would be impossible to enforce such a provision, and we shall have to carefully consider that point. It is a matter in which I am very much aware that an individual should act on the advice of his skipper.

Clause 4 on wheelhouse visibility provides that fishing vessels should be constructed so as to afford a clear view ahead and, in particular, that there should be an unobstructed view to the horizon from the wheelhouse. We shall need to consider in Committee whether that provision is necessary. There are regulations concerning construction of vessels over 12m. I refer the House to rule 5 of the collision regulations requiring a proper lookout. Clearly a proper lookout cannot be provided if there is not visibility from the wheelhouse in the way that my hon. Friend requires in clause 4. We must consider whether there is any reason why existing regulations are not proving effective.

Why should the horizon be taken as the concept of visibility? One can envisage many occasions at sea when one might be able to see the horizon, but not the danger which is closer or, alternatively, when one might not be able to see the horizon but one can see the dangers.

That is an interesting point. I can see that there is much opportunity to examine these matters in Committee.

Clause 5 provides that the statutory rules for calculating loadlines for merchant ships should be applied, with appropriate modification, to fishing vessels as well. Again, I have to say that this provision will need careful consideration in Committee to ascertain whether it is necessary or practicable. The statutory rules, with one exception, already apply to fishing vessels. The actual marking of loadlines has not been required because such vessels load at sea and the loadline cannot be observed from on board. That view is endorsed by the International Maritime Organisation and incorporated in the international convention for the safety of fishing vessels 1977.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made certain suggestions, which should be carefully considered. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) referred to vessels returning to port overloaded. The Department has a rogues' gallery of photographs and newspaper cuttings which people have proudly obtained and, in some cases, treasured showing vessels coming into harbour weighed down to the gunwales with fish, in effect saying, "What a marvellous people we are. What a great harvest of the sea. Never has a vessel come into harbour so loaded with fish." Our surveyors are horrified. That point must be considered carefully, and I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

There are complications and difficulties about examining the loadline of a vessel which is pitching and tossing, but we must consider all possible alternatives for dealing with the problem of the overloaded vessel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan correctly identified.

Clause 6 relates to the requirement for vessels of less than 12m in length to carry a bouyant heaving line attached to a lifebuoy, to carry six distress signals of a specified type and to carry 10 per cent. more lifejackets than the number of persons on board. The first and second of those requirements are already provided for in existing regulations.

I accept that there should be a requirement for the carriage of lifejackets for all persons on board fishing vessels below 12m in length. I have questioned the proposal that all lifejackets should be inflatable. However, I am pleased to consider, in consultation with the industry, a safety margin in the number of lifejackets carried.

Clause 7 would make it an offence to leave debris at sea that may damage fishing vessels and their gear. It would enable the owner of a fishing vessel damaged in that way to claim compensation from the owner or master of the vessel that left the debris. The Government are not prepared to support that provision. Permitted operational discharges from ships are regulated by the international convention on marine pollution. The Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 imposes licensing arrangements on the deposit of substances and articles withia British fishery limits or by United Kingdom registered ships anywhere.

Is there to be a distinction between territorial and international waters, because the law on compensation and reparation can be applied in territorial waters but not in international waters on the same basis?

My hon. and learned Friend is a noted member of the legal profession. He has a detailed understanding of these matters which goes beyond my knowledge. By the time we are in Committee, I shall have full cognisance of the matter that he mentioned.

Clause 8 provides that all persons aged 50 or under who sail in fishing vessels shall, within six months, obtain a certificate which demonstrates that they have satisfactorily undertaken a sea training course which would include fire precautions. Voluntary training for that purpose is already widely available. Considerable effort has been made in recent years through the Sea Fisheries Training Council, now under the auspices of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, and the group training associations, to encourage all fishermen to attend training courses on basic sea survival. The House heard from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about a sole survivor from a ship who survived as a result of his clothing. There are many lessons to be learnt from that.

My Department has inspected and approved 33 centres where those courses are conducted. In addition, the new certification requirements for skippers, second hands and engineers on fishing vessels of 16·5m or more in length provides for mandatory attendance at courses for basic sea survival. Through the fishing industry safety group, and in other ways, the Department is willing to continue to encourage as many other fishermen as possible to attend those courses. I do not believe, however, that such attendance should become mandatory for all fishermen, because of the problems of enforcement and because of the costs that it would impose on the fishing industry.

Clause 9 refers to reports to Parliament. It would require the Secretary of State to make, and lay before Parliament, reports on all aspects of safety at sea and to make proposals for improving existing regulations on the subject. I believe that provision to be unnecessary. The published annual return "Casualties to Vessels and Accidents to Men" provides statistical information covering both merchant ships and fishing vessels. The provision of additional information in the reports is being considered. For fishing vessels, the fishing industry safety group provides a widely representative medium for presenting reports of all kinds, including reporting of accidents.

The remaining clauses of the Bill relate to the mechanics of the administration of the provisions in the earlier clauses. Before I say a few words about these remaining provisions, it would be right to add that my Department will endeavour to identify provisions which are likely to be thought generally desirable and which, since they would be within the ambit of the long title of the Bill, could be introduced in Committee. I hope my hon. Friend will consider that so that we can make use of his good fortune in the ballot. I have in mind, in particular, a provision to amend section 28 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 so that skippers as well as seamen on fishing vessels commit an offence if they are drunk on duty. I think that this provision would meet with general support.

I have no comments on clauses 10 and 11. The fine of £2,000 prescribed in clause 12 is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will need to be consulted. Statutory provisions on fines fall within scales of penalties.

I have no comment on clause 13. Clause 14 provides for money to be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. However, I am advised that a money resolution is not required in this case. Clause 15, on interpretation, will need redrafting in order to define accurately the categories of fishing vessels affected by the earlier provisions. Clause 16, as drafted, provides that the Bill shall come into force six months after its enactment. For the reasons that I have explained to the House, it will be prudent to amend this clause so that various parts of the Bill come into force on days appointed by the Secretary of State.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend on having brought forward a measure that will be of great value not only to his constituents, but to the fishing industry as a whole.

I join in the warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on introducing the Bill, which is an important and welcome measure. I also congratulate him on his efforts to promote the Bill and on the exhibition held yesterday. However, I must tell him that he looked better in his jacket with the spray hood up than he did with it down.

At last a measure is being introduced for the fishing industry, which has been sadly neglected both in this House and in the preoccupations of the Government. It is especially welcome that something is being done about a problem which has become a major scandal and which has been allowed to fester for a long time.

I shall try to be brief, because I also wish to support the Crown Immunity Bill, which is hovering in the wings. Indeed, I received the impression that the length of the Minister's speech was motivated, not by a passionate desire to support this Bill, but by a desire to talk out the Crown Immunity Bill. However, that might be an unworthy and uncharitable thought.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is both uncharitable and unworthy. I have long had a deep concern about fishery safety needs. That was why I went to the fishing industry safety group last year, and why I have paid such particular attention to the problems of and opportunities for our Coastguard service. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not wish to leave that point on the record.

It was unworthy and uncharitable, but we have just delayed the Crown Immunity Bill a little longer.

I welcome the Bill that we are debating, but that does not mean that it is completely satisfactory. Much of what it proposes could be introduced by statutory instrument. It is unfortunate that such provision has not been made. The classic example of that was given by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—the Plimsoll line, or McQuarrie line as its might be called. Several of us have pressed for a loadline for ages. The Government were committed to introducing one in 1979, but we still do not have it. That shows clearly how the real needs of fishing are neglected.

The importance of the Bill is that it collects various essential reforms. Assuming that I have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall try to strengthen the Bill and consult the industry widely. The Bill can operate only if it has the industry's consent and support. The industry's first reactions have been somewhat negative. It deserves much wider and much more elaborate consultation so that it can make representations which we can take into account in Committee. We must cope with the industry's objections and satisfy its needs. There are real problems from the Industry's point of view.

Something must be done, however. A fisherman is four times more likely to be killed at work than is a coal miner. The fishing industry has the worst death and accident record. The safety and accident record of other industries has improved, but that is not true for fishing. The reason might lie in the state of the industry.

The fishing industry in England has been hit harder than that in Scotland. It does not make an adequate return to invest in modernising vessels. Fishermen are therefore putting to sea in vessels which are smaller than the distant water ones which we used to have when we fished in Iceland, and many of them are old. Much of the Grimsby fleet has been fishing for 25 years and needs renewing, but the industry does not make capital to renew or update it, or to provide for safety, so fishermen are more at risk. Present financial conditions create the possibility—it is no more than that, but there have been rumours—of staged accidents and staged sinkings for the insurance return. That is a real danger when the industry is in financial difficulties, as the English industry is.

Until last year, when the church decided to cancel it, we had a harvest of the sea service in Grimsby at which the death roll was read out. We were read out our share of the 424 fishing boats which had gone down since 1975 and our share of the 245 deaths since 1976. It was a deeply moving ceremony, not least because each year's list was as long as the previous year's. The tragedy is that there has been no improvement.

I shall not go into detail, but I welcome the Bill's contribution to safety. There is a problem with fishing vessels that are hired by fishermen for pleasure. Are they covered? If not, can they be included in Committee? The Bill is restricted to fishing for profit. Much of the English industry is fishing, not for profit, but to keep going, but hired vessels are effectively being used for profit and there is a safety problem because there is an inadequate supervision framework. I hope that the Bill can be applied to them.

There is a case for providing Government finance to encourage safety. In European Community countries many improvements in the industry are financed by Governments without infringing EC rules on competition. If money can be made available for new nets and equipment, for example, in Denmark, surely we could provide money for safety improvements of the sort designated in the Bill. At least Sea Fish Industry Authority grants should be available for safety improvements, which are a financial burden on the industry. If vessels had to carry immersion suits, as I think they should do, that would place a considerable financial burden on the industry. Even these provisions impose a burden, which should be eased through Government grants. It is unreasonable and encourages a negative reaction from the industry to impose improvements without providing the necessary help.

For the most part, the hon. Gentleman's analogy with seat belt wearing is valid. There will be objections to wearing lifejackets, but wearing them will become a habit. Therefore, when the requirement is imposed it will be accepted as a necessary safety device. I hope that similar pressures will eventually be applied as that have been for the extension of seat belts to back seats by encouraging a demand for greater safety. In Fishing News, Fraserburgh skipper George Sutherland states:

"Please leave us alone to settle our own problems. Everybody is going to be steamrollered into this by a person who started on the subject only two months ago"—

that is incorrect—

"yet is now supposedly going to set the whole world to rights. We are very conscious the whole time of the safety aspect when we are at sea."

The answer to that is the bad safety record of the industry, which shows the need for this measure . I hope that the measure will turn that negative reaction into a greater desire for safety.

The industry is reacting in the way that it is doing because it has been badly treated. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which is centred in Grimsby, has strong reservations, and echoes the views of Scottish fishermen. That reaction is coming both from organisations and from individual share fishermen. They feel that they have been maltreated, ignored and neglected for years. Therefore, they are resentful when new burdens are imposed on them without any of the reforms and changes which they wish being conceded. It is the paranoid reaction of people who have been persecuted. The industry has been tragically neglected and its way of life has cut it off from the wider community.

The share fishermen in Grimsby come to me with genuine problems. The fishing season has been extended because of the desperate need to catch fish up to the quota. Fishermen are working later and longer in the year. They are often saddled with debt, yet supplementary benefit, which used to be paid to them in those circumstances, is no longer available. Since 1980 they have had to be classified on the same basis as self-employed people to be eligible for benefit. Although they pay a special stamp which recognises their special terms and conditions, the DHSS is not bound by the same rules as the Department of Employment, and they cannot get supplementary benefit for 15 days. That is one example of how fishermen are neglected and brutally treated, and explains why they develop the inevitable reaction of resentment at Government interference in their industry.

It is our responsibility to fight and argue for fishermen, and it is also our responsibility to say, when there is a real problem, as there is in safety, that the fishing industry has to play its part. While we shall consult it and make changes to represent its interest, it is in its interest to accept this legislation.

The Bill is right. It will save lives, protect vessels and reduce the risks to those who, while they do business in great waters, will always be in peril on the sea. I hope that we can regard it as part of a new and better deal for fishermen, so that they are no longer neglected, but are helped, encouraged and fought for, while their safety is protected by measures such as this Bill.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his Bill because, unlike some other measures, it was not promoted in a flash Harry television film that highlighted the problem but was something that my hon. Friend identified and is responsibly attempting to address.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that I was an inappropriate person to intervene as there are no fishing interests in my constituency. It would be unfortunate for the Scottish tourist industry and the fishing industry if the concept that there was no fishing interest there were to get about. However, I accept that I do not have a maritime fishing interest except in the Tay. Nevertheless, I have had the privilege of being a commissioner for the northern lighthouses for some years and therefore have seen at first hand the risks and dangers for fishermen, and the ferocity of the sea. I have also seen the bravery and courage of those who carry out their business in great waters.

In the course of my professional career, I have also represented the families of those who have suffered loss or injury in the fishing community. It is their astonishing courage and bravery that has perhaps given rise for the necessity for the Bill because, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, there is resistance to safety measures. The bravest men frequently say that they do not need a parachute because they can jump on their own. I particularly welcome the Bill because it gives to those whose courage is so great that it may on occasion become foolhardiness, a protection that they would never be sufficiently unproud to ask for themselves.

The Bill demonstrates the dilemma of legislation. I am against statute law, preferring the common law, because it is law of principle while the statute law is that of detail. The Bill illustrates the difficulty of such a choice because the moment that things are made simple they run into the difficulties of definition that simplicity creates. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan on bringing in a Bill which is comprehensible when it is read and also simple.

There are difficulties of definition in the Bill that caused me great anxiety and I do not want to go into them more than to illustrate that, for instance, in the concept of debris at sea, one is talking about innumerable manifestations of debris and results from it. There is a common penalty of a fine not exceeding £2,000. If the iceberg that sank the Titanic had fallen within the concept of "debris", it would clearly be an inappropriate penalty for the person who put the iceberg there to be fined only £2,000.

That illustrates the difficulty of trying to be simple. Nevertheless, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan on the simplicity of his measure. I hope that the Committee will bear in mind that the simpler the legislation, the more likely it is to be applied and the more likely it is to be obeyed.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, who has left the Chamber, will remember the piracy case involving the Mary Rose and another vessel which left Aberdeen. If the evidence of sobriety at sea among the crew in that case is anything to go by, we must undertand that fishermen will obey legislation only if they believe it to be in their own interests. They will not necessarily obey legislation which actually is in their own interests.

Having made that comment upon human conduct, I assure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that I welcome the belated sibling of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the next measure to be debated, even more than he does. I have not spoken to frustrate the hon. Gentleman or his Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan for introducing a measure that is simple, humane and thoroughly justified. It will benefit a courageous community.

I do not think that I can follow the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) because I did not really know where it was going. It seemed to be without direction—the compass had gone astray.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) upon his determination and good sense in introducing the Bill. He is known — I think affectionately — in the north-east of Scotland as the Buchan bulldog. However, the tenacity he has shown in introducing the Bill is reminiscent more of a terrier than of a bulldog.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport, said that it is wonderful that this important measure has been introduced. If, however, the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan had not come high in the ballot for private Members' Bills, or if he had not decided to introduce his Safety at Sea Bill, I wonder how long we should have had to wait before the Government took it upon themselves to introduce such an important measure. All credit, therefore, must be given to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

There are four fishing ports in my constituency: Dunure, Maidens, Girvan and Ballantrae. Sadly, they are not operating as fishing ports because of various problems. I am dealing with some of the problems that are being experienced at Maidens. I hope that in the near future it will, once again, become a fishing port. Girvan needs to be dredged so that it can be restored to carry out its proper function as a fishing port. We hope that the area will soon be restored to an active fishing area so that my constituents no longer have to use Ayr and other harbours.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I represent a large number of fishermen. That is why it is important, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the Minister of State said, for the views of fishermen to be taken into account when the Bill is considered in Committee.

I spoke to Willie Hay yesterday. I believe that people like him have some important things to say. I sent a copy of the Bill with a letter to fishermen's leaders in my constituency, who are members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, asking for their views. I hope that other hon. Members will take the opportunity to consult their representatives and to feed back their ideas. I hope also that some account will be given to them. That does not mean that we should do everything that the fishermen ask, because Parliament must make up its own mind. However, I am glad that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned consultation.

I am sorry that some hazards are missing from the Bill. Debris is not the only hazard of oil operations and rigs. Oil operations create other hazards. The increasing extent of oil operation now foreshadowed in the Clyde could create problems for Clyde fishermen. The supply of rigs, fuel spillage and several other matters can create problems. I hope that there is an opportunity in Committee to consider those factors.

The second area of hazard is submarine operations. There have been one or two instances of pretty near misses between fishing vessels and United Kingdom and American submarines. It is difficult to designate and rigidly adhere to special areas. I know that there are security problems about informing fishing vessels or the Coastguard of the movement of submarines, but, from the fishermen's point of view, some understanding would be helpful, so that the likelihood of potential clashes could be minimised.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the sinking of the Mhairi L, and the Minister made some helpful comments. I wish to discuss the lessons to be learnt from the sinking of the Mhairi L. On 5 March 1985 I asked the Minister about the number of fishing vessels and other boats that had disappeared in unexplained circumstances. There was one in 1980, two in 1982, two in 1983 and another in 1984. I was worried about the loss of the Mhairi L, but, more importantly, the relatives of those who were lost were worried about the facts that the Mhairi L went missing in unexplained circumstances.

Much pressure was put on the Department of Transport to ensure that the result of the Mhairi L inquiry would not be another "cause unknown". A great effort was made to carry out a full inquiry and to use the resources of the Royal Navy. The huge resources of the Royal Navy should be mobilised in those circumstances.

I pay credit to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), from whose constituency the men came, who raised the matter. He was supported by many people and by the media. We discovered the cause of the sinking of the Mhairi L. I have a copy of the report that was eventually presented to the Minister. The Minister made the report available only to the relatives, interested parties, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and myself. I pressed the Minister to publish the report, but he said that such reports were normally confidential to the Department and were sent only to interested parties. I cannot understand why. The report contains several recommendations and suggestions that are vital to the fishing industry. The report should have been published and recommendations should have resulted from it.

I wish to mention briefly the three main points that arise from the report. The first is that 40 hours elapsed between the last radio contact with the Mhairi L and the Coastguard being alerted. We heard earlier about the importance of alerting the Coastguard as soon as any anxiety is felt. It was suggested that the boat may have discovered a large shoal of fish and did not want anyone else to know about it. Safety is much more important than that. The Department should set out some procedure which ensures that the Coastguard is alerted after a specified period. There should not be a 40-hour period before the Coastguard is alerted.

The second point is that it was clear that, in an attempt to free the trawl, which had fouled the cable, the combined weight of the men on the deck caused the capsizing which led to the vessel sinking. The report clearly states:

"Compensation is payable for gear lost: if fouled gear cannot readily be freed it should…be slipped and buoyed and a report made to the Fishery Officer."

That should be made clear to fishermen repeatedly so that people do not sacrifice their lives trying to save something that can be replaced.

indicated assent.

Their lives are much more important, as the Minister seems to agree, than the recovery of fishing gear.

Thirdly—and this is why it was vital that the report should have been published—the report stated that the life rafts on the Mhairi L had no hydrostatic or automatic release units, so they could not inflate and float free. Although merchant shipping notice M1173 recommends that such units be fitted, there is no mandatory requirement. The Bill would make it mandatory, and that is the main reason why I think it is an excellent Bill. It can never be proved absolutely, but there is a strong likelihood that, if the Bill had been law before the Mhairi L sank, and if she had been fitted with life rafts with automatic release, those men would be alive today.

The Minister has already replied to the debate, and I do not ask him to intervene again. Recently, he provided me with a written answer saying that the Government intend to take some action. I hope that during the later stages of the Bill, the Minister will clearly say what will happen to the recommendations arising from the report on the loss of the Mhairi L. I hope that future inquiries carried out by the Department of Transport to discover the causes of boats sinking will use all the resources available, including Royal Navy resources, without the need for pressure for those resources to be used. I hope that future reports will be published so that we may know any recommendations that arise from them and whether those recommendations should be or are being followed up.

It is vital for the fishing industry to learn the lessons of each loss. If that is a result of the sinking of the Mhairi L, the sad loss of those brave men's lives may not have been completely in vain.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which the House can register its deep disgust at the fact that the Minister spoke for 46 minutes on a Back-Bench Members' day?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. I cannot determine the length of speeches.

In the interests of brevity, which would appear to be desirable, I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) not only on the objects of the Bill, which are admirable, but on the way in which he presented the Bill to the House today. His commitment to the fishing industry is well known in Scotland and much appreciated among fishermen.

I say that by way of preamble, because I did not sponsor the Bill and I have reservations about it. I would not trust many people with a blank cheque, but I would trust my hon. Friend. However, I would not trust him with a blank Bill. It is for that reason that I did not seek to become a sponsor of the Bill. I understand the Scottish Fishermen's Federation feeling slightly aggrieved at not having been consulted about the Bill. My hon. Friend explained in opening why that had to be. I now understand why it was and I hope that the federation will now understand that it was impracticable to consult everyone in the time available before bringing the Bill before the House.

We warmly welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has dealt with some of the preliminary objections that have been raised. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the Opposition Front Bench for missing their speeches. I have explained the reasons to them. My hon. Friend has given reassurance on many points. Most important, he has already not just consulted but looked at the equipment that he wishes to be required and used on fishing vessels. Indeed, he enabled demonstrations of the kit to be given to other people. I would have hoped that we might have a demonstration in the House today.

I also welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to consultation not only with the fishing industry but with other relevant interests—not least with the coastguards, as he agreed in his opening speech, as they have particular responsibility for co-ordinating search and rescue activities and have gathered a great deal of information about the problems which arise on crisis occasions. I shall certainly consider the Bill, and especially the speeches made today, with fishermen in the East Neuk o' Fife. At this stage, I comment on just two points.

I have doubts about the practicality of clause 4(3) which provides that

"the place from which navigation is controlled"

must have

"an unobstructed view of the horizon"

in

"all conditions in which the vessel is designed to operate."

With a vessel bouncing up and down fore and aft in gale conditions, I wonder whether it is feasible to build a wheelhouse which is not 50 ft. above the deck but from which the horizon can be seen in all conditions. Practical considerations of that kind will have to be considered in relation to various aspects of the Bill.

I am also most uncertain about the provisions of clause 5 in relation to load lines, not from the safety angle but because of the practical problems of implementing load line certificates. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister about the salvage vessel for which it cost an amount in the low thousands of pounds to obtain a load line certificate. It turned out in the end not to have been necessary, but that is by the way—a matter of the Department, in my view, nitpicking and going for safety for the surveyor rather than for the ships at sea.

Those two points illustrate my anxieties about the Bill. I share the objectives that my hon. Friend is pursuing and I appreciate the way in which he intends to pursue the further progress of the Bill. I hope that it will ultimately become a first class Bill and will receive the assent of the whole House. Finally, I advise my hon. Friend to keep it as short and as simple as possible.

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

The whole House will be aware of the intent behind the Bill, which is to amend the law in respect of Crown immunity for National Health Service premises. In one sense, we have secured a great triumph in that the Government moved very rapidly yesterday to meet the substance and provisions of the Bill. It is also appropriate for me to say that this opportunity to move the Second Reading of the Bill is due to the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) in making way for my Bill, thus enabling us to gather here to consider the Crown Immunity Bill.

I must pay tribute to other colleagues and sponsors who have worked hard to persuade what has turned out to be a most sympathetic Government in this respect.

This is an all-party matter, and I must refer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) whose work on many social issues over a number of years, especially in the defence of those most at risk, such as hospital patients, has been an inspiration and example to all of us.

I refer also to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has been anxious over the provision of Crown immunity for hospitals. I have a common interest in a hospital that concerns him directly in Stafford. His hard work to protect patients and his constituents has provided an important thrust for the Bill.

I have not met an organisation or group of individuals outside the House that has offered any opposition to the Bill. I do not want to take too much time on this issue, but the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, especially Clive Wadey, has done a tremendous amount of work in tackling Crown immunity for hospitals. The unions have been diligent in leading a campaign in the same direction. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, district authorities and other organisations have all been pursuing the aims of the Bill for a long time. All the sponsors and all those who have worked to secure that which the Bill seeks all feel a sense of triumph and of real appreciation to the Government. The Government have completed their own review and are acceding in full measure to our arguments that are directed to National Health Service hospitals.

It was a surprise to many people when they found that the food hygiene regulations did not really apply to Crown premises, such as NHS hospitals. Hospital patients often have to tolerate substandard food hygiene. As the Department of Health and Social Security's guidance on food hygiene observes, they are especially at risk. Catering in hospitals is recognised as being more complex than in other catering areas and the consequences of food poisoning for hospital patients are likely to be more serious than they would be for healthy people. It is clearly not right for the catering area with the highest risk consequences to be exempt from food hygiene laws.

A survey of food poisoning, published by the Central Public Health Laboratory, identified hospitals as the third highest source of food poisoning outbreaks in the public sector. That is a shocking revelation. The Institute of Environmental Health Officers' survey in 1976–77 found that 60 per cent. of the 1,627 hospitals visited had food handling areas that were below the standards of the food hygiene laws and that 8 per cent. of hospitals visited would have been prosecuted but for Crown immunity. A smaller follow up survey of the worst premises in 1978 found that 45 hospitals that would have been prosecuted but for Crown immunity were still in the prosecutable category.

The most recent report of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers of 1985 suggests that 60 per cent. of NHS hospital kitchens currently break food health regulations and that 97 hospitals would be liable for prosecution but for Crown immunity. We all aware of some of the details and consequences of that. There have been 211 outbreaks of food poisoning in hospitals over the past six years affecting nearly 4,000 people, of whom, tragically, 279 have died.

Since 1981 there has been a four-fold increase in cases of bacterial food poisoning. I would at this stage mention the Government's position. However, we are fortunate in having the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health in the Chamber, and I have no doubt that he will do so. I wish to save time and to give an opportunity to the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who, I know, want to participate in the debate. Therefore, I shall omit that section of my speech.

Undoubtedly, the tragic events at the Stanley Road hospital in Wakefield, where 19 people died and where over half the patients were affected, have focused the growing concern of the general public on the standards of NHS hospital kitchens.

The report of the inquiry catalogues appalling breaches of hygiene regulations and mismanagement, and the description of the kitchen and kitchen practices in paragraph 180 and subsequent paragraphs is a profound indictment on hospital management. I am sure that that report should be mandatory reading for all hospital management teams. It is shocking to think that, even with that background, some hospital authorities have continued in much the same way.

Such an instance was given to me by Mr. Dick Carson, the director of environmental health for Edinburgh, who is an acquaintance of many hon. Members. In February 1985 a full survey of Liberton hospital kitchen was carried out and a report was sent to the authorities. In April 1985—let us remember this in the context of Stanley Royd where there had been deaths—a second visit was made, during which it was found that virtually all the major recommendations contained in the report had not been actioned.

I, too, know of the communication from Mr. Carson. When the hon. Gentleman had discussions with the Ministers on this, did they say whether Scotland would be included in the Bill?

It will be appreciated that, as an English Member of Parliament, I do not always respond swiftly to the Scottish dimension, but, undoubtedly, the removal of Crown immunity should apply to all sections of the United Kingdom, and that includes Northern Ireland.

After the April 1985 visit, nothing happened until December 1985 — three months ago — when a major outbreak of food poisoning occurred during Christmas week. The cause was attributed to a turkey meal, and 160 patients and staff were affected. Fifty extra nurses had to be drafted in.

In December, as a result of the outbreak, a third visit was paid to the hospital, during which it was found that no action had been taken on the major recommendations of the report. That shows the shocking inertia of management. There were totally unacceptable practices, such as suspect oven temperature controls and turkeys defrosting in sinks and cooling on work surfaces that had previously been used for food preparation.

Mr. Carson has said that, as a result of the second visit, when it was discovered that the major recommendations of the report prepared in February 1985 had not been implemented, but for Crown immunity he would have felt obliged to report the hospital to the procurator fiscal's office for possible prosecution.

I am sorry to say, too, that even in my area lack of diligence in certain important areas continues. Last Friday I made a quick inspection of one of our hospitals, although not the one that was being visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and there I saw raw meat adjacent to cooked chickens. That would seem to show that, not withstanding a report published a few days before, my district health management was unaware of the urgency of responding to this.

Paragraph 177 of the report on Stanley Royd says:

"It is well known that the most common source of infection is raw meat and poultry and that contamination is most likely to result from a failure to separate cooked and uncooked foods."

I have met senior officials within the administration who seem uncertain of such a basic regulation. What chance have our patients and many of our communities when there is a lack of diligence in such an important area?

The fundamental need for bringing about the removal of Crown immunity is the recognition that there is less self-regulation in hospitals and lack of mandatory force is the essential element. Laws that are applicable and should be enforced are absent. I am delighted that the Government will now introduce this measure before Easter so that it can be enacted in this Session of Parliament.

Crown immunity presently encourages diffusion of managerial responsibility, removes incentives to act and does not provide sanctions for breaches of present food laws. Therefore, against that background I gladly welcome the Government's response to the pressure from all of us and their willingness to move in and to act swiftly. This is a triumph for common sense.

I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for taking on my Bill and congratulate him on his impressive handling of it. I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying that, if he is not on the Government Front Bench before we kick the Conservatives out in a year or two, I shall be very surprised.

I warmly welcome the Government's decision. When we took a deputation to the Minister for Health, he did not commit himself, but said he would listen and respond. he has listened, and I greatly appreciate the way in which he responded.

I should like to echo what the hon. Member said about the organisations involved. I do not propose to repeat them, although I should like to thank Clive Wadey and John Edmonds of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Pest Control Association, the National Association of Health Authorities and the Association of Metopolitan Authorities, which played a major role in the campaign.

The Government must recognise that, if they are to abolish Crown immunity, extra cash will be required. Many improvements will come from good management, proper supervision and properly trained staff, but Government cannot will the end if they cannot provide the means. It does not make sense to rule out extra cash for the health authorities. The Government have always said that NHS hospitals should not hide behind Crown immunity and that they should maintain food regulation standards. The Government, therefore, have an obligation to provide the cash now that Crown immunity is to be abolished.

Although there is no provision in the Bill for Government buildings, other than hospitals, I intend to press the Government to lift Crown immunity in places such as nurses' homes, many of which are in a shocking condition, defence establishments, such as naval dockyards, and prisons. Crown immunity regarding food regulations should be removed from all premises where it now operates. Prisons are especially important, because prisoners' conditions are not inspected. It is right that people should be imprisoned for crimes, but it is wrong for them to suffer food poisoning in addition to serving their sentences

I shall seek to extend the Bill. I want Crown immunity to be removed from all health and safety legislation because it entails double standards of health and safety for some workers. Crown notices are a poor substitute. They are issued infrequently—13 times less often than non-Crown notices—and lack powers of legal enforcement. I give notice that I shall press for future action to be taken.

This warmly welcomed Government decision signals the end of Dickensian hospital kitchens. It will help to sweep away health hazards and thus vastly increase the safety of hospital patients.

I first thought of introducing the Bill, but I was extremely happy to hand it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for two reasons. The first was that I thought it would be in extremely safe hands and that he would run it ably, as, indeed, he has. I endorse everything that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said about my hon. Friend. I hope that my hon. Friend will be duly noted in the appropriate place.

It is outrageous that hospitals should have the Dickensian conditions that the right hon. Member has described in their catering facilities, which, mercifully, have been prevented in every other sphere of public life outside Crown buildings.

I am a member of several London clubs, but not the one that was prosecuted for having food which fell below safety standards. I recall one club, which I shall not name, in which some years ago a friend of mine and I were dining. We were there after the staff had retired. We went to the kitchen to obtain some food and there we found about 20 cockroaches. We presented them to the chef with a small compliments slip. The club subsequently entirely renovated its kitchen. It is disgraceful that such conditions have been and still are prevalent in our National Health Service hospitals.

A television programme recently showed similar conditions in a hospital kitchen. Cockroaches were shown to be still running around. I welcome the steps that my hon. Friend is taking to ensure that such an outrage is prevented in the future.

I welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to take over the Bill. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health will shortly announce that the legislation will be introduced in this Session of Parliament. I warmly welcome the Bill and the Government's successor Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the way that he comprehensively set out the provisions that he would like to have introduced. He gave the House an impressive array of facts. He seems to have influenced the Government to take action even before he did that.

There is no need for me to repeat the catalogue of events that led to the Bill's introduction. It is a tragic commentary on our medical advances that we should have a slogan such as "Hospitals can damage your health."

It is an indictment of the system that Crown immunity protects management that is incompetent and does not care rather than that which is criminally incompetent. The system puts the elderly and the infirm at risk.

Environmental health officers have no legal right to enter such establishments or even to lay down what regulations or code of conduct should be obeyed. Fortunately, some caterers pay attention to a code of conduct. However, others do not. It is tragic that National Health Service hospitals should be the biggest offenders. Many hundreds of people have died unnecessarily in hospital. Only one hospital in seven has anyone trained in pest control awareness, despite all the publicity associated with inadequate pest control in hospitals over the past few years.

I have a constituency interest to declare. I have two hospitals in my constituency — Hairmyres and Philipshill. I mention them only to declare an interest, not to criticise them. I ask the Minister what I have already asked the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills: will he ensure that the proposals are extended to Scotland?

The Government should take on board the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Every Government establishment with Crown immunity should be examined. I have another constituency interest here, because the Inland Revenue department in East Kilbride employs hundreds of people, and the Overseas Development Agency and the National Engineering Laboratory are also situated in my constituency. In addition, of course, there are DHSS premises and places where food is prepared and cooked. There is a potential risk in those kitchens if adequate supervision is not implemented.

I would not exclude from such criticism the place in which we are gathered today. That is no criticism of the staff, or of those, including myself, who are trying to help in this respect. A blind eye is turned to too many things. However, as we say in Scotland, I shall let that flea stick to the wall.

All I ask is that the Government proceed with the Bill with all haste, that it should apply to Scotland and that the Government take on board the possibility of extending the provisions to other premises currently enjoying Crown immunity.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on introducing the Bill. I also congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health for accepting the principles of the Bill, which recognise the need to accept that the king can do no wrong, but only most of the time.

The highest standards are needed for patients in hospitals. Yesterday the Secretary of State said that the nature of the problems displayed by the Stanley Royd hospital report is such that Crown immunity should be removed so that prosecutions under the criminal law can be taken against the Crown. They can already be taken against private hospitals.

The problem arises not only in connection with food in NHS hospitals, but in other areas and in other public buildings. My constituency found that to its cost when 37 people died at the Stafford general district hospital during the recent legionnaire's disease outbreak.

When the result of the inquiry is known, I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that, as long ago as 1977, the Health and Safety Commission recommended that the Government should remove Crown immunity by legislation, especially as it means that only the Crown is immune from prosecution, not Crown servants. Currently the Crown can claim immunity from prosecution for Government Departments, the Armed Forces, the NHS, the Medical Research Council, and so on, although not for nationalised bodies. I ask that the principle that has been won in this case, and for which the Government deserve the greatest possible credit, should be extended to all those premises. I hope that the Bill will cover these when the report on the legionnaire's disease outbreak in my constituency is published, so that the principle of the removal of Crown immunity will apply to them all.

I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on his generously brief introduction which has allowed several other hon. Members to speak.

I congratulate also those who, for many years, have campaigned on this issue. I think especially of those working within the NHS and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, who have had a long campaign to try to ensure that we match the care and attention that we give to other parts of the hospitals by giving decent care and attention to the kitchens. It has always been absurd that we should spend tens of millions of ponds on building decent hospitals, then proceed to poison some of the patients by not looking after the kitchens.

I do not think that when the Bill is enacted, people will expect many prosecutions of health authorities or their staff. The object of the change is not to get people into court or gaol, but to change the relationship between environmental health officers and people who work in hospitals. Hitherto, whatever the environmental health people have said, they have not had the authority to force their views on those responsible for the kitchens. That is the vital difference. In future it will not be a matter of a departmental circular saying, "You will have to assess the priorities when deciding what to do about the kitchens." We shall provide a statutory priority to keep kitchens up to the mark.

We hope that that will be an end to scandals such as those at Stanley Royd, or the Charing Cross hospital in Fulham or the Royal Free hospital, which used to be in my constituency. We look forward to the cockroach-free hospital as well. We had the appearance of a famous cockroach in the chicken stew there, and some benighted chap in the health authority tried to tell everyone that it was OK provided that the cockroach had been well cooked. I do not think that anybody found that convincing. We would rather get rid of the cockroaches.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, the change cannot be made on the cheap. One estimate for doing the Stanley Royd hospital's kitchen was £600,000. There were various other, lower, estimates. I hope that we shall decide that bringing kitchens up to the mark is a statutory priority in the next few months, but the Government will have to find the money to do it. We are talking in terms of tens of thousands on some kitchens, and hundreds of thousands on others. I must emphasise that it is not always the old hospitals that have bad kitchens. The Royal Free hospital kitchen is a shambles, and the hospital has been open for only a little more than a decade.

The Royal Free hospital is in my constituency, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem is that, for a long time, we have had to rely on the good sense of hospital authorities to follow the advice that has been given. It is clear that some have not accepted that advice, so there is a clear need for legislation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will also agree that his health authority would probably like the Government to provide the extra £150,000 or £200,000 which it says is necessary to do up the kitchen rather than have to take it from some other aspects of health spending. Some hon. Members have played a prominent part in the campaign, but even those who have played the smallest part owe it to health authorities to back up our request with a request for money to make good what we are asking them to do. I hope that we shall all be consistent on that.

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for the manner in which he introduced the Bill. I congratulate him on his success in getting such a speedy response from the Government, and I congratulate the Government on responding so rapidly.

I was pessimistic when I was first alerted to the problems about the speed with which the change could be introduced. I therefore discussed with constituents who have experience of the Health Service and of environmental health problems and who have drawn the matter to my attention, what could be done in our area to act as if Crown immunity had been removed. I took up their recommendations with the regional health authority and with the North West Hertfordshire health authority.

They recommended, first, that it was essential to establish clearly at each level of the authority who is responsible for ensuring that the problems are properly tackled. That happens automatically in the private sector because of the threat of legal action. Secondly, they recommended that environmental health officers should have immediate access to NHS premises, without any need to give prior notice and, thirdly, that expense should not be used as an objection to fulfilling obvious obligations under the law.

I took that up with my regional health authority, and I am happy to say that all three steps have been implemented in our area, which may explain why we have not had the problems that other areas have faced in recent years. There are some exceptions to that, but they are not in my area.

My constituents have also started a study of the catering facilities of every NHS establishment in the area, and that example should be followed more widely. One question will remain after today's debate: why has it taken 40 years of the NHS for the laws which apply to private hospitals and establishments to be applied to the NHS? Have we been so bemused by the myth that mere national ownership removes the commonsense necessity of applying to those who work within the services the normal incentives, disciplines and sanctions that are required to make us all fulfil our obligations and ensure that our services are of the highest standard in other areas? I congratulate the Government on introducing this sanction and incentive for people who provide those services.

I join in the congratulations of the House on the skilful way in which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has managed the matter. I wish to introduce a constituency problem.

I have two large prisons in my constituency. In Frankland prison, 80 people are serving life imprisonment. If there were an outbreak of salmonella it would affect prisoners and wardens alike, yet there are only 20 beds in the hospital wing. My constituents are considerably disturbed by the thought of category A prisoners being transferred from prison to receive adequate medical care as a result of kitchens not being subject to inspection.

My one regret in the Government's written answer yesterday is that their intention appears to be exclusive to the National Health Service. In many other areas the risk to the public is no less severe. Prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons are as much the concern of the Government as are elderly people in psychiatric hospitals. I deplore the withdrawal of protection from prisoners which the food and drug Acts and Crown immunity should give them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the rule of Crown immunity would place workplace equal with workplace, and hygiene regulations equal with hygiene regulations, in every sector of society, and that that is how it should be?

Of course. We welcome what the Minister is doing for NHS hospitals, but please could the Government bear in mind that the risks facing hospitals also apply to the Palace of Westminster and prisons?

I am the ninth Member of Parliament to speak in this short debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for the brevity of his speech, and add my warm congratulations to him and his co-sponsors on both sides of the House, and to the many organisations and individuals who have been urging the course which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday announced that the Government would pursue.

All those concerned have focused public attention on food hygiene in the Health Service. It is immensely important that hospital kitchens maintain high standards. The tragic outbreak at Stanley Royd Hospital in August 1984, which resulted in the deaths of 19 patients, illustrated that only too well. The results of poor standards in hospital kitchens can be horrifying.

As I have made clear on many occasions, the Government have been most concerned at the allegations of poor standards that have been made in recent months. For example, the survey by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, published last autumn, found that 60 per cent. of 1,000 hospital kitchens that had been inspected were in some way in breach of the food hygiene regulations and that 10 per cent. of those, just under 100, were so bad in the view of the survey that they warranted prosecution.

These examples were worrying, and, as the House will recall, I immediately called for urgent action by the health authorities concerned to take priority remedial action wherever that was needed. I also made it clear to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who led an all-party deputation which represented a wide range of interests to see me last autumn, that I was undertaking a review of Crown immunity of hospital kitchens. That was under way, and it was that review, set in hand last year, that led to the Government's statement of intention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday.

My right hon. Friend made it clear that in responding to the problem of poor hygiene there can be no substitute for more effective management and supervision in hospital kitchens generally. As the debate is concentrating on affairs that go wrong, it would be right for me to pay tribute to the majority of staff in NHS hospitals who carry out their duties responsibly and very properly. It would be wrong if the message went out from the House that the difficulties to which the legislation and debate are drawing attention were spread over the entire Health Service.

Because effective management and supervision are the essence of solving the problems, the introduction of general managers, who will be both responsible and accountable for these and other matters, will do much to secure the right parity of managerial responsibility. The Government have concluded that, in addition to the essential tasks of improving managements and supervision, further action is appropriate. We have concluded that stronger safeguards are needed to underpin management efforts, and above all to protect patients.

Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear the Government's intention to introduce legislation in the present Session to remove Crown immunity from hospital catering in respect of the food hygiene regulations by making health authorities subject to the provisions of the Food Act. We shall propose that the Food Act 1984 and the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 should apply fully to health authorities.

We have been asked about Scotland. For Scotland, similar amendments will be proposed by the Bill to the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956. This will mean that local authority environmental health officers will have rights of access to all hospital premises where food is stored, prepared and consumed. In the past, the officers have been encouraged to go in, but this change of law will give them the right of access to all hospital premises. They will be able to require improvements, and, if need be, they will be able to prosecute and seek closure of kitchens if circumstances are bad enough to justify that.

These changes address themselves directly to the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and of other right hon. and hon. Members. The Government consider that it is right, for an important issue such as this, to introduce a Government Bill. I know that it is the. Government's absolute and firm intention to introduce the legislation before Easter. It is better to deal with the matter by means of a Government Bill and to buttress that action with the action that was made crystal clear in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement about the Stanley Royd affair. We must take action, which is in hand, to strengthen the guidance to the National Health Service on measures to ensure high food hygiene standards. Nobody must be left under the illusion that merely by dealing with Crown immunity hospital kitchens are made hygienic. The guidance that is necessary—