Sitting of 8 December 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Health Boards
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met chairmen of health boards to discuss financial allocation.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State meets chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss a wide range of strategic issues affecting the management of the NHS in Scotland. Many of those issues may have financial implications. The last such meeting took place on 5 November.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State take time to meet the chairmen of health boards? Is he aware that two trust hospitals in Scotland—one is in my constituency and the other is in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and fror Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)—have already advised doctors and consultants to pace themselves, and that doctors and consultants in Dundee hospital trusts are running short of money? Is he further aware that, of all the state-registered nurses who will graduate in Tayside this year, not one will be offered a job? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman made more funds available so that required operations can be carried out and nurses who have gone through two years of training can get jobs?
    Mr. Lang: I am aware that, since a number of hospitals in Scotland have become trusts, the efficiency with which they have delivered services has so improved that they are already achieving their targets for the whole year. That is a measure of the considerable success of the trust movement. Funding for health care has increased in real terms by almost 3 per cent. in the current year, and it is for the hospital trusts and the health board to decide whether any further resources might be available.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: In my right hon. Friend's discussions with the chairmen, has he compared the allocation of funds in Scotland and in England and Wales? Have there been any statistics on the increase in the number of patients treated in England and Wales under the health reforms compared to the number in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. Resources for health care in Scotland are more than 20 per cent. per head higher than in England and Wales. That,
    296
    however, reflects the relative position as regards the quality of health in both countries—for example, the morbidity rate in Scotland is much higher. I regret to have to say that the quality of health generally in parts of Scotland is very much lower than the United Kingdom average.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Secretary of State agree that the financial allocation process in the health service is being used to create not only two classes of patients but two classes of employees? For example, the previous general manager of Fife health board, Francis Gibb, who left under a cloud, has now been given a £65,000 a year job, whereas hundreds of vital, low-paid health service workers, who have given years of quality service to Fife health board, were yesterday thrown on to the privatisation scrapheap? Should not public money be used to provide quality health service for all staff and patients and not to provide jobs for the blue-eyed boys who are friends of the Tory party?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady's description is a travesty of the reality. Mr. Francis Gibb did not leave Fife health board under a cloud. He was seconded to the management executive between November 1991 and July 1993, where he carried out some very successful and important work setting up the national specialist service unit, which is responsible for cardiac surgery, heart and lung transplants, liver transplants and a number of other contracts worth a total of £75 million. He was offered the chance to transfer to the Common Services Agency in September 1993 to ensure continuity under a two-year contract of employment. I regard that as an extremely sensible move.
    On funding of the health service in general, the hon. Lady should be aware that, after the statement which I shall make this afternoon, the increase in health care in real terms in Scotland will be almost 50 per cent. higher than it was under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from it being a case of jobs for the boys, one of the benefits of NHS trusts is that they have put nurses and nursing directors on the boards of trust hospitals, thereby enhancing their role, as the Select Committee on Employment was told only yesterday?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The hospital trust exercise has been enormously successful in Scotland and, by next April, some 90 per cent. of all Scottish health care will be delivered in that way.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board the implications for its acute strategy of his decision to allow three acute hospitals in Glasgow to achieve trust status? In other words, will Greater Glasgow health board and the Government still go ahead with their plans to cut at least 1,000 acute beds, or will it be left to the vagaries and brawl of the internal market?
    Mr. Lang: The development of the acute services strategy in Greater Glasgow will be a high priority for the new chairman and staff of Greater Glasgow health board. The hon. Gentleman must wait on events.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to Berwickshire to discuss reform of local government boundaries with local interested parties.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend the Minister for local government and planning discussed the Government's reform proposals as they affect Berwickshire with a delegation that included the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State accept that in the run-up to publication of the White Paper last summer, much to the dismay and disbelief of local people in Berwickshire, the Government's policy fundamentally changed in terms of combining Berwickshire with East Lothian? Will he further accept that the people of Berwickshire feel that they have never had any sensible explanation of why the Government changed their minds? If he is not prepared to come to Berwickshire himself or to give the House the reasons why the Government changed their mind, will he undertake to look favourably on an amendment moved in Standing Committee, early in the new year, aimed at keeping Berwickshire within the borders?
    Mr. Lang: I look forward to debating the issue in the Standing Committee that considers the Bill. That is the place where those matters should be further developed. The Government did not change their mind. They developed the proposals and published them in the White Paper. To some extent, we were influenced by the views of local district authorities in the area. Ettrick and Lauderdale favours a single borders authority, but the other three districts of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Tweeddale favour an alternative arrangement, part of which, in the three-way split, was Berwickshire and the coastal strip of East Lothian. In defence of their proposals, they said:
    "This would be by far the strongest in terms of representing the variety of local communities. It remains rooted in many continuing historical associations and links."
    I suppose that that had something to do with our consideration of the matter.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of north Tayside welcome the proposals affecting that part of Scotland? Is he further aware that some people are concerned about the absence of any mention of leisure and recreation? We presume that those matters will be properly addressed when the boundary changes.
    Mr. Lang: It promises to be an interesting Committee stage, when we debate the Bill in detail.
    Mr. Home Robertson: If the Secretary of State wants to discuss East Lothian and Berwickshire, he had better come to see me because I am certain that I am the only citizen of Berwickshire who is interested in East Lothian. Is he aware that the one common interest of the people of the two regions is that his low-logic, high-cost plans for local government in Scotland should be aborted at birth, and that goes for the whole of East Lothian, which includes Musselburgh?
    Mr. Lang: I am never sure of the hon. Gentleman's status in this matter; perhaps he lives in Berwickshire and owns East Lothian. I understand that he, too, has been to
    298
    see my hon. Friend the Minister for local government and planning to make representations. Those, too, will be taken into account when we debate the Bill in Committee.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is not the Berwickshire decision just one of the many ludicrous proposals in the Government's White Paper that highlight—if it needed highlighting—the fact that this exercise in butchering Scottish local government is conducted purely in the interests of the Scottish Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman not yet grasped the fact that the reorganisation is unwanted and unnecessary, that it will be disruptive to industry and commerce throughout Scotland and that it will be a huge new cost to every taxpayer north of the border? Will he stop it before it starts?
    Mr. Lang: I noticed an interesting opinion poll the other day in the business community, which suggested that more than 80 per cent. of the local business community welcomed single-tier local government. Until recently, the hon. Gentleman's party was committed to single-tier local government, as are the Scottish National party and the Liberals. I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was so frightened of the Conservative party's strength in local government. If he sees great advantage for the Conservative party in local government, it must be as a result of the policies that we propose to reform local government and to strengthen local democracy in Scotland.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on manufacturing output in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The latest figures suggest that Scottish manufacturing output in the past year is 1·1 per cent. higher than in the preceding year. Manufacturing output in 1992 increased by 9 per cent. over the 1986 figures, which represents an annual growth rate of 1·4 per cent.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Are not exports from Scotland expanding strongly, and does not that show that, although the Scots may have forgotten how to play rugby, they still know how to manufacture and to sell their products at home and abroad? Is not it a little surprising that Opposition Members do not spend more time praising Scottish achievements, which are in sharp contrast to the position under the Labour party in the 1970s, when manufacturing output fell?
    Mr. Stewart: I trust that my hon. Friend's confidence in England's chances in the five nations championship is misplaced, but I am sure that he is right about Scotland's manufacturing export record, which is a tribute to not only Scottish management but the work force in Scottish factories. Scottish manufacturing exports were at a record of £9.7 billion in 1992 according to a survey by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Scottish CBI. That is a real increase of 6·3 per cent.—a faster rate of growth than in the United Kingdom as a whole in five of the past six years. Frankly, I should have thought that Opposition Member would be proud of that.
    Mr. Chisholm: How can the Minister be so complacent when there were heavy job losses in manufacturing

    299
    industry in 1992 and 1993, on top of 150,000 job losses in manufacturing since 1979? How can he be complacent about a figure of 1·1 per cent. growth in manufacturing output, which follows growth of only 4 per cent. since 1979, when the Conservative party came to power? How can he be so complacent following last week's Budget, which will knock on the head the already extremely weak recovery in the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not in any way complacent. Of course, challenges face Scotland and the Scottish economy. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has been widely welcomed by industry. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment in Scotland is below the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s, or that the seasonally ajusted total was 8,000 lower in October than in January. He did not mention the fact that civilian employment in Scotland has increased by 169,000 in the past 10 years. That is the reality of the Scottish economy, however much Opposition Members wish to talk down the achievements of Scottish managers and Scottish workers in facing the challenges of international competition.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members seem to be oblivious of the fact that we have just come through a deep world recession, during which Scottish manufacturing industry was out there fighting and succeeding, and that the growth rates that he mentioned show a remarkable success in such times? Does he further agree that Scottish manufacturing industry has welcomed the Budget changes? Small businesses in particular welcome the changes to VAT and other areas.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The VAT changes have been widely welcomed by small businesses, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's decision to freeze excise duties on Scotch whisky. My hon. Friend's more general point is also absolutely correct. Labour Scottish Members hate good news for the Scottish economy. They hate more jobs for the Scottish economy and they hate the fact that self-employment in Scotland is up 54 per cent. since 1979. They also hate the fact that real gross domestic product per head is up 30 per cent. since 1981. They do not wish to recognise the achievements of managers and workers in Scotland.
    Mr. McLeish: The Minister is not only complacent but very confused. Over the past six quarters, manufacturing output in Scotland has gone down by 1·7 points. Does he appreciate that, according to his own figures, 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past year—a mere 80 jobs every working day? Is he aware that the extra burden of the £2 billion of Tory tax increases that will be imposed on Scotland as a result of last week's Budget will do nothing to stimulate demand? When on earth will the cosy, complacent Scottish Office attack the real problem, which is that 250,000 people cannot find a job in Tory Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards, that was not very good. I do not think that he listened to my answer, which was absolutely clear. Manufacturing output in the past year was 1·1 per cent. higher than in the preceding year. He did not quote the more recent evidence from business surveys such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce survey and the Confederation of British
    300
    Industry's industrial trends survey in October, which showed an improvement in business confidence for the fourth consecutive quarter and increases in domestic and export orders in the past four months. The hon. Gentleman's constant campaign to talk down Scotland is not succeeding.

    Health Care
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the per capita expenditure on health care in Scotland; and what analysis he has made of similar per capita costs in comparable parts of the EC.
    Mr. Stewart: Net per capita NHS spending in Scotland was £717 per head in 1992–93. I have not made a detailed analysis of expenditure per capita on health care in other European Community countries.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend was not able to produce figures for a comparison with other EC countries, but has he obtained figures for a comparison with at least England and Wales? It seems that the Opposition are always saying that Scotland gets a raw deal. Is that so?
    Mr. Stewart: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the figures for other parts of the United Kingdom. Net per capita NHS spending is £717 in Scotland, £578 in England, £660 in Wales and £648 in Northern Ireland, which shows that, by any standards, the NHS in Scotland is extremely well funded.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that, despite that per capita rate in Scotland, a constituent of mine who attends the Paisley trust hospital must wait until 21 March for an appointment to see a urologist? That poor man, who is 78, must wait four and a half months, although he cannot walk 100 yd without going to the toilet. is the hon. Gentleman happy with that situation? He would not like it if it were his father.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Stewart: I shall answer. The health board contracted for 650 patients, but the trust expects to treat 740. That shows, first, that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are more than being met and, secondly, that the establishment of NHS trusts works in practice for the ordinary people to whom he referred.

    Surplus Housing Stock
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of surplus housing stocks.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of surplus housing stocks, but he has issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the matter. Proposals must have the agreement of tenants, after which they are subject to his approval.
    Mr. McKelvey: The Minister will know, because I have told him, that there have been a series of meetings in my constituency, called by the landlord, to discuss with tenants the options of a new tenancy with a new landlord. The vast majority of tenants have said that they would very

    301
    much like Kilmarnock and Loudon district council to be their new landlord. If the tenants charter is to mean anything, and if there is to be any sign of a democratic move in that direction, should not the name of the Kilmarnock and Loudon district council appear on the ballot paper when people are given a free and democratic choice of a new landlord?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The current arrangements do not prevent a local authority from putting forward proposals to acquire Scottish Homes' stock. It is for Scottish Homes to decide whether special circumstances arise—including such matters as the number of properties involved and the location and the percentage of stock already owned by the local authority. Some 44 per cent. of the stock in Kilmarnock and Loudon is owned by the local authority. That is above the regional average and well above the national average. The objective of our policy is to provide diversity and choice. For practical operating reasons, Scottish Homes has decided that the ballot paper should contain two options: if the tenants vote against, that is the end of the matter; if they vote for, the matter will eventually come before the Secretary of State, who will have to be satisfied that all considerations had been properly thought through.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Kilmarnock and Loudon district council will look at the Minister's reply with a great deal of interest. Does the Minister expect Scottish Homes' rents to rise next year from their current average of £32 a week? Is it not true that he has cut the housing support grant from £36 million to £26 million—a loss of £10 million—in an attempt to force up council house rents from their average of £26·51 per week to as much as £34·86 a week? Why should tenants pay more and more in times of falling interest rates when mortgage payers pay less and less?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In setting this year's rent increase, Scottish Homes' board considered a number of options and agreed on an increase of 9 per cent. to spend more on repairs, management and maintenance. I expect the average increase in local authority rents to be about 5 per cent. On the basis of current trends in rent charges, maintenance and management, I would say that it will not be above 5 per cent. The reduction in the housing support grant for next year reflects partly a reduced need for subsidy and partly our policy of reducing indiscriminate subsidies, such as housing support grant, so that public sector resources can be concentrated on capital investment. Some £700 million is being spent on housing benefit in Scotland, although not exclusively on council house tenants.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Minister's experience as a constituency Member of Parliament the same as that of most of the rest of us? Housing problems represent the majority of problems that are raised at our surgeries. When the hon. Gentleman meets Scottish Homes, will he draw its attention to the Department's 1991 housing survey, which revealed that about 1·5 million homes were in need of repair and that the number of houses built for rent had plummeted over the past decade? Will he do a deal with Scottish Homes? Will he give it increased resources to do its job if, in turn, it will stop publishing glossy pamphlets, which expensively tell us how good it is?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes has a very good record in the right hon. Gentleman's area. It is
    302
    doing everything that it can to bring empty houses back into use, to expand the housing association movement and to build a number of new houses. It is important to mention the success stories—the before and after—and what can be achieved. The essence of the matter is that if the private sector becomes involved, public sector funds will go very much further.

    Local Services
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the provision of local services.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I are scheduled to meet representatives of COSLA on 28 January as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who rejected plans to opt out Paisley grammar school by an overwhelming majority of 41? May I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister, whose personal intervention helped to ensure the defeat of those plans? If the Minister accepts the wishes of the 80 per cent. of people who voted in that ballot—as I think he does—why will he not accept the wishes of the 82 per cent. of people in Ralston and the 79 per cent. of people in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor who recently voted in a referendum to reject unnecessary, unwanted, costly and gerrymandering proposals that would bring about the destruction of Scottish local government?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time during the last general election canvassing against me in Barrhead—a fact to which I largely attribute my increased majority.
    There are legal questions concerning the legitimacy of the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Those questions are currently being explored, and there is a possibility of an eventual surcharge on the local councillors who voted for the proposal. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in the circumstances, I can say no more about that issue specifically.
    The hon. Gentleman's original question concerned local government finance. I am astonished that he did not draw attention to the generosity of my right hon. Friend's local government finance settlement this year. Per capita expenditure on local government in Scotland is substantially higher than that in England and Wales.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding the scaremongering of Opposition Front Benchers, single-tier authorities throughout Scotland will be cheaper to run and more accountable to the electorate, and will save the council tax payer money?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Allegations to the contrary from the Opposition are wholly contradicted by what Labour councils actually say in their individual submissions to the Scottish Office. I will give an example. In its submission to the Scottish Office, Dundee district council—hardly a safe haven for Toryism—estimates that the council tax bill would be £14·45 cheaper

    303
    per Dundee household if there were a Dundee, rather than a Tayside, unitary authority. That is the evidence from Labour councils.
    Mrs. Adams: Is the Minister aware that I loved last week's good news from Paisley grammar school? In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), he seemed to be telling us that he himself was opting out of democracy and was unwilling to accept the views of the people in Renfrew district who told him that they did not want the new local authorities that he proposes to set up. Will he assure me that he accepts the views of parents of children at Paisley grammar school, and also that he agrees with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who told me in a television programme last week that he believed in devolving power?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course the Government accept the vote concerning Paisley grammar school. It was this Government who gave parents the choice to make that decision, and this Government who saved Paisley grammar school when friends of the hon. Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wanted to close it for ideological reasons. The Government gave parents a choice on their future.
    Mr. McFall: The parents of pupils at Paisley grammar school have spoken for Scottish education, but who speaks for the Government? Is it the Minister responsible for education, who stated on national television that the result showed a high level of parental satisfaction with the present system, or is it the Secretary of State, who stated that 20 per cent. of the electorate voting to opt out represented a success? I concede that 20 per cent. is a solid achievement in Tory terms, but to everyone else it is a miserable failure. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will clear up that confusion by the time he meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January—and that the Government, after getting a bloody nose, will in a spirit of humility stop destabilising Scottish education and support and encourage local authorities, parents and pupils in their education efforts?
    Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman and his friends give a guarantee that the Labour party will not close Paisley grammar school? That guarantee has not been given. Labour tried it before and will try it again.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister guarantee to COSLA that he will not pack the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill with Conservative Members representing English seats—a guarantee that he singularly failed to give in correspondence?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has corresponded with me on that matter, but the Committee's membership is a matter for the Committee of Selection. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he and I disagree on a fundamental point: I take the view that this is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

    Health Care (Glasgow)
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the provision of health care in the Glasgow area.
    Mr. Lang: I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister responsible for health matters meet health board chairmen from time to time, and expect to meet the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board in due course to discuss health matters in Glasgow.
    Mr. Galloway: When the Secretary of State meets the new man, when will he be able to give him any assurance that he will not fall victim to the same Watergate-style skulduggery described by the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessor, Lord Younger, as being the fate of Mr. Bill Fyfe—the departing chairman of Greater Glasgow health board? How much longer can the Secretary of State pretend that he and other Ministers had no knowledge of the grisly details of that affair, when Scotland on Sunday revealed last Sunday that on 6 and 30 August, and in October this year, the right hon. Gentleman's most senior and trusted advisers were intervening in the matter? Will the Secretary of State answer here and now the classic Watergate question: what did Ministers know about the Fyfe-Peterken affair and when did they know it?
    Mr. Lang: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in skulduggery but I have no doubt that the appointment of Sir Robert Calderwood as the new chairman of Greater Glasgow health board—which has been widely welcomed—will be extremely successful. I can tell the hon. Gentleman also that I have looked into the matter and I am satisfied that Mr. Fyfe was told repeatedly that he could not and should not seek to terminate Mr. Peterken's employment and make the offer of a financial settlement to him. I have to conclude that Mr. Fyfe was the architect of his own downfall.
    Mr. David Marshall: While the Government fiddle the health service, is the Secretary of State aware that many thousands of people in the Greater Glasgow health board area are on the waiting list for treatment? Is he aware, for example, that one of my teenage constituents was told just last week that he would have to wait two and a half years for necessary dental treatment at Glasgow dental hospital? When will the Secretary of State start putting patient care before Tory party political cover-ups and jobs for his supporters?
    Mr. Lang: The budget for Greater Glasgow health board has been increased in the current year by 2·1 per cent. in real terms. That is a substantial increase, and I shall be announcing further increases later. The waiting list for long-term patients has fallen from 13·3 per cent. in June 1991 to 9·4 per cent. in 1993, so considerable progress in shortening waiting lists, especially for those with long waits, has been made.
    Mr. Wallace: When did the Secretary of state become aware of the terms of the letter dated 6 August which was sent to the Treasury by the acting chief executive of the health service in Scotland, who is answerable to the Secretary of State? Did that letter state that the Secretary of State no longer had confidence in Mr. Peterken? If so, did it represent the Secretary of State's view? If not, what action has been taken against a senior official who so grossly misrepresented the Secretary of State's view?
    Mr. Lang: I first became aware of the letter on 23 November. It did not say that I had lost confidence in Mr.

    305
    Peterken. I had not, and I still have not, lost confidence in Mr. Peterken. The letter was between officials in my Department and officials in the Treasury.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his total silence on this scandal in the Greater Glasgow health board over the past five weeks is both significant and deeply suspicious? Does he seriously expect people to believe that Mr. Bill Fyfe was having meetings throughout 1993 to discuss getting rid of Laurence Peterken—meetings which included the Secretary of State's solicitor and the director of personnel in the Scottish Office—and that a senior official, believed to be the acting chief executive of the national health service in Scotland, wrote a letter to the Treasury on 6 August asking for approval for a £200,000 pay-off for Mr. Peterken? Does the Secretary of State expect us to believe that neither he nor the Minister knew anything at all about that?
    Who is telling the truth in this sordid tale: Bill Fyfe—the Secretary of State's personal nominee last year for running this giant quango with all the documentary evidence that he has to back him—or Ministers of the Crown, with whom ultimate responsibility for this shambles lies? They cannot both be telling the truth. Surely it is time that Ministers acted with the honour and decency that used to go with high office in this country.
    Mr. Lang: I welcome the decision of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to investigate this matter and I look forward to the publication of its report. I have also instructed the chief executive of the management executive to carry out an inquiry into the events surrounding the dismissal of the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board. That inquiry is not yet complete, but a report will be published. I say to the hon. Gentleman—and I say it more in sorrow than in anger—that when I heard him comparing the resignation of the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board, who had lost the confidence of his non-executive board members, with 25 years of carnage, murder and terrorism in Northern Ireland, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was plumbing the depths of bad taste.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage further inward investment.
    Mr. Stewart: My Department, through the work of Locate in Scotland, is continually promoting Scotland as a location for inward investment. My right hon. Friend and I have recently undertaken inward investment missions to the far east and the United States, respectively, where discussions were held with existing and potential investors.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that inward investment has created many thousands of jobs in Scotland and will contribute to the continued regeneration of the Scottish economy? Does he agree that one of the main reasons why overseas investors come to Scotland and, indeed, to Britain as a whole is because the British Government have refused to sign up to Labour's two job destroyers—the social chapter and the minimum wage?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. Even President Jacques Delors has admitted
    306
    that there is no question but that the sensible Government decision not to sign up to the social chapter makes the United Kingdom an attractive place for inward investment from Japan and the United States as company after company confirmed to me on my recent visit.
    In relation to my hon. Friend's second point, I can confirm that, since its formation in 1981, Locate in Scotland has recorded planned inward investment of £5 billion, which is associated with the expected creation or safeguarding of more than 96,000 jobs in Scotland. That is a considerable record, which I hope that the whole House will welcome.
    Dr. Bray: Has the Minister read the recent report by the electronics industry in Scotland, which points out its vulnerability to the fact that it consists largely of screwdriver assembly plants, with little research and development, little marketing and little worldwide product responsibility? Has he further read the report by Scottish Enterprise and its chief executive, documenting the lack of entrepreneurship in Scottish industry? Has the Minister any comment on that after 14 years of Tory government?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in those subjects, and I have read the reports to which he refers. About 47 per cent. of all overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Scotland undertake some form of research and development. The Scottish electronics forum, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend earlier this week, is addressing those challenges. Of course there are challenges—let us not be in any doubt about that—but we must not, and I do not suggest that the hon. Member did, underestimate the huge successes that Scotland has had and is continuing to have in the electronics industry.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the Budget statement announcing the investment of about £200 million in the new air traffic control centre at Atlantic house in Prestwick in my constituency? Does he accept that my constituents express relief and enthusiasm that the service that they provide to the airline industry will continue, and does he agree that that gives an almighty boost to the economy of south Ayrshire and the surrounding area?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to welcome that important announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement. In addition, as my hon. Friend knows extremely well, because he was very much involved, the decision by Digital to centre its European operations in my hon. Friend's constituency—[Interruption]—well, close to the border of the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—is a good example of Locate in Scotland's immense success not only in attracting but in retaining key overseas investment of the highest quality in Scotland.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to his efforts to attract investment to Scotland, the Government must support existing industry in promoting and exporting services and goods overseas? Will he confirm the work of Scottish Enterprise and congratulate it on identifying excellent potential hydro-electricty sites in Vietnam? Is he aware that approval for those projects can

    307
    create employment in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Will he urge the Overseas Development Administration to approve those projects so that work can proceed?
    Mr. Stewart: I know of the hon. Gentleman's close personal interest in this matter, and I regard those projects as having considerable potential for Northern Ireland and Scotland. I had the opportunity to discuss the projects briefly with the Prime Minister of Vietnam when he visited Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Member that Scottish Enterprise is doing everything possible to put forward a positive case for the developments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Government of Scotland
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Coalition for Scottish Democracy in relation to its demand for a multi-option referendum on the government of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I have had no discussions with the Coalition for Scottish Democracy, whatever that body may be.
    Mr. McAllion: That is a pity, because a Secretary of State who governs Scotland by quango, without the support or consent of the people, desperately needs to talk to people who understand what democracy is all about. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain the riddle of why the Government support the Unionist status quo in Northern Ireland, on the ground that it is supported by parties with 67 per cent. of the popular vote there, but oppose the break-up of the Unionist status quo in Scotland despite the fact that that is supported by parties with 75 per cent. of the popular vote in our country? Is not the Government's support for self-determination for the Province of Northern Ireland while denying self-determination to the nation of Scotland based not on any political principle but on the grubby political fact that they need the votes of Ulster Unionists to save them from a general election and from the votes and the judgment of the people of this country?
    Mr. Lang: I do not think that such simplistic comparisons do anything to add enlightenment either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. Part of the nature of the United Kingdom is its diversity. What is important is that we maintain its unity. I am content and satisfied that the arrangements that Scotland has in the United Kingdom Parliament offer the best protection for Scotland's future in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who stand for election to this Parliament and come here should recognise that it is this Parliament to which they were elected and that their allegiance should not lie elsewhere unless they have declared that fact clearly, as a few do? Should not those who come to Parliament without declaring that allegiance, and then attempt to destroy it by means of bogus vehicles and sounding operations, recognise that that was not how they were elected to this place?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the changes recently proposed in the White Paper affecting the handling of Scottish business in the House will be able to make progress early in the new year.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Following the comments of my Unionist friend the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and as we in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have a legitimate interest in any constitutional changes in Scotland—indeed, we are concerned about the value of such changes—can the Secretary of State assure the House that if a referendum were held in Scotland an identical referendum would be held elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than most the differences between the different parts of the United Kingdom. However, as his question is hypothetical, no answer of mine could have any substance.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently about the Sunday trading law in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since December 1992, my right hon. Friend has received 11 representations, including two letters from one individual supporting restrictions on Sunday trading. He has also received two letters in support of the Shopping Hours Reform Council partial deregulation model and one letter in favour of the present arrangements.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows the widespread support of the Scottish people for the present arrangements? Does he therefore agree that it would be illogical for Scottish Members of Parliament to vote to impose on my constituents restrictions from which they do not suffer and which those Members would not seek to impose on their constituents? Does he also agree that the present position in Scotland demonstrates that it is individual conscience rather than legislative fiat that keeps Sunday special?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The arrangements in Scotland are working well, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote later today on the issues as they relate to England and Wales. I shall watch with particular fascination how the Leader of the Opposition votes, as I understand that he has reservations about English Members voting on Scottish matters.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: In connection with Sunday trading, and with trading in Scotland, what representations has the Minister received about the disgraceful fact that it is now possible for planning permission to be given for alcohol to be sold in garage forecourts? An amendment was passed to make that totally impossible in England. Will the Minister take the earliest opportunity under the Sunday trading legislation to outlaw totally the selling of alcohol in garage forecourts? Is not that wrong, whatever view one takes?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Bill applies in England, but I have some sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I will examine the matter. A number of issues in relation to the subject are under consideration. For example, hairdressers are not allowed to cut hair on Sundays, which is a restriction. That is the type of issue that we are examining.

    Easter Ross
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to pay an official visit to Easter Ross to assess the local economic situation; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Easter Ross, but, as Minister with responsibility for the highlands and islands, I am always willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and local representatives to discuss constituency matters.
    Mr. Kennedy: May I thank the Minister, following our conversations during the past week or two, for clarifying the to-ing and fro-ing between himself and the Ross and Cromarty district council? Will it be possible, probably early in the new year, for representatives of the district council to meet him to discuss their anxiety about unemployment, particularly that relating to the oil fabrication centre?
    The petition that was delivered by Opposition Members this morning relates to fish farming and the dumping of Norwegian salmon on the European market. That issue affects the highlands and islands, and has a depressing effect on a key industry in the western and northern isles and on the west coast generally. Will the Minister confirm that the meeting, which I hope will take place in the new year, will be broadly based and that we will be able to discuss that issue as well as the oil sector?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that action on fish farming has been taken with the Commission, and that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture is following it up. A considerable amount has been done through Highlands and Islands Enterprise with Ross and Cromarty Enterprise to establish a Moray firth oil initiative. I recognise the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I can tell him that some 500 people who had been laid off found employment through the initiative and through retraining. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman, but I stress that I have had 60 meetings in the Highlands and Islands. If necessary, I will meet him with representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry and, if possible, the Minister concerned.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss measures to promote economic growth in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I keep in regular touch with the Scottish Council on matters relating to the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Salmond: I should like to ask a question on the Scottish salmon farming and fish farming industry which was not answered by the reply to the previous question. The Secretary of State must be aware that 6,000 jobs and
    310
    £200 million on the balance of payments are at stake in an industry which provides vital employment in many rural areas of Scotland.
    Why do producers in that vital sector have to go to the Irish Government for help in Europe to protect their industry against Norwegian dumping? Is the Secretary of State aware that the action of the Commission today is totally inadequate and will not help? Effective action depends on the United Kingdom assisting the Irish Government to defend the industry. When will the right hon. Gentleman start acting as Secretary of State for Scotland rather than as Secretary of State against Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the industry as an important provider of jobs in rural areas, and I agree that about 6,000 people are employed in the industry. It is an important industry and, through meetings that I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland have had with the industry, I am aware of the anxiety.
    I took the matter up with the European Commissioner when a minimum import price was introduced recently, and further consideration of those and other matters is now in hand.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the members of the Scottish Council on their work? Will he also congratulate the members of Locate in Scotland on their work and, in particular, on the fact that they have just brought to Scotland a firm that will provide 1,000 jobs in the west of Scotland thanks to their aptitude and excellence?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to emphasise those two important components of the Scottish economy. Not only did Locate in Scotland have an exceptionally good year in attracting inward investment to Scotland in a fiercely competitive world environment, but the export side has also been extremely successful—a matter in which the Scottish Council is heavily involved. Our exports were up by 9·6 per cent. in value in 1992, and by 6 per cent. in volume, to their highest ever value of £9·7 billion.
    Mr. Macdonald: On salmon farming, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the actions so far taken by the Commission are completely inadequate to defend the industry against the uncompetitive practices of the Norwegians? Why is it possible to impose a 12 per cent. import levy on farmed trout but not on farmed salmon? Why is it possible for the Americans to impose a 26 per cent. levy against Norwegian salmon entering the United States? Will the Secretary of State undertake at least to push for this sort of measure to defend the Scottish salmon farming industry?
    Mr. Lang: The introduction of a minimum import price has provided a base around which the market can stabilise, although I acknowledge that many salmon farmers regard that base as too low. As I have already said, we continue to be in touch on these matters, and consideration is being given to further action.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland. Copies of my statement will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.
In his Budget statement my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's overall expenditure plans. The same day I announced my decisions for local authority spending: both Government-supported expenditure and aggregate external finance. I am now able to announce how I propose to allocate the resources available for all my programmes. As usual, a table summarising my decisions will appear in the Official Report and full details will be included in my departmental report, which will be published in March.
The Government have made it clear for some time that the overall public expenditure totals announced last year for 1994–95 and 1995–96 would not be breached. Firm control of public expenditure is an essential discipline and one we are determined to maintain. Against that background this year's public expenditure settlement for the Scottish Office is fair and realistic. The net resources available to me for allocation next year exceed £14 billion—more than 4 per cent. higher than the corresponding plans for the present year. This amounts to £2,743 per head—over £50 a week for every man, woman or child in Scotland.
My plans provide for over £3 billion each year in gross capital expenditure. Of that, over £2 billion will be on the construction of new physical assets by central Government, local authorities and other bodies.
In addition to those plans for public expenditure, I expect the private sector to participate in many important projects. The Skye bridge is a good example of what can be achieved on top of the public investment programme. I plan to announce early next year the outcome of the feasibility studies on the Setting Forth proposals.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement that we plan to introduce new contracts under which the private sector will design, build, finance and operate roads. I shall be examining our programme urgently to maximise that opportunity. The early success of the private finance initiative in Scotland is widely recognised and it confirms our reputation for enterprise and innovation. I am determined to build on this success in the years ahead.
I now turn to individual programmes. These reflect my judgment of priorities for the year ahead.
We are committed to increasing year by year the resources of the health service in Scotland, over and above the rise in inflation. Despite the many other pressures on my programme, I will meet fully that commitment. In 1994–95, net expenditure on health in Scotland will be nearly £4 billion, which is almost £200 million more than the plans for the current year and an increase of more than 5 per cent. And by next year, expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will have increased, after allowing for inflation, to half as much again as it was when this Government came into office.
My plans maintain and accelerate the Government's investment in Scotland's economic development and in training, in partnership with the private sector. To this end,
312
I have allocated £452 million to the Scottish Enterprise network next year to pursue its key objectives, £12 million more than previously planned. It will also enable Scottish Enterprise to take over responsibilities from the new towns for meeting inward investors' needs as the new towns are wound up.
After taking account of the transfer of some responsibilities to the Scottish Tourist Board, I have allocated to Highlands and Islands Enterprise an increase of £1·3 million over the current year. In addition, our success in securing objective 1 status for them means that the highlands and islands can look forward to increasing levels of EC structural fund investment. Overall my plans include provision for almost £390 million of grants from the European regional development fund over the next three years.
In recognition of the importance of investment in infrastructure for the Scottish economy, I have chosen to use the flexibility available to me under the Scottish block arrangements to give particular priority to investment in roads and transport. I have been able not simply to maintain previously planned investment in roads and transport but to increase it to a total of £427 million next year, £20 million more than this year's expenditure. The total over the next three years will be around £1·3 billion. We shall thus be able to maintain the momentum of the trunk road and motorway construction and upgrading programme so important to our economic progress. During the next three years we will start all the remaining schemes needed to complete the A74 upgrading programme and there will be major improvement schemes for other main routes, including the M8 and the A1.
Investment in education is vital. The education budget of the Scottish Office Education Department, at £1·3 billion, will be over £130 million more next year than this year's plans. This growth reflects, among other things, the continuing increase in the uptake of higher and further education, with more students than ever before at Scottish institutions.
Expenditure on the arts will also rise next year, to £71 million. That includes provision for the Scottish Arts Council of almost £24 million and should help it to a good start under my sponsorship.
Local authorities account for 45 per cent. of all Scottish Office expenditure and cannot be excluded from the restraint necessary in overall public expenditure. I announced on Budget day my decisions on Government supported expenditure of local authorities and on aggregate external finance. Government support for local authority current expenditure, including provision for community care, will increase by 2·4 per cent. Provided local authorities adopt the approach to pay restraint and productivity required across the public sector, these resources are sufficient to maintain services and meet new responsibilities. In total my plans allow for local authority expenditure of well over £20 per week for every inhabitant of Scotland.
I have also made specific additional provision of £23 million for the funding of the new local authorities in the year before they take up formally their responsibilities. This will enable them to plan for a smooth transition.
I have increased the allocation to environmental programmes to £366 million, £6 million more than the present year. Of that, £40 million is for Scottish Natural Heritage—a 10·5 per cent. increase in the provision available to it this year, to assist it to take forward the

313
implementation of European Community directives and the reports of the working parties, including those on the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond. Capital investment in the water and sewerage industry will be maintained at more than £240 million a year, with the additional provisions to cover the costs of the restructuring of the industry.
On housing, the total net provision shows an increase over 1993–94 plans to £679 million. Within this total I have given priority to capital expenditure, boosting provision for local authority investment in its own housing by 5·5 per cent. I have asked local authorities to give priority to care in the community and to tackling the problems of homelessness, housing below the tolerable standard, and dampness and condensation. The resources I am making available will enable them to do this. Scottish Homes' net provision will increase by 5·8 per cent. to £323 million.
The maintenance of law and order and the protection of the citizen are key elements of the Government's

£million

1993–94

1993–94

1994–95

1995–96

1996–97

Estimated outturn

Planned provision

Planned provision

Planned provision

Planned provision

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Central Government expenditure2 and local authority capital expenditure2

Agriculture, fisheries and food

457

448

447

439

519

512

569

562

579

572

Industry, enterprise and training

643

557

629

544

646

599

658

610

666

617

Roads and transport

408

408

406

406

427

427

430

430

440

440

Housing4

1,021

665

1,021

665

1,029

679

1,014

675

990

661

Other environmental services4

488

364

484

360

496

366

503

379

492

382

Law, order and protective services

476

454

476

453

491

466

499

472

501

472

Education5

1,202

1,202

1,172

1,172

1,306

1,306

1,359

1,359

1,383

1,383

Arts and libraries

54

54

54

54

77

77

77

77

74

74

Health

3,917

3,795

3,888

3,766

4,089

3,961

4,245

4,114

4,365

4,231

Social Work services

63

63

63

63

67

67

69

69

70

70

Other public services

220

180

220

180

225

184

227

185

224

183

Total central Government and local authority capital

8,948

8,189

8,860

8,102

9,371

8,643

9,649

8,931

9,784

9,086

Provision to match receipts from the European regional development fund

—

116

—

120

—

124

—

128

—

137

Central Government support to local authorities' current expenditure35

—

5,235

—

5,190

—

5,275

—

5,392

—

5,482

Nationalised industries financing limits

—

35

—

35

—

22

—

22

—

23

Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility1

—

13,574

—

13,447

—

14,021

—

14,428

—

14,728

1 The totals shown differ from those in the Financial Statement and Budget report. The figures in that document included provision for the Forestry Commission. Provision for the Commission is £94 million in 1993–94, £95 million in 1994–95 and £94 million in each of 1995–96 and 1996–97.

2 Including public corporations other than nationalised industries. Also includes grants to local authorities for the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI).

3 Central Government support to local authorities comprises income from non-domestic rates, revenue support grant, and grants to local authorities for specific purposes apart from grants for TVEI.

4 Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 reflect the timing of wind up of New Town Development Corporations.

5 From 1994–95, the careers service (£13·6 million a year) is included in the Education line. Prior to that it was local authority expenditure.

6 Figures may not add due to rounding.

Mr. George Robertson: We have just seen from the Secretary of State the same confidence trick that we saw last week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his Budget. When we look behind the figures, expose the creative accountancy and blow away the blizzard of hype, the truth is a whole lot different and much nastier.
The statement is part of and in addition to the Budget which will cost every family in Scotland an extra £10 a week in tax from next October and £16 a week from the
314
programme. I have reflected that priority by providing £466 million for the programme in 1994–95, an increase of about £13 million. That level of provision, together with the substantial resources I am allocating for local authority expenditure, will allow for the continued progress in those essential services which the public will rightly expect to see.
In making the allocations I have announced today I have had to take tough decisions. I make no apologies for that. The need to pursue sound money policies makes that essential. But what the taxpayer puts into the programmes is only the start. What matters most is what is bought with these very substantial resources of more than £14 billion. My colleagues and I will continue to seek for maximum value for money; and I expect all those involved in implementing these plans, in local authorities and in other bodies as well as in my own Departments, to do the same. The taxpayer and every consumer of public services in Scotland deserve no less. I commend the plans to the House
Following is the table:
following April—the biggest tax hike in British history —and now we are to have massive real cuts in public expenditure as well.
The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about taking tough decisions. I suggest that the easiest decision that the Government took was to break their election promises with such enthusiasm. The truth is that after an election in which they promised low tax and more spending, the Scottish people will pay more and get a lot less for it—more tax and less spending. It is no wonder that, apparently, the Secretary of State for Scotland is unwilling to go on

315
television this evening to debate the figures. I certainly would be reluctant to do so if I were putting forward such a case.
The basis of this statistical juggling act is hidden in the Chancellor's own Budget Red Book. On page 17 of the Red Book on the unified Budget, the Government admit that they expect inflation to go up next year by 3·25 per cent. The Government freeze people's pay, but still expect them to bear the brunt of an inflation rate of 3·25 per cent.
Only those who believe that inflation will not affect Government spending will believe the figures and the gloss we have just had from the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State said just one thing with which I agree. Local authorities account for almost half Scottish Office expenditure. In real terms, in addition to the 3·25 per cent. inflation that the Chancellor is predicting, in the next three years Scottish local councils will get £330 million less than they get now—a huge and damaging cut to their budgets which must mean fewer jobs, poorer services and, inevitably, a massive hike in council tax bills.
As if that were not bad enough, we have what can be described only as a deception on the course of local government reorganisation. In March this year, the Secretary of State's highly expensive consultants Touche Ross forecast that the costs and savings of the reorganisation would balance out. Of course, that was to be discredited and abandoned within days of publication.
Two weeks ago, at this very Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State for Scotland accepted a figure of £200 million as the cost of reorganisation to the taxpayer. It is there on the record; it is in Hansard for even the Minister for Local Government to try to read and understand. He said that only two weeks ago, but today's statement tells us that it will cost £70 million, not a penny of which will be in the budgets which he is now going to slash by £350 million over the next three years.
The only explanation for that is that there will be big bills for council tax payers as a consequence of reorganisation; and the higher the band, the bigger the bill. Who would buy a used calculator from this bunch of Ministers? When one looks at the figures in the various areas that the Secretary of State for Scotland outlined in his long statement, the glossy picture looks very different from the reality. On law and order, the Conservative party, which claims a special reputation on law and order but which has governed during an explosion in the Scottish crime rate, proposes that budgets be slashed by 1·3 per cent. in real terms in the next year alone.
On housing, where there are problems of homelessness and housing dampness, which even the Secretary of State acknowledges in his statement to be serious, and in respect of which every Member of the House knows that our constituents face real and increasing problems, budgets will be slashed over the next year by 1·8 per cent. in real terms.
On education, again the Secretary of State claims that he has specially given protection, but we know from the Chancellor's Budget statement last week that students in every university and college will have their grants cut next year and that the threat of students having to pay a proportion in tuition fees is more real than any Minister is presently prepared to admit.
Even on health, the Government boast about their record, but the Secretary of State for Scotland published a report yesterday that shows how seriously different the problems of health are in Scotland. He knows—as do the
316
House and the country—that costs rise faster than inflation, yet for the health service in Scotland next year he is providing a miserable increase of 0·4 per cent. in real terms.
In the light of the tough decisions that the Secretary of State for Scotland says that he has had to take, and in the light of his exhortation about value for money, will he explain why the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will increase by 15 per cent. in cash terms—£64 million—in the next year? It will be interesting to know why, because if it was good news I should have thought that it would be in his statement.
This year's unified Budget, of which this expenditure statement is a part, has been a disaster for Scotland and Britain. Nineteen in every 20 families will be hit by its tax increases. The unemployed and the sick will be specially targeted for penalty. The cost of living in Scotland will rise sharply and all our public services—housing, law and order and everything that is provided by local councils —will be cut substantially. It is in the light of that reality that today's glossy fiction will be judged, and it will be judged harshly indeed.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) started talking about a confidence trick. Confidence? Yes, because I believe that that is the right pattern of expenditure and it is a substantial sum of resources for Scotland. But trick? No. It is the hon. Gentleman who is playing tricks, because some of his figures bear no relation to reality.
The hon. Gentleman talked about massive real-term cuts. Perhaps he would like to identify precisely where they are. Inflation is currently running at 1·7 per cent. It may well rise from that figure before the end of 1994–95, but the Chancellor indicated in his Budget speech that he expected it to be around the lower level of 1 to 4 per cent.
As to going on television this evening, I was under the impression that I was going to spend quite some considerable time on television after this, and I look forward to the occasion. [Interruption.] I shall debate with the hon. Gentleman any time he likes. I am debating with him now and am scoring rather a lot of points off him. If he can contain his soul in patience, I have a good many more points to score.
The hon. Member for Hamilton talked about local authorities and claimed that we were contemplating a cut in real terms. He had to stretch his expectation over a three-year period to do that, but he knows as well as I do that the figures for years two and three in the survey are provisional. For next year, the increase is 3·41 per cent., and if one removes the net additional items for local authority activity, it is still an increase of 2·23 per cent. in Government-aided expenditure.
As to the cost of reform, the hon. Gentleman is now accusing me of arguing in favour of £200 million. I said in the debate that I would accept the figure of £200 million of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) if he would accept what that meant. Clearly, he is not willing to do that as, while his hon. Friend has gone down to a figure of £70 million to £80 million, as reported in today's Glasgow Herald, the hon. Gentleman has gone up to over £600 million. Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman through it, as it might be worth spending a little time on it.
We are making provision next year for costs of £5 million for local authorities to begin to prepare for reform. The year after that, we are providing an extra £25 million,

317
plus £23 million for the shadow authorities. The year after that, in 1996–97, it will be £55 million. By then, we shall have savings of £40 million coming through, giving a net cost of £15 million. That means over the three-year period a net cost of £45 million, but the savings thereafter will go on year after year, to the benefit of local council tax payers in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the explosion in crime, but he cannot have looked at the Scottish figures recently. If he had, he would have found that they show crime having fallen right across the board for a considerable period. Nevertheless, we are planning an increase in the spend on police from £37·7 million to £39·8 million. That is a rise of 5·6 per cent., which is an increase even by the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic anticipation of inflation levels. I can understand why the Labour party expects inflation to be high. After all, inflation averaged 15 per cent. throughout its period in office from 1974 to 1979.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of cuts in education, but we are increasing education expenditure by no less than 11·4 per cent. That is a substantial increase which will cover the expansion in higher and further education.
On health, the hon. Gentleman argued that we were going for a real terms increase of only 0·4 per cent. The gross figure is 5·2 per cent. but, in real terms, even at the pessimistic inflation figure of 4 per cent., that would still be an increase of 1·1 per cent., nearly three times the figure estimated by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of concealing good news about agriculture. I am never one to do that, so I will happily tell the House that the agriculture programme is going up from £439·3 million to £511·7 million—a substantial increase of around 16 per cent., reflecting the reform of the common agricultural policy.
Those programmes and proposals for the year ahead represent a realistic and relevant planning of the disposition of finances in Scotland to help to continue the economic recovery and the improvement in social conditions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have got through the initial exchanges, let me caution the House. We are not in the middle of a debate. The Secretary of State is here to answer questions. I am sure that he will do so directly, and I am sure that the Back Benchers whom I call will put their questions briskly.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the economic circumstances of Europe today, where many Europeans are looking forward to spending three weeks out of four on the dole, particularly in Germany, his budget for spending in Scotland will come as a surprise to those people but be welcomed in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is the more creditable that we have secured those resources for Scotland against a background of public expenditure overall being brought under control and the public sector borrowing requirement being brought down sharply, thus increasing confidence and the prospect of continuing
318
economic recovery, out of which will come further resources in due course to continue to sustain the development of our programmes.
Mr. James Wallace: As the Secretary of State said that he had exercised his judgment about priorities, we may judge whether his priorities are fair and realistic. Given that we have been told so often of the importance of substantial increases in investment in water and sewerage in a short time scale, how can he justify the fact that there is to be no increase in such investments by saying that they are not a priority? How does he perceive it as fair and realistic to expect a fireman or policeman to increase productivity? To what extent will the squeeze on local government expenditure allow local authorities to meet the Prime Minister's priority of expanding nursery education?
With regard to the agriculture and fisheries budget, how much has been taken out of the less favoured areas by cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances and farm conservation grants? Will he confirm that funds will still be available for decommissioning the Scottish fishing fleet next year?
Mr. Lang: I am not sure which of those questions to answer, but, given your stricture, Madam Speaker, I shall have to be brief.
The figures for water and sewerage are increasing from £237 million to £243·7 million. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as there is no longer a base line figure in the English and Welsh expenditure programmes on which the formula can operate, the capacity to increase resources under that heading is limited. That is why I looked to the private sector to increase resources in due course. Nevertheless, the resources enable 19 new suppliers, 91 improvement schemes to be developed, 56 major sewerage schemes and 69 new or improved treatment works over the next 18 months. That is a substantial commitment.
The hon. Gentleman will also no doubt be pleased to know that our commitment to continuing to increase the resources for the tariff rebate subsidy will increase next year by 25 per cent. over the current year's plans.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? Does he agree that the greatest costs that we suffer are because of those people who are unnecessarily employed by local government, and is not it time that we did something about it? The Opposition should stop complaining that local government provides employment. It does not. It merely provides people with an income.
Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Local authority expenditure accounts for a substantial proportion of Scottish Office resources. I looked back at figures for previous years and discovered that, despite their continuing claims of lack of resources, local authorities have continued to expand their numbers of personnel by no fewer than 9,000 in the past five years. Available resources have continued to increase year by year in real terms. We are right to look to local authorities to run a tight ship and to deliver services effectively and efficiently over the next few years.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: If the Secretary of State is serious about saving public money, why is he so hell bent on foisting on the Scottish people an expensive and unwanted reorganisation of local government that even

319
the Government admit in their own White Paper will mean transitional costs of up to £196 million? Even in the long term in some parts of Scotland such as the Central region there will be no long-term savings at all. Will the Secretary of State abandon his expensive, gerrymandering proposals and refer the entire matter of Scottish local government reorganisation to an independent commission?
Mr. Lang: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer to an earlier question. Although the costs of reform may reach the level that he said, they will be offset rapidly by substantial savings that could be as high as £60 million a year. It is significant that the Labour-controlled council of Dundee has estimated savings for its council tax payers from the single-tier structure of more than £14 per household. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's new authority, when it is established, will estimate similar savings.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend cut through the tripe that we are hearing from Opposition Members and confirm that the public spending that he announced today represents the highest single sum available to any Secretary of State in Scotland's history and represents a figure of £50 per week for every man, woman and child living in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a substantial increase. What matters is that we get value for money for the taxpayer who provides those resources. That is why I am looking to all those who are responsible for spending those resources to achieve the maximum in efficiency and investment that will yield good returns in the delivery of the services that they provide.
Mr. George Foulkes: On the trunk roads programme that he has announced, the Secretary of State mentioned the M74, the M8 and the A1, but not the long overdue A77-M77 link. Is that link included and, if not, why not?
Mr. Lang: The full roads programme has not yet been decided and announced. I hope that it will be possible for that scheme to get under way. There are certainly resources available.
Mr. George Kynoch: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that my constituents will welcome the real increases in health spending that is now 50 per cent. greater than in 1979, as well as the increased spending in agriculture? May I suggest that he may find the solution to the figures of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the fact that he is talking about second-hand calculators that he has perhaps bought from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and that perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton should buy a new calculator?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The figures for health expenditure are certainly substantial—an increase in cash approaching £200 million. That will enable a 2·5 per cent. increase in patient activity to take place and a building programme of some £156 million.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State say something more about the roads programme? When will his Department's procedures in
320
relation to the extension of the M80 between Stepps and Haggs be concluded, and what is the likely date of the commencement of the work?
Mr. Lang: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question today, but I can tell him that there are 14 major projects currently under construction in Scotland and that the resources I have announced today will allow 11 new starts in the next three years.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Unlike the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who seemed to revel in doom and gloom, albeit somewhat inaccurately, may I express my welcome for my right hon. Friend's statement and especially for the further drive towards the equalisation of the uniform business rate? Is there an estimate of when the uniform business rate across the United Kingdom will finally be arrived at?
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The need to harmonise business rates in Scotland arises from the high spending records of mainly Labour-controlled local authorities over the years. However, the £60 million that we have injected into the problem for the forthcoming year brings to £440 million the total of Government resources that have gone into bringing down business rates in Scotland. That is a substantial sum. We are now getting close to harmony with England and Wales, which I hope will be achieved in the next year or two.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Scottish Office is to continue to fund the mental illness specific grant? May I point out that a relatively small sum of money will be needed over the next three or four years but that such funding is especially important to those who suffer from traumatic brain injuries? May I go further and ask for an increase in the grant so that the rehabilitation needs of our fellow citizens suffering from such injuries can be advanced? It is a relatively small sum of money, but it is badly needed by the traumatic brain injury units.
Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I can not only reassure him of the survival of the mental illness specific grant but tell him of a proposed increase from £7 million to £10 million. That is an increase of about 40 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that meets his concern.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when inflation is officially estimated to run at 3·5 per cent. next year, it is his policy and that of Chancellors to expect every public service worker in Scotland to have no increase in pay for the next three years and that he will judge his policy to be a success if he cuts workers' wages in that way?
Mr. Lang: First, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not be so gloomy about the rate of inflation. I know that the Opposition are not familiar with low inflation, but inflation is low and, as has been clearly proved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, shows every sign of staying so. The Scottish Office provision for direct running costs next year is zero. I expect the Scottish Office to achieve any increases in running costs through efficiency savings. If we are prepared to do that in Government Departments, we can expect local authorities and others to achieve the same efficiency savings.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the miserly increase in health expenditure, which, incidentally, is not adequate to cope with demographic shifts or increased technology, will not be spent on more managers with large, fast cars paid for at the expense of patient care? If public sector and health service workers are to have a pay freeze for the next three years, will there also be a freeze on managerial wages, fast cars and perks?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman was here for Scottish questions, so he will be aware of the fact that hospital trusts are now delivering patient care treatments more quickly and successfully than was the case before the trusts were established. It is in anticipation of the need to deliver more patient treatments that we are increasing the resources of the health service.
The hon. Gentleman talks of "miserly" expenditure, but I recall what happened under the previous Labour Government when health service budgets, capital spending and nurses' wages were cut by 30 per cent. After allowing for inflation, we have increased health spending by 50 per cent.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Library estimates that, after allowing for changed responsibilities, the Government's support expenditure for local authorities will fall during each of the next three years? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Is he further aware that the Library estimates that in the year 1996–97 Welsh Office spending will rise by 3·5 per cent. more than Scottish Office spending? Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Wales is competent, or that the Secretary of State for Scotland is incompetent?
Mr. Lang: I am not responsible for expenditure levels in Wales. The settlement achieved by the Scottish Office is well up in the range of Government departmental settlements. As for expenditure levels in local government, the grant-aided expenditure will rise to £5,260 million, which is an increase of 2·23 per cent. net of the items being added to the authorities' responsibilities. As to overall expenditure, in Scotland it is some 30 per cent. higher per head than in England or Wales.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Given the apparently large increase in spending on agriculture, can the Secretary of State explain why support for crofters and hill farmers in less-favoured areas in the highlands and islands is to be cut next year? Surely those are the most marginal and hard pressed of the farming communities.
Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my satisfaction that the incomes of hill farmers, particularly in the beef and sheep sectors, have risen very substantially in the last year or two. Support for them has also increased. The suckler cow premium will be up £14 million and the sheep annual premium will be up £28 million. Against that background, it is not unrealistic that the hill livestock compensatory allowance should be reduced by £9·5 million. There are many other demands on taxpayers' resources, but it is estimated that the agricultural programme in general will be substantially increased next year by more than 16 per cent.
Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State made no reference in his statement to
322
community-based housing associations, which do a good job in Scotland, particularly in the inner city areas. Will he clarify what his statement means for those associations? Will they receive an increase or a decrease and, if so, of how much? Will they be able to continue their essential work of housing rehabilitation, or will they be restricted to new building in conjunction with the private sector?
Mr. Lang: There will certainly be continuity of our commitment to housing associations. When I tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Homes budget will go up by 8·5 per cent. net, he will realise that the resources for housing generally next year are very substantial.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be no merry Christmas for the thousands of people who are homeless in Scotland? The last time we debated the issue, my constituency ended up with two more houses. Thousands of homeless people come to see every hon. Member. When will the Secretary of State give the people hope? When will houses that people can rent and afford to buy be built? When will the Secretary of State stop playing Scrooge and give our constituents a happy Christmas?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman now, even though it is a little early. Perhaps I should give him a new tie for Christmas, in view of the one that he is wearing.
The net capital programme for housing will be up by £25 million, or 4·3 per cent., next year. The local authorities' net capital programme on their home stock will be up 5·5 per cent. Those are substantial increases by any standard.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Given that the overall United Kingdom public spending settlement this year is the most savage and draconian of any in the lifetime of the Government, with overall cuts in real terms of 1·3 per cent. and cuts in the public sector capital investment of more than 10 per cent., will the Secretary of State say whether he has bucked that trend or merely concealed it? Will he tell us in simple terms the percentage change in overall expenditure, comparing this year's outturn expenditure with next year's planned expenditure? Will he tell us the percentage change in public sector capital investment, given the crucial nature of that for both employment and economic activity in general?
Mr. Lang: We do not know what the current year's outturn will be, because we are still in the middle of the year. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the £14 billion overall programme represents a 4·3 per cent. cash increase. Our capital gross spend will be over £3 billion, which represents a 5 per cent. increase.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if we had proper railway services in Lothian and Fife, there would be no need to contemplate spending millions of pounds of public money on a second dual carriageway and a second road bridge over the Firth of Forth? The A1 dual carriageway clearly needs to be extended, and I welcome that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but it would be helpful if he could give us an idea of the completion date for the extension of the dual carriageway towards Haddington and Dunbar.
Mr. Lang: I hope that it will be possible to make a start on the Tranent-to-Haddington section of the A1 in 1994–95. As for the railways, let me point out that huge expenditure went into upgrading the east coast line, which is of great interest to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Moreover, we propose to develop the west coast main line using private sector finance. Private sector finance should enable us to build still further on the progress that we are making with public resources in developing our transport infrastructure.
Mr. John McAllion: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the figures that he announced for housing spend may represent an increase on the planned spend for next year, when they are compared to the housing expenditure outturn for this year—and when the real level of inflation is taken into account for next year —they will almost certainly represent a cut in the Scottish housing budget?
According to the Department's own figures, over the 18 months to June this year Scottish local authorities were forced to sell just under 28,000 council houses to sitting tenants, while being able to complete fewer than 1,000. That represents a net shortfall of 27,000 council houses. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify a cut in the housing budget at a time of record homelessness, and record dampness and condensation in the Scottish public sector housing stock?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to try to confuse matters by comparing outturn with planned expenditure. If the outturn figures are different from the planned figures for 1993–94, it is equally likely that the outturn figures for 1994–95 will be different. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the sensible comparison is between planned figures for 1993–94 and planned figures for 1994–95. On that basic, the resources for housing should be more than sufficient to meet the needs.

Points of Order
4.11 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you assist the House in deciding whether the rules governing the broadcasting of our deliberations here extend to tribunals that the Government set up outside? You will know, Madam Speaker, that Lady Thatcher is giving evidence to the Scott inquiry today, but no broadcasters will be present. Next month, the Prime Minister will give evidence to the same inquiry; again, no broadcasters will be present.
It seems extraordinary that, although when the Prime Minister speaks to the nation in this place his words are broadcast, no broadcasters will be present when he speaks to a tribunal that he himself set up. The public want to know what happened in the Iraq arms trade affair. Do the rules affecting this place also affect tribunals?
Madam Speaker: We make rules only for ourselves in the House. Our Select Committee on Broadcasting lays down the regulations; those regulations cover only us and our operations in the House.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Further to the point of order that I raised yesterday, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, following the Opposition's failure to table an amendment to the Budget motions on the Order Paper, and following last night's vote on the amendment to the law, it will now not be possible for the Opposition to table an amendment on that issue at any stage during the passage of the Finance Bill?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is clearly well aware of our proceedings here, as his point of order yesterday showed. He will know that the issue that he has raised will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee debating the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make the position quite clear, in case the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) misheard me. We have now finished debating the Budget in the House, and the point that he raised will be a matter for the Chairman when the Bill is in Committee.
Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned over a number of years on behalf of British nuclear tests veterans who were exposed to radiation at Christmas Island, Maralinga and other locations. Many have campaigned longer than myself.
On 11 November, I received a reply from the Prime Minister saying that a study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence into radiation exposure and its effects on service men would be published next spring. I have discovered that the National Radiological Protection Board has already notified people outside the House that it intends to hold a press conference tomorrow to reveal the report's contents. Is not that matter—which affects 20,000 ex-service people who obeyed instructions when undergoing national service—so serious that a statement

325
should be made to the House? Today, the Glasgow Evening Times reveals the conclusions of the board's report, yet the House is not to be told.
Madam Speaker: That matter is not for me at this stage, but I am sure that members of the Treasury Bench heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said during Prime Minister's questions that the Budget resolution as framed denied the House the right to vote on value added tax on domestic fuel. Later, in the debate on the amendment of the law, the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), said:
"The first vote at the conclusion of tonight's debate will give us the chance to vote down VAT on gas and electricity."—[Official Report, 7 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 230.]
Who was correct—the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Lady?
Madam Speaker: The Speaker has great responsibilities, but is certainly not responsible for the utterances of any right hon. or hon. Member.
Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate to raise at this stage a point of order on the Sunday Trading Bill?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait until we are in Committee, for that is the business of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is absolutely genuine.
Madam Speaker: Order. Am I to take it that the hon. Gentleman's other points of order were not genuine?
Mr. Riddick: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly earlier. I entirely understand that it is for the Chairman of the Committee on the Finance Bill to decide what is put before that Committee, but when the Bill returns to the House—for example, on Report—I imagine that you, Madam Speaker, will have to decide along with your advisers whether an amendment on the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel can be accepted. Would you be able to accept such an amendment after last night's vote on the amendment of the law?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is real, but at this stage it is hypothetical. Whatever advice I receive, I make the final decision—as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. When the time comes, I shall be prepared to do so again.

Points of Order

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 14th JANUARY
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Richard Alexander

  Mr. Michael Clapham

  Mr. Oliver Heald

Orders of the Day

  Sunday Trading Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 and Schedule No. 4)
  Considered in Committee
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a statement on how I intend to chair today's proceedings.
  The Committee will see from my provisional list that there will be a single debate on the selected amendments to clause 1. Underlying that common debate are five competing proposals, each with a principal amendment to which is attached one or more related or consequential amendments. Details are set out in the Note on the selection list.
  The procedure at the end of the debate will be as follows. The Committee will first dispose of the principal amendment then before it, amendment No. 35. If that amendment is agreed to, all the other amendments will fall except those related to amendment No. 35—that is, amendments Nos. 7 and 8—which will then be decided on. If amendment No. 35 is not agreed to, the Committee will turn to the next principal amendment, so that each of the principal amendments—Nos. 35, 1, 2, 3, and 21—will be taken in turn. Once one amendment is agreed to, the Committee will go directly to the amendment or amendments related to it and the remaining principal amendments will fall. If a principal amendment is disagreed to, we go at once to the next one.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I accept your ruling in this matter—I do not disagree with it in any way. However, having seen your list of amendments and having listened to what you said, it is not clear to hon. Members who may be outside the House at present with which amendments we are dealing. As I understand it—and you may correct me—amendment No. 1 relates to total deregulation, the next one is Keep Sunday Special, and the next is the Shopping Hours Reform Council. It is important that hon. Members should enter the right Lobby for the right reason. If there is any way in which you could make it more clear which amendment is which, because it is not stated in your list of amendments, it would be helpful.
  The Chairman: First, hon. Members should be in their places and those who are not here have only themselves to blame if they are confused. Secondly, I urge hon. Members to read the Note. It is not for the Chair to describe what particular amendments are colloquially known as; it is for the Chair to abide by the rules of the Committee. Nevertheless, the Note that I have written is there for all to see. We are starting with amendment No. 35, not amendment No. 1. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear on that point.
  Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My point relates to an issue that concerns hon. Members who do not have a problem with an extension of Sunday trading but who need to look carefully at the employment protections offered in the Bill to help us to

  327
  make a final decision on which clause we wish to support. It seems wrong that those of us who are taking that line cannot make an informed decision because the Committee will not be debating the employment protection aspects of the Bill in schedule 4 until after we have had the votes on the three different options. That puts those of us who do not object to extra trading on Sundays but who have serious worries about the efficacy of the employment protections offered in the Bill in a difficult situation. Would you consider changing the order so that we can have a debate on the employment protection aspects of the Bill before voting on the three different options? [Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. I would like to rule on that point of order and then see whether another point of order is necessary. First, it is the job of the Chair to take the Bill in the order that it is laid down. Secondly, only a business motion can alter that order, and that business motion must be tabled the night before. As matters stand this afternoon, the Chair is duty bound to take the order as it is laid down.
  Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be grateful for your guidance. If by chance none of the recommendations is accepted by the Committee, what will happen? If I am right in saying that the matter will then be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, how will the composition of that Committee be determined, given that the House overwhelmingly voted for the Second Reading but that it did not necessarily mean that the hon. Members who voted for that Second Reading agreed on the approach to the options that should then be taken?
  The Chairman: The composition of the Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection and has absolutely nothing to do with me, but hon. Members should be clear that the Bill has had a Second Reading so, of what decisions or non-decisions are made tonight, nevertheless the Bill will proceed to Committee.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It refers to the point of order that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised a moment ago. I accept your ruling, but do you advise the Committee that it will be quite in order at the end of the day for the Committee, if we do not believe that satisfactory provision is included in the Bill for protection of workers, at a later stage—whether it be today or in Committee upstairs—to reject the Bill on Third Reading or, indeed, in the House of Lords?
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's supposition is entirely correct.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), if she is very concerned about the clauses which, perfectly properly, according to your ruling, cannot be taken until after the other vote has been taken, she would be well advised to vote for what is colloquially known as the Keep Sunday Special option.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, the advice that you are giving to the Committee, following the point of order by my hon Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), is just that, namely, that if anyone has any reservations about
  328
  protection for workers' right not to work on Sunday, they should vote for the Keep Sunday Special option. I hope that the House fully understands that and acts upon it.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I am not giving any advice to any hon. Member on how they may or may not choose to vote. I call Sir Peter Emery to move amendment No. 35.
  Sir Peter Emery: Mr. Chairman, I rise—
  Mr. Ray Powell: O a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would you please give us an explanation—if you have already explained, I would not mind if you were to repeat it—as to why amendment No. 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), has taken precedence over the other options as contained in the Bill?
  The Chairman: It might help the Committee if I explained that. It is a principle of the arrangement of amendments offered at the same point in a Bill that proposals to leave out some words and insert others take precedence over amendments simply to leave out words. Page 488 of the current edition of "Erskine May" makes that plain. The amendment paper before the Committee follows that principle, correcting yesterday's notices of amendments, which did not.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May the Committee have some ruling from you? We know that we are debating the five options today. The most powerful retail lobby outside is saying clearly that if we do not vote on the option that it prefers, it will continue to break the law. What is your guidance to the Committee and to those lobbyists outside?
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means this evening; it is a matter for the courts.

  Sunday Trading Bill
    Clause 1

      ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES FOR REFORM OF LAW RELATING TO SUNDAY TRADING
      4.23 pm
      Sir Peter Emery: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 1, leave out lines 5 to 17 and insert
      'Schedules (Prohibition of trade in shops during Sunday morning) and 3 to this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day").'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'sections' in line 7.
      No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 1o.
      No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 12.
      No. 21, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'following', insert
      'in respect of each local authority area'.
      No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 23.
      No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from 'such' to end of line 17 and insert
      'day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day")'.

      329
      No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'such' to end of line 17 and insert
      'day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day")'.
      No. 25, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
      'and different orders may specify different appointed days'.
      No. 7, in page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'sections'.
      No. 26, in page 1, line 20, at end insert
      'in the relevant local authority area'.
      No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.
      No. 29, page 1, line 21, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 23 and insert
      'the local authority concerned have passed a resolution to the effect that such an order should be made in respect of that local authority area.'.
      No. 32, in page 1, line 23, at end add
      '(4A) An order under subsection (4) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.'.
      No. 34, in page 1, line 23, at end add
      '(4B) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act and "local authority area" shall be construed accordingly.'.
      Sir Peter Emery: At last, the House can decide. Everyone has known for too long that the present regulations concerning Sunday trading are a nonsense and, what is more, they have brought the law into disrespect many times. I hope today to be able to demonstrate that it is possible for us to make a sensible, common-sense and easily understood decision, which I hope that my amendment allows us to do.
      It has been said that my amendment was put in at the last moment. I am sorry that, because I was on parliamentary duty at the meeting of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe parliamentary assembly, I could not be here for the Second Reading, but the amendment was tabled immediately on the conclusion of Second Reading. It was altered because it was tabled before I knew that the Government were going to amend their own Bill, which they had just published. Because the Bill had been amended I had to restructure my amendment so that it would do exactly the same as had always been intended. My amendment had to take account of the Government amendment.
      4.30 pm
      My amendment is simple and straightforward, and does only two things. It says that we should tighten the law to ensure that only a few special shops are allowed to open on a Sunday morning before 1 o'clock, but that after that time there would be complete deregulation.
      I shall take the House through the details, because even I could not arrange for the schedule mentioned in the amendment to appear on the Order Paper today. I must therefore take the House clearly through what the schedule says. Basically, paragraph 2 says:
      "A shop shall not be open on Sunday for the serving of customers before 1 p.m.—unless… it is a special shop",
      or is registered for the Jewish Sabbath. Paragraph 3 defines quickly and simply what a special shop would be:
      "A shop is a special shop by virtue of this paragraph if … the shop is a newsagent's shop and is open only for the sale of newspapers registered at the Post Office and published only on a Sunday"—
      330
      that is designed to ensure that everybody can still get their Sunday papers if they want to—
      "the shop is a registered pharmacy and is open only for the sale … or otherwise … of medicinal products or surgical appliances … the shop is a nursery or garden centre and is open only for the sale of plants, flowers and garden supplies and garden accessories".
      That exemption could not be extended to allow the shop to sell food, or to compete in any way other than as a garden centre. A shop would also be special if:
      "the shop is a petrol filling station … the shop is at a designated airport … or … the trade or business carried on in the shop consists wholly or mainly of … the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises",
      or alcohol
      "for consumption on those premises."
      In other words, the place has to be a restaurant or cafe.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: If I went to a newsagent to buy a newspaper at 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning, and decided that I needed to buy a couple of pints of milk at the same time, would my right hon. Friend's proposed arrangements allow me to do so?
      Sir Peter Emery: No. That is clear; there is no doubt about it. The schedule says clearly that the shop must be:
      "open only for the sale of newspapers registered",
      and that is all that would be allowed.
      Mr. Paul Marland: As the Government seek to impose fewer and fewer regulations, does not my right hon. Friend believe that the ideas that he suggests would herald a welter of new regulations, and give rise to the most preposterous situations?
      Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the whole of my speech before commenting, because the arrangement that I believe that he favours—complete deregulation—will not obtain the necessary majority to stand part of the Bill. In that case, the best that he can do is to support my amendment. I at least provide deregulation for half the day, and that is what he should urge me to do.
      I envisage that the amendment will be completely and simply understood; its whole purpose is to provide unrestricted simplicity. The amendment is necessary because I do not believe that a majority exists for the three options offered in the Bill. What philosophy have I tried to adopt? I may be old fashioned, but I believe that the greatness of Great Britain has been based on Anglo-Saxon Celtic Christian philosophy and action. I believe—
      Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
      Sir Peter Emery: May I finish my sentence?
      People who believe in that philosophy, although they may be in a minority, have the right to have their views heard. When we consider the protection of ethnic minorities in other ways, surely the rights of the Christian minority have to be considered.
      Mr. Fabricant: Is the thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument that Christians will be more likely to go to church if his amendment is carried?
      Sir Peter Emery: I have not used that argument in any way and my hon. Friend knows that. If my hon. Friend were to go to any of the Christian churches—be it Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Church of England or even

      331
      some of the Catholic churches—they would urge that there should be protection for Sunday, and that Sunday should be different from the other days of the week.
      The Keep Sunday Special campaign protects the whole of Sunday, but that is against the wishes of many people who wish to go shopping on Sunday. I believe that they have the right to be considered, and my amendment goes a long way towards doing that.
      Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir Peter Emery: I will give way once more, and I suggest that I do not give way again until I come to the conclusion of my speech. If I have not answered questions by hon. Members by then, I shall be delighted to give way.
      Mr. Banks: Will my hon. Friend explain the difference between allowing people to go to a garden centre on Sunday and prohibiting them from going to a DIY centre or a centre which specialises in the sale of furnishings or carpets?
      Sir Peter Emery: The decision is not easy to make, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise. There is a great demand from people who can garden only at the weekend to be able to go to a garden centre, and, as I understand, there is considerable demand for that to be an exception in the Bill.
      I believe that people should be allowed to arrange their lives as they want to. Therefore, there is particular strength to the argument of those who wish to see complete deregulation. I accept that; there is no doubt about it. If there were to be a referendum on the matter, that view would probably carry the day.
      I am arguing that there are minorities which deserve to be protected. My amendment tries to provide a balance between two sections of society, and it will be able to cope with the problems which may arise. I was asked when I appeared on television about shops in stately homes. It seems that a noble Lord might well be able to go to church or to stay in bed, but he would not have to look after his shop in the morning.
      What are the weaknesses of the alternatives? The weakness of the Keep Sunday Special campaign is that it does not take into account the vast number of people who want to be able to shop on Sunday. That is a real weakness, and I am sorry about it. The people involved in the campaign claim—wrongly, I believe—that they should regulate people's lives. I believe that if people wish to shop on Sunday, they do not expect the law to stop them doing
      so.
      I have outlined the case made by the Church and there cannot be one hon. Member who has not had a host of letters from religious organisations demanding that protection be given so Sunday can be different from other days. The amendments relating to the Keep Sunday Special campaign are nonsense in many areas. First, what about the extent of the regulations on the square footage of shops? Who is to do the measuring? How will it be carried out? Who will check it? What is 280 sq m? Is it 17 by 18 sq yds? That is about the size of the centre of the Chamber.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned garden centres, but I note that video recordings are to be sold. What about tapes, records and the machines used to play them on? Are they in or out? What about a
      332
      florist? Can it sell only cut flowers and plants; and what about artificial flowers? In fact, small shops in general are an area of contention.
      The Keep Sunday Special regulations are too detailed, and the House should not be attempting to go in for more detail. We need a simple conclusion to this matter.
      I come now to total deregulation. I have already said under cross-questioning that the weakness of this option is that it does not pay due regard to the large number of people who have a right to be considered. It does not seem right to me that we should ride roughshod over such people, and my amendment would go a long way to ensuring that that does not happen.
      In some ways my amendment attempts to replace the third àlternative. The Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal attempts to bridge the differences between Keep Sunday Special and complete deregulation, but fails to do so. It is not as simple or as sensible as my amendment, for the following reasons.
      Which of us wants to load on to local authorities the necessity of keeping a register of everything that goes on? Local government already complains that it is given too much to do by central Government with too little money to do it. I see no point in making local authorities responsible for this additional workload.
      Furthermore, who will decide what constitutes the allowed six hours out of eight? Who will check? Who is to know precisely how many hours a shop stays open? To those who favour keeping Sunday special I should point out that my amendment at least keeps it special until 1 pm, whereas the alternative we are discussing would allow opening from 10 am. Some bigger shops would be allowed to open too—but how big?
      The great advantage of my amendment is its simplicity and its lack of regulations to be enforced—
      Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I find my right hon. Friend's argument confusing. In attempting to keep Sunday special in the morning he has fallen into the trap of allowing certain elements of trade to go on, which is not so special. Why is it, in his logic, that those who wish to eat cannot buy food, whereas those who wish to read or garden occupy a superior state?
      Sir Peter Emery: People who want to eat in a restaurant can do so—the amendment allows for that. I am sorry; if people want to go to a grocer's shop, they will have to wait until 1 pm.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals are more restrictive for newsagents than the provisions in the Shops Act 1950, in that they would prevent them from selling until 1 pm many things that they can legally sell now?
      Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended that. If it can be proved to me, we can alter it easily enough in Committee, because it is more a Committee point than a general one —[HON. MEMBERS: "We are in Committee."] Indeed we are, but I meant when we go into Committee upstairs, as opposed to a Committee of the whole House. The Government themselves may want to tighten up certain legal niceties there.
      I do not say that my amendment is watertight, but I do say that the principle is right. My proposal will be just as open to amendment in Standing Committee as any other.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I commend my right hon. Friend's efforts to try to find a way through many of our problems with Sunday trading, but I am anxious to know how, under this amendment, the many corner shops run by people who are not Christians will be monitored. Does he really believe it to be a good thing that such shops will be closed, the more so since they serve the needs of the elderly and others who cannot get to the larger stores at any time?
      Sir Peter Emery: I ask my right hon. Friend to come to my constituency, where she would learn that those who most strongly oppose deregulation are the elderly. They are not asking for reform; they want to ensure that at least Sunday morning is kept special, and they would be happy to go along with what I have said.
      Mr. Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman has been rather scathing about regulation, but if, as his amendment proposes, mornings are to be kept free, there must be some regulation to ensure that shops do not open on Sunday mornings. Would there not have to be a check on newsagents to ascertain that they sold only newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman is therefore not against every sort of regulation to make sure that Sunday is kept special, at least in part.
      Sir Peter Emery: I always enjoy crossing swords with the hon. Gentleman; it is fun. His point is relevant to some degree—but only to a small degree. My amendment provides for fines of £50,000 for those who break the law —that would apply under any of the options, I believe. Mine is no different.
      The verdict on all this, sent to many Members of Parliament and giving us the views of Mr. Anthony Scrivener QC, was rather interesting. The legal opinion is that the Keep Sunday Special option in the Bill
      "presents no more difficulty in interpretation or enforcement than many other statutes currently in force".
      I am disappointed; I was hoping for something more simple than what is in force, given our difficulties with so much of the current law. We want to avoid complication at all costs, and that is exactly what my amendment proceeds to do. It is a common sense approach and an approach that can be understood by everyone. There are no ifs or buts about it. It requires no local government registration and little or no real monitoring—and it discards worries about floor size.
      On the subject of floor size, what would happen if a 280 sq ft shop that was trading successfully wanted to expand by adding another 30 sq ft? Would it be outside the regulations then? Does that make sense? Should businesses be prevented from the benefits of expansion? That is clearly nonsense.
      4.45 pm
      The KSS option is designed to protect the whole day, but I do not believe that that option and that for total deregulation command majority support in the House. In that case, my amendment should attract the support of certain Opposition Members because, of all the alternatives, it offers the best chance of keeping Sunday special until 1 pm rather than until 10 am, as offered in the third alternative.
      If hon. Members have any doubts about whether the KSS option will fall, they should, at the outset, go through the Lobby in support of my amendment. That is the best thought that I can offer. If hon. Members wish to save some
      334
      part of their preferred option they should line up behind me in support of my amendment. Similarly, those in favour of total deregulation will not win, so they should support my amendment, which offers partial deregulation for half of the day.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Would it not be better to turn the argument the other way round? If people want to keep Sunday special in any way, the only proper means of doing so is by voting for the KSS option.
      Sir Peter Emery: That argument could be put, but it does not make sense. Under my amendment, hon. Members will get half of what they want rather than none of it. I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he will not win tonight, so the sooner that he supports my amendment the better for him.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether his idea could be amended in Committee to allow all small shops but no large shops to open in the morning? Such a simple proposal would command a great deal of support.
      Sir Peter Emery: There is nothing in my schedule to prevent such an amendment from being made. It would have to be selected by the Chairman and carried by the Committee. I cannot, therefore, give an absolute answer to my hon. Friend except to say that, were I to serve on the Committee, I would listen to the argument and judge whether it was acceptable. The argument may well make good sense.
      There is no doubt about the fact that my amendment is a compromise. Compromises are not necessarily disadvantageous and many a time good British compromises have proved to be right. I believe that my amendment represents a fair solution, which meets both points of view. It is a common sense solution and it has a simplicity about it which none of the other amendments offers. I ask the House to support my amendment.
      Mr. Pike: I do not intend to support amendment No. 35, but I wish to discuss the other amendments selected in the group. I must make it clear that I will support the Retailers for Shops Act Reform-Keep Sunday Special compromise proposal when we vote. I will not, therefore, spend much of my speech on that of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
      My view has changed little since we last debated this issue in 1986. On that occasion, the Government were defeated by 14 votes on the Shops Bill, which originated in the other place.
      Today's Bill was given its Second Reading last week and we are now debating the proposed options. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was right to raise a point of order about the difficulties that many of us face in trying to debate any of the options, because, when deciding whether to allow the Bill to proceed, the overriding factor must be acceptable protection for workers. Given the Government's track record on pay and trade unions, I have grave doubts that they will deliver a Bill with acceptable protection for workers. I shall say no more about that because that matter will be dealt with in the debate on the next group of amendments.
      I agreed also with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who said that if there was any doubt about the protection to be offered to workers, hon. Members who might be minded to

      335
      go further than the RSAR-KSS option should support that option as the minimum one, because the overriding factor was worker protection.
      Mr. Sheerman: I do not intend to criticise my hon. Friend, but I should like to jog his memory. He said that he has not changed his mind much since the 1986 debate, but, at the end of it, we agreed that some change to Sunday trading legislation was necessary. We agreed that do-it-yourself centres, garden centres and small shops should be allowed to open so long as workers were offered adequate protection. I must remind him that our opinion has changed a great deal. The option that we prefer represents real, flexible change that will help the consumer.
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is right and that is why I advocate the RSAR-KSS option. I know that my hon. Friend and I have been persuaded by the wisdom of it, but those hon. Members who wish to go beyond that option and who care about worker protection should think carefully about doing so. They should be wary of going further and they should not be conned by the Government. Therefore, although they might not vote for the RSAR-KSS option on the grounds advocated by my hon. Friend and by me, they should do so for slightly different reasons. Given the Government's track record, those hon. Members should provide workers with the safeguard offered by that option.
      I was a member of the Committee on the Bill that became the Local Government Act 1988 and the present Home Secretary was the Minister responsible for the legislation. I always recall that when I moved a particular amendment he said that I always wore my GMB union hat. He said that I wanted council workers to be paid double time on a Sunday. Such a comment is fundamental to today's debate because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was opposed to such payments then and he is still opposed to them. That is why we should not support the option advocated by him.
      Mr. John Marshall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, USDAW, has sent a letter to a number of hon. Members, which states:
      "Your support is crucial to ensure the six hour option receives a clear majority support."
      Does he accept that USDAW and the Transport and General Workers Union support the option advocated by the Shopping Hours Reform Council and not the option that he supports?
      Hon. Members: Not true.
      Mr. Pike: I will never listen to anyone from the Conservative party who tries to use the trade union movement to influence our view. What the hon. Gentleman has quoted is a load of rubbish. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in the letter.") I have seen that letter, but I am also aware that particular motion was not carried at USDAW's annual conference. I do not want to fall out with USDAW. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I do not.
      Conservatives often accuse the Labour party of jumping when the trade unions so demand and suggest that we are under their tight control. On a free vote, however, the Labour party is completely at liberty to advocate a particular case, unlike some Conservative Members who
      336
      have been paid by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which has spent substantial amounts of money to try to persuade hon. Members how to vote on the issue.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I support the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Is it not an absolute slur on certain Conservative Members to say that those who support the Shopping Hours Reform Council have been paid by that organisation, when we have not been? Moreover, if we had been, and we have not, we would have made a statement in the Register of Members' Interests.
      The Chairman: Order. That was a helpful point of order and I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee listened to what the hon. Gentleman said.
      5 pm
      Mr. Pike: I was not casting any slur but was simply referring to the vast amount that has been spent by that organisation to persuade people which option they should support in the debate. If anybody believes that Sainsbury and Tesco have put money into SHRC for the benefit of their workers or the public, he is kidding himself.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: If my hon. Friend wishes to test the credibility of the claim of those large stores to be acting in the public and consumer interest, he should look at the way in which they used legal devices—the planning laws—to attempt to stop the warehouse development in east London. Had they been so interested in consumer protection, perhaps they would have taken a different view. Surely that undermines the credibility of their claim to be acting in favour of the consumer and shows conclusively that they are concerned with their market share and not with the public interest.
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, as he always does on these matters. The vast control being gained by a small number of supermarkets in the grocery retail trade in Britain is a growing worry to many of us. Four big supermarket chains are controlling an ever-increasing share of the market. They now tell manufacturers what size products should be and what cuts of meat there should be. They are controlling the market, not in the best interests of the public but because they can make substantial profits.
      In the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred, the point was made that one additional shopping day would not increase the amount of trade. The same financial limitations apply whether we have six or seven shopping days.
      The superstores trade successfully because they sell a higher volume of products in relation to the number of staff they employ. Contrary to the claim that superstores create jobs, if one were to analyse the position across the board, it would become clear that superstores lead to job losses. I am sure that, if they were allowed to trade on Sundays, they would not save jobs or create employment and there would be bigger job losses.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Pike: I shall make one point before giving way as it ties in with what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said.
      One retailer in my constituency, Christopher Redman of T. Redman and Co. Ltd., wrote to me, saying:

      337
      "In asking for your support, I would also ask you to bring your influence to bear in seeking a speedy resolution to this important piece of legislation. We have lived with the nonsense of the 1950 Shops Act for long enough."
      I believe that there is an overwhelming view that, provided we can get an acceptable solution with worker protection, we should remove the Shops Act from the statute book.
      Dr. Robert Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in April, London Economics published a paper stating that there would be a net loss from deregulation of 20,000 jobs? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that helpful.
      Mr. Pike: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a valid point.
      Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Gentleman referred to the interests of consumers. Does he agree that, if all shops, including food shops, were allowed to open on Sunday, inevitably the cost of living of ordinary families would increase? The extra opening hours on Sunday, with their added wage costs, including overtime, would proportionately be far in excess of the extra trade generated in food and that would increase prices, to the detriment of the standard of living of ordinary families.
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If workers are to be given proper remuneration for working on Sundays, exactly that will happen. We will avoid that only if shops are not prepared to give workers the payment that they should get for Sunday working.
      Before I became a Member, I worked in a glass factory which had to operate seven days a week. I am not totally against the principle of working on Sundays, but that was clearly my choice and I was remunerated very well for working them. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) makes an important point.
      I shall now get into the main thrust of the debate and say why I believe that the Keep Sunday Special-RSAR option should be given the approval of the House.
      I want to go back to the letter from Mr. Redman which states:
      "Total or partial deregulation would have dire consequences not just for hard working retailers like me, but for our customers, many of whom lack the ability to get to a superstore regularly —and in any case, like popping into their local convenience store. It is part of the fabric of community life".
      That is a crucial part of the debate. We should not assume that in 1993 everyone in Britain has a motor car and can get to a superstore.
      If superstores are allowed to open on Sundays, more public transport will be needed, but, once again, elderly, disabled and sick people will be disadvantaged. They will not be able to take advantage of Sunday opening and more corner stores and grocers' shops will disappear.
      So many corner shops have disappeared over the past few years. They are an important part of the fabric of the nation, and we have a duty to ensure that they remain in existence for the sick, the disabled and the elderly.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I am most confused by what the hon. Gentleman said. If fewer people can get to the superstores because they do not have transport, he does not have to worry that superstores will be crammed with
      338
      people on a Sunday, nor does he have to worry about the small stores. Surely, in any event, the people about whom he is concerned will shop in corner stores.
      Mr. Pike: If more trade is attracted to the superstores, there will be less trade for the corner shops. I accept that a large proportion of the people to whom I referred may not use corner shops. However, some of the people who use superstores also use the corner shops at certain times. If they do not do so because they go to a superstore on Sunday, they will make the corner shops vulnerable, some of which will go out of business.
      Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pike: I shall carry on for a while as I am mindful of the time and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall give way again in a few moments.
      I want to make one strong condemnation of large stores such as Sainsbury and Tesco and others that have chosen to break the law to change it. We live in a democratic society and with an elected House of Commons and this place makes the law. It is for those stores to operate within the law. I disagreed with the poll tax, but I never supported the breaking of the law. I believed that the way to change it was through the ballot box. I asked the management of Sainsbury, and others who believe that it is right to break the law, whether it was right to break a law to try to change it, because once one goes down that dangerous path one is on a road to anarchy, which is unacceptable.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman find it remarkable that a quite senior person at Sainsbury wrote to inform those working under him that promotion prospects would definitely depend on their being able to work on Sundays? That was immediatley disowned—I brought the matter up in the House, so it is on the record—by the chairman of Sainsbury when he realised that that chap had let the cat out of the bag.
      Exactly the same happened with W. H. Smith. One of its managers at Milton Keynes wrote a similar letter, which, of course, was immediately disowned, but relatively senior people are sending out such letters, showing that they are going to disregard the law. It is only because the cat has been let out of the bag that the top brass are denying it.
      Mr. Pile: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It is rare that the hon. Lady and I agree on any issue, but on this issue I agree with her 100 per cent.
      Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
      Mr. Pike: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
      I referred to pay but I did not refer to the choice that faces workers. The Bill will offer workers no protection. We know that it will affect promotion prospects. Job applicants will be asked whether they are willing to work on Sunday and those who are not will not get jobs.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the fact that the issue of law and order is fundamental to the debate. Does he recall that, on Second Reading, I asked the Home Secretary to make it unequivocally clear that, if the Committee accepted the KSS-RSAR option, he would strictly enforce its decision? I received no reply to that request, but I hope that I shall today. Nor did I receive a reply to the suggestion

      339
      that, before we vote tonight, Ministers should seek an undertaking from the major lawbreakers that they will abide by any decision of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. We all know that the challenge of the superstores and the big trading groups was taken to Europe and to the House of Lords. They knew that what they were doing was illegal under the 1950 Act. They were playing for time, but because they had money, and were able to make more, they were prepared to drag the system along.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I must correct the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not reply. My right hon. and learned Friend made it perfectly clear that local authorities would continue to be responsible for enforcing the law, which is one of the KSS-RSAR options. If the right hon. Gentleman and those who support KSS or any of the other options had wanted them enforced in any other way, they would have suggested different options.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: That is the Pontius Pilote stance.
      Mr. Pike: The Minister fudges the issue. It confirms what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said. He repeated what has been said many times when questions have been asked about enforcement—that it is a matter for local authorities. The Government should have given a lead. The Home Secretary should have given a directive that authorities should carry out the law of the land—it would not have been out of order for him to do so.
      Mr. Lloyd: I have said from the Dispatch Box many times, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that all members of the public and all organisations should obey the law, including the law on Sunday trading.
      Mr. Pike: The Minister may say that, but the Government did nothing to make it happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe is absolutely right when he says that they are unlikely to do so again.
      We should be asking Sainsbury, Tesco and others—if the option that they do not want is carried today—whether they will accept the will of the Committee and, ultimately, accept the Bill when it is enacted.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Marland: I thought that the objective of the debate was to try to tidy up the law, which local authorities will have to enforce once it has been sorted out. It is precisely because the law is in such a mess that we are having the debate. I wanted the hon. Gentleman to give way earlier because he said that we live in a democratic society and that he is a democrat. I hope that, before the end of his speech, he will say a few words about the millions of people who want to shop on Sunday and, when they have the opportunity of voting with their feet, do so by shopping on a Sunday. It would not be fair if he did not say something about them as well.
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has confused two issues. He should allow me to make my own speech and make the case that I am trying to make.
      340
      If he doubts that Sainsbury and Tesco knew that it was illegal for them to sell probably 80 per cent. of the items that they sold under existing legislation, he is kidding himself and misleading the Committee. I know that he is not stupid enough to believe that they did not know what items they could or could not sell.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the core issue is that, with the best will in the world, more often than not local authorities do not have the resources to investigate and, ultimately, to prosecute. It behoves the Home Secretary to ensure that local authorities have the power to enforce the law.
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. So often, the Government put responsibilities on local authorities, such as to administer mandatory grants and so on. We could have a long debate on that, and if we did, you would rule us out of order, Mr. Morris. The Government place responsibility on local authorities but do not give the finance to carry out their responsibilities.
      I shall refer to another letter that I have received on breaking the law, not from a constituent but from Rev. Ray Skinner, the rector of the St. Lawrence church in Morden. I do so for sentimental reasons—I was married there 31 years ago to the very day. The final paragraph is relevant to my point. It says:
      "If the big Stores, through their recent wilful breaking of the law can change it to their own advantage, what example is this to previously law-abiding citizens? No law, or lax law may cost less to enforce than good law in the short term, but please do not vote for the god of money. Please, vote for the 'KSSC/RSAR' option."
      That underlines the point that I am trying to make.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Has the hon. Gentleman received letters from people who are employed on Sunday by the stores to which he referred, saying that they need their earnings to pay the mortgage, because they are students or because of other factors? Does he not think that, despite the fact that one is bound to be concerned about people who are in that position, immoral, indirect presssure has been exerted on Members, and that that pressure should not have been exerted because it has been brought about by illegality?
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has made a point that I was not going to make in my speech. However, because I wish to deal with the issue honestly, I accept that I have received some letters that made that point. I have also received letters from people who are employed by Sainsbury and by others, which say that the story that they are told by management is very different from the reality. They are under considerable pressure to work on Sundays. If one is fair and balanced about it—
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Pike: If my hon. Friend will just let me finish my sentence, I will gladly give way to her, because I know that she has been trying to make a point for some time. I have letters from both groups, a number of which make it clear that people are under considerable pressure.
      Ms Jackson: Only today, my office received a telephone call from an under-manager in a retail store, who would give neither his name nor that of his employer. The message that he wished to impart, which is of particular significance as the Committee is debating the issue today, is that he was told by his manager that if he refused to work on Sunday, he could give up any hope of promotion.
      Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. It underlines our fears about what will happen. We all know that those dangers are real and that no Act of Parliament can prevent abuses from taking place. Even if the Government were generously minded on employment protection issues—they are not—it would be impossible for such protection to be enforced.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he has already given way many times. Is it not interesting that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including myself, have received letters from the employees of perhaps the two most successful and dynamic retailers—Marks and Spencer and the John Lewis Partnership—saying, thank God, that their organisations have no intention of opening on Sundays?
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes another valid point. The case presented by both managers and partners in the John Lewis Partnership is a good one. I think that the workers are in some way involved in the management of John Lewis. Although I do not know the details of that scheme, I know that it is unique.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if an incredibly unlikely event were to occur and proper worker protection were written into the Bill, there would be no prospect, if Sunday became a free-for-all as some Conservative Members wish, of protection for the associated workers who would be put under increasing pressure to work on a Sunday?
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, if the SHRC option or total deregulation were to be carried today, there would be pressure on car park attendants, delivery people, bus drivers and others to work.
      I appeal to my hon. Friends who have any inclination to vote for deregulation or for the SHRC option to understand that, once we have breached the principle that Sunday is special, people who have to work on Sundays—as I did —will be unlikely in a few years to get double pay. Once Sunday is just an ordinary day, employers will not want to pay anything special for it. Deregulation would be the thin end of the wedge. It would lead to a breaching of an important principle that has applied for a long time.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Pike: I shall not give way for a while now because I have been extremely generous so far.
      I want to refer to a few letters from my constituency. P.D. Lees, the general manager of Warburton's, a family baker, has said:
      There is no doubt that if our customers, the most important of which are the large multiple retailers, were to open seven days they would expect bread deliveries on Sunday. Competition in the industry and the power of these key customers is such that it is very unlikely we would be able to resist. Margins in the industry are so slim that the considerable extra cost in distribution and production which would result would have to be passed on to our customers."
      In a slightly different way, the hon. Member for Twickenham was making the same point—that the customers will pay for the privilege if we go along with deregulation.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened once.
      342
      I have used the example of bread; as well as baking bread, that firm sells it. If we have deregulation or the SHRC option, not just the corner shops but the character shops that make Burnley different from Blackburn, Blackburn different from Caerphilly and Caerphilly different from Chester will be under attack. They give towns their character. They give a personal service in a personal way, whether in a specialist sausage shop in Clitheroe—I know that a number of people went in there when there was a by-election in that area—or in a shop run by a greengrocer, a baker or a butcher. Specialist shops are under threat. They will gradually disappear from our high streets, with a resulting loss of character, if either of the proposals is accepted.
      I have another letter, from the Bishop of Blackburn, Alan Chesters. He says of the Bill:
      "In my view, it effectively removes any safeguards to the character of Sunday. It would also have a severe effect on the well-being of small shops, which provide a vital service to so many, particularly those without a car or too old or frail to venture far for their shopping. Many elderly people, lone parents and people on low incomes are dependent on local shops. During the last thirty years, the number of independent grocery outlets has fallen from 116,000 to 32,800. Many of those which still survive depend upon the custom of those who 'top up' on their main shopping."
      Such shops are vulnerable and might go if we voted for deregulation.
      Marks and Spencer has said that, if the vote goes the wrong way, it
      "will lead to the closure of thousands of small shops, the further decline of the High Street, less consumer choice and higher prices."
      Those who do not believe that that is true are kidding themselves.
      Mr. James Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has quoted Marks and Spencer. Does he know of any plans that it has to close its shops in Scotland?
      Mr. Pike: We are not debating Scotland. I accept that Marks and Spencer has recently opened a couple of shops there. I am not speaking on behalf of Marks and Spencer. I am telling the Committee the good reasons why the company is against the principle of the extension of Sunday opening in England.
      Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to help him. It is well known that Marks and Spencer does not wish to trade on Sunday in Scotland. It has been forced, although it does not want to be forced, by market share—
      The Chairman: Order. The Bill does not relate to Scotland.
      Mr. Pike: You underline the point that I was making, Mr. Morris. We are not dealing with Scotland.
      Marks and Spencer has made the point clearly that, if we accept deregulation or the SHRC option, small shops and specialist shops will not survive. For example, the National Association of Health Stores has sent a letter to all hon. Members, saying:
      "Free for all Sunday trading would place a further burden on these individuals. Many would not survive and the very special services they provide to the community would be lost."
      That again underlines the case that the specialist shops will disappear. I have here a letter from Timpson Shoe Repairs Ltd., saying:

      343
      "Within five years, cobblers will start to disappear. In 10 years, half of them will be gone—forever—but will it be for the better?"
      Kwik Save has three stores in my constituency. Graeme Bowler, the managing director, says:
      "My very recent experience of retailing in Australia confirms that the combination of large new out-of-town retail developments and a move to deregulate trading has a devastating effect on high street, village communities and the many small traders whose livelihoods depend on them."
      Iceland has said:
      "Be under no illusion. Schedule 4 of the Sunday Trading Bill 'Rights of Shop Workers' offers absolutely no protection."
      That is right. Workers will suffer and consumers will pay the price for deregulation. If we do not go for the KSS-RSAR option, we shall make a sad mistake and the people of this country will blame us for years to come.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I wish the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) a happy wedding anniversary. The church in which he was married 31 years ago is in my constituency and is especially beautiful. I am sure that he has many fond memories of that day, and may he see another 31 years of happy marriage.
      I listened carefully to what has been said on amendment No. 35 moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I wanted to support it because if anyone could come through the debate and suggest a solution that was both workable and answered all the various questions that have arisen, I was willing to listen. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about the issues that surround Sunday trading.
      I have said on a number of occasions that the most important task that faces the House is to ensure that we pass a law that is enforceable. The present situation is nonsensical. Most right hon. and hon. Members feel extremely uncomfortable with the fact that people are unable to work the existing law and instead are breaking it. None of us wishes to see that continue.
      I must declare immediately that the most sensible decision would be in favour of total deregulation. I know that a number of hon. Members will take a different view. I am perfectly willing to listen to their arguments and perfectly willing to accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be able to bring themselves to vote for total deregulation. I ask them only to listen to the points that I wish to make.
      If we wish to have a law that is easily enforceable, we should pass a law that does not contain any regulation, under which people can act on their own behalf and make decisions whether to open their shops. There would then be no need to worry who enforces it, whether the Government or the local authorities. Retailers would simply assess demand and ask themselves, in view of that demand, whether they wanted to open on some Sundays, every Sunday or not open on any Sunday.
      5.30 pm
      Ms Joan Walley: How does the right hon. Lady see her option of deregulation fitting in with the enforcement of proposals for employment protection and the protection of those workers who will be working on Sundays?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Lady will be able to debate that issue more closely later. I am comfortable with the way in which the Bill currently stands for the protection
      344
      of people who may or may not wish to work on Sundays. That issue seems to be set out clearly and does not present a problem to me; the notion that causes problems is the idea that we should in some way have to set out in great detail exactly who may shop on Sundays, where they may shop, what they may buy and into what type of store they may go. It is for that principal reason that the House should consider the possibility of total deregulation to make a clear and understandable law.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, no restriction on what people can or cannot buy is implied in any of the options before the Committee. It is a type of shops approach, not a type of goods, approach.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I wish that that were so. Unfortunately, after carefully reading the schedules it seems to me that there are a number of restrictions on what people can buy because the schedules say what can or cannot be sold.
      Mr. Couchman: May I rebut the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)? One category of shops that would not be allowed to open is antique shops. Browsing around antique shops is a classic leisure time activity and people will not buy antiques at motorway service stations or in tobacconists. People will not be able to buy antiques on Sunday, so my hon. Friend is quite wrong.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
      Mr. Sheerman rose—
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but first I wish to make a little progress.
      A great deal has been made of the issue that Sunday is a special day of the week. It is no secret to hon. Members who have listened to previous debates that I do not like shopping at all and that little would persuade me to go shopping on a Sunday. Having said that, I know how I can choose to make my Sunday a different day and I do not see that it is my job as a legislator or as an individual to say that nobody else may shop on a Sunday. If people want Sunday to be a special day—many of us want to choose how we spend days at weekends, although a large number of people work—many of us would choose according to the needs and wishes of our families. Parliament should allow people the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.
      Why do we as legislators have not only to tell people whether they can open shops on Sundays, where they can shop and what they can buy, but to tell them that they are not allowed to buy certain items on Sundays? It seems an extraordinary business. It is almost like sitting on a local authority planning committee and then on the development control committee and starting to think about whether people can put their dustbins behind or in front of the back door. I thought that as legislators we had grown a little more than that in this great Parliament. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think about that issue a little more.
      Mr. Marland: We have heard a lot about added costs if shops open on Sundays or have restricted Sunday opening. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the difficulty with cost will be due to the policing and patrolling of those shops, big or small, to determine whether they are selling

      345
      goods that are not allowed? Would not that cost the taxpayer and the shopper a great deal of money compared with total deregulation, which will not cost anything?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I want to come on to that issue as my third point. I was especially concerned at Opposition Members saying that they felt that the Government and not local authorities should police whatever system the Committee chooses. As a democrat, I am perfectly prepared to accept the will of the Committee, whichever way hon. Members vote. I want to see that carried to its logical conclusion and I most certainly want to see it vigorously enforced.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Anyone who reads the Second Reading debate in Hansard will see that the Opposition challenged the Government on the issue that they should not and must not stand aside if a decision of the House is trampled on by people whose motive is to steal their market share from law-abiding retailers. The right hon. Lady says that she does not want to instruct other people. She sent a letter to all Members of Parliament saying:
      "Option 1: Total Deregulation—Yes. Option 2: Regulation/ Restriction (KSSC/RSAR)—No. Option 3: Partial Deregulation (SHRC)—Yes"
      She has been telling hon. Members to do that in the debate. I hope that they will make up their own minds.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: All of us would accept that when one is sometimes asked for guidance, one is entitled to give that guidance and that people are willing to accept it. It is entirely up to hon. Members to make up their own minds. I simply tell them the answer to the question asked. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should object to that. His argument about local authorities is fallacious. If Parliament decides to opt for one of the options requiring policing by local authorities, we must recognise that those authorities are the vehicle through which that policing will be done. That is perfectly right and proper. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is the way in which many laws at local level are enforced. I think that the majority of hon. Members would understand and accept that.
      Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Lady is misleading the Committee through her interpretation of the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). What he said on Second Reading and what we have said earlier today was not that we want central Government to be in charge; of course, regulation should work through local authorities. We want it made clear—and we wanted it made clear when she was a Minister—that it is as wrong for the rich fat cats such as Sainsbury, Tesco and Argyll to break the law democratically as it is for a youngster to burgle a house or steal a car. Whatever the circumstances, the law should be honoured. Ministers have not stood up and said that the law must be obeyed, whoever administers it.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I believe that it is wrong for people to break the law—it is wrong for the large stores and the very small stores to break the law. As I acknowledged when I was a Minister, small stores have been breaking the law. All those which have been opening on Sundays have been breaking the Shops Act 1950. Many stores have also been breaking it in terms of the products
      346
      that they have been selling. That was the case under the Labour Government, right up until now. That is undeniable. We should have a law that is enforceable, which is why we are holding this debate today. It is interesting to see how difficult it is to get hon. Members to agree.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the issues to be considered is the cost of goods sold by the various shops? Is she aware that, in my constituency, one can buy a bundle of branded groceries for £13·74 at Food Giant, a shop that the Keep Sunday Special campaign would close, but that at 7-Eleven, which the campaign would allow to remain open, the same bundle of goods costs £18·35? Why should my constituents be deprived of the right to buy cheap milk, bread and other goods in order to keep some hon. Members happy?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. My solution would resolve the problem. I suspect that if there were total deregulation such matters would come to a natural conclusion.
      I am deeply disturbed by some of the impositions that we would place on local authorities if we opt for one of the regulatory options. It is true that local authorities have been under considerable pressure for a number of years to manage their affairs effectively. It is interesting to note that, while a number have tried to enforce the 1950 Act, others have merely said that it has been impossible for them to police the Act efficiently. My concern is that a restrictive option such as the KSS-RSAR option would place an even greater burden on local authorities as they would have to employ more people to police the Act. There would be armies of people rushing around the streets trying to ensure that shops were not selling what they should not be selling. It would therefore cost a fortune merely to ensure that the legislation was being observed, and it would not be too long before the House was again forced to consider a law that it had become almost impossible for local authorities to monitor.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely, the essence of local authorities' objection is that, if they seek to enforce the Act not against individual stores but against the major retailers which are together seeking to defy the law, they put so much of their council tax payers' money at risk. For example, is the right hon. Lady awere that if Kirklees council had lost its case against Wickes in the House of Lords, perhaps on a technicality, it would have risked in excess of £250,000 of its own money? No local authority would dare to risk such a large proportion of its resources. The Government were opting out of enforcement but, had the Attorney-General so wished, they could have stepped into the place of the local authorities. While the right hon. Lady was at the Home Office, she did precisely nothing to help.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman has made my case for me about the law as it stands, showing the difficulties that there have been in enforcing it. I hope that he will now help us. To a certain extent, the debate is about how we can reduce the burden on local authorities. We are asking hon. Members not to make life more difficult for them or put them into a similar position to that of Kirklees council.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend is using two arguments. She says that she wants no regulation on Sunday trading, but she then says that it is difficult to enforce regulation in any case. We should at least be honest in this debate. Is it her true position that, even if the regulations were quite straightforward to enforce, she would not want them enforced because she believes in total deregulation? Is she merely using that idea to buttress her argument without believing in it at all?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: That distorts what I said and, if I may say so, it is a rather disgraceful remark. I have made it absolutely plain that if the House favours one of the most restrictive options, I should be one of the first to ask that there should be solid and strict enforcement of it through the local authorities. I very much resent the implication that I was asking the House to break the law —I most certainly am not.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to the issue of costs to local authorities, if there is to be deregulation, and if the market giants take over not only their own share but everyone else's, surely there will be a denuding not only of the small corner shop but of town centres. That would have a deleterious knock-on effect on local authorities, not least in terms of what they can raise in rates. It has already happened in parts of central London. There is a concomitant to turning central shopping areas in the inner cities into deserts: they also become crime ridden, which has further enormous knock-on effects.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I do not agree with her. There has not been a massive restriction on small shops as a result of what has happened in the past three to four years. Part of the reason for town centres being denuded is not Sunday trading but planning legislation which has encouraged the large stores to move out of town. The notion of encouraging large stores to move out of town is as much a cause of small shops having problems in town centres as is pedestrianisation, which is a monstrous idea.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: Like me, the right hon. Lady is a patron of the National Organisation of Asian Businesses. Earlier this year, she co-sponsored with me a reception in the Members' Dining Room, which was attended by the Prime Minister. She made a speech supporting the Asian business community. In relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said, a sizeable proportion of inner-city shops are owned by members of the Asian community. Has the right hon. Lady considered the effect of her proposals on Asian small shopkeepers? Can she continue as a patron of that organisation, knowing that her solution would devastate many small Asian businesses?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If I did, it would clearly be very difficult for me to sustain my patronage of that organisation. Asian business men have prospered and many have opened shops recently. They are doing extremely well, and nothing in my proposal would damage their prospects.
      I am aware that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate and that it is unfair for one speaker to take up too much time, so I will quickly move on.
      348
      It is important that someone mentions the issue of employment on behalf of those people who wish to work on a Sunday. Currently, some 140,000 people work in shops on Sundays, about a third of whom work only on Sundays and not during the rest of the week. They are, in the main, women. They choose to work on a Sunday because it is the one day on which they can leave their children and families safely with their partner. In that way they contribute to the finances of the family and are able to buy little luxuries—or simply contribute towards a decent standard of living. I do not see that it is any part of my job as a legislator to prevent them from taking such jobs.
      Under the more restrictive option, a number of those women would be deprived of the opportunity to work on a Sunday. Hon. Members should think carefully about that as a substantial number of women and families will not thank them if they do not consider that issue before voting today.
      Mr. Lord: As an ex-Home Office Minister, has my right hon. Friend seen the report by a firm called London Economics, commissioned by the Home Office and published in April this year, which shows that not just part-time employment but the whole jobs scene would lose 20,000 jobs if we had total deregulation?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: If we go for a very restrictive option, we shall lose considerably more than 20,000 jobs. That might not make a difference to those who do not wish to see or understand the difficulties that some women have. Those women are working to keep their families together and to ensure that their children have the same things as other children in school, but they can do so only on a Saturday or a Sunday. It is my duty to bring that issue before the House.
      We have entirely ignored the views of the shoppers. We shall not be able to explain to those people who currently shop on a Sunday why in future some garden centres will be unable to open on a Sunday, and why those that are open will be able to sell only certain goods. It will not be easy to explain to the people who come into our advice bureaux why some do-it-yourself stores that have been selling goods for a long time will have to close, or why, if they are open, they will not be able to sell certain products on a Sunday. I can imagine the kind of complaints that this will bring in our postbags, and the irritation that it will cause.
      Those are some of the points that I ask my hon. Friends and also the Opposition to consider before casting their votes today. It is extremely important to remember that a number of people have approached us, written to us and put to us all the points raised this afternoon and this evening. We have to weigh up those judgments and make a decision on behalf of our constituents. It is a burdensome but very important decision that we as individuals must make. We must choose with extreme care, not believing only those people who have written to us but judging for ourselves what our other constituents will say.
      Sir Peter Emery: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said. There is great strength in her argument and I understand it. If she does not succed in her argument, will she not throw her strength behind my amendment?
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I have listened to my right hon. Friend's argument with great interest and weighed it

      349
      up very carefully, as I will the arguments of other hon. Members. My right hon. Friend knows that I am hoping that my proposal for total deregulation will win the day.
      Mr. Ray Powell: Let me follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) with a few remarks concerning her activities on the contentious issue of Sunday trading.
      The right hon. Lady served on the Committee that considered a Bill that I promoted earlier this year, and she tabled some 122 amendments. She participated in a debate on Friday 14 May, and on that occasion she tabled a further 99 amendments. Having been afforded every opportunity in Committee to make whatever amendments she wanted, she tabled 99 amendments and 13 new clauses.
      I was fortunate that my Bill was the third Bill drawn out in the ballot immediately after the election. In a free vote on a Friday, the Bill had a majority of 214 and went to Committee. The right hon. lady made a special request to serve on the Committee and, because of her activities and her interest—and because I thought that she had learnt a lot in the Home Office as the Minister responsible for shops —I thought that she would make a good contribution to the debate in Committee, and I agreed that she should be appointed.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Powell: I have not reached the point yet.
      Every hon. Member is responsible for his own actions. If I had served for four years in the Home Office as a Minister with responsibility for shops, and if during that time I had not lifted a finger to try to introduce legislation to alter the Shops Act 1950, I would not have the gall to come to the House and spend 25 minutes criticising the suggestions of the Shopping Hours Reform Council—or even criticising the Keep Sunday Special or the Retailers for Shops Act Reform options. It is galling that the right hon. Lady should do that having not introduced, or made any attempt to introduce, any legislation while she was at the Home Office.
      Before the right hon. Lady intervenes, I would like her to explain the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made about a letter that was sent to me. I do not know how it arrived in my mail, but it did. We should be accurate in any correspondence that we circulate to other hon. Members. If, as the right hon. Lady suggests, she is going to have an advice centre in the Lobby tonight, will she make sure that the advice she gives is correct? In the letter she asks hon. Members whether they are going to participate in the vote on Wednesday, and concludes by saying in the last paragraph:
      "Please be in the House on Thursday."
      We have a responsibility to ensure that when we circulate letters to hon. Members on an issue such as Sunday trading our advice is correct, so that when hon. Members go into the Lobby we retain some credibility for knowing how we will direct them in the vote.
      I have a mischievous mind. Will the right hon. Lady tell me whether she has been asked by the Government to do a whipping job in the Lobby tonight because of her experience as a Minister in the Home Office and her role
      350
      in the Conservative party as a chairman? It is a free vote, and no Whips are supposed to be employed in the Lobby tonight.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is most kind of him. I was a little surprised to learn that it was the hon. Gentleman who had appointed me to sit on the Committee dealing with his private Member's Bill. I had suspected that the Selection Committee was responsible, but I may be entirely wrong.
      A number of the amendments that were tabled at that time were either accepted before the time came to discuss them, or accepted with slight alterations. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?
      6 pm
      Mr. Powell: I serve on the Selection Committee, but I also promoted the Bill. Because of the majority that the Bill received in the House on the Friday when it was first debated, only four hon. Members who were opposed to it were allowed on to the Standing Committee. I received a number of requests from hon. Members who opposed the Bill: indeed, one Conservative Member—he is now sitting only three seats away from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—complained bitterly about his exclusion. Having explained that, I should like to hear an explanation in regard to the letter, which was plainly circulated with the primary aim of confusing people.
      I myself have no wish to confuse the Committee further, but I hope that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) will explain why amendment No. 35 arrived on the agenda in his name at such a late stage. If he had arranged to be paired tonight, he would be in Russia. It is passing strange, as Enoch Powell would say, that an amendment should be tabled on the eve of a debate to ensure that everyone is confused about the voting.
      All the groups involved have circulated letters among their supporters, suggesting that they vote for one of the three options. Overnight, however—no doubt following advice from the learned Clerks—a new amendment has been conjured up. The night before last, no one had seen it. Did the Government promote that amendment in order to confuse the issue even further? Organisations such as Keep Sunday Special and RSAR decided to present a combined option to help the Committee to make its decision respectfully and properly. That limited the number of options to three.
      Sir Peter Emery: I strongly object to the hon. Gentleman's implication. First, he is incorrect: the amendment was tabled, in my name, the moment after Second Reading. It was not a new amendment. If the hon. Gentleman had been present when I began my speech, he would have heard me say that. I explained then why amendment No. 1 had become amendment No. 35: it was tabled before the Government had tabled their amendment to alter the way in which the Bill would operate. Following the alteration brought about by the Government's amendments, I had to redraft my own amendment.
      I thoroughly object to the suggestion that I should have been elsewhere. I am meant to be leading a delegation to the Parliament of the Confederation of Independent States in Gorky at this very moment, observing the Russian elections, but I felt that my duties to the House came first. I shall leave on the first plane tomorrow, but now I am here to do what I believe is right—not sponsored by the

      351
      Government, or by anyone but myself. My constituents know my views, and could tell the hon. Gentleman that I have held them for many years. Perhaps he will withdraw his implication.
      Mr. Powell: I made no allegations. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I might not have been present for his speech, but I have been present since the beginning of the debate: if anyone should withdraw an allegation, it is the right hon. Gentleman. I know that I am short, and on occasion it may be necessary for me to stand on my seat to catch the Speaker's eye; however, I am not so short that Conservative Members sitting below the Gangway cannot see me when I am in the Chamber.
      As other hon. Members have spoken for as long as 35 minutes, I had better proceed with my speech. Undoubtedly, most hon. Members are now suffering from "Sunday trading fatigue", and we hope that after tonight's vote the deluge of mail from a wide range of interest groups will cease. I believe, however, that no hon. Member should be in any doubt about the issues involved, and it behoves me to spell them out. They are embodied on page 9 of the Government's document on Sunday trading, which explains the Keep Sunday Special campaign option. The campaign agrees that the Shops Act 1950 is out of date and contains too many anomalies, arguing that
      "there is a strong case in favour of an improved regulatory scheme. There are at least three arguments which point towards limiting shops opening on Sundays".
      The first is
      "To guarantee a common day off for the family and community activities, including church worship."
      The second is
      "To ensure rhythm in people's lives, balancing work and recreation."
      The third is
      "To protect vulnerable sections of the retail workforce and those employed in ancillary services from pressure to work unusual hours."
      As we all know, those are the arrangements advocated by Keep Sunday Special under the REST—"recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel"—proposals, and they appeared in my Bill in the spring.
      I am proud of the arduous and industrious campaign that Keep Sunday Special has waged throughout the year, after waiting since 1986 to promote a reasonable and effective measure in place of the 1950 Act. I am also proud of my loyal and trustworthy friends in the organisation, who helped me tremendously in my endeavours to promote my Bill. I am grateful for the support of the many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who served so well on the Standing Committee. Despite certain pressures from many quarters, they have remained convinced of their cause, and have continued to advocate their principles relentlessly. They did so not for profit, personal gain or exploitation but out of sheer and sincere conviction and neighbourliness. With the help of thousands outside the House and of many in the House, and with the help of prayers from religious organisations, I feel confident that the Keep Sunday Special-RSAR option will be rewarded tonight with a tremendous victory.
      The main argument against seven-day trading is that the additional costs of servicing the community at the existing level would increase the price of goods to the public, which would be inflationary. Also, increased police, health and safety inspectorate and transport cover would make additional demands on Government expenditure. What causes most dismay and alarm, however, is the devastating,
      352
      octopus-like, outreaching effect that seven-day trading would have on crime and the enormously increased cost of that to the community.
      Law and order become effective when individuals act responsibly and with integrity, and are not dominated by self-interest and expediency. Promoting those qualities is one of the tasks of the churches. While many question the effectiveness of the chuches, it would be fatal to underestimate the value of their work—which is inseparable from law and order. While the former is a seven-day operation, on Sunday special emphasis is placed on promoting ideals. Making Sunday just another day would greatly hamper the effectiveness of the churches' work.
      Any of the deregulation options would have that effect, because in most large cities—and this touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—85 per cent. of retail businesses are owned and run by Asians. Twenty-five per cent. of their profits come from Sunday turnover. They work long hours and provide a valuable service to the community. If total deregulation or the SHRC option is implemented, the majority of Asian shop owners will be forced out of business, with disastrous social consequences for themselves and for their customers. The elderly, infirm, those without transport, and those without the money to bulk-buy weekly would be disadvantaged. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that this is a battle for their survival.
      Small stores are already under pressure from the recession, fluctuating interest rates, and competition from superstores and hypermarkets. In the past 30 years, the number of small, neighbourhood stores has fallen from 145,000 in 1950 to 36,000 today. If total or partial deregulation were to occur, corner stores all over Britain would disappear and vandalism would raise its ugly head, bringing increased crime. Our inner cities would resemble the downtown areas of Los Angeles, New York and Chicago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a worrying prospect.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My constituency has several small stores in a thriving inner city. I believe that it is the fourth most profitable shopping centre in Britain. However, small companies are experiencing difficulties. One business man contacted me recently to say that his three small butcher shops in the city lost 20 per cent. of their business after large stores started opening illegally two years ago. He fears that, unless Parliament enacts legislation to protect small firms, he will have to close his business.
      Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend's constituency contains the largest number of shops of any constituency in the whole of Wales. He knows from his connections with the Co-operative movement of the problems faced by small grocers who provide a community service. If we are not careful about how we vote tonight, they will be lost.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Sheerman: There were a couple of gasps when my hon. Friend cited American examples. As I have recent experience of the situation in the United States, I can tell the Committee that 800 towns and cities there have a gang warfare structure. American experts say that the power of big, efficient retailing has wiped out inner-city retailers and brought crime to those districts. That is already happening

      353
      in my constituency. A Sainsbury store opened there only one year ago and already 18 charity shops and the market are struggling. My hon. Friend's point about America was absolutely correct.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I do not address this remark only to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but if there are any more interventions of that length, many hon. Members who hope to catch the eye of the Chair will not be successful.
      Mr. Powell: I appreciate that my hon. Friend made a lengthy intervention, but it was important to the debate. Senators from all over America on visits to the House have told me, "Whatever you do, keep Sunday special. We have lost it in America, and would love to return to the days when we could enjoy the tranquillity of Sunday."
      Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is much more church-going in the United States than in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Powell: We have suffered a crime-ridden society since 1979, but there is much more crime in America than in this country.
      Once Sunday shopping is deregulated to any extent, it will be irreversible and the damage will have been done. Small shops and stores will close for ever, and we shall become used to Sunday being just another day. Family life will suffer, supermarkets will increase their domination of the food trade, workers will have even more fragmented leisure time and a Sunday off will be only a memory for retail workers.
      I am convinced that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are not prepared to let the Government or anyone else kill off our tranquil Sunday with total deregulation. I am equally confident that the Committee will oppose deregulators whose goal is to reward those firms that have blatantly and relentlessly broken the law to achieve a monopoly of the retail trade on not only Sundays but all 365 days of the year. The Shopping Hours Reform Council option is not a compromise; it is the wolf of deregulation in a cynical sheep's clothing.
      I received a letter from Unison, which now has 1·25 million members. I understand that the letter has been circulated to all hon. Members. It refers to a contentious issue that has yet to be resolved—the question of employment protection. I realise that we will have a debate shortly on the whole issue of employment protection. However, the issue is of grave concern to those who want to make decisions tonight. Some hon. Members must go into one Lobby or another not knowing whether they will do so because they support a principle argument that I have explained to the Committee or on the basis of whether people who will be employed on a Sunday will have certain protection.
      I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for reading an excerpt from the letter from the general secretary of Unison, Alan Jinkinson, which was sent to us on 6 December. I quote:
      "there is confusion surrounding the proposals in the Sunday Trading Bill and in particular the issue of employment protection … the Bill now contains a measure of 'protection' for current and future shop workers in terms of non compulsory working on
      354
      Sundays. However, our legal advice is that the provisions in the Bill will be more or less unworkable and ineffective. The clauses on employees being able to opt in or out of Sunday working are complicated and are likely to cause serious confusion. More importantly, unscrupulous employers will be able to exploit the weaknesses in the legislation and use a range of excuses to get around the rights of individuals not to work on Sunday. The Government's proposals for employment protection in the Bill are therefore illusory. The Bill also does not contain any provision concerning double time payments for Sunday working. Premium payments are an important compensation for those who have to work on Sundays and the neglect of any reference to payment in the Bill is an important omission."
      I read that part of the letter because there might be some confusion regarding my association with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers as one of its sponsored Members, and because of its recent decision to support not Keep Sunday Special but some other organisation. Let me make it abundantly clear that the executive council of USDAW took the decision, not the collective membership. Having explained that, I must emphasise that USDAW still supports employment protection and double time for all workers on a Sunday.
      Earlier this year, employment protection was included in my Bill, together with the request for double-time payments. I am glad that the Committee which dealt with my Bill agreed in principle to employment protection and double-time payments being embodied in my Bill.
      Ms Joan Ruddock: I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge that an amendment relating to double-time payments has been tabled. The weaknesses in the employment protection scheme that exists in Britain as a whole, to which my hon. Friend alluded, were known to hon. Members and, indeed, were known to him at the time that he drafted the employment protection provisions for his private Member's Bill. Does he acknowledge that, on the face of the Bill, employment protection—whether it is weak or strong, or however one might define it—will apply to all the options in the Bill? It is clear that if there are weaknesses, they apply equally to all the options.
      Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes a good contribution. Mr. Lofthouse, I hope that you are watching the clock and will give me injury time because of the length of interventions.
      On Second Reading, I referred to an employee of Woolworths who was told that, if he was not prepared to sign an agreement to work on a Sunday, obviously he would lose his job. The personnel director of Woolworths Mr. Leo McKee, sent me a haughty letter saying:
      "the Terms and Conditions you cited would seem to refer to a booklet that was withdrawn by Woolworths over a year ago and is now obsolete".
      I have not yet replied to the letter, which is dated 3 December. If some hon. Members have a copy of the letter, I can assure them that the document to which I was referring was a contract compiled by Woolworths which the worker was asked to sign by a date in late November. It was not a booklet of terms and conditions; it was a contract that the man was asked to sign.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) raised the question of employment contracts. If we have total deregulation or partial deregulation without ensuring that we have real employment protection and double time for workers, we will be selling poorly paid workers in the retail industry throughout the country down the river.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the more shops are open on Sunday, the less opportunity there will be for workers who do not want to work on Sunday to seek jobs in other companies and therefore the more pressure there will be on them?
      Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I wish her sincere best wishes in her quest to become the president of USDAW once again. I hope that the members of USDAW will support her in that quest.
      I am grateful that the Chair afforded me an opportunity to speak last week and has done so again this week. I am aware of the pressure to call as many hon. Members as possible in such an emotive debate. Therefore, I shall conclude my remarks by appealing to hon. Members once again.
      Mr. Bill Etherington: As my hon. Friend concludes his short speech on this issue, perhaps he would like to comment on what happened when betting shops were deregulated with regard to employment protection in that sector.
      Mr. Powell: Mr. Lofthouse, I am sure that if my hon. Friend catches your eye, you will give him an opportunity to raise that matter. But I see that you are checking the clock.
      I appeal to all hon. Members once again: let our communities, our children and our grandchildren enjoy what we have been fortunate to enjoy—the tranquillity and comfort of one day in the week that is special. Let us treasure our Sunday for as long as we can. I ask hon. Members to vote for the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR proposals tonight.
      Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) concluded his speech with some important references, and he drew the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), the Front Bench spokesman on that issue, in connection with employment protection. I should just remind the House of what Anthony Scrivener QC said in his opinion, commissioned by the John Lewis Partnership in this connection, in relation to the amendments which the Government have brought forward on employment protection:
      "There is no problem in dealing with a situation where an employee is openly dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays but that is not how it is likely to happen. That reason will not be stated openly and an employee will know that various excuses can be given for dismissal which may not be the real one. The appreciation of this fact alone puts the employee at risk to pressure and there is nothing that can be done by way of wording which can remove this apprehension."
      Nothing that can be done by way of wording? There is something which can be done to support and protect the employee, and that is to make and to keep Sunday special.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend know that there are already contracts circulating? I have one in my hands now, which says:
      "If it is decided that your branch will trade on a Sunday or a bank holiday you may be asked to work on these days. Your employment is subject to your full agreement on this condition…"
      That is a firm called Contessa in Wolverhampton. It is similar to the Smith's contract. Such contracts are being circulated all over the country.
      Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting me. I make the point, which I believe is relevant and of significance to us all, whichever side of the argument we are on already, that there will be no serious employment protection in the future other than by keeping Sunday special and having a regulatory framework of shopowners.
      Mr. James Paice: rose—
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Alison: I have noted that the First Deputy Chairman wants us to make shorter speeches. I will give way to my hon. Friend a little later, but I want to make progress. I want to strike a note of harmony with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold)—
      Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Alison: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
      I fear possibly drawing or crossing swords with my very real right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). My right hon. Friend is distinguished by being a colleague of courage and of discretion. One has to have both courage and discretion to be Chairman of our parliamentary Procedure Committee. I fear that on this occasion, in bringing forward another option for Sunday reform, my right hon. Friend has shown that he is exceedingly courageous but a little less prominent in discretion because he has managed somehow, by introducing What he calls a simple solution, to introduce a final solution. He has produced a final solution which effectively buries in the same grave the sponsors of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and those who support Keep Sunday Special.
      Let me illustrate that by drawing attention to what happens to DIYs, the great vogue theme in all Sunday opening. This is what happens to DIYs under the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. Everyone knows that one needs to have DIYs open on Sunday mornings because if one is going to do any DIY one does it after one has been to the shop and bought the goods. DIY is something that one does in the afternoon. Miraculously, my right hon. Friend, courageous but lacking in discretion, has brought forward a proposal for DIY that manages to close them in the morning, which is exactly when we want them open.
      Sir Peter Emery rose—
      Mr. Alison: I will just complete this. Even more miraculously, at the same time, not only did he manage to frustrate the shopowners by making certain that DIY stores are shut in the morning, but he then managed to totally frustrate the owners of DIY stores by letting them open only in the afternoon. There is no business for them in the afternoon. They have lost all the trade. They do not want to open on half a day. My right hon. Friend has miraculously, therefore, outraged those people who want to use DIY shops and those who want to sell goods to the consumers of DIYs.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and I would unite and say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has got it precisely wrong. The theme of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is a good one; it is to try

      357
      to keep Sunday special. When he is convinced that his option is not acceptable from either side of the great debate, I hope that he will at least vote for the Keep Sunday Special option.
      Sir Peter Emery: It is always possible for people to make errors and it would be quite possible in Committee for the DIYs to be added. If that is done, will my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) support my amendment? If that is the only thing wrong with it, I am delighted to give way to him.
      Mr. Alison: I would recommend that, as my right hon. Friend is so keen to modify and improve options in Committee, he takes a ride on the Keep Sunday Special slogan, where he will find plenty of opportunities in Committee to introduce a variation on his own special theme, namely, that DIY shops should shut in the afternoon but open in the morning. We can then have a debate on a total Honiton reverse option, which is best done when we come to consider in Committee upstairs the Keep Sunday Special procedures because I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends and colleagues in all parts of the Committee are now getting a bellyful of the various options before us.
      I shall summarise the Keep Sunday Special approach by saying that I believe that it is a positive Sunday shop-opening framework; it is not a Sunday shop-closing framework. I emphasise that it does something helpful for shoppers and at the same time it does something helpful for Sunday.
      Mr. Couchman rose—
      Mr. Alison: I will give way to my hon. Friend if I can get on a little bit. My hon. Friend, incidentally, has a bee in his bonnet about antique shops. Antiques, under the Keep Sunday Special proposals, will be saleable—antiques will be saleable in DIYs. [Interruption.] My right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned that they had not studied the scope. I am glad to have the opportunity to make the point.
      Mr. Douglas French: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Alison: Let me complete what I am trying to say on the subject.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and other honourable colleagues have not appreciated the flexibility of the framework in the Keep Sunday Special proposals, which uses the phrase "wholly or mainly". If the smaller kind of DIY shops choose, because they think that there is a market for antiques, one will be able to buy antiques in a DIY shop. [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Alison: Hon. Members do not appreciate the extent to which there is genuine flexibility in the Keep Sunday Special proposals.
      Mr. Paice: Is it not the case that the REST proposals, on which the KSS-RSAR proposals are founded, have been around for four or five years? They have been through the course with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). Is it not a bit late to start talking about amending the proposal in Committee and changing this and changing that? Surely by now it should have been
      358
      perfect. Has not the proposal gone so far from keeping Sunday special that it has lost any intellectual integrity and is a complete and utter mishmash?
      Mr. Alison: As my hon. Friend would expect, I totally disagree with his analysis. Since the original Bill that was introduced by my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher was thrown out, it has been possible to bring those proposals forward only through the vehicle of private Members' legislation. We know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden suddenly found it desirable to introduce 99 amendments the last time that we had an attempt to legislate in private Members' time. So the integrity has not yet been properly tested. It is about to be tested tonight, and I am convinced that the general view of thè Committee will overwhelmingly favour the framework of law that gives great scope for opening shops, but still reflects the fact that most people want to keep Sunday as a special day. Under the Keep Sunday Special proposals, there will be more opening of shops than is permitted now, and a wider range of goods than is now available will be sold. But at least there will be some sort of regulatory framework to protect home, family, leisure and the general pattern of life that we know.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: I have been especially troubled by one aspect of the Keep Sunday Special proposals—the fact that they allow the four Sundays before Christmas to be totally deregulated. That does not seem consistent with the rest of the group's views. Moreover, the very people whom it claims to protect—small shopkeepers —are to be deprived of the best four weeks of trading, because there will be a free-for-all on the four Sundays before Christmas. Will my right hon. Friend explain the logic of that?
      Mr. Alison: That is easy to explain. We are trying to establish a reasonable balance for life on Sunday. If we allow four Sunday openings out of the total number of Sundays in the year, there will be 48 Sundays left, on which there will not be a free-for-all. In all conscience, is that not a reasonable balance?
      Dr. Spink rose—
      Mr. Alison: No, I must get on. It is not fair to other hon. Members if I give way too much.
      Everyone has his own favourite poll on the options before us, and there is one poll that I believe conveys the real flavour of the attitude of the great mass of the British public in the world outside this rather hyped-up—
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The English public.
      Mr. Alison: The English public, then.
      For the Harris Research Centre survey of 1989 respondents were asked to list the five most popular things to do on a Sunday—[Laughter.] I know from long parliamentary experience that if one talks of asking people to list the five most popular things to do on a Sunday—[HON. MEMBERS: "DIY."]—one must immediately continue, without leaving a gap for hon. Members to fill. Let me tell hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who I know will sympathise, the list of what people prefer to do on Sundays—[Laughter.] These are serious matters.
      Number 1 on the list was:

      359
      "Spending time with husband/wife and children (21 per cent.)"
      Number 2 was:
      "Having a quiet day at home with the papers or television (15 per cent.)"
      Number 3 was:
      "Visiting friends or relatives or having them visit (12 per cent.)"
      Number 4 was:
      "Having a day out visiting the seaside/country or historical town (11 per cent.)"
      Number 5 was:
      "Going to a Church service (8 per cent.)"
      The idea that the Keep Sunday Special proposals are being swept along by Church-oriented pressure groups is nonsense.
      The activities that I have mentioned are what people like to do on Sunday. Shopping came 11th. Only 1 per cent. of respondents listed it as the thing that they would most like to do on a Sunday.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that poll was taken before supermarkets opened on Sundays? Does he also accept that many more people shop in supermarkets on Sundays than go to church?
      Mr. Alison: That is a highly unlikely statistic, which I do not believe could be proved. Ten per cent. of the population goes to church on Sunday, and I doubt whether they could all be crowded into the supermarkets that open on a Sunday.
      To help my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) get his riposte in perspective, I shall tell him about a slightly more up-to-date poll, which came from NOP in September 1990 and is cited by the John Lewis Partnership in its broadsheet. The question asked in that poll was singularly straightforward and unweighted:
      "Are you inconvenienced by most shops being closed on Sunday?"
      People were asked to say whether they were inconvenienced "a lot", "a fair amount", "a little", or "not at all". Only 5 per cent. said that they were inconvenienced a lot, and only 8 per cent. that they were inconvenienced a fair amount; 22 per cent. said that they would be inconvenienced a little, and 64 per cent. said that they would not be inconvenienced at all; 1 per cent. said, "Don't know".
      The argument that there is a huge amount—
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Alison: No, I am sorry to say that my hon. and learned Friend has given away his identity by the way that he is dressed this afternoon, and this is not a Scottish Bill, so I shall not give way to him.
      Mr. Dykes rose—
      Mr. Alison: I am afraid that I must get on. My hon. Friend will understand that allowing too many interventions is not fair to others who wish to speak.
      To say that there are hungry shoppers frustrated almost to the point of suicide because they cannot get into shops all over the place on Sunday is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what is happening in the outside world. The idea is irrelevant and untrue. The great mass of the public is not seriously inconvenienced at all by a restrictive shopping regime.
      Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Alison: No, I am afraid that I must get on.
      What I say is expecially true in the light of the positive options offered by the Keep Sunday Special procedures. There may be restricted shop opening, but there will be a rational framework for shops, based on the principles of REST—recreation, emergencies, social facilities and amenities, and transport. The whole range of shops offering such services will be open and able to trade.
      We must think about the down side, and the problems that will arise if there is total deregulation, with no regulatory framework. Mr. David Sieff of Marks and Spencer put the case vividly in the Evening Standard last night:
      "Sunday trading does not make the retail cake bigger."
      Instead it involves spreading the profits of six days' trading over seven days' costs. Prices would have to increase, premium rates of pay on Sundays would have to be dropped, and large shops would tend to increase their market share at the expense of smaller convenient village shops. Exactly what David Sieff forecast—and itemised in his article—would happen. for example, as he wrote:
      "Already, nearly 2,000 small stores have gone out of business in the past two years since the large supermarkets began regular Sunday trading."
      That is a significant number.
      Another way of describing our proposal is to call it the KSSC option—the "keep small shops competitive" option. On the other hand, the Shopping Hours Reform Council option could be described as the SHRC option—the "superstores hoping to rake in cash" option. That is the reality that we are debating. KSSC proposes that a flexible and increasing range of shops would be able to open on Sundays, whereas the Shopping Hours Reform Council would sweep regulations away and bring about a massive free-for-all.
      Sunday opening would not be restricted to shops. It would extend to banks, building societies and estate agents. If Sunday is to be like any other day, why should not everybody open on Sunday? All those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, cannot shop on Sundays will not be able to shop on Sundays because they will be forced to work in their own premises.
      I resisted giving way because you asked for short speeches, Mr. Lofthouse. I apologise for speaking as long as I have. I hope that hon. Members and right hon. Members will keep Sunday special.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Chairman, Mr. Lofthouse, for announcing at the beginning of the debate that my amendment No. 21, with its consequential amendments, would be selected for a vote.
      I wish to address the Committee on the basis of two principal points. The first is the amendment as a fall-back, and we may need a fall-back position, and the second is in its context as one of the earlier votes. There will be a series of votes later, as the Committee knows. There is the total deregulation option, the Keep Sunday Special option with little deregulation plus the four Sundays, and there is the six hours between 10 am and 6 pm option.
      I argue that if all of those are defeated we shall be left either with the law as it is—that is clearly a nonsense, and few people voted against Second Reading—or something that would bring into effect the option to decide at a local

      361
      level. I beg the Committee's indulgence to consider whether that might not be, for many people, the second best option available. There is strong evidence for that.
      Logically, it would have been better to have a vote on the local option first, but procedurally that is not possible. I would ask the Committee to accept that also.
      I will first state my preferred position, so that there can be no dissembling about it. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading and I believe that the present law is a nonsense which needs to be reformed urgently.
      I also think that the law-breaking that has happened is indefensible. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), who was a Minister, and also the Attorney-General and others who were in office when shops started opening on Sunday did not make it clear enough that what was going on was unacceptable. Had the Government called in the managing directors and the chairmen and chairwomen of the boards and formally made it clear that it was unacceptable, there might have been far less Sunday opening of big stores.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I must continue. We may have only until 10 o'clock for the debate.
      I will declare all my interests. I share many of them with most of my colleagues, but one or two may be unusual and it seems reasonable to put all of them on the record.
      Like all hon. Members, I represent many small shops, market stalls, markets and big shops. Sadly, like many hon. Members, I also represent many unemployed people who want to work. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain. Like many hon. Members, I represent shoppers and employees. I also represent large, good, clean, efficient and pleasant stores. Those stores include the Tesco store which opened two or three yars ago at Surrey Quays—a store which is currently opening illegally on Sundays. Tesco did me the courtesy of asking me to meet the employees of that store last Sunday to hear their views. Lastly, the registered headquarters office of J. Sainsbury plc is also in my constituency.
      No option will please all of the people all of the time —that is self-evident. We must do what is for the best, not just in the short term but in the long term.
      I am for keeping Sunday special. It is important to me as a Christian, but I can arrange to keep my Sunday special without the law. It is not on that basis which I argue the point. I do not claim special protection for my faith, nor for the faiths of others. Much more importantly, I believe that it is in the interests of our society as a whole—for people of all faiths and people of no faith—that we have a common context for our work and for our leisure. That context should have an order to it and it should respect the pattern of work and leisure. It should build in a guarantee that, on one day at least, there is a presumption in favour of something other than work.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I will not, for the reason which I gave earlier. I do not want to use up too much time.
      362
      I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who argued for the deregulation option. The right hon. Lady has been a Home Office Minister.
      One cannot reasonably argue that deregulation is good in principle—or else one would argue that deregulation is good for health and safety at work, for pubs which could open at any time day or night, or for speed limits. That is an invalid argument. One cannot say that one person's freedom to choose does not have an impact on other people's freedoms. That is a dangerous argument which the right hon. Lady made. One cannot argue for regulation to be left to local authorities and yet argue that they cannot do the enforcing, which is one of the difficulties of the present law.
      The Minister argued that we live in a market economy. In a market economy, the big fish eat the little fish, and the little fish increasingly are no longer there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] Not necessarily may be correct, but the big fish have the power and the capacity more often to eat the little fish. Lastly, one cannot say that deregulation is necessary for women in particular, or workers in general, to have Sunday work in order to get a better deal. I would say to Tesco and Sainsbury's that if they are so concerned about workers' rights, they should pay the workers double time on a Saturday. They could certainly do that, and there is no need to get them in on Sunday to give them double time.
      What would more Sunday trading mean? It would mean more transport on our roads. It would mean that there would be a greater incentive to spread the business of six days over seven, and that is what is happening. There would be a greater incentive to work every day and there would be greater pressure on people not to have a day of rest at all. More people are doing so, including hon. Members it may be said. Many people wish that they did have more spare time, but they cannot now find a way to do so. There would be a greater incentive to spend money on seven days—money which some, regrettably, may not have. There would be a greater incentive to advertise more and to appeal to people's commercial interests. There would be greater pressure both on and from children and young people. There would be more pressure for more people. Simply, there would just be more pressure.
      It is important that we listen to the voices of leaders from all faiths—Christian, Jewish and others—who share the views of a letter to The Times which was headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and which was printed on the day of the Second Reading. The letter said:
      "Commercial pressures already loom large enough in our society. Sunday affords space for the nurture of other values, pursuits and dimensions of family life in a more restful atmosphere. On the grounds of not only religious conviction but also pastoral experience, we believe that the spiritual, psychological and physical health of our nation would be poorer if there were no longer one common day in the week which was substantially different from the rest."
      I say amen to that.
      What has been the experience in Scotland under a different regime? I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who speaks for my party on Scottish affairs, before the debate. He told me that the number of people who shop on Sunday has gone up. What happened in Scotland will happen here. When I was at my local Tesco last Sunday listening to the views of Sunday shoppers, some of them said that they liked shopping there on Sunday because it was quiet. It is not so

      363
      quiet as it was when it first opened on Sundays two years ago. In five or ten years' time, Sunday will be much more like a Saturday, a Friday, a Thursday or a Wednesday. I gather that that is the general experience in Scotland, too.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I will not give way, but only because time is limited. The reality is that the amount of shopping might be little today, but once the door is open there is no turning back.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Rubbish!
      Mr. Hughes: It is not rubbish, and I will give the reason for that in a moment. The local authority option—the fall-back position—at least allows a turning back, because local authorities will be able to change their minds. If we vote for the Honiton option, or if we vote for six hours now, then we will be asked later to vote for longer.
      Of course it would be convenient for all if shops were open on a Sunday. It would be convenient if they were open when we finish here at 2 a.m.—indeed, some of them are. If the shops were open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it would be convenient for some people and there would be people in the shops. Especially in urban areas and city centres, that would be convenient for at least some people. Convenience is not the most important argument, however, and I hope that we shall resist it.
      I am convinced that, whatever the best practices and best intentions of the best managers may be, given the choice between employing someone who says that he or she will never work on a Sunday and someone else who says that he or she will, there will be a great deal of hidden pressure to appoint or promote the person who agrees to work. He or she will be a more valued and useful employee. Let us be honest: in this place we prefer to employ staff who are willing at least occasionally to work anti-social hours.
      7 pm
      Marks and Spencer and Iceland both agree with me that deregulation kills small shops. The opening of the new Tesco in Surrey docks has meant that shops in the market square in the Blue in Bermondsey have been under more pressure. Their profits have declined, some have closed, and some market stalls are struggling. That is fact, not speculation.
      Deregulation will not ultimately help people who cannot get to out-of-town big shops. Such people want to go next door, but they will find when they do so that next door is no longer there.
      Mr. Couchman rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has a clear view in favour of deregulation which he has often presented. I, on the other hand, did not speak on Second Reading, and this is my first contribution to the debate.
      I do not say that there should not be shopping on Sunday. I do not argue for an unrealistic world. The Honiton option is unrealistic; it decrees that everything shall be closed on a Sunday morning, and people will be able to buy only newspapers. That is not an acceptable option.
      I am arguing against large shops and for small shops. I am arguing against more traffic, more pollution, more
      364
      consumption of fuel and more damage to the atmosphere, and I am arguing for a quieter and more pleasant existence in urban and rural Britain. Above all, I am arguing against big profits for the few and in favour of the greater number of people who need a little profit to be able to survive.
      The Keep Sunday Special proposal is that on four Sundays before Christmas shops may open. That is realistic, as most people do need to shop more then—the evidence for that is clear. People shop more in December than in any other month of the year. Let us therefore respect that fact and respond to it. It is no good being strongly dogmatic and failing to take account of the real world.
      Mr. David Congdon: That defeats your own argument.
      Mr. Hughes: Not at all. I am arguing for the best possible conclusion compatible with people's reasonable demands. That conclusion is that we should keep Sunday special for as many weekends of the year as possible. Regardless of whether people are religious, many of them celebrate at Christmas and go shopping more in December as a result. That, too, is a fact.
      I hope that we defeat the Honiton option and the total deregulation option. I hope that we will then vote in favour of the third opion—the KSS option. But that may not happen, as there may be a coalition against it. We shall then face the prospect of the six hour opening option between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays—not many shops would open at different hours anyway. If this last option is rejected too, I ask the House to consider that it might be better to leave the decision to local councils.
      I thought about whether I could propose a valid amendment for a local referendum—the precedent was set by the Welsh decision-making process on Sunday drinking —but I cannot validly propose the idea in this Bill. My local council decision option is at least better than keeping the law as it is.
      There are different views in different communities. For instance, in my urban London constituency I am sure that there are stronger views in favour of Sunday opening, even though I do not believe in that, than are held in rural Herefordshire or rural Suffolk. We should respect that diversity. England and Scotland are already different—as are different areas in Switzerland, for that matter.
      The enforceability question is also important in this context. Those who should decide about the local rules should be those who are legally obliged to carry out the enforcement. If they think that they cannot enforce a tight option, let them decide as much, and vice versa.
      This option would also allow a change of mind. If, say, Southwark council decided to vote for six hours between 10 am and 6 pm but after five years the local community said that that was a pain—the traffic was awful, and so on —the council could change its decision. This is a way of turning the clock back. Either way, local authorities will be able to decide what is best for their areas.
      Some communities are multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-racial, others are of predominantly one faith, one culture and one ethnic background. That is the glory of Britain, and let us respect it. Local environmental issues also vary. A supermarket may be sited next to a lot of houses in one area but far from them in another.
      The Sunday drinking precedent worked well in Wales, where Sunday drinking has been allowed in one district but not in another. That solution respects local views and

      365
      allows local people to participate in the process. Local communities can get involved in the debate. I am worried about legislating with one answer to meet the breadth of views being expressed in this debate. How much better it would be if the issue could be handled in a non-partisan manner by local people. I do not believe that Parliament should enforce one view on the communities of widely varying local authority areas. If a certain community wants to keep Sunday special, let it do so. If shops opening in another community will cause a nuisance to residents, let them decide.
      Dame Angela Rumbold: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify how he envisages this working? I can understand how it would work in a country district, but I am confused as to how it would work in a big metropolis, where there would be far more pressure for everyone to go for one option or another. It would be difficult for local authorities to hang on to their communities under the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has fairly described my proposal as the least worst solution. What the right hon. Lady says holds true only for London, because all the other metropolitan areas are one local authority. Uniquely, London is not.
      I ask colleagues what the greater good is. My answer is a cycle of work and rest, upheld by us, within which people can make as many choices as possible. As for my "least worst" option, if we cannot come to another conclusion, I suggest that the decision should be taken by local communities. We should certainly not leave them under the present nonsensical law. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is an acceptable fallback, if we need one. It is better to allow people to have their say than to perpetuate a nonsensical law.
      Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. We are all aware that Sunday trading is one of the most vexed issues to come before the House in recent years. I have never known a time when a larger number of hon. Members had yet to make up their minds. I like certain parts of some proposals, but, as I will explain, none of them completely mirrors my own ideas.
      The issue is made more difficult for us by the voting arrangements, because the first amendment to command a majority wins all. That means that we will never know whether another option might have commanded a bigger majority had we been able to vote on it. That puts us in an unusual procedural position.
      We all agree that the existing legislation is full of anomalies. We all agree that it is a bad precedent for the law to be flouted, especially when law breaking is carried out by prestigious major companies, which should behave within the law. Sainsbury and Tesco would be quite happy to seek redress from the law if their windows were smashed. They expect the law to be respected when it defends their interests, but they are prepared to break it when their profits are at risk.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has underlined a point made in a letter from one of my constituents, who pointed out that, although the big
      366
      retailers are not prosecuted for opening illegally on Sundays, someone caught shoplifting in one of those stores most certainly would be prosecuted.
      Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Lady has summed up exactly the point that I was trying to make.
      I believe that Sunday should be a day for leisure and for the family. Our Good Lord said:
      "Six days shalt thou labour … But the seventh day is the sabbath".
      I believe that the modern effect of that instruction is that we should have a day free from stress in which we can recharge our batteries and sustain family life.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Sir David Mitchell: I will not give way to my hon. and learned Friend because long speeches have been made and I want to make a brief one.
      If one accepts the idea that Sunday is a day for leisure and for the family, it logically follows that the businesses that should be open should be those that enable people to enjoy leisure pursuits and enjoy a family day. That means almost all the businesses, apart from supermarkets, which now open normally on Sundays.
      Full deregulation is said to be popular, but we need to keep its effects in mind. It is important that the House is aware that the danger is that that opinion may lead to short-term popularity and long-term damage.
      The village and corner shops rely heavily on Sunday trading. We already know that many of those shops are trading at the margin. It will not take much to tip them over into loss-making concerns. Their closure would mean that a facility upon which local communities rely would be lost.
      Local communities in villages or urban areas rely on the corner shop because of their convenience. They are convenient for the elderly who may have difficulty in travelling to supermarkets, especially if no bus service operates. They are convenient to the less well-off who cannot afford to travel some distance to supermarkets for their shopping. The loss of the village shop is too high a price to pay, and once it is paid it will never be possible to get that shop back.
      It is also important to draw attention to the effect of Sunday trading on prices. Joe Public's spending power will not be any greater because of trading on seven days instead of six; he will simply spread his spending power over that time. Similarly, shops that decide to open for seven days will find that their costs will increase, and eventually they will be passed on to the consuming public.
      The restrictive solution, which allows shops under 3,000 sq ft—a reasonable size—to trade on a Sunday, is worth considering because it would include the village shop, the corner shop, the newsagents, video shops, chemists, florists, tourist shops, farm shops, sport centre outlets, theatre and cinema shops and petrol station shops. Those shops that are not bound by any size restriction include off licences, take-aways, cafes, public houses, pharmacies, vehicle hire shops, motorway service shops, airport shops, post offices, undertakers, wine warehouses, garden centres, DIYs and motor supplies shops. They will be able to open on Sunday for the sale of leisure goods. No restrictions would be imposed on Sunday markets. On any basis, that means that a great amount of shopping could be

      367
      done on a Sunday by those who particularly wanted to do so. For that reason, I am against the concept of total deregulation.
      Partial deregulation would allow supermarkets to operate for six hours. Today, those supermarkets that are breaking the law open for eight hours. Once it is legal for all to trade, the amount of available business will barely be enough to fill six hours and no supermarket will want to trade for more than that time. What we have been given in the supposedly split-the-difference solution is total deregulation to the extent that the supermarkets want to have the opportunity to trade on Sundays. The law breakers now trade for eight hours, but when everyone is allowed to trade I am sure that, given the business available, six hours would be sufficient.
      7.15 pm
      I believe that the KSS-RSAR amendment is a little too restrictive, but I shall vote for it because we will be able to make further changes to it in Standing Committee and on Report. We can offer a more relaxed formula for Sunday trading, which is what I would like, but if we voted for total deregulation there would be no turning back. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will vote for the more restrictive of the three options and, having done so, that it will seek to amend it as the Bill completes its further progress through the House.
      Ms Janet Anderson: We all agree that the Shops Act 1950 is in desperate need of reform. It is important to reflect on exactly what has happened in recent months.
      Hon. Members have made it plain that they do not condone law breaking and nor do I. I share the concern that has been expressed about the fact that the Government should have stepped in sooner to try to make it easier for local authorities to enforce the law. I hope that what has happened has made it plain to us that it is the responsibility of Parliament to pass a law now which is enforceable, workable and meets the wishes and needs of the majority.
      There is no doubt that the majority of the public want shopping choice to be extended. They want to be able to shop on Sundays. If they did not want to do so, there would be no point in shops opening.
      Most hon. Gentlemen may rarely be responsible for shopping for a growing family. They should understand, however, that women, and working women in particular, value the extra choice that Sunday shopping offers them. Several months ago the organisation Working Women for Sunday Shopping was established. Its co-ordinator wrote to me recently to report:
      "Since Working Women for Sunday Shopping was launched last month I have been inundated with letters from women questioning why legislation should dictate what they can or cannot do on Sundays. Poll after poll has shown that working women want the shops to open on Sunday. 83 per cent. of those surveyed by MORI said they would find Sunday trading convenient—69 per cent. want to see more shops open. The majority of women are now active in the workforce, very many are juggling the competing demands of home, work and family —seven day opening is a necessity for them, not a luxury."
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Anderson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
      One of the problems that has been apparent throughout the lengthy debate on Sunday trading is thåt those who
      368
      want to keep the shops shut have been the most vocal. For a long time they have told us that the shops must be kept shut in the name of employee protection. They said that the Government would never agree to the voluntary principle for Sunday working and that workers would be forced to work if shops were open.
      Now, an albeit reluctant Government have included a guarantee of voluntary working. They have changed their tune again. Before the Minister of State beams too broadly, I must tell him that I have serious reservations about the Bill's proposals and I hope that we will be able to toughen them in Standing Committee. As he will also know, it is a priority of Opposition Members that there should be a principle of double time for Sunday working.
      Those who want to close shops on Sundays say that such protection is meaningless and that there are higher principles at stake than the thousands of shop workers who will lose their Sunday work if shops shut. Shop worker unions which unanimously reject that message are simply the tools of management rather than genuinely representing their members' views.
      I should like to read an extract from a letter from the deputy general secretary of USDAW to Members of Parliament. USDAW should be congratulated on listening to the views of its members. The letter says:
      "If you wish to follow the Shop Workers' Union position, you will need to vote as follows:—
      Total deregulation (1st Vote) … No
      Keep Sunday Special (2nd Vote) … No
      6 HOUR OPTION (3RD VOTE) … YES
      Many thousands of USDAW members are currently working on Sundays and, provided that working is entirely voluntary and they are paid at double-time rates, they wish to continue to have that opportunity.
      If the KSS proposals were to go through this would deny many of our members the opportunity to work and would have a significant effect on their income. USDAW members are mainly located in the large stores and large companies and there is little organisation, if any, in small shops and the majority of them do not pay double-time and may not have even followed the Wages Council rates."
      Mr. Sheerman: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but that is not what I heard. Perhaps it is a total calumny against USDAW, and I have a lot of friends in USDAW, but is it not a fact that Tesco marched the executive of USDAW in and said, "Change your mind or we will recognise another union"? That is why USDAW changed its mind; it had nothing to do with principles.
      Ms Anderson: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point as it is a misconception that has been doing the rounds in recent days and weeks. I have seen the statement from the USDAW executive which categorically states that the union held a meeting with 96 of its shop stewards, 93 of whom said that their members wanted to work on Sunday.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend has just read out some correspondence addressed to Members of Parliament from the union USDAW. Let me read a short extract from a letter from USDAW sent to me on 16 December 1992 saying:
      "The Shopping Hours Reform Council… after all, is backed by employers who have already ridden rough shod over the current law protecting shopworkers from Sunday working and we have no confidence in them when they say they are prepared to protect shopworkers in the future."
      What has changed?
      Ms Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I shall tell him what has changed since that letter was written. The major retailers to whom it refers have made a statement saying that they would be happy for the voluntary principle and the entitlement to premium pay to be written into legislation. Clearly that has had some effect.
      Those who want the shops shut tell us that Sunday shopping destroys family life. Yet what causes most disruption to family Sundays—an open pub or a branch of Boots? Most people do not live in 1950s-style happy families who come back from church to a Sunday roast. Many people cannot afford a Sunday roast these days. There is a huge diversity in the way people live their lives in the modern world and, although that nostalgic view may be tempting to some hon. Members, shutting shops will not bring it back.
      Mr. Lord: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Home Office commissioned what I hope is an unbiased report into the effects of the various options we are considering on jobs in the retail trade? It did not concentrate on part-time or full-time jobs, but stated that, if the KSS proposal is accepted, there will be 5,000 more jobs in the retail industry. If partial deregulation is accepted, there will be 5,000 fewer jobs in the retail industry and total deregulation would mean 20,000 fewer jobs in the retail industry. Surely the hon. Lady must be concerned about that.
      Ms Anderson: I am extremely concerned about jobs. That is precisely why I shall be supporting the six-hour option. We estimate 80,000 Sunday-only jobs would be lost under the more restrictive option.
      We are told that the restrictive option will help small shops. They should try telling that to small shops that depend on their Sunday trade and would be forced to shut on Sunday. It will destroy the attractiveness of tourist destinations and rip the heart out of ethnic minority shopping areas which are dependent on the percentage of their groceries goods. The idea that browsing in a second-hand book shop on a Sunday afternoon is a threat to civilisation is absurd.
      Some people will say that, if Members of Parliament vote for Sunday shopping, they will be giving in to commercial lobbying.
      Mr. Clive Soley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about small shops, may I ask her whether she agrees that the issue is not that there has been a decline in the number of small shops over many years? It has had nothing to do with Sunday trading but with the development of very large stores. To reverse that, we would need to close very large stores not just on Sundays but on every day of the week. There is now a different shopping pattern. Several years ago, two superstores opened in my area. There has also been a small increase in the number of small shops. The small shops are mainly Asian and not necessarily against Sunday opening. People go to the big stores for the weekly shopping and down the road to their local shops on Sunday. That is what I do.
      Ms Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He is quite right.
      Many people suggest that Sunday shopping will be giving in to commercial lobbying. However, there are commercial lobbies on every side of the argument. For every Tesco arguing for opening, there is an Iceland
      370
      arguing for closure. Then they say that they will allow shops that people want to open. That actually means the shops that men want to open. DIY stores and motor accessory shops will be allowed to open, although the wording of the Bill is so restrictive that real DIY shops probably will not be able to open. Any outlet selling alcohol will be allowed to open, but supermarkets and clothes shops uniquely threaten family life and therefore must shut.
      I understand and accept that few want Sunday to become just another day of the week. That is why I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will reject total deregulation. However, Sunday is special because it is the day when people have most choice about what they do. Some go to church, others play sports, others visit friends and family while others simply laze about with the Sunday papers. That will not change if people are allowed to shop as one of their Sunday alternatives.
      Sunday is still special in Scotland, yet shops are free to open. That is why I hope hon. Members will support the partial deregulation option. It is the only option before us tonight which reconciles the wishes of those who want to shop with those who want to work—particularly women —and at the same time make sure that Sunday will remain just a little special.
      Sir George Gardiner: I shall try to speak more briefly than some earlier in the debate, to whom we listened with fascination.
      A pervading theme so far in the debate has been that Sunday should be a special day. Many go further and argue, as Christians, that the law must reinforce the requirement in chapter 20 of Exodus, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).
      I understand that many church worshippers wish to obey that injunction in their weekly lives reinforcing the special nature of Sunday. I consider myself a Christian and a somewhat irregular churchgoer and regard Sunday as a day different in character from the rest, but the question that I ask myself is what moral right have I, as a Member of Parliament, to dictate to the rest of the population how they must spend their Sundays, especially as a majority of them do not wish to abide by that literal injunction of the ten commandments.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that Parliament constantly dictates to the citizens of the country on almost every subject under the sun?
      Sir George Gardiner: It does, but if we can define areas where we need not do so, I do not see why we should.
      Sunday is special, as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) said. It is special for different people in different ways. For some, it is special because it starts with an act of collective worship. For others, it is a day of leisure and relaxation, perhaps visiting a garden centre in the morning and planting the produce in the afternoon. For others, it means a walk or a drive in the country, perhaps stopping at a village antique shop or at a farm shop. For others, it is a day when the whole family can go and choose a suite of furniture.
      7.30 pm
      For many—some 5 million—sunday offers the chance to do the family shopping in a supermarket without the hassle of trying to concentrate everything into Saturday.

      371
      For some 80,000 people, including students and part-time workers, it offers the chance of earning some money, often at premium rates, using a different day of the week for leisure activity.
      I therefore ask myself, if millions of citizens wish to shop on Sunday, and so many shopworkers are eager to serve them, what moral right have we to stop them? That is why I support amendment No. 1, the complete deregulation option, but which I have always called the free-choice option. I do not believe that free choice would destroy the special nature of Sunday. It has not done so in the United States, Canada, southern Ireland or Scotland.
      Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a clash of choices and that people whose houses are disturbed on Sunday—or indeed Saturday—mornings should have a choice to have their house and premises quiet?
      Sir George Gardiner: Highways legislation should cover the position of such people.
      Free choice has not destroyed the special nature of Sundays in a variety of countries, including Scotland. To hear some bishops talk, one would think that Scotland was some heathen land where family cohesion has been smashed into oblivion. Scotland has had free Sunday choice for years, and Sunday shop opening there has settled to a level that meets the public demand. The same would happen here if we approved the free-choice option. Throughout large parts of England, it already has.
      A further advantage of the free-choice option is that it would add almost nothing to the cost of administration that would have to be borne by local councils and ultimately by council tax payers. I shall vote for option one.
      If that fails, I will most certainly oppose amendment No. 2, the Keep Sunday Special option. I cannot comprehend how the Bill's sponsors can seriously advocate replacing one set of ridiculous and unenforceable rules with another. The KSS "type of shop" approach would create many more anomalies.
      As the Consumers Association has pointed out, and I shall quote a couple of extracts from its report, under the KSS option
      "toys or books could be bought from a newsagent, but not from a toy or bookshop; meat or bread from a small supermarket, but not from a butcher or baker. Auction houses, antique shops, clothes shops, record shops, book shops and any number of other shops will be unable to open, regardless of size, unless they are in a hospital, harbour, seaport, hoverport or airport."
      On the "type of shop" approach, it continues:
      "A convenience shop, under 280 square metres, with a principal trade of groceries and confectionery, will be unable to open unless it also sells domestic cleaning materials. A chemist shop such as Boots, whose trade may include medical products and surgical appliances but not as its main trade, will be unable to open to sell nappies—yet a small neighbouring DIY store could. And a video shop will be able to sell or hire soft-porn movies, but a bookshop could not open to sell a bible."
      Do we really want to return to such a clumsy, bureaucratic and repressive system?
      Dr. Spink: I took advice this morning, and the advice is that all of these matters—the type of shop, type of goods, time of opening and the size of shops—can be dealt with by amendments in Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend should join the Committee and deal with such matters.
      Sir George Gardiner: If all the objections of the Consumers Association are to be met, as my hon. Friends
      372
      have said, the Bill will require hundreds of amendments to be tabled in Committee. I cannot see how one can defend that.
      Those who argue the KSS option wish to restrict working on Sundays. It would involve a vast increase in Sunday working for an army of environmental health and trading standards officers, scurrying to and fro with their measuring lines checking floor sizes and whether the shops that were opened were dealing in the exempt categories of goods listed.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir George Gardiner: No, I want to be brief and will not take any further interventions.
      The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates that the KSS will cost local authorities £12 million. I must warn hon. Members that if they pass that option, they must be prepared for a flood of protest from constituents who are part of the 5 million who are now able to shop on Sundays, or from the 80,000 who will lose their jobs in consequence. Do not be surprised if those people take their revenge. If the free Sunday choice option fails, I shall support the SHRC compromise. Short of free choice, that will most closely meet the needs of my constituents.
      Overall, I appeal to hon. Members: please let us treat our constituents as adults. They are quite capable of deciding how to spend their Sundays, so let us not be seen by them as agents for repression.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) has put his finger on the problem—the essence of the debate is whether we want Sunday to be special, and therefore try to promote, encourage and accept it for all sorts of good social reasons, or whether, either immediately or in a creeping way, we are prepared to erase all the differences that now exist on a Sunday. I believe that there is some value in having a day that is separate and unique and that that is proper for all the people of our country. Parliament and the public should encourage that and not have creeping deregulation. When shopping was first allowed on Good Friday, perhaps 20 per cent. of shops opened; now, 100 per cent. of the shops are open, and the tide has come completely over the difference. That will be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He should keep his eyes open. If he wants that, so be it, but I believe that the great majority of our people do not want it.
      We shall understand the four options that are now before the Committee only by understanding the context within which the debate has developed since 1976 when, based on the Auld committee report—against all the odds, as the Government had an overall majority—the Government proposal for total deregulation was defeated on Second Reading.
      After that, the stores embarked on a softening-up process, in which the Government colluded. To start with, they opened only on the four Sundays before Christmas. Having tested the Government that far and realised that not only would there be no opposition but there would be connivance, they went all the way. The subject was then passed to the European Court of Justice as a delaying device, knowing the way that that court—
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because I have told him so from the Dispatch Box

      373
      before, that the Government did not take the case to the European Court. In the court, the Government argued that what the law meant was entirely a matter for this country. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I hope that he will withdraw that remark.
      There has been no collusion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the law requires that the regulations be enforced by local authorities. The law must be changed before any other agency can enforce them. We are debating a change in the law now. The option that he supports—KSS—is modelled on the campaign that has been fought. It does not include a provision to allow any other agency apart from local authorities to enforce it. The hon. Gentleman is therefore speaking in favour of an option that would rely on local authorities to enforce it and it would not be for the Government directly to do so.
      Mr. Anderson: I believe that the Minister is not a lawyer. He should be aware that, at any stage, the Attorney-General could have taken over by taking out injunctions against those major stores that defied the law. He must be aware that the Shops Act 1950 deals with the situation where a local authority takes action against a store. It does not deal with a conspiracy among a large number of stores collectively to break the law. The Government could have stopped that either by the Attorney-General taking out an injunction nationally against those stores or, knowing that local authorities could not risk their limited moneys in major legal actions, by being prepared to indemnify local authorities against cases that would put them at risk.
      Earlier, I gave the Minister the example of the Kirklees case, which, as he knows, was considered by the House of Lords. Had Kirklees council lost that case, it would have been liable for £250,000-worth of costs. That is clearly well beyond the resources of a local authority, which could not afford to risk so much. The Government colluded by doing nothing when they might have done something. They allowed law breaking on a vast scale.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a lawyer, knows perfectly well that the role of the Attorney-General in such matters is as a Law Officer, not as a member of the Government, and my right hon. and learned Friend explained his position from the Dispatch Box. The law, as passed by Parliament, adequately allowed local authorities to enforce it and there was no proper role that would allow him to intervene.
      The Kirklees case resulted in the judgment that local authorities would be responsible for the losses of stores that those authorities closed by injunction if the European Court decided that the law was incompatible with Community law. That decision was overturned on appeal, so there was only a certain period when the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and claims is a general point, would have applied. As an excellent lawyer, he would know that.
      Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister suggest that the Government could not have agreed, had they so willed, to indemnify local authorities against the costs thrown away by seeking to enforce the law?
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am saying that the hon. Gentleman had heard the Attorney-General's speech from the
      374
      Dispatch Box. He said that it would not be proper for him to intervene, that there was no proper basis on which he should intervene and that the law passed by Parliament, which made local authorities responsible for enforcing it, was adequate. The hon. Gentleman has said, quite rightly, that I am not a lawyer, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is. The hon. Gentleman's argument was with the then Attorney-General and I am sure that his successor in office now would be able to repeat the position that the then Attorney-General took.
      The hon. Gentleman pretends that the Government have powers to enforce the law, when the law passed by Parliament quite clearly says that it is for local authorities to enforce it. We wish to change the law and that is why we have introduced the Bill. Any hon. Member, or campaigning group, can suggest different modes of enforcement. The hon. Gentleman's preference does not include any such change. I wonder why not.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Anderson: The Minister makes my point. Had he so willed it, the Attorney-General could have intervened, but he chose not to do so. As a result, the big stores have been allowed to get away with it—the same stores that would have been the first to take to court a single mother who shoplifted in one of their supermarkets. They rely on the law when they want to do so and disobey the law when they choose to do so. The claim by the big stores that they are concerned about consumer choice is a little less credible in the light of their action when trying to prevent United States' warehouse companies from coming here to increase choice.
      The normal principle of law is that when a law breaker, by law breaking, adversely affects the interests of a third party which loses financially, the law will intervene to compensate that third party. Stores such as Marks and Spencer and John Lewis have obeyed the law and lost substantial sums as a result. I say again that the Government have connived at that loss and, by the way in which they have encouraged acceptance of the deregulation option, they are encouraging those who have defied the law so wilfully for so long.
      The Government have tried to encourage support by, for example, offering worker protection. At a fairly late stage, they included schedule 4, as if they had a real commitment to worker protection. I practised a little in employment law and I can tell the Minister that that protection is illusory. Not only are there great delays in hearings before industrial tribunals but there is no legal aid, as he will know. Only those who are unionised will be likely to have any support. Damages will be limited. I am convinced that the only real protection for workers would be afforded by an option like the Keep Sunday Special option.
      The Financial Times report on the way in which Sainsbury puts pressure on its managers was immediately repudiated, and tactically and wisely reversed, but who knows what Sainsbury and others will do if their option is successful today?
      My answer to the hon. Member for Reigate, who is consistent in that he supports the free market ideology, is that he and his friends are prepared to put that free market ideology above their concern for law and order. I would have been more impressed had I heard him urging the major stores, when they selectively obeyed the law, to obey all the laws. They have put that ideology above their

      375
      concern for small shopkeepers, whose decline in numbers would be accelerated massively if there were total deregulation, and above their concern for the family.
      I am confident that one certain feature of total deregulation and the working of one member of the family on a Sunday would be to increase pressures on the family. It would create a negative future for family life, along with all the other pressures. Behind the disintegration of the family and the pressures on the family is the concomitant evil of increasing criminality. One of the joys of the Jewish family and the Indian family is that a day is set aside for family members to be together. Part of the Jewish community's respect for the law derives from the high value that is placed in the Jewish community on the family.
      With all respect to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I believe that there are only two major options: either deregulation or an attempt to preserve the special nature of Sunday. Deregulation is the aim of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Just as in 1986, I am convinced that people do not want total deregulation.
      Alas, the BBC and others fall into the trap of calling the Shopping Hours Reform Council option a compromise. It is a compromise only in the sense that it would mean deregulation by stages. If the majority of the people who support the SHRC were honest with themselves and honest to hon. Members, they would say that they want total deregulation. They realise that there is not a majority in the House of Commons for total deregulation, so they are attempting to persuade others that they are taking deregulation as far as they want. They should be honest. There is no relevant stopping point to deregulation. If it is six hours, why not make it seven or eight hours?
      What would be the Government's position if, by some mischance, the SHRC option were to win a majority, and the Standing Committee were composed, as it must be, of a majority of those who voted in favour of the option, who then altered the provision from six hours to seven or eight hours and took the road to total deregulation?
      With respect to the right hon. Member for Honiton, his motive is not the same as that of those who have proposed the so-called compromise; it would amount to a staging post on the way to total deregulation. The right hon. Gentleman's motive is different, although the effect of his amendment would be the same. As there is no natural stopping point, if the opening time were 1 o'clock, why not make it 12 o'clock? It is similar to the Home Office's approach to the opening hours of licensed premises on Sundays. Initially, the Home Office said that it should be 2 o'clock, then it thought, "What is another hour between friends?" Slippage occurred. This issue could go down that same slope.
      The deregulation option is proposed by those with a self-interest, in contrast to the KSS option which is supported by those who see the issue as a matter of public interest. I am proud to come from a Christian background and I believe that the Old Testament ordinances in this matter, as in many others such as hygiene, are still relevant to people. We would be acting against the interest of mankind if we sought to disregard them in this context or in others. It is important for the human condition that a day is set aside for recreation. Let it be the same day on which families can choose to stay together. It would be wrong for Sunday working to become a way of life. There would be adverse social consequences for the vulnerable, those without cars, the disabled and so on. There would be major
      376
      pressure on city centre shopping and it would, of course, accelerate the existing trend of pressure on small, convenience shops, to their detriment.
      If the SHRC were to win today, it would be a triumph for a sectional, highly financed lobby over the public interest. Marks and Spencer has lost a lot of money by obeying the law, unlike those major stores behind whom some Conservative Members now stand. I stand with those hon. Members who admire shops such as the John Lewis Partnership and Marks and Spencer which, to their financial detriment, have decided to obey the law. I hope that Conservative Members also admire those stores. The KSS option is the only one that is likely to create a balance by preserving Sunday and all its pleasures as a special day. I believe that that is right and that it is what our people want.
      Mr. Rowe: I shall be brief and hope that the Committee will forgive me and allow me to escape soon after I sit down as I have an important appointment elsewhere. A small but important group of people have a totally principled view about Sunday, and I have enormous respect and admiration for them. They do not shop or travel or expect services from other people on Sunday. That small group of people can genuinely say that they are standing on a solid ground of principle.
      In almost every other case such principles have been so distorted that it is difficult to claim a principled stand. For example, it is strange that many of my Christian friends and acquaintances write to me and speak in passionate terms about how wrong it would be to have many people working on Sunday. About 8 million people work on Sunday, and many of them provide inessential services to my Christian friends who think nothing of taking journeys, entering cafes and restaurants or doing a whole range of other things that they need not do but choose to do. Therefore, that element of principle has disappeared.
      If those in the Christian community want to persuade Parliament to act in their best interests, they need to mobilise and persuade more people of the truth of their belief—which is my belief. Having done so, they will exercise the kind of power that I would like to see them able to exercise in a democratic society. As a small minority, it cannot ask Parliament to legislate for its purposes as if that were somehow a duty.
      I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for providing me with a way out of my dilemma. I was inclined to support the partial deregulation option because, although it has no special ground of principle, it gives a slight edge to small shops, which I have a great yearning to preserve. I have become increasingly dissatisfied with my position and feel that many of my constituents yearn for a day that is marked off from other days in a way that they can recognise and be able to use. For example, there is great force in the argument that if every day is exactly the same, any suggestion that premium payments will survive is a myth. Such payments will survive for a little while but they will slide away, like so much else.
      I worry about the KSS's desire that the big shops should open for the four Sundays before Christmas. If most of Advent is deliberately used for shopping and Christmas is taken to be nothing special, the shops may find that, when Christmas has lost virtually all its meaning, the public will

      377
      not spend any more in December than in any other month. Why should they if Christmas has become like any other time of the year?
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the introduction of Christmas during the weeks of Advent. Surely he must be aware that most supermarkets start introducing Christmas, by way of Christmas cards, wrapping paper and specially wrapped boxes of chocolates, as early as September or, in some instances, almost immediately after Easter.
      8 pm
      Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that Christmas becomes more like fashion every day. I understand that in February it is already too late to buy summer fashions as they have all gone.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has provided me with a way out of my dilemma. If he were to clean up his act—if I may put it that way—he would have a satisfactory solution. In its present form, his proposition is wrong in that it contains another list of anomalies, as do the other options. There would be no anomalies if he agreed that shops below a certain size, which can be defined in Committee, should be able to open to sell anything that they choose on Sunday morning, as well as in the afternoon if they choose to stay open, and that shops above a certain size should not be allowed to open until Sunday afternoon. That would mean that the large number of people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)—those who value having at least part of Sunday free of the heavy traffic and noise that the rest of the week brings and who are just as entitled as anyone else to have some peace—would at least know that Sunday mornings were different from the rest of the week. They would not suffer as much disturbance as usual if they chose to have a long lie-in. It would also allow the elderly and frail and those who cannot drive to have access to their local shops.
      It is worth bearing in mind that only about 17 per cent. of women over 65 have a driving licence, which is a minute proportion. If local shops were kept open, it would be of tremendous value to such people and give them an edge but the demand to go shopping on Sundays, which does exist, would be met by people being able to shop on Sunday afternoons. The advantage of that solution is that it would be exceedingly easy to administer. When a shop registered for the uniform business rate, it could also register its size. If it were below a certain size, it would be able to open and if it were above that size, it would not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) was wrong to suggest that full, unrestricted, 24-hours-a-day opening would involve no cost for local authorities. That is manifestly untrue as cleansing, inspection and a range of duties would need to be carried out at the expense of local authorities. It would be unrealistic and wrong for the Committee entirely to dictate the country's shopping patterns by legislation. Shopping patterns keep changing. Small shops are struggling and will continue to do so, but it is reasonable to protect the privacy and tranquillity of a substantial slice of the population by saying that Sunday tradinġ should be
      378
      restricted, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. His is a very good solution to the problem,+ and I shall support it.
      If that solution fails, as is conceivable, I shall support the KSS option, but not because I think that it would be easy to work in its present form. It involves far too many anomalies to make it a comfortable solution but they can, to some extent, be refined. I am disappointed that they have not been refined over the many years that have been available to work them out, but we could perhaps improve the option. I shall support it, if necessary, because I believe that it is sometimes right to suggest by public statement that there is more to life than shopping.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I cannot join the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in supporting the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). In an admirably succinct argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) established the fact that the Committee will be voting either for deregulation or to keep Sunday special—there is no halfway house that can meet the needs and requirements of the country at large.
      The hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said that he would vote for the first option because it offered free choice. As one whose first experience of the world of work was as a shop assistant, I can tell him that deregulation gives little or no free choice to people who work in shops. I shall read out part of a letter from a constituent who said that the Bill was
      "very personal to me because I work in the retail industry, in Central London. This means that time to spend with my family and friends is already in short supply, so anything that lessens it will seriously affect the quality of my family life. I am worried that companies like mine would not be able to operate voluntary arrangements and that everyone would be expected to work Sundays eventually, so cutting into precious time with my family."
      Another constituent wrote:
      "As I see it the main problem from legal Sunday Opening is the probable coercion on Shop Staff. While in legal theory, retail store staff might be given a choice, in reality, the only choice is either, treat Sundays as a normal working day or lose your job, or at the very best your chances of promotion."
      Sir George Gardiner: How does the hon. Lady react to what I have been told by many managers of supermarkets in my constituency? Their workers are queuing up to work on Sundays, and they have no difficulty in finding the necessary staff.
      Ms Jackson: With respect, when there are 3 million unemployed people, one could offer any kind of gainful employment and queues would form. The hon. Gentleman must not regard any kind of remuneration as being a wage. Shop assistants—certainly part-time shop assistants—receive what I regard as disgracefully low rates of pay. The Government have a large slate of deregulation planned for the coming Session, and I have no doubt that one of the first things to be deregulated—as proved by the abolition of the wages councils—will be any protection of workers' wages or workers' rights.
      I have also received a letter from the managing director of Robert Dyas, ironmongers. It states:
      "We are also very doubtful that any Government proposals for protection of staff are workable, should Sunday trading become the norm. This Company is taking on a steady trickle of staff who have become dismayed at the pressure placed upon them to work on Sundays, whilst their previous employers proclaim that such work is voluntary. I myself have no doubt that if this company was forced, through competitive pressures, to trade on Sundays,

      379
      we would be able (if we wished) to 'persuade' large numbers to work … No legislation can cope with this style of insidious pressure."
      Another choice about which we have heard a great deal is that of individuals being able to shop when they please. A managing director of the John Lewis Partnership disagrees with that option, saying:
      "Contrary to what some would suggest, choice for the consumer is actually likely to diminish as larger shops take over the business of smaller ones and villages lose their small convenience stores."
      London used to be a series of villages—in many instances it could still be—but that is being rapidly eroded because of the enormous pressures on small businesses. Small businesses are closing at the rate of approximately eight a week. The corner shop, the local shop and the local small market centre will be absolutely demoralised and destroyed by deregulation. Deregulation is not about choice for the consumer or reducing prices, but about the large retail outlets fighting to increase their market share, and that will continue.
      The pattern of shopping in this country, as in America, is to move shops to greenfield sites and away from where people live. That is a wonderful way to shop if one has the means of getting to and from those sites. A large proportion of my constituents are pensioners, on some form of social security or exist only because they can make a legal claim on the benefit system. Those people are utterly and totally dependent upon the local shop and being able to walk to it. They cannot afford private transport; in many instances they can barely afford public transport.
      The suggestion that everyone does one large weekly shop is nonsense. I know many people who buy only after counting penny and twopenny pieces—and the older one gets the more difficult it is to differentiate between our coins.
      The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) referred to the issue of choice raised by the hon. Member for Reigate. Surely there must be a choice for the people who live near retail outlets. They will have no choice at all about a quiet Sunday, or about one day of the week being different from the other six. In my constituency there are two residential areas in which there are large multiple superstores. People live above one of those superstores and the delivery bays of the other store are next door to my residents' front doors. For seven days a week those people will be plagued by enormous delivery vans and by the clanging backwards and forwards of the large steel doors that cover the delivery bays. There will be no Sunday for people who live next door to such superstores.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady raises a valid point. My constituents know where I stand on this issue. They have asked me whether there will be a problem of disturbance by delivery vans. I have looked into the matter and it is apparent that the Highways Acts cover this point. Local authorities can, if they wish, implement the measures contained in those Acts to restrict the number of lorries visiting certain premises. They can even forbid lorries to arrive at particular times of the day or days of the week. The Acts are there; it is for the authorities to use them.
      Ms Jackson: If existing Acts are so all-powerful, why were they not enforced? That is why we are here debating the whole issue.
      Mr. Fabricant: They are different Acts.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. However strongly hon. Members may feel about the subject, there must be no sedentary interventions.
      Ms Jackson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).
      8.15 pm
      Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Lady believe that her constituents and mine should be free to have a day away from the disturbance of other people's noise, fumes, traffic and the hustle and bustle of a normal weekday?
      Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he brings me to my next point.
      The hon. Member for Reigate talked about constituents' wishes. The issue of Sunday trading has increased my post by dozens of letters. When I knew that we would be debating this particular amendment I made a less than scientific breakdown of percentages. Of the people who wrote to me of their own volition—they did not forward cards presented to them by the big multiple stores—73·6 per cent. of my constituents wished to keep Sunday special. I was interested to see on the front page of The Independent today that nationally 74 per cent. of people wish to keep Sunday special.
      That is not surprising because the pressures of modern-day life are enormous and the break-up of families seems to be continuous. Sunday is the only day on which families can meet and be together. I endorse the opinions of all hon. Members who have said that there should be one day in the week that should be nationally regarded as special.
      How can special payments for people who work on Sunday logically be achieved? What would be special about people working on Sunday if we were to take away its special nature? There would be no logical reason to pay them double time or overtime.
      I believe that we have seen sufficient decay and sufficient reduction of the things that individuals value intensely and totally. It may be religion, it may be being able to communicate within families, it may be to be able to indulge in some kind of sporting activity—a pursuit I am not particularly interested in—it may be a whole range of issues, but if we continually reduce everything to a norm we take away something that is vital and essential to our experience as human beings. There are differences; there should be differences; we must keep Sunday special.
      Mr. Douglas French: It is important that the Committee does not lose sight of the fact that tonight we are trying to select a particular option. That will then go forward to Standing Committee for further refinement. I assume that the further refinement will be in the broad spirit of whatever option is chosen, but it means that there will be another opportunity to make some modifications to whatever option is selected. Hon. Members should choose the option that comes nearest to the particular one that they would like to see, with a view to further modification later. Hon. Members must seek to select an option that they think stands a reasonable chance of getting through with the largest majority, bearing in mind the order of voting. That could make a significant difference.
      The Committee must consider the fact that the solution needs to be a simple one, which is easily understood by not only the expert lawyers but by the small shopkeepers who

      381
      will have to comply with it. It must be capable of being enforced with a maximum amount of certainty and a minimum amount of cost.
      We need to guard against replacing the current confused and confusing set of laws with a further set of laws that are unenforceable and equally confusing. Whenever we make laws we should make good sound laws, not laws that invite people to break them at the first opportunity. The conduct of certain retailers in breaking the law as they have during the past year has been despicable.
      The guiding principle that we must try to stick to is that the formula that we adopt must not be too complex. At first glance, that principle drew me towards the simplicity and ease of enforcement of the total deregulation solution. I was much impressed by the persuasive advocacy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). Total deregulation is the easiest option to enforce, and the easiest for people to understand; I do not believe, however, that it is really in keeping with the mood of the people.
      I am sure that some people want to take advantage of shopping facilities on Sundays, although others do not. Some want to be able to work on Sundays, while others prefer not to. Most important, a significant group want Sunday to be a day on which they can be fairly certain of securing a degree of peace and quiet—a day on which they can relax, indulge in recreation and pause to wind down before the start of the week. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell).
      I regard Sunday as a different day: a day on which the pace of life should be slower, which provides the opportunity to do something a little different from what one does for the rest of the week. It is clear from the 700 or more letters that I have received from constituents that a significant number of them want to ensure that Sunday does not become like every other day of the week.
      Mr. Fabricant: Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend wants to keep Sunday special. I think that most of us want to keep it special, but is it not special in Scotland, where deregulation has taken place? If, as some have said, retailers are already behaving as though there were no law in operation, is not Sunday special now?
      Mr. French: I do not consider the comparison with Scotland particularly valid. It does not promote my hon. Friend's case very well. Scotland is, after all, an entirely different place, and its circumstances are also different.
      As I was saying, I subscribe to the sentiments of the Keep Sunday Special campaign to some extent. I feel, however, that in trying to give effect to what are certainly laudable sentiments the campaign has advanced a solution that does its case no good, because it is largely unenforceable. It fails all the criteria of simplicity and easy enforcement that I require.
      We need only examine the campaign's proposed formula to realise how difficult its enforcement would be. It proposes, for instance, that whether shops open should depend on whether the goods sold are "wholly or mainly" of a particular type. I searched the proposals for a definition of "wholly or mainly", but was unable to find one. It is not at all easy to identify when a shop would be fulfilling the
      382
      Keep Sunday Special formula and when it would not. I could take hon. Members to certain shops that would present them with considerable difficulty.
      Let us examine the second and third categories on the KSS list. First, there is the newsagent's shop where the goods on sale are wholly or mainly newspapers, periodicals and confectionery; secondly, there is the convenience shop where the goods are wholly or mainly groceries, domestic cleaning materials and confectionery. Confectionery is common to both categories; but, as has already been pointed out, a sweetshop would not qualify.
      Most important, a "wholly or mainly" provision is likely to be extremely unfair to specialist shops, many of which are small and which often bring character to our city centres—character that can all too easily be lost. We should ensure that such shops remain viable.
      Mr. John Butterfill: If the KSS —RSAR proposals were accepted, would such shops open alone in city centres whose streets were deserted?
      Mr. French: My point is that specialist shops selling precisely the same items as convenience stores, newsagents and other shops in the same category would not be able to sell their goods, unlike the designated shops.
      Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend has not answered my question.
      Mr. French: I am happy to give way again.
      Mr. Butterfill: Even if the provision were extended to the specialist shops about which my hon. Friend professes concern, would they open on their own in city centres?
      Mr. French: I think it highly likely. Certainly, I think that they should be given the same opportunity as other shops selling the same items.
      I had some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), who drew on some of the telling examples presented by the Consumers Association. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the KSS proposals would make it possible to buy toys and books from a newsagent, but not from a toyshop or bookshop. It would be possible to buy meat or bread from a small supermarket, but not from a butcher or baker. A drill could be bought from a small do-it-yourself store, but not from a specialist electrical store. That strikes me as completely lacking in logic. It is confusing and unfair, and I believe that it would ultimately be unenforceable.
      Mr. Alison: I must contest my hon. Friend's claim that the proposal lacks logic. By definition, in the category of shops that could open, the articles described by my hon. Friend could not be part of the "wholly or mainly" definition; they would be residual items, and would present no kind of competition with shops whose whole occupation is selling such goods.
      Mr. French: I understand my right hon. Friend's point. However, we would have to be constantly involved in judgments about what constitutes "wholly or mainly". Of course, there will be clear-cut illustrations, but many will be on the margin. That is the difficulty with your proposals.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. They are not my proposals.
      Mr. French: I am sorry, Dame Janet. I meant the KSS proposals.

      383
      I also see some difficulty in another aspect of the KSS proposals—the demarcation line in the definition of an area of 280 sq m as the relevant floor area. It appears that car parks and other external areas, storage areas, corridors and stairs, staff rooms and lavatories are all excluded from the calculation of floor area in the consideration where the shops meet the size criterion; but any areas where goods are displayed, such as window areas, are to be considered part of the relevant floor area, even if customers have no access to them. Parts of the shop from which customers are normally excluded, such as the area behind the counter or the till booths at a check-out, will be included in the calculation. What a crystal-clear definition that is.
      Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend accept that those who will be charged with the responsibility of enforcement— representative bodies, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—say that they foresee no difficulties in enforcing the KSS proposals?
      Mr. French: That appears to be the official line of those associations. I have spoken to many individual councils, however, and it seems that that view is not widely held. This is another example of associations not properly representing the views of many of their members.
      Mr. Llwyd: Every day magistrates courts impose demarcation zones in shops for off-licence purposes. As a lawyer, I have never encountered any difficulties in that regard.
      Mr. French: I shall describe the difficulties in a moment. I maintain that such an arrangement would present problems. It might produce a lot of work for surveyors, but it would also create difficulties whenever a shop was altered. I do not want someone who is developing a business to encounter the complication of falling into a different category the moment he wants to add a small extension to his shop.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. French: No, I must press on.
      Such a provision would be difficult to enforce and would produce peculiar anomalies. The most obvious is that a shop of 270 sq m would be treated differently from a sister shop down the road of 290 sq m selling the same goods. That lacks logic. Although local authorities may be able to undertake the task, they would incur costs in measuring shops and reaching agreement on the wholly or mainly definition. That is a recipe for disagreement and dispute—even if it produced a lot of work for solicitors and surveyors. I reject the KSS proposal for those reasons.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. I am a chartered surveyor and can relieve him of his anxieties. Local authorities already perform that function because, under planning regulations and byelaws, they have responsibility for ensuring that permitted floor areas for sales as against other purposes are not exceeded. The problems that my hon. Friend envisages will not arise.
      Mr. French: It would entail a lot of unnecessary cost.
      Mr. Butterfill: But local authorities alreådy incur it.
      Mr. French: But shops change all the time. No doubt my hon. Friend, as a surveyor, sees some benefit in that arrangement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am arguing that such an arrangement would create unnecessary work for solicitors and surveyors, for which the local authority and ultimately the taxpayer would have to pay.
      A different approach is adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). Amendment No. 35 does not, in relation to the goods that may be sold, adopt the wholly or mainly formula but specifies a limited number of goods that might be sold in specific shops on Sunday morning. One accepts that involves some complexity but one sees the logic. I cannot envisage a Sunday on which one could not buy a newspaper from a newsagent or medicinal or surgical products from a pharmacy. It is also very much part of Sunday to be able to buy plants and garden supplies from nurseries.
      I have difficulty with some of my right hon. Friend's other categories. Garden accessories present many definitional difficulties, but my right hon. Friend's broad approach of tightly restricted morning trading combined with total deregulation in the afternoon is good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made fun of the Sunday morning formula proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, yet suggested that antiques might be sold by a do-it-yourself centre. That verges on a far more ridiculous situation than does the formula suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
      There has been no mention yet of the KSS proposal relating to permitted goods sold from garden centres, motor supply and do-it-yourself shops. The word "permitted" presents a definitional quandary every bit as difficult as that criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby in respect of the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton.
      In a nutshell, amendment No. 35 would keep Sunday morning special and has many attractive features. It is an appropriate solution, not least because of the obvious inadequacies of other proposals before the Committee. Partial deregulation is not credible—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a constant buzz of what I imagine to be private conversations, which is not acceptable. If the hon. Members responsible hope to catch my eye later, they will be unlucky.
      Mr. French: I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that partial deregulation is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is far too close to full deregulation and would quickly destroy the character of Sunday, which I have an interest in preserving. Partial deregulation would be harmful to small shopkeepers, and a diversity of small shops is valuable and must be retained—particularly in city shopping centres. Allowing large shops a continuous six-hour period of trading between 10 am and 6 pm would turn Sunday into a low-key Saturday—and that is not something that I or the majority of my constituents desire. I want Sunday to remain a trading half day with the minimum of complexities in respect of the type or size of shop, type of goods or hours of opening.
      If amendment No. 35 is passed, I would want to make one or two modifications in Committee and to re-examine the types of shop that it allowed to open and the sort of goods they could sell. I would like to place some finite

      385
      limit on afternoon deregulation. At present, all shops could continue to remain open for the rest of the day, and a six o'clock closing time would strike a fair balance. Such a formula would get rid of complexities, keep costs to a minimum, make enforcement practicable and satisfy both those who want to shop on Sunday and those who do not and want it to remain a little different. It would satisfy also those who want to work on Sunday and those who do not. Amendment No. 35 therefore represents the best option before the Committee.
      Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), ho clearly brings his legal expertise at the Bar to analysing the various options. He has a special interest in small businesses but perhaps did not examine that sector sufficiently in relation to small shops. The hon. Gentleman referred to the mood of the people, and it is incumbent on the Committee to reflect the totality of that mood.
      The hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) indicated in an intervention that Parliament should adopt the views taken by constituents, and he warned that if we do not we shall receive an avalanche of letters from constituents who will lose their jobs if we do not follow a particular route. With 3 million unemployed, there will anyway be many redundant Conservative Members after the next general election. That would truly be retribution. However, as to the mood of the public, we cannot abrogate our responsibilities.
      We are not here to respond to the dictates of single-issue pressure groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) referred to a single-issue pressure group. We have all received letters on this subject from such groups. But at the end of the day it falls to the House of Commons to make a balanced decision in the interests of our constituents.
      The hon. Member for Gloucester talked about the mood of the people. It is incumbent on us to catch that mood tonight. The hon. Gentleman referred to peace and quiet. He said that he supported amendment No. 35. If we were to get full deregulation, there would not be much peace and quiet in our daily lives.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to a variety of anomalies that he found in the Keep Sunday Special documentation and the option. Those anomalies fall in the category of myths, myths and shibboleths. We can spend a lot of time talking about those anomalies. It was suggested that they could be examined on Report and I am sure that that will be the case.
      The hon. Gentlemn referred to the extra cost to local authorities if the Keep Sunday Special option is adopted. If there is full deregulation, there will be additional costs on local authorities. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to services that are offered at present by local authorities on a Sunday.
      I support the option put forward by Keep Sunday Special and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. I will vote for amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 8 in accordance with the advice given by the Secretary of State when he set out the options open to us. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) in his place because he referred to a specific point to which I shall return later. He said:
      386
      "No serious employment protection in the future is available without keeping Sunday special … keeping Sunday special is the only way to protect our workers."
      That must be the case. We have seen many documents on what happens in Europe. For example, there is no trading on Sunday in Germany. There has never been trading on Sunday and there has been no question of the German economy faltering, floundering, weakening or slipping.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is in a terrible state.
      Mr. Bell: That is because of reunification, not because there is no shopping on Sunday.
      Another significant fact about Germany is that, notwithstanding the fact that there is no law for trading on a Sunday, there is no breaking of the law. The law has not been broken and enforceability has not been necessary. That is a significant difference between Germany and the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members have talked about the way in which large retail stores have broken the law over many years. That reflects a different attitude from that in Germany.
      I spent many years in France. Certainly, Sunday in France is not the same as Sunday in this country. There have been many jokes from French tourists about Sunday closing in London and England. It is not the same in France where Sunday is certainly much livelier. France has a Sunday shopping law which prevents all stores from opening on a Sunday. The Virgin megastore was the last to discover what can happen when one opens on a Sunday against the law of the land.
      The difference between France and the United Kingdom is that the law has been enforced in France. Local inspectors have been involved and there are several cases before the courts. It is interesting to see that the French have not gone along the route of taking cases of being open on a Sunday to the European Court under article 30 and saying that this is somehow a quantitive restriction on imports on a Sunday.
      The French law has something which we have had since the Shops Act 1950 came into force—employee protection for Sunday work. It is a legal obligation that a person does not work on a Sunday, but if he does work on a Sunday there must be another day in lieu. One of the consequences of the Shops Act has been that penalties have been imposed in the criminal courts if employers did not respect the obligation not to make someone work on a Sunday. Under this Bill, that provision will go.
      8.45 pm
      The right hon. Member for Selby referred to employee protection. At the outset, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has worked extremely hard to get some form of employee protection into the Bill. There has been a series of extensions of the original proposals into the area of worker protection. However, the worker protection that will come out of the Bill will be through the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which deals with industrial tribunals.
      If a worker on a Sunday has any difficulty with the owner of the retail shop or chain, he must take his case to an industrial tribunal. That is not necessarily a way forward that protects the right of the worker. He may have bought himself a law suit but he has certainly not bought himself justice. We should bear that in mind when we consider employee protection. It is not sufficient simply to say that

      387
      we are protecting those who work on a Sunday by introducing employee protection. The employer then has a whole series of hurdles to get over if he is to enforce his right.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the state of Massachusetts in the United States introduced a similar employee protection law when it deregulated some time ago. Indeed, I introduced a similar provision when we debated the issue previously. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been no problems with the law in the state of Massachusetts—it has not led to any significant litigation or difficulties.
      Mr. Bell: There has been a whole series of erosions of rights before industrial tribunals. Our research clearly shows that applicants without legal representation have been successful in only 1 per cent. of cases where the employer was represented. Other figures show that trade unions frequently help their members to fight cases before industrial tribunals, thus mitigating the absence of legal aid provision. However, most of the 2·2 million retail employees are part-time, non-union workers and do not have the same way of defending their actions.
      That is not simply my view; it is the view of those who have specialised in this subject. They have examined the subject and believe that the unfair dismissal law cannot be used to provide unqualified job security rights for shopworkers. Both the substance of the law and the statutory remedies for unfair dismissal suffer from weaknesses which would substantially limit the effectiveness of schedule 4 to the Bill. I return to the point made by the right hon. Member for Selby. If we wish to have employee protection on a Sunday, we will get it only by voting for the Keep Sunday Special option.
      A number of statements have been made by trade union leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen referred to USDAW. I have received representations from the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. I must declare an interest. I am sponsored by the GMB and I am comfortable with that fact, although I do not propose to follow its recommendation. I am being whiter than white when it comes to this issue.
      We have also had the views of Unison. That union has clearly said that the Keep Sunday Special option is the one that we should support. Lest I give the impression that we are entirely unionised and we entirely support the view of certain trade unions, let me say that we also have the views of the British Chamber of Commerce and therefore I link the interests of trade unions with those of businesses. They say clearly that the updating of the Shops Act along the lines of schedule 1 to the Bill—that is, the joint option of KSS and RSAR—offers a relatively straightforward basis for updating the law on Sunday trading which is economically enforceable. I quote:
      "Total deregulation would lead to many small shop closures, less protection of staff, increased local authority and public service costs and ultimately higher prices to the consumer."
      I shall return to the subject of small businesses because small shops and medium-sized shops are small businesses. Two weeks ago, in the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer lifted the requirement of an audit on small businesses. He lifted the threshold on VAT. He offered a consultation on late payment for small businesses. Yet the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who is with us tonight and is listening—I know how barristers listen with one ear even if they have another one occupied—are going
      388
      for total deregulation. That is incompatible with the objective of helping small businesses and overlooks the point that small shopkeepers are small businesses.
      At least the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), to whose speech I listened with great interest, had the grace not to say that the document which we have, urging Conservative Members in the first instance to vote for total deregulation and, if that was not acceptable, partial deregulation, had been left on a photocopying machine. Generally, when we have leaks from the Conservatives, the document is left on the photocopying machine for a Labour party researcher. That was not the case.
      The argument that I wish to make in relation to the speech of the right hon. Lady is that there is no halfway house between full deregulation and partial deregulation. The Committee must decide clearly tonight that either it wants total deregulation or it wants the option of Keep Sunday Special. We all know the route that partial deregulation will take—it will fairly quickly become full deregulation. I seek, therefore, to persuade the Committee, as we are in the business of persuading, that the Keep Sunday Special option is the option available.
      I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in his place because he made an interesting and incisive speech on Second Reading. He referred to defining the essence of Sunday. We have all looked upon that concept of Sunday. We have all said how we want to keep Sunday special. Some of us regard it as a day of leisure. Some of us regard it as a day of rest. Others talked of a day of tranquillity, of contemplation, of reflection. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) talked of it as a day special to the six others.
      We have touched briefly upon the question of religion. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned it; the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned it; but we have to bear in mind that in this country we have a Christian ethic and a Christian ethos. We fully accept the other religions. We accept that we are a multi-racial society and also a multi-religious society—we respect the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith—but we open each sitting of Parliament with prayers as part of the established Church. We cannot simply take out of the equation the element of the sabbath, that essence of our belief, when it comes to the subject of Sunday opening.
      I was quite enlivened one day in church when the priest said that more people go to a church on a Sunday than go to a football match on a Saturday. It may be that more people now watch the football match on Sky television on a Sunday than go to church, but we have the Christian ethos and we have the Christian value. We ought not to overlook that when we discuss these issues.
      I would not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly, but I must leave the issue where I began. It is incumbent upon the Committee to make a decision in the national interest, in the interests of all of our people; not simply those who have written letters; not simply those who have enlisted single-issue pressure groups; not simply those who have lobbied today for a six-hour day for Sunday shopping. It is for us to make the final decision. It is in our hands to resolve the issue once and for all and to resolve in Committee and on Report other aspects that

      389
      might arise. The gift is ours; it cannot be taken away from us. Members of Parliament must decide tonight, and, in my view, the only option is the Keep Sunday Special option.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: We can all agree on what the hon. Gentleman has just finished by saying—that the matter has been dragging on for far too long and must be settled once and for all. I applaud the Government's determination to do just that.
      On the subject of small businesses, and on the subject of Scotland, a friend of mine who runs a small business in Scotland said that when the big shops in Princes street open on Sunday, as British Home Stores does, more people come in to shop in the small shops in the arcades on Sunday. If big shops open, it appears to do good to small businesses rather than the harm that is sometimes expected.
      Mr. Lord: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I will not, because a lot of people want to speak and if I give way to my hon. Friend I shall be tempted to give way to all sorts of other people who want to ask me lots of questions. It is out of fairness to everyone else. Perhaps my hon. Friend will catch the Chairman's eye.
      What are the elements that I believe must affect the decision that I make this evening? The first is that it should accord as far as possible with the wishes of the majority of the people. Secondly, we should decide on an approach which will give people as much freedom as possible to make a choice about whether they want to shop or they do not. Thirdly, we must do it in such a way that we should respect the law rather than have contempt for it. Fourthly, we must do it in a way which incurs the least possible cost to the taxpayer. Fifthly, we must protect the consciences of those who choose not to work on Sunday.
      Applying those rules, what do I find to be the situation? As far as the overwhelming will of the people is concerned, I am persuaded that the majority want to be free to shop or not, as they choose, on Sunday. It has nothing to do with keeping Sunday special. If they want it to be special by not shopping they will not shop. Some will want it to be special by being the one day in the week when they can shop with their families. Bearing in mind that the patterns of life have changed very much since the Shops Act was introduced in 1950, that families often come together and it is much better that they should come together with some kind of an activity on Sunday than sit stewing in front of the television set, and that 11 million people already shop on Sundays and will go on doing so whichever way we decide tonight, and that the church shops are often open on Sunday so the sin has gone out of Sunday shopping, I think that the first of those elements has been fulfilled if the overwhelming majority of people want to choose deregulation.
      As to free choice, the Keep Sunday Special option offers the least free choice, the partial deregulation, the next least free choice, amendment No. 35 the next degree of free choice and total deregulation the most free choice.
      As to respect for the law, we should have learnt the lesson by now that restrictions in this area lead to contempt for the law and the injustice of some being prosecuted while others are not, some being forcibly closed down while others are open, and theė absurdity of thė distinctions
      390
      which are so much honoured in the breach, governing what one may sell, what one may not sell and in what shop one may not do it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said, it is crazy to substitute one set of restrictions for another. It will bring the law into disrepute, as powerful and wealthy shops break the law, get round it or ignore it. About 30 years ago I was asked to advise whether a certain well known company was breaking the Shops Act by holding sales of all the wonderful items that it made in people's houses on Sunday. The name of the company must, of course, remain secret, but it produced plastic ware. I was a young barrister, and I advised the firm that what it suggested would be in breach of the Shops Act. I do not blame the firm, but it totally ignored my advice, and went on to make large fortunes for anyone who invested in the business.
      I say that merely to make the point that, in one way or another, people get round, ignore or break such laws, and it will be the wealthy organisations and companies that do so.
      9 pm
      Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: No. The same rule must apply to my hon. Friend, tempting though his interruption may be, as applied to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), to whom I had to say no.
      There is no doubt that unless we get rid of all those regulations there will not be respect for the law.
      With regard to expense, we have only to consider the expense of policing those multifarious regulations, whichever option we choose. If we choose partial deregulation someone will have to decide whether a shop is larger than 280 sq m, or whether it is open for minutes longer than six hours between 10 am and 6 pm. Someone will have to decide whether a shop really is a pharmacy, and therefore exempt. There would be the absurdity whereby a supermarket of 270 sq m could open all day, but one of 290 sq m could open for only six hours.
      That is nothing compared with the policing necessary to enforce option 2 of the Keep Sunday Special regulations. Policing at some cost would be required to see whether a shop was exempt, regardless of size. Someone would have to ask: is it a pharmacy, selling medicines, or, if it size-limited, is it no larger than 280 sq m? Is it selling goods that are "wholly or mainly" the goods that one would expect to buy in a grocery shop, a newsagent, or a flower shop? If it is a larger exempt shop, is it selling only permitted goods? If it is exempt because of location, is it a tourist shop selling "wholly or mainly" souvenirs or confectionery? If it is a farm shop, is it selling "wholly or mainly" home-grown produce? If a very small shop claiming to be 10 sq m or less is being investigated, is it 10·25 sq m, or 11·2 sq m, and so on? That is crazy.
      If hon. Members want to hear me make a speech against my interests as a lawyer, I am making one now. Having as many regulations as we can is a wonderful way to give money to lawyers. [Interruption.] I am speaking against my own professional interests, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) knows that that will strengthen my argument. When one speaks against one's interests there is more credibility in what one says—or so one hopes.

      391
      No doubt it will be in the interests of some people for there to be some form of regulation, but there can be no possible doubt that the least expensive option—my fourth requirement—is total deregulation.
      Mr. Booth rose—
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: No; the same rule must apply. I am sorry.
      Finally, my fifth requirement is to protect the consciences of those who do not choose to work. That is an important matter and I am delighted that the Government have come round to the idea of accepting all the requirements of those most closely concerned with that aspect. The Government have given that protection in total regulation, as in all others, and I do not need to repeat those provisions.
      I am driven, Miss Fookes, to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dame Janet."] I am sorry, Dame Janet.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): That is quite all right, Mr. Lawrence.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: Applying the facts as I see them to the requirements that I believe necessary, I am driven inexorably to the conclusion that there should be total deregulation. Once we accept that Sunday opening is not a sin but is what a majority of people want, and that Sunday will still be special if, for any reason—people have different ideas about what the special nature of Sunday is —we want to make it special, once we ensure that those who do not want to work are not forced to do so, once we ensure that it will be cheaper for the taxpayer, simpler and less likely to bring the law into disrepute than total deregulation, then total deregulation seems to me to be the only sensible conclusion.
      That is what the Auld committee, after 18 months' work during which it contacted 500 individuals and organisations, and considered 7,000 submissions, decided:
      "We are firmly of the view that there is no interest, or combination of interests, that justifies the retention of … regulation"
      of shopping hours.
      "We have considered as an independent issue whether in any event a form of control can be devised that would be fair, simple and readily enforceable. We have examined in great detail a wide range of suggested different forms of legal control … none would provide a fair or readily enforceable system."
      That is what has always happened in Scotland, and it works well there. I am not impressed at all by my hon. Friends who brush aside Scotland as though it is of no interest in the matter just because it is the most inconvenient example to their argument. Three-quarters of the shops in Scotland do not open, so there would be far less noise than my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) fears.
      The quarter of the shops which do open bring shopping interest to their area. The big shops, as I have said, bring trade to the smaller shops also—or so my Scottish friends tell me. They also provide jobs for students at the weekends or for people who want to have some time at the weekend to supplement their incomes.
      My hon. Friend will know that I do not follow the Scots everywhere, particularly in legal matters. However, on this occasion we would all do well to follow the call of the bagpipers.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The standard of debate during this evening and this afternoon has been very high. The Whips are off, and there may be a lesson for us all in that.
      I wish to comment on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), although I hesitate to do so because I well know his standing as a Queen's counsel of great eminence. However, if I understood his thesis in connection with the Keep Sunday Special option, I believe that he said that the law would be brought into some disrepute if regulation were necessary. That must be the best possible argument for abolishing Parliament.
      I shall be brief, as time is short. I believe sincerely that total deregulation is wrong in principle and that it will not work. I listened carefully to the extremely powerful and well-argued speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). I disagreed with her and shall elaborate on why shortly.
      The right hon. Lady said that the second option, the Keep Sunday Special option, was in some way complex and would be unworkable. I will make the obvious point that the fine-tuning exercises can take place at another stage and that today we are dealing more with the principle. We are not dealing with the minutiae of the Bill, and those matters can be discussed on another occasion.
      I am afraid that the partial deregulation option appears to me to be a Pandora's box. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, it is also a slippery slope. It will bring deregulation via the back door and, to that extent, it may be a dishonest—I use that word advisedly—option.
      The fourth option was introduced by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for what were, I am sure, the best possible and most honourable of motives. However, I would classify his version with the Pandora's box. It will open the door, and the door will then fly open with the wind.
      Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Llwyd: Time is short, and I should like to make progress if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
      Total deregulation is, in my view, wrong. It is not only simplistic but a dangerous option for many thousands of small shop proprietors. They would face two real problems. The first is the problem of having to open for seven days. If a shop has a staff of perhaps one or two persons, will the proprietors be able to handle a seven-day working week? Should they have to face a seven-day working week? The short answer is no. Hon. Members have a seven-day working week, but we are a funny breed anyway. One should not reasonably expect a person to work for seven days a week.
      What happens if small shop proprietors do not work for seven days and want to keep their customers? I am talking not about city centre areas but about smaller towns, such as those which I represent, which have the larger stores on their outskirts. If proprietors want to keep their customers and they do not want to work seven days a week, they will have to bring in extra employees to cover the seventh day. Many of those businesses operate on minimal margins, and the proposals will break them as surely as I am standing here.

      393
      No doubt, there are one or two problems of fine-tuning to be dealt with. I do not pretend that this option is perfect as it stands, but surely in this place we can fine-tune or hone measures when necessary.
      The right hon. Member for Honiton foresaw that a major problem would be posed by the need to know the floor area of shops. But all that information is on file already. District valuers have it for the purposes of the uniform business rate. All they need to do is put it on someone's desk. I fear that no surveyors will have to be instructed—the information is all on file, so there is no problem. It is a dud point. Moreover, I am sure that analysis of the problems that hon. Members have identified in the KSS option will show that none is insurmountable.
      I firmly believe that the KSS option is the right one, because it is a reasonable package. It is also highly practical, and as a lawyer I do not foresee any problems with implementation. It will open the door to smaller firms; if they want to, they can open their shops. Larger concerns may open during the run-up to Christmas. That provides choice. I therefore disagree with hon. Members who say that it is the least attractive option in terms of free choice. The choice offered by the KSS proposal is more than adequate.
      One of two fine-tuning exercises may take place; I acknowledge that one or two slight problems may need ironing out. Like other hon. Members, I am concerned about the rights of employees. I believe that the KSS option ensures that their rights are protected and will mean an extension of choice to the public—with added safeguards for staff.
      I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that legislation is overdue. Tonight we have a real opportunity, and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber must grasp it. The law certainly has fallen into disrepute, and our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that the new legislation does not fall into the same trap.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointedly and rightly said that the cynical lawbreaking by some of our larger concerns had been disgracefully bad for the rule of law. He asked what we should do about the lawbreakers. The short answer is that the Bill provides for bringing them before a court of law. I hope sincerely that they will be taken to court; otherwise, the whole exercise will be a complete waste of time.
      Mr. Sheerman: Some of the companies in the forefront of this campaign used to be names that we regarded with great admiration. We used to think that the Sainsburys of this world were progressive companies in the retail trade, but they have changed. They have led this charge; they have led this lawbreaking. Is not that disturbing and astounding?
      Mr. Llwyd: I entirely agree; it has been a disgrace. Those companies should be ashamed of themselves, driven as they are by only one motive—profit. That is abhorrent—
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: They also have their customers in mind.
      Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber long. She has been here for five minutes, whereas I have sat through five hours of debate. Let us have an element of decorum.
      Those companies should be ashamed of themselves because they have been selective about adhering to the law. If a person is caught shoplifting, whether on a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day, he is likely to be prosecuted.
      Time and time again, local authorities have turned a blind eye to lawbreaking. Some have decided as a matter of policy not to enforce the law, but I am sure that others are unable to do so because of financial constraints. I hope that the Committee will vote for the second option, but that new law can only be adhered to if local authorities are able to ensure that it is upheld. It is no use saying that some local authorities will police the law and others will not, because we would then be back at square one. We must ensure that local authorities have the resources to police the new legislation carefully and properly. They must prosecute all fairly and without fear. The Home Office must accept the scale of the problem and ensure that the local authorities receive the required resources to perform their function.
      9.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the environmental impact of Sunday trading. The Association for the Conservation of Energy estimates that 1 million tonnes of additional CO2 emissions will result from complete deregulation and the resulting extra traffic.
      It is important to remind the Committee of one topical, important point. When the Government introduced VAT on fuel, with which I disagreed, they argued that it would lead to a reduction of 1·5 million tonnes in CO2 emissions. In one fell swoop, however, we could drive a coach and horses through that intention, because total deregulation would sanction the emission of an extra 1 million tonnes of CO2. That point is not peripheral to the argument because we live in the world and we have a duty to protect our environment. If the Government are truly committed to the Rio agreement on emissions, they should take that on board.
      The only viable option is the Keep Sunday Special option. I urge hon. Members to vote for that option because it will give the consumer what he needs, protect smaller shops and give larger retailers a say. It will also ensure that workers' rights are preserved. I urge hon. Members to vote for that option.
      Mr. Couchman: I am pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate.
      Last week, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading by a massive majority. It did so for one good reason—the law is in disrepute. It has proved to be unenforceable because it is shot through with anomalies. Tonight when we vote, however, we must ensure that we do not support an option that will create similar anomalies and contention.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) produced a most interesting option at the very last moment. It is, however, a complete nightmare. Who will tell housewives who run out of something on a Sunday morning that they cannot buy the necessary groceries from the corner shop? That is absolutely beyond the pale. It is not possible to support something so fundamentally flawed.
      Mr. Butterfill: We are on common ground so far.
      Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend might care to listen.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggested that it might be possible to amend his option in Standing Committee. That seems to me to be an entire cop-out.
      We are then faced with the possibility of total deregulation, which was proposed most eloquently and powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). It still has a good deal of attraction for me. I voted for total deregulation in the unsuccessful attempt to reform the law in 1986 and I still feel considerable warmth towards that option. However, I do not expect it to succeed in the Committee tonight.
      For a long time, I have nailed my colours to the mast of the Shopping Hours Reform Council compromise—the only real compromise among the options that are offered.
      I have a great deal to say about the Keep Sunday Special campaign. I view it as a complete nightmare for lawyers. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that it would be a real field day for lawyers if we were to end up with the Keep Sunday Special option.
      It seems that there is a certain amount of dissembling among those who proposed the RSAR option, which has now become the combined KSS-RSAR option. In Scotland, Marks and Spencer opens two of its stores on Sunday. It announced several months in advance—even before the shopping centre was open—that a recently opened store would be open on Sundays. Marks and Spencer led the way and was not led by others. That gives the lie to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) earlier this evening.
      Much has been made of the way in which Marks and Spencer is preserving the small shopkeeper. I found an interesting article on a shuttle bus which it runs to the Fosse Park shopping centre in Leicestershire. The shuttle bus runs through all the villages, taking the villagers away from the small village shops and putting them in the large store at Fosse Park.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Couchman: I shall not give way at all because I have sat here for five hours waiting to make a short contribution.
      Mr. Lord: Marks and Spencer did not break the law.
      Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend says that Marks and Spencer has not been breaking the law, and indeed it has not. However, it may well be that Marks and Spencer is preparing for a change in the law.
      I understand that, when stores are interviewing applicants for new jobs, potential employees are asked whether they would be prepared to work Sundays. There has been a certain amount of dissembling on that matter. If the law changes to allow Marks and Spencer to trade legally south of the border, as it is doing north of the border, it certainly will do so. We should do away with the dissembling on that issue.
      It seems that the Keep Sunday Special option totally ignores the social changes that have occurred in the 40-odd years since the 1950 Act was passed. It ignores the fact that many more women go out to work but remain the principal shoppers in households. Sunday shopping has come as a great boon to them. I visited a shop in my constituency
      396
      where many families were doing their weekly shop as a family because mum could come out, too, because she was not at work as she was during the week.
      There is a demand for a liberal change in the law and not for a more restrictive change in the law. Half the population who regularly shop once a month on a Sunday do not want to find themselves with a more restrictive choice than they have now. The list of exceptions that the KSS option would allow leads one to believe that that option has been drawn up in a way that is as near Sabbatarian as its promoters could get away with.
      Much fun was had by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the fact that I like to go to antique shops on Sunday. I only wish that I could have responded to his suggestion that, in future, I will have to go to B and Q for my antiques. That seems a most unlikely place for antique collectors to spend their leisure time on Sundays.
      There are, as we have heard from various hon. Members, bakers, butchers, book shops, boat yards, car showrooms, caravan showrooms, carpet shops, compact disc sellers, charity shops, china and glass shops, clothes shops, confectioners, craft shops, curtain and blind shops, electrical shops, furniture shops—even greengrocers—jewellers, kitchen shops, lingerie shops, pet shops, shoe shops, stationers, textile shops and toy shops.
      Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Dame Janet. That is a very tedious list. This is the Committee stage of the Bill, yet hon. Members are getting up and refusing all interventions. Will you rule on that? It is quite extraordinary that hon. Members are starting their speeches by saying that they will not take interventions and then they go on to read long and boring lists.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the Floor whether to permit an intervention. I am not able as Chairman to judge the value of a speech unless it becomes tedious repetition.
      Mr. Sheerman: It is.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: It has to be considerably more tedious than that.
      Mr. Couchman: Thank you, Dame Janet, for your support.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield has made many interventions during this debate. My point is that, among those many categories of shops—mostly small shops—some 39,000 will not be allowed to trade on a Sunday. That will mean that 39,000 shops that are currently trading, either legally or illegally, will have to close under the KSS option. Many thousands of workers will lose their Sunday work, alongside the 80,000 who now work for the major stores—the supermarkets—on Sundays. What sort of worker protection do the proponents of the KSS option view that to be? It seems to me that it is no option whatever.
      I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not speak for much longer. We need some form of compromise, because many people hold deep reservations about Sunday shop opening. In reforming the law, I believe that the Committee must take those worries into account. The restriction on large shops, which is in the SHRC option—the six-hour option—will mean a freezing of the present situation and we shall not see many more shops

      397
      opening on a Sunday. If the partial deregulation option were passed, Sunday would continue to be maintained in a special way and the specialness that all of us crave would be preserved.
      Whatever we do by way of reform to this outdated and anomalous law, we should ensure that it is durable. The one thing that we do not wish to see coming back next year is a shopping hours reform Bill. That is what will happen if we end up with a restrictive and regulatory option such as that proposed by the KSS campaign. If, as I suspect, total deregulation does not gain favour with the Committee, I hope that it will give massive support to the alternative compromise SHRC proposal.
      Mr. Soley: I intend to be brief and speak in support of the SHRC position, and bring in a couple of new points, which might seem a little difficult after so much time. I shall touch equally briefly on a couple of points that have already been mentioned.
      The importance of the employee's rights has been mentioned. I would vote against legislation if I thought that it was against those rights. As the main trade unions, including one of which I am a member, have concluded that the compromise proposal is in the best interests of their members, I am not in the business of telling them to go back and tell their members that they are wrong. Nor am I in the business of telling them to go back and renegotiate. That is an important point, and so far as I am concerned, it deals with that issue.
      My second point is about small shops. Again, if I felt that a measure that extended shopping hours would cripple small shops, I would be tempted to vote against it. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Bench to listen to me. I do not want to take too many interventions, but when they have heard what I have to say, one of them may wish to intervene and, if so, I shall consider giving way.
      The important point to remember about the regrettable decline of small shops is that it started long before the Sunday trading issue. It is the result of the growth in supermarkets and large stores. In the debate, hon. Members have blamed the growth of the great stores for closing the small shops and said that if they open for another day, yet more small shops will close. That theory is not correct and it is not supported by the experience in my area or by a look at the types of shopping.
      9.30 pm
      When people go to the large superstores, particularly those out of town, they tend to do a different type of shopping from the shopping they do at local shops. They stock up for a week, 10 days or two weeks; they buy in bulk and it does not matter what day of the week they do that. If one went on the Wednesday because the shop was closed on a Thursday, Sunday opening would not make much difference to the pattern. It makes little odds what the day is. If I cannot go on a Sunday now, I will go on a Monday, but if I can go on a Sunday, I will not go on a Monday.
      If hon. Members really believe that Sunday opening will lead to the decline of the small shop, they should listen to my experience. Only a couple of years ago a couple of large stores—both Sainsbury—opened in my area within about five miles of each other with my main patch,
      398
      Shepherd's Bush, right in between them. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if I could have a little less noise around me.
      There should have been a decline in the number of small shops in the area as a result of those two stores opening, but in fact there was probably a marginal increase, although not one connected with Sunday shopping. People go to the large shops on Sunday but down the end of the road for local shopping. That is what I do where I live in Shepherd's Bush. f I want five, six or 10 items, I will go down the road for them, even on a Sunday, when I go to my local Asian shops, whose owners are not in favour of the KSS option, or at least have not told me that they are. On the other hand, if I want to stock up for a week or two, I go to the nearby Sainsbury store, or whatever.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Soley: I will give way, but I do not want to give way too often because of the lack of time.
      Mr. Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend. Is he arguing that there is a limitless increase in the amount of goods that will be bought in the shops to which he is referring? Is there not a finite amount of shopping that will be done, and if that amount is spread over a longer time, will not that result in higher overheads and other costs?
      Mr. Soley: I would like to think that it was as simple as that, but as is so often the case, there are variables. My hon. Friend has not taken into account the changed nature of shopping. If he was right in his argument, the situation in Scotland would have changed much more drastically. However, the argument that Scotland is different does not wash. I lived in Scotland for a number of years and I know that there is not much difference between the areas around Glasgow and Edinburgh and those around London. There is a far greater difference between living in London and living in the southern rural areas. One must also take into account the change in shopping patterns, which is vital.
      Hon. Members have spoken about family life. It is hard to determine what improves or makes worse family life in an issue like this. The majority of shoppers are women. That is changing, I am pleased to say, but it is still true. I would like to think that hon. Members, like me, have gone shopping with young children. Those who have will know that going to shops with young children on one's own is a difficult job.
      It is far better to go to the shops with another person. One of the advantages to the family, and to the mother, of shopping on a weekend, whether it is a Saturday or Sunday, is that there is partnership of people to shop and look after children. Another equally important option, which I employ, is to share the child care—either stay at home with the children while the other partner goes shopping, or vice versa. It is therefore not an argument to say that Sunday trading undermines family life. There is considerable evidence that it makes family life much easier and that it certainly makes the woman's role much easier.
      The majority of representations that I have received from women are in favour of that sort of flexibility.
      We must also be careful about the impact of technological change. Superstores grew in number because with the growing availability of cars and fridge freezers people were able to travel to those stores and stock up for a week or more.

      399
      We must also consider another imminent situation in which people will sit in front of their television sets and order goods by telephone. If we are to go down that road in a few years, we must be clear about whether that will be allowed to happen on a Sunday. Technology drives social change. Whether that change is the growth of superstores or the ability to shop by telephone and television is marginal to the issue before us. However, it is critical if we kid ourselves that we can stand in the way of that social change.
      We must ensure that we protect certain values and rights. We must protect the rights of the employees to the satisfaction of the trade unions involved and ensure that we do not introduce anything that is destructive of family life—there are some advantages. Logically, to protect small shops, the big shops would have to close. That would al ow growth in the small shops, but apparently nobody is arguing for that.
      The SHRC approach is the best option, not because it is perfect but because the others do not bear the analysis which is sometimes applied.
      Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) always makes a thoughtful and interesting speech, as he has done tonight, although I could not follow his logic or his argument.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who had hoped to participate in the debate, a few moments ago handed me an interesting quotation of the words of an eminent neurologist, Dr. James Brown. He said:
      "We doctors, in the treatment of nervous diseases, are compelled to prescribe periods of rest. Some of these periods are, I think, only Sundays in arrears."
      It is an interesting observation from a medical man. I stand full square behind the special nature of Sundays. It is not a question of whether one goes to church; it is a question of a day when the tempo of life is slower, when the family can be together more and when it is different from the rest of the week.
      I have always opposed the deregulation of Sunday trading because I am completely against a high-street Sunday. I do not want Saturday to be replicated the day after and if there is total deregulation through either of the deregulation options before the Committee, Sundays will certainly be a second Saturday. I also oppose the deregulation of Sunday trading because I strongly believe in the value of small shops. Members of Parliament have a prime duty to those who are most vulnerable in society. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) who talked about the rich and powerful. We do not have to worry about the rich and the powerful a great deal. As we have seen in recent years, the law has been flagrantly violated by those who ought to know better. We are concerned with protecting those who are less able to protect themselves—small shop keepers, workers in shops and those who live in modest houses who will suffer the greatest disruption from the clutter and bustle of a high-street Sunday.
      Let us consider those three categories one at a time, beginning with the small shopkeeper. I am afraid that I was not convinced by what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. I believe that they would suffer in one of two ways—they would be driven out of business or forced to open on Sundays and people who work all around the clock would lose the little rest and recreation that they sometimes have.
      400
      I was much influenced by a letter that I received from the National Organisation of Asian Businesses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is a member of its advisory board. I fully respect her position but it is certainly not in accord with that of the organisation which urges us to support the RSAR initiative, allowing shops of up to 3,000 sq ft to remain open on Sundays.
      Small shops perform a significant and signal service in rural areas such as mine, where they are often the centre of the community where people gather, and in urban and suburban areas where they are the corner shops. They would all be endangered by the unrestricted Sunday opening of the large shops. There is no doubt about that.
      The second category concerns those who work in the shops. I am especially worried about the total inadequacy of the well-meant provisions in the Bill which are supposed to give some protection. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to quote a contract circulating in the Wolverhampton area. I received a very sad letter from a lady who received a copy of that contract. She drew my attention to a clause in the contract which states:
      "If it is decided that your branch will trade on a Sunday or a Bank holiday, you may be asked to work on these days. Your employment is subject to your full agreement to this condition of employment."
      What option does the ordinary shop worker have if there is unrestricted Sunday trading? As has already been said, if Sunday ceases to be special, there is not much of a logical case for arguing for double time or overtime, so shop workers will suffer whatever happens.
      The third group of small people are those who live in modest terraced houses and other accommodation in or near the centres of towns and cities. Their lives will be disrupted by the clutter and clatter of the commercial Sunday. When I listen to debates on this topic, I often think of Oscar Wilde's words about people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. We have a duty to know the value of Sunday, and we should not allow it to be driven out of our heads by purely commercial instincts.
      I urge all hon. Members to realise that if we abolish the special nature of Sunday, we cannot call it back—it will be gone for ever. If we accept the Keep Sunday Special option, linked with what I call the Marks and Spencer option—meaning that shops would be allowed to open for the four Sundays before Christmas—we could amend and adjust it to meet changing demands. Total deregulation, however, would mean the removal of all restrictions to the disadvantage of everyone.
      I end with two examples to support my argument. The first involves the effect of total deregulation on many of our town centres and cities. I do not know how many right hon. and hon. Members know Dudley in the west midlands, which has become a ghost town since the opening of the Merry Hill shopping centre. Such competition sucks the life out of a town—the hoardings go up, the criminals come in, and the town is dehumanised. I believe strongly that we would be doing a great disservice if we allowed that to happen everywhere, which would be the result of total deregulation.
      Secondly, I think that it was the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who mentioned Good Friday. Many hon. Members must remember when commerce stopped on Good Friday. It was an extra day of the year—another Sunday, if you like—when people could

      401
      sit back; whether or not they went to church, it was a day of rest and recreation. For the more serious people it was a day of contemplation; and for the even more serious it was a day of contemplation about the most serious thing in their lives.
      Good Friday is now another commercial day. One can drive down the main streets of any of our towns and cities, in almost any part of the country, and the cash tills are ringing and the queues are there. The rest, the recreation and the opportunity for contemplation has gone for ever. If we move along that road tonight, we will condemn every Sunday to go the way that Good Friday has gone in so many parts of the world.
      I urge all right hon. and hon. Members not to throw away something that is priceless and beyond recall. The special character of Sunday is priceless. If it goes tonight it will be beyond recall.
      9.45 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I apologise for missing the earlier parts of the debate but I was delayed by traffic.
      I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who made telling points. I may be in danger of going over old ground, so I will try to keep my remarks concise and deal with some of the points that I have heard.
      We have heard some specious arguments tonight. For example, according to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the more people break a law the less likelihood there is of that law being upheld and therefore we must change it. It is a strange argument. Perhaps I am more aware of that because I come from Northern Ireland.
      I did not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). In this debate at least, my experience has been that trade union officials—having entered into agreement with some of the bigger stores to collect dues—have been protecting their jobs rather than those of some of their members.
      The debate is about whether we go for further materialism or stand for other values. I declare my interest without any ambiguity as an ordained minister of the word and sacraments. We are living in a materialistic society. Reference has been made to the Jews, Moslems and Christians, and we all accept the principle that one day in seven must be kept different. In other countries, where the predominant religion may be Jewish or Moslem, their specific day is different. Because of our heritage, traditionally our's is the first day of the week.
      When people were arguing for Sunday football and Sunday sport some years ago, one of the arguments was, "We must play on Sunday because Saturday is the only day that we can go shopping with our wives." When the premier league was introduced and the main matches played on a Sunday were televised, it was amazing how many found that they could play football on a Saturday because they were not getting the gates on a Sunday. That reflects the materialistic spirit that is passing through our world.
      Reference was made to Germany and France. It is not surprising that those who have been leading the advance to
      402
      totally deregulate Sunday trading in this country are now beginning to spread their wings and seeking to influence thinking in France and Germany.
      The Government are calling us back to basics. Tonight is an opportunity to get back to the basics of the decalogue and to remember that the fourth commandment is one of the fundamental basics that gives us a day of rest, when we can recycle ourselves and opt for values that are more important than profits.
      Mr. John Marshall: Having listened to every speech, I shall resist the temptation to comment on all but one—that of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whose integrity, principles and commitment to Christianity we all accept, but some of whose conclusions are not acceptable to me.
      I noted the hon. Gentleman's kind comments about the Jewish community, and his observation that that community honours Shebat. I suppose that I represent more orthodox members of the Jewish community than any other Member of Parliament. When I go around Hendon on a Saturday, I can guarantee that orthodox Jewish families will also be walking around my constituency. They do not do so because there is any lack of temptation. Nearly all the shops in Golders Green open on Saturdays, as do virtually all the shops in Hendon. Those families could go to the shops at Brent Cross, or to the cinema, but they do not do so for reasons of conviction—and I believe that Sunday will remain special through conviction rather than legislative fiat.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I was trying to make a point about the value of family life. I am certain that, if deregulation were introduced—either immediately or by stages—it would impose an undesirable additional pressure on the family. In many cases, a key member of the family would not be present on that one day.
      Mr. Marshall: There is no reason why family life should be destroyed by partial deregulation, as recommended by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Over the past few weeks, I have visited a number of supermarkets and have noted the instances in which father, mother and children go shopping together.
      Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of the way in which seven-day trading can aid family life. I asked a gentleman of about 50 who was shopping in Asda, "Why are you shopping today?" He replied, "I shop for myself on Saturdays, and on Sundays I take my elderly mother out in the car so that she and I can shop together. That is the only way in which she can visit the supermarket: it is open on Sundays, and I can go with her and help." That is family life—a son helping his elderly mother. It would stop if supermarkets closed on Sundays.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is not one of the greatest joys of childhood sitting on a supermarket trolley while the parents do the shopping?
      Mr. Marshall: I went to a supermarket with my children last weekend—(Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
      Mr. Marshall: My children thoroughly enjoyed the experience, although I did not enjoy paying for their extravagances; they thought that I should buy whatever they selected.
      The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that the supermarkets had been breaking the law. Every shop that has opened on Sunday has been breaking the law for generations: every shop that has sold a bag of sugar or Tetley tea bags—Tetley's beer can be sold on Sundays, but the tea bags cannot—or a can of beans has broken the law. Every shop that would benefit from the amendment supported by the hon. Member for Swansea, East has been breaking the law. The argument that lawbreakers must not be allowed to benefit is an argument for voting for none of the amendments.
      Over the past few weeks, an unholy alliance—a marriage of convenience—has been created between the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR campaigns. It should be remembered that the two campaigns came together only because they knew that individually they could not get their proposals through the House of Commons. It is the most disgracefully restrictive and protectionist group of retailers imaginable.
      Waitrose does not want to open Sundays. I would not force Waitrose to do so, but why should it stop Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury opening on Sunday? Marks and Spencer wants to open only four Sundays a year. Why should it prevent British Home Stores or Woolworth opening the other 48 Sundays? Marks and Spencer wants to deny consumer choice and to restrict competition. Marks and Spencer wrongly claims that it will be forced to open on Sundays if the SHRC option succeeds. One only has to look at the experience of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee to realise that if shops were allowed to open on Sundays in England, Marks and Spencer would not be forced to do so and would not do so most Sundays.
      Keep Sunday Special's decision to get into bed with the RSAR was completely unprincipled. When we debated the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) earlier this year, one understood that the hon. Gentleman was advancing the principle of no trading on Sundays by the big boys. We no longer have that principle, but we are told that there should be no trading except on four Sundays. Why four and not six, eight or 10? No one has said. We have been told that shops should only trade on the four Sundays before Christmas, and see the KSS campaign supporting the commercialisation of Christmas. I find that completely—(Interruption.]
      Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is difficult to hear the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and a rumour that is circulating is adding to the noise. The rumour is that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has withdrawn his amendment, which would change the voting pattern. If that rumour is true, right hon. and hon. Members should know before they flood out of here and into the wrong Lobby.
      The Chairman: It is not for the Chair to listen to any rumour that may be circulating. If any right hon. or hon. Member wants to withdraw an amendment at any time, it is up to him to do so. At this point, the Committee is debating amendment No. 35 and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has the Floor.
      Mr. Marshall: Much of the debate has been muddied by discussion of the small shopkeeper. It is amusing to see Marks and Spencer, which has been competing against small shopkeepers for generations, suddenly come along and say, "We are terribly concerned about the small corner shop." Marks and Spencer could not care two hoots. It is amusing also that Iceland, which has been trying to win business from the small corner shop, says, "Vote for our option to help the small corner shop." It would be more honest of Iceland to say, "Vote for our option to benefit Iceland"—because that is what it seeks to do.
      The dramatic decline in the number of small shops in the 1980s had nothing to do with Sunday opening by supermarkets, because they did not open on Sundays then. It all had to do with a changing pattern of retailing, which presented small shops with intense competition, not from supermarkets but from petrol stations.
      The test is simple. What would benefit the consumer, what do workers want and what do local authorities, which will have to enforce any change in the law, want? Local authorities prefer deregulation. They consider the SHRC option to be tolerable and the KSS-RSAR option to be intolerable, because it is riddled with illogical concepts.
      This evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, "Vote for the KSS option so that you can buy antiques in a DIY store on Sunday." Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the public would go to B & Q to buy a George IV desk? What arrant nonsense. How out of touch is my right hon. Friend.
      The consumer enjoys Sunday shopping. Several million people shop on a Sunday. One of the reasons they do so is that supermarkets give good value. The supporters of KSS and RSAR want to keep convenience stores open. I went to a convenience store and a supermarket on a Sunday. In the convenience store, I had to pay 38p for a pint of milk. In the supermarket, the cost was 25p. Why should the pensioners of Hendon be prevented from paying low prices for their milk, bread and Nescafe? The supporters of KSS want to stop the pensioners, the low-paid and those who are not well off in my constituency from enjoying the benefits of cheap prices on Sunday. There is nothing moral about Labour Members voting to impose higher prices on my constituents.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Sunday Trading Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Sunday Trading Bill
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Marshall: The final point to remember is what the workers want. Thousands of workers want to work on a Sunday. Members of USDAW want to work on a Sunday. If people want to work on a Sunday, they should be free to do so. The way to make them free to do so is by voting for the Shopping Hours Reform Council option this evening.
  Sir Peter Emery: With the leave of the Committee, may I say that I have listened to the whole debate. Having been told by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that they like my amendment second, it seems that I can save a vote by withdrawing my amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'sections' in line 7.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided:Ayes 174, Noes 404.

  Division No. 15]

  [10.02 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Alexander, Richard

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Gardiner sir George

  Arbuthnot, James

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ashby, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkins, Robert

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Baldry, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gorst, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Key, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knox, Sir David

  Dicks, Terry

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  406

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soames, Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maxton, John

  Sykes, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Norris, Steve

  Tracey, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pickles, Eric

  Ward, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watts, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Rendel, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Richards, Rod

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilshire, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Tim Devlin and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. James Couchman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Body, Sir Richard

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Booth, Hartley

  Ainger, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bowis, John

  Allen, Graham

  Boyes, Roland

  Alton, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Ancram, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burt, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Butterfill, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beggs, Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cann, Jamie

  Bell, Stuart

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cash, William

  Benton, Joe

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chapman, Sydney

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blair, Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Blunkett, David

  Clelland, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Coffey, Ann

  407

  Cohen, Harry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Connarty, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Gunnell, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hague, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hanson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Cox, Tom

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cryer, Bob

  Harris, David

  Cummings, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hoey, Kate

  Darling, Alistair

  Home Robertson, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hordern, Rt Hon sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Howell, sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Denham, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dixon, Don

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Hutton, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ingram, Adam

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jack, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Jamieson David

  Eastham, Ken

  Janner, Greville

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Enright, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Evennett, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jowell, Tessa

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Flynn, Paul

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fraser, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  French, Douglas

  Knapman, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Leigh, Edward

  Gale, Roger

  Leighton, Ron

  Gallie, Phil

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Garrett, John

  Lewis, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Litherland, Robert

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, ken

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lord, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Loyden, Eddie

  Gordon, Mildred

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gould, Bryan

  McAllion, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mc Fall, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  McKelvey, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  408

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  McWilliam, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Madden, Max

  Rooney, Terry

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madel, David

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mans, Keith

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mates, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Meale, Alan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Merchant, Piers

  Shore, Rt Hon peter

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Clare

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Simpson, Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mills, Iain

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Snape, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spring, Richard

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mudie, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mullin, Chris

  Steen, Anthony

  Murphy, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stevenson, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Sumberg, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Olner, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Thomason, Roy

  Parry, Robert

  Thomason, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pawsey, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tredinnick, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Trimble, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter L.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pope, Greg

  Vaz, Keith

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walden, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Waller, Gary

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Joan

  Prescott, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Waterson, Nigel

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watson, Mike

  Radice, Giles

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Randall, Stuart

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wilkinson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  409

  Wise, Audrey

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 10.—[Mr. Howard.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Dr. John G. Blackburn(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am alarmed that a period of four minutes elapsed from your instruction to lock the doors and the door of the No Lobby being closed. As a result, I believe that, democratically, those voting in the Aye Lobby have an unfair advantage.
  The Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had a stopwatch with him, but it was reported to me that the door was not locked. I therefore gave instructions for it to be locked. I shall await the result of the vote before deciding whether to take any action.
  Later—
  The Chairman: In the light of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), I am not satisfied with the result of the vote; it will therefore take place again. May I ask for particular care from the Serjeant so that, when I call out "Lock the doors", the doors are locked immediately?
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 286, Noes 304.

  Division No. 16]

  10.31 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burt, Alistair

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Butterfill, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Amess, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bates, Michael

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Corbett, Robin

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cummings, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blunkett, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Denham, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Don

  Brazier, Julian

  Dobson, Frank

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Burns, Simon

  Dover, Den

  410

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Etherington, Bill

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  McAllion, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evennett, David

  McCrea, Rev William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  McWilliam, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Madden, Max

  Gale, Roger

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gapes, Mike

  Mans, Keith

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Martlew, Eric

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Meacher, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meale, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Merchant, Piers

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hague, William

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hain, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Harris, David

  Murphy, paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoey, Kate

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Olner, William

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Illsley, Eric

  Pawsey, James

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pickthall, colin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Keen, Alan

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Sedgemore, Brain

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leigh, Edward

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Short, Clare

  411

  Simpson, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Joan

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spearing, Nigel

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spellar, John

  Watson, Mike

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Straw, Jack

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Streeter, Gary

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sumberg, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trimble, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Congdon, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ashby, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dewar, Donald

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dicks, Terry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Betts, Clive

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blair, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Boyes, Roland

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bradley, Keith

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Eggar, Tim

  Bright, Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Butler, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Cash, William

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Clappison, James

  French, Douglas

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fry, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gallie, Phil

  Clelland, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Garnier, Edward

  Coffey, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  Colvin, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  412

  Gill, Christopher

  Maxton, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Milburn, Alan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Miller, Andrew

  Gorst, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gunnell, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hendry, Charles

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Radice, Giles

  Hutton, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, Rt hon John

  Janner, Greville

  Rendel, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sackville, Tom

  Legg, Barry

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Leighton, Ron

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Shore, Rt hon Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Litherland, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Spring, Richard

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marlow, Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stevenson, George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan

  413

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Tracey, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tredinnick, David

  Sykes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Trotter, Neville

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Thomason, Roy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Walden, George

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

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

  Waller, Gary

  414

  Ward, John

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wilson, Brian

  Watts, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Worthington, Tony

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and

  Willetts, David

  Mrs. Angela Knight.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'Schedules' in line 12—[Mr. Howard.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 333, Noes 258.

  Division No. 17]

  [10.45 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Darling, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davies Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Austin-Walker, John

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Faber, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Betts, Clive

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Fisher, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boyes, Roland

  Forth, Eric

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fry, Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gallie, Phil

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Burden, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butler, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gould, Bryan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harris, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coffey, Ann

  Hawkins, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Congdon, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Home Robertson, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  416

  Horam, John

  Needham, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Page, Richard

  Hutton, John

  Paice, James

  Ingram, Adam

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Janner, Greville

  Pickles, Eric

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jowell, Tessa

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Key, Robert

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Radice, Giles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Richards, Rod

  Knox, Sir David

  Riddick, Graham

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n s)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Legg, Barry

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Leighton, Ron

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lidington, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lightbown, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Litherland, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McKelvey, William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shore, Rt Hon peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soley, Clive

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Stern, Michael

  Milburn, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomason, Roy

  Morley, Elliot

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Thurnham, Peter

  417

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

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trend, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Willetts, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wise, Audrey

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Worthington, Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ward, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. James Couchman and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin.

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davis Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Day, Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Denham John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dixon, Don

  Alton, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Amess, David

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Enright, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Etherington, Bill

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evennett, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gapes, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John

  Burt, Alistair

  George, Bruce

  Butterfill, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Caborn, Richard

  Gordon, Mildred

  Callaghan, Jim

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grant Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hague, William

  Cohen, Harry

  Hain, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Hall, mike

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hanson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Heald, Oliver

  Cousins, Jim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoey, Kate

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Illsley, Eric

  418

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Keen, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Short, Clare

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Simpson, Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lord, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Snape, Peter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAllion, John

  Spellar, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McCrea, Rev William

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Macdonald, Calum

  Straw, Jack

  McFall, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sumberg, David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mates, Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meacher, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

  Trimble, David

  Michael, Alun

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wallace, James

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Walley, Joan

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Murphy, Paul

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Olner, William

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wolfson, Mark

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pawsey, James

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Pickthall, Colin

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  The Chairman: I shall now put the consequential amendments.
  Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'such' to end of line 17 and insert
  'day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (in this section referred to as "the appointed day")'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 339, Noes 219.

  Division No. 18]

  [10.58 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Darling, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allen, Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkins, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Austin-Walker, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Eagle, Ms Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Faber, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Betts, Clive

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blair, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Fisher, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowis, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bradley, Keith

  Forth, Eric

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fry, Peter

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Gallie, Phil

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garnier, Edward

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Burt, Alistair

  Gill, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butler, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Goodland, Rt hon Alastair

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Gunnell, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harris, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coffey, Ann

  Hawkins, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Congdon, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Horam, John

  420

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoyle, Doug

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensborne)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hunter, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hutton, John

  Page, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Janner, Greville

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Pickles, Eric

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Pope, Greg

  Jowell, Tessa

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Key, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knapman, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Knox, Sir David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Richards, Rod

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Riddick, Graham

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Legg, Barry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Leigh, Edward

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Leighton, Ron

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lidington, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lightbown, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Litherland, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McKelvey, William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McWilliam, John

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

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Madel, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soames, Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Soley, Clive

  Malone, Gerald

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Stern, Michael

  Milburn, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Milligan, Stephen

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sumberg, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sweeney, Walter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sykes, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  421

  Thomason, Roy

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

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

  Whittingdale, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wise, Audrey

  Tyler, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Timothy Wood, and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Denham, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ainger, Nick

  Dixon, Don

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Alton, David

  Dover, Den

  Amess, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ashton, Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Battle, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  French, Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gapes, Mike

  Benton, Joe

  Garrett, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blunkett, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boateng, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Butterfill, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hannam, Sir John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cann, Jamie

  Higgins, Rt hon Sir Terence L.

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Day, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  422

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Redmond, Martin

  Lewis, Terry

  Robathan, Andrew

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lord, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCrea, Rev William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McFall, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Maginnis, Ken

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trimble, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mudie, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mullin, Chris

  Watson, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Olner, William

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Parry, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pawsey, James

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'sections'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 332, Noes 192.

  Division No. 19]

  [11.11 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Barron, Kevin

  Alexander, Richard

  Bates, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ancram, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Betts, Clive

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blair, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, peter (Eltham)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowis, John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bradley, Keith

  Baldry, Tony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bright, Graham

  423

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gorst, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, Rt hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hague, William

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clelland, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hutton, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ingram, Adam

  Dowd, Jim

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Janner, Greville

  Dunn, Bob

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jowell, Tessa

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Flynn, Paul

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leighton, Ron

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lightbown, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Litherland, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mackay, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McKelvey, William

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, David

  Garrard, Neil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  424

  McWilliam, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Madel, David

  Shaw, sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Malone, Gerald

  Shore, Rt hon Peter

  Mendelson, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Skeet, sir Trevor

  Marland, Paul

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

  Marlow, Tony

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Soley, Clive

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maxton, John

  Spicer Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Meale, Alan

  Sproat, Iain

  Milburn, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stephen, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stern, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Allan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sykes, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Thomason, Roy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Thompson, sir Donald (C'er V)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thurnham, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

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

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Trend, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walden, George

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Waller, Gary

  Radice, Giles

  Ward, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Richards, Rod

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Willetts, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wilshire, David

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ruddock, Joan

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Barnes, Harry

  Alton, David

  Battle, John

  Amess, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  425

  Beggs, Roy

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Jessel, Toby

  Bell, Stuart

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Benton, Joe

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Keen, Alan

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Blunkett, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Boateng, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Byers, Stephen

  Livingstone, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Lord, Michael

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cam, Jamie

  McAllion, John

  Clapham, Michael

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cohen, Harry

  McFall, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Corbett, Robin

  Madden, Max

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Cormack, Patrick

  Martlew, Eric

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Meacher, Michael

  Cousins, Jim

  Michael, Alun

  Cox, Tom

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cryer, Bob

  Mills, Iain

  Cummings, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Molyneaux, Rt hon James

  Dafis, Cynog

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Davidson, Ian

  Mudie, George

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Murphy, Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Oaxes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Denham, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Dixon, Don

  Olner, William

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dover, Den

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Patchett, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Pawsey, James

  Etherington, Bill

  Pendry, Tom

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Pike, Peter L.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Purchase, Ken

  French, Douglas

  Randall, Stuart

  Gapes, Mike

  Raynsford, Nick

  Garrett, John

  Redmond, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Robathan, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Graham, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Simpson, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hain, Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hall, Mike

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hanson, David

  Snape, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Tapsell, sir Peter

  Hoey, Kate

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  426

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Trimble, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Vaz, Keith

  Winnick, David

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Walley, Joan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wareing, Robert N

  Young David (Bolton SE)

  Watson, Mike

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr, Dennis Turner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 320, Noes 185.

  Division No. 20]

  [11.23 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Colvin, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Congdon, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Allen, Graham

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Ashby, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Atkins, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dunn, Bob

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blair, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boyes, Roland

  Evennett, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burden, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butler, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fry, Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gallie, Phil

  Cash, William

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Chapman, Sydney

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gill, Christopher

  Clelland, David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Coe, Sebastian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Coffey, Ann

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  427

  Gorst, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Meale, Alan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Horam, John

  Onslow, Rt hon Sir Cranley

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillp

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jamieson, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Janner, Greville

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, Sir David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leighton, Ron

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfied)

  McKelvey, William

  Soley, Clive

  Maclean, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spring, Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stevenson, George

  428

  Stewart, Allan

  Walden, George

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Ward, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilshire, David

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

  Wise, Audrey

  Tracey, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Alton, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Amess, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  French, Douglas

  Battle, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Bayley, Hugh

  Garrett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  George, Bruce

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bendall, Vivian

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hall, Mike

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hanson, David

  Blunkett, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hoey, Kate

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cox, Tom

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Cryer, Bob

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cummings, John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Lewis, Terry

  Day, Stephen

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dobson, Frank

  Lord, Michael

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dover, Den

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  429

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCrea, Rev William

  Simpson, Alan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Michael, Alun

  Tapsell, sir Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mudie, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Paul

  Trimble, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  Olner, William

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Parry, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N

  Patchett, Terry

  Watson, Mike

  Pendry, Tom

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winnick, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Redmond, Martin

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. Eric Ilsley and

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 335, Noes 175.

  Division No. 21]

  [11.35 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Blair, Tony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Booth, Hartley

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allen, Graham

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boyes, Roland

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bradley, Keith

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Burns, Simon

  Bates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Peter

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Betts, Clive

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  430

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harris, David

  Clappison, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clelland, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Coffey, Ann

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, Alan (Start'rd-on-A)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hutton, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jamieson, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Jowell, Tessa

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Leigh, Edward

  Fisher, Mark

  Leighton, Ron

  Flynn, Paul

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lightbown, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mackay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garnier, Edward

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Maxton, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gunnell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hague, William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Milburn, Alan

  431

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mills, Iain

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spring Richard

  Morley, Elliot

  Sproat, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stevenson, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Allan

  Norris, Steve

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sumberg, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sweeney, Walter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sykes, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thomason, Roy

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trend, Michael

  Radice, Giles

  Trotter, Neville

  Rathbone, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Richards, Rod

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Ward, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rooker, Jeff

  Whittingdale, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wilkinson, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Willetts, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Wise, Audrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Worthington, Tony

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Michael Brown.

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

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beggs, Roy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beith, Rt Hon A.J.

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Amess, David

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Barnes, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bowden, Andrew

  432

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Byers, Stephen

  McAllion, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cann, Jamie

  McFall, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clapham, Michael

  McMaster, Gordon

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Madden, Max

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Cohen, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Connarty, Michael

  Michael, Alun

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Corbett, Robin

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Cousins, Jim

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Cox, Tom

  Mudie, George

  Cryer, Bob

  Mullin, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Dafis, Cynog

  Olner, William

  Davidson, Ian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Day, Stephen

  Parry, Robert

  Denham, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Pendry, Tom

  Dobson, Frank

  Pickthall, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Picke, Peter L.

  Dover, Den

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Eastham, Ken

  Purchase, Ken

  Enright, Derek

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Etherington, Bill

  Randall, Stuart

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Fatchett, Derek

  Redmond, Martin

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  French, Douglas

  Rogers, Allan

  Gapes, Mike

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  George, Bruce

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Simpson, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Graham, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Snape, Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hall, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Hanson, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Thornton, sir Malcolm

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Trimble, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Vaz, Keith

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Walley, Joan

  Jessel, Toby

  Wardel, Gareth (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Watson, Mike

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Keen, Alan

  Williams, Rt hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Winnick, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again.
  Committee tomorrow.

  Broadcasting
  11.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
  That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
  The order is made under powers in schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. The purpose of the draft order is to give effect to the changes in the regulations governing the ownership of the regional ITV companies that I announced on 24 November. I made it clear then that the proposed changes were subject to parliamentary approval.
  The draft order amends the present order restricting the holding of licences, which was made in May 1991, in two ways. First, article 2(1) amends article 3 of the 1991 order. Its effect is to remove the distinction between licences for the nine areas with the largest advertising revenue and those for the other six areas. Article 3 of the 1991 order prevents anyone from holding two licences in the nine large areas. The draft order would remove that restriction, except that no one could hold both London licences. The overall limit on holding no more than two licences remains. The other change is technical. Article 2(2) removes from the 1991 order provisions which have now expired and the references to them.
  Before I explain the reasons that led me to propose these changes, I should like to reply to criticisms by some Opposition Members that I did not come to the House and make a statement about these proposals. As the House will know, I issued a press notice at 8.30 on the morning of 24 November as the stock market opened, sending a copy at the same time to the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies. I wrote to a number of right hon. and hon. Members with an interest in broadcasting issues, and I gave a written reply to a parliamentary question later in the day.
  As I explained in those letters, these arrangements were made to avoid a period of intense speculation on the stock exchange, which was the likely result if it had become known that an announcement would be made later in the day. This arrangement is usual for Government announcements that are market sensitive. In reaching decisions on the best way of making the announcement, I was influenced by the knowledge that the draft order was subject to debate both here and in another place.
  As many hon. Members will be aware, considerable changes are taking place in broadcasting, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. The most obvious change is the increase in the number of channels and services available. In the United Kingdom, we have had an increasing number of cable and satellite channels, as well as new radio services. Even more services are likely in a few years wiith the introduction of digital transmission technology. The technologies of broadcasting, telecommunications and computers are already beginning to converge, and this process can be expected to continue at an accelerating pace.
  Similarly, although it is likely that some traditional broadcasting services will remain, many other services of entertainment, information and education will become available. In the foreseeable future, people will be able to pick and choose from a wide range of sources of news, information and entertainment, including films, videos,

  435
  music, and computer games. Some services will be interactive. People will be able to pay for individual items, as well as whole services. The choice and variety available to the public will be greater than we have ever seen.
  Another significant change is the way in which broadcasting is becoming an international activity. A global market for broadcasting is opening up. The United Kingdom should be well placed to take advantage of these opportunities. Broadcasting has been one of the success stories in the United Kingdom in the past 50 years. The high quality of the programmes in our broadcasting services is widely recognised, both here and abroad. ITV companies have, for many years, sold programmes successfully to foreign broadcasting organisations. But the new markets will go well beyond the export of individual programmes, into the provision of whole channels, and a range of services.
  The Government want to ensure that United Kingdom broadcasters can build on the success achieved so far and take advantage of the new opportunities that are opening up. We have been holding meetings with senior broadcasting executives to discuss these issues with them. We shall want to consider how these markets are likely to develop and to make sure that there are no unnecessary obstacles that prevent the United Kingdom broadcasters from taking up these opportunities. In saying that, we have to recognise that broadcasters in other countries will be looking for opportunities in the United Kingdom.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does that mean that someone from the Irish Republic could buy, say, Ulster Television? Enough republican propaganda pours through at the moment—we do not want an overdose of it.
  Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always welcome his interventions. The answer to his question is yes, and it would be the case even without the order.
  Broadcasting is entering a period of rapid development that is likely to create a revolution in the way we distribute and receive information and education and entertainment services. We are, however, only at the early stages of those changes. It is difficult to foresee the precise nature of the changes or the speed at which they take place.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and some other Opposition Members understand that major changes are taking place and agree that in the coming months we should look again at the present restrictions on cross-media ownership, as we intend to do.
  We are in a period of transition and we need to consider how best to advance. Some people, including the hon. Lady, believe that the best way forward is to stand still. She advocates extending the so-called moratorium. That is the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1990 due to expire at the end of this year. The provision does not prevent takeovers from occurring, but requires the Independent Television Commission to approve them before they take place.
  I considered that option carefully, not least because some ITV companies advocated it, but concluded that extending that regulatory requirement was not the best approach to expanding markets. It is, in any case, an illusion to think that we can achieve a continuing breathing space for ITV by legislative means when the rest of the broadcasting world is developing so rapidly.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brooke: I shall give way, but, as the whole House is aware, we are anxious to make progress.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but the whole House is also anxious to have information from the Government. The Minister said that he has had discussions with various senior television company directors. What discussions did he have and what representations did he receive from his own regulator, the ITC, on the matter?
  Mr. Brooke: I shall gladly respond to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct in saying that the House would always want to have the information.
  We have had a number of discussions with the ITC. There may have been a degree of misunderstanding in the press in recent days in so far as there was a debate between the ITC and ourselves about my announcement or the particular timing of the ITC receiving it, but we have had discussions in the past about the changes we might make.
  As the House will know, the ITV companies had different views about the best way forward. I called a meeting at which all the companies were represented by their chairmen or chief executives so that I could hear their views. I wanted to make sure that all the companies, large and small, had an opportunity to explain their position to me directly. I also consulted the Independent Television Commission, as I said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. He had discussions with the ITC. What conclusions did the ITC reach and what did it say to him?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows that, even when the Broadcasting Act was going through the House and in the immediate aftermath of it, the ITC believed that the moratorium should last longer than had been built into the Act. Of course I would acknowledge that, but it was a subject that we discussed with the ITC. A number of other interested organisations, including the advertising industry, discussed their views with me or with officials in my Department. I found all those discussions helpful, not least because they gave me an insight into the way in which television is developing.
  In reaching a decision, I tried to look beyond the immediate issue to the medium term. I have two clear objectives. First, I want to ensure that the British public keep the television services that they value and that the diversity of choice that they have is maintained and extended.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: As a veteran of the Broadcasting Bill and as someone who also went to most meetings in the consultation period on the HTV licence area, I recall that all the other competitors said that they wanted not only to have regional television but for it to be regionally owned. As a result, HTV was driven to pay a large premium to acquire the franchise. Now the right hon. Gentleman is changing all the rules. He is saying that the ownership argument is irrelevant. That is unfair. The basis on which we argued that case drove HTV to pay a higher price than Central Television and others. Now the right hon. Gentleman is changing the rules. Surely he ought to think about it again in the light of the evidence.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for that point, and for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's experience. However, it is possible to ensure that the regional commitment is met in

  437
  the provision of regional television through the exercise of the licence, administered and monitored by the ITC. In that respect, ownership is a different matter.
  ITV services are watched by well over 90 per cent. of the population each week. My answer to those who have criticised the proposed changes as being too limited and rather timid is that the millions of people who take pleasure from ITV programmes would not thank us if we moved suddenly from a position of close regulation to one of complete deregulation of ownership, and in so doing undermined the foundations of the present services. I have to take account of the services to the public as well as the opportunities for investment.
  My other main objective is to sustain the production base for broadcast programmes in the United Kingdom. That is the key to high quality services here and to the potential increase in exports. As the number of channels increases here and throughout the world, the production of programmes and programme rights will become an increasingly valuable asset.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that BSkyB is exempt from the requirement on commercial television to broadcast a percentage of domestically made products? If that is still the case, how can it be justified?
  Mr. Brooke: It is not exempt—it is subject to the European Commission directive. As recently as October, I submitted statistics to the Commission in Brussels showing the European content—European in the context of this country meaning mainly British—of all the channels for which we have responsibility as regulators.
  Some 73 per cent. of the programmes broadcast by ITV are made in Europe, most of them within the UK. A large proportion of the programming is original material, made for ITV's audiences. Those programmes reflect the UK's traditions and culture, and that of its regions. We want that to continue.
  We also want to sustain the production base throughout the UK, as well as in London and the south-east. The ITC's licence conditions require that 80 per cent. of regional programming is produced in the area. The ITV companies have told me that they regard the regional nature of the ITV system as of crucial importance. They know that it is valued by their audiences, so it will be in the interest of the companies to maintain regional programming and production.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: Yes, I will, but at this hour the House wishes me not to slow down.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Under the licence held by Central Television, not 80 per cent. but 95 per cent. of the programmes have to be made in the regions. What assurances can he give those of us concerned about the future that such a restriction will continue to apply now that Central has been handed over, lock, stock and barrel, to Carlton?
  Mr. Brooke: The ITC will continue to monitor the conduct of the licence, which was issued to Central, and it will continue to be Central that ITV is monitoring.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: The House would like the opportunity to question the Secretary of State, rather than listen to him gabble through his brief. Those of us who might be persuaded that there is a case for relaxing the ownership rule and allowing mergers to take place, which would lead to the strengthening of the ownership of ITV companies, would be more persuaded of the case if, by the same token, the powers of the regulatory body were also strengthened so that there was a balance between the two. The strengthening of ownership but also an increase of power to the regulator—would that not be a more balanced and sensible approach?
  Mr. Brooke: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the discussions that I have had with the ITC have included whether it is confident that it would be able to monitor the conduct of the licences if there were a change of ownerships, and it has declared itself satisfied and confident.
  I should not have proposed these changes if I thought that they would put at risk the regional programming and regional production which are such valued features of the ITV system. The Broadcasting Act 1990 places requirements on ITV licence holders about regional programming and production. They are reinforced by the conditions of the ITC's licences, which include the promises about programmes made by the companies when they applied for licences. I know that the ITC takes its licence conditions very seriously. Each year it will assess how far the ITV companies have complied with the licence conditions. If any licence holders fail to comply with their licence conditions, the commission is obliged by law to include information about the failures in its annual report, which is presented to Parliament.
  However, the ITV companies have to operate effectively in the changing world of broadcasting. Partnerships are already being formed throughout the world to take advantage of the new opportunities. Major media organisations are combining groups of linked enterprises, bringing together programme production, music recordings, publishing interests and broadcasting outlets, including terrestrial broadcasting as well as cable and satellite. In other words, they are linking the material to be distributed and the means of distribution.
  In this world of giant conglomerates, with turnovers of billions of pounds, most of the ITV companies are comparatively small. We think that they should be able to take a more active role in forming new partnerships in the global market than would have been possible under the present regulations.
  As they explained to me, the ITV companies themselves agree that it is unlikely that it will be possible for the ITV system to continue for much longer with 15 regional companies plus the national breakfast-time company. They believed that a measure of consolidation was desirable, and they told me of the various ways in which companies were already co-operating. However, they had different views about the degree of consolidation that should take place and the speed at which it should happen. Therefore, although there were different opinions about the best way of reaching the objective and the speed of travel, there was agreement about the general direction in which the television industry needed to go.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: What opinion did the right hon. Gentleman receive from

  439
  HTV? Did not HTV believe that it should remain independent, centred on Wales and largely owned by Welsh Wales so that it would be able to continue to deliver a thoroughly Welsh service with a strong emphasis on the Welsh language? What view did HTV express to him?
  Mr. Brooke: I am slightly diffident about giving the detailed opinions of each company as the conversations were confidential. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what the general thrust of HTV's view was, and I would not suggest that it was a million miles from what he said.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State not aware that for many years—indeed, since the creation of the film industry—television and film productions have been made by powerful companies, usually in the United States or with money originating in the United States? There has never been a lack of programme making outside the United Kingdom. Companies in the United Kingdom were protected by the understandable desire of Parliament to keep a British involvement in British cultural material. Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposed rules will radically change that position and that it will not be possible to continue regional production as it was in the past?
  Mr. Brooke: I know from previous exchanges with the hon. Lady that this is a subject in which she takes a keen interest, not least with regard to film production. The manner in which Governments of different colours have dealt with the film industry in the past 25 years does not encourage one to think that we do not need to pay close attention to preventing broadcasting from going the same way.
  Having reflected carefully on the views expressed to me, I concluded that it would be right to propose changes that would allow two larger companies to join together, except in London. That is the purpose of the order. I do not think that it would be sensible at this stage to go further without a thorough examination of the likely effect of greater deregulation in the ownership of media enterprises. There are, as we know, disadvantages in such concentrations. They can be anti-competitive and prevent newcomers from gaining access to the market; they can restrict choice for audiences and advertisers, nationally or locally. At worst, they can restrict freedom of speech and expression. Broadcasting is more than an economic activity.
  Mr. John Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be no further changes in the position of commercial television until the BBC's charter has been dealt with—either renewed or subjected to another Government proposal?
  Mr. Brooke: I do not want to give that precise assurance. We shall want to examine the cross-media ownership factors in the way that I described earlier—a method, incidentally, to which Opposition Front Benchers urge us to return. The speed at which change is occurring means that we cannot freeze time at particular moments to enable things to "catch up". I recognise, of course, that the debate on the BBC charter renewal is going on at the same time. We shall need to take account of all those factors in reviewing arrangements for cross-media ownership and vertical integration.
  440
  Organisations that cannot adapt to changing circumstances do not survive. Those who wish to preserve the ITV system as it existed in the 1980s, or even in the 1970s, are more likely to hasten its decline than to promote its healthy survival. That is why the Government decided not to extend the so-called moratorium. That has achieved what it was intended to achieve—a short period of stability during the transition from the old ITV system to the system introduced in January this year. Let me say in passing that, on the basis of the figures for the first nine months, the amount of regional programming that has been produced under the new arrangements is substantially up on the previous year.
  Mr. Michael Bates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the merger of the Yorkshire and Tyne Tees franchises and companies has brought significant benefits to my constituents by providing a new local news service? The service, which has cost £1·5 million, is broadcast from Belasis technology park in Stockton. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that if another company bids for Yorkshire it will not be able to dump the Tyne Tees franchise to comply with the two-franchise limit?
  Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to hear about the new local news service. Any bidder for Yorkshire-Tyne Tees would be confronted with the fact that Yorkshire already has a second station.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: What is the answer then?
  Mr. Brooke: The bidder could not effect a change unless it had divested itself.
  It makes no sense to try to protect the ITV companies indefinitely from the disciplines of the market, nor should it be necessary.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: The Secretary of State is right in saying that if a third party bids for Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, under the existing arrangements the bid will not proceed. Will he give an assurance, however, that he will examine possible ways in which Tyne Tees could be hived off from Yorkshire, and that any hiving-off process will not simply enable one company to gain control of three companies by the back door? We want a real separation, rather than a false separation that could damage the interests of either company.
  Mr. Brooke: Having not been wholly solicitous to those who intervened earlier, I thank the hon. Gentleman profoundly. His intervention enables me to correct an answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who intervened from a sedentary position. Of course divestment would not be required if the bid came from an organisation not currently holding a television station licence. It is for the ITC to do all that it can to ensure that licensees comply with the ownership rules. It would monitor the process described by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
  The need for adjustments to the ownership regulations was always foreseen, which is why we made provision for the main provisions to be extended and altered by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, rather than by primary legislation. I do not rule out further changes in the

  441
  future, but the change that we are debating today is a first step in the direction in which the Government believe that we need to go. I commend the order to the House.
  12.14 am
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Secretary of State has glibly presented a gross simplification of a complex issue. There is general agreement about its complexity and that the Secretary of State has failed to grasp it completely. One of the many City analysts who commented on the matter stated that the Government's action was
  "only the latest and silliest turn in this textbook example of how not to regulate an industry."
  At this wee hour of the morning, it would be unnecessarily cruel to go further, but that accusation of silliness is a compliment compared with many other comments. The most flattering was "a botched job".
  We appreciate the Secretary of State's apology to the House this evening for the two-week gap between announcing his proposals to the market and giving Parliament its democratic right to debate and to vote on them. We understand the legislation's market-sensitive nature, but it would have helped if the Secretary of State had understood that it is contempt of Parliament to delay a debate to such an extent that two takeover bids are already launched.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Lady not agree with the concept of a television company in my constituency joining another to continue producing splendid drama such as "Brideshead Revisited", investigative documentaries such as "World in Action" and blockbusters such as "Coronation Street"? At the same time, they could compete with the growth of satellite channels such as TNT and CNN from Murdoch and Turner, cable and the telecommunications industry—which will soon provide viewers with videos on demand at the touch of a button. Is it not right that companies such as Granada should be able to join with others for growth and to produce the programmes that we want to see?
  Ms Mowlam: We called for a continuing moratorium, to allow a review of the kind that is necessary, given the complexity of the market that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Of course there is satellite and cable, and it is illogical and unfair that Murdoch can own 100 per cent. of a non-domestic satellite service when other newspapers can own only 20 per cent. of an ITV company. We do not want the half-cock proposals that are before the House this evening. We asked one year ago for a review and for rational and sensible proposals.
  As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course we want genuine regional productions and programmes of the quality of "Brideshead Revisited"—but the Secretary of State body-swerved and ducked the question of the ITC having the power not just to regulate and monitor standards but to enforce them. We want quality television, and it worries us that the ITC's ability to regulate and monitor may be lost as television companies grow, become more powerful and centralise. The ITC has done a good job in many areas, but can it continue to do so?
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware that the ITC has the power to impose a
  442
  fine for a first offence of 3 per cent. of qualifying annual revenue each month, and of 5 per cent. for subsequent offences? Is that not enough of a sanction?
  Ms Mowlam: There is not enough sanction in the sense that the ITC rightly has those powers post facto. As a result of what the Secretary of State has introduced we will experience some takeovers. Potentially two large whales could develop and a number of small companies—minnows at best—will desperately try to survive in a competitive market—they will compete over advertising and industrial muscle.
  What concerns Labour Members and, I think, Tory Members is that as that power is centralised, regional companies may not be able to continue to make the quality productions that we want. That is what is important.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) says that companies such as Granada need to merge to continue to produce programmes of the quality of "World in Action" and "Brideshead Revisited" His argument is back to front. Under the previous regionally-based regulated system, programmes of that quality were produced. The problem is that with the post Broadcasting Act system, the possibility of producing such quality programmes recedes further into the distance.
  Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Her final point should be emphasised. Part of the difficulty that we face this evening is that the problems in the industry have resulted from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its flaws. Labour Members pointed out those flaws day in and day out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) did a courageous job and provided a lot of valuable policy information. She sought to show how damaging the 1990 Act was to so many regional television companies when she said that it has seriously imperilled some of the world's leading producers of television programmes.
  We need only look at the mess, the farce and the tragedy that that Act created. Central Television pays the Treasury £2,000 a year. Now that there is a takeover bid for Central Television, it is worth £750 million plus. That tells us that the Broadcasting Act is ludicrous.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Does the hon. Lady recognise that the chairman of the Independent Television Commission, Sir George Russell, said that there has been much more stability in the independent television industry following the 1990 Act than there was following other franchise changes, for example, the change 10 years ago? [Laughter.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh. It is the judgment of the chairman of the Independent Television Commission.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that the Labour party had been campaigning for the moratorium to continue. That is not my impression. Is it not correct to say that the hon. Lady is widely known in the television industry for saying that the moratorium should not be continued and that takeovers must be allowed, otherwise from January onwards Bertlesmann or Berlusconi could bid for Central Television? She realised that, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for a British bid for Central Television not to be accepted. Surely, what has

  443
  happened is that, when faced with two takeovers and the change in share prices, the Labour party typically panics and changes its view, which has been sensible until now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Several hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye in this short debate. If we have interventions of that length, not many hon. Members will be able to do so.
  Ms Mowlam: I shall answer the points made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). First, the ITC has clearly said that it would like a continuation of the moratorium.
  Mr. Renton indicated dissent.
  Ms Mowlam: The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head. I quote from paragraph 39 on page 457 of the ITC's submission to the Select Committee on National Heritage:
  "The Government's intention on extending the moratorium beyond the end of this year is not yet clear. The ITC continues to favour an extension and from the same standpoint has considered whether that would be a benefit in changing the rules."
  So the position of the ITC is clear.
  The Independent Television Commission has argued, as many have, that stability in the market is necessary. However, the announcement in the past two weeks has created a degree of instability in the market for some of the bigger companies as well as some of the smaller ones.
  Let me now answer the second point that the right hon. Gentleman made. The Opposition have supported a moratorium and want to continue a moratorium to review cross-ownership. The honest difference between myself and my predecessor, if he wants it on record, is that she wanted it for three years and I favoured 18 months—I have said at least 12 months—because the changes that are taking place in the market, partly as a result of the instability that the Secretary of State has created by the half-hearted move that is now being made, are making the problem worse.
  The difficulty that will confront us from 1 January, partly as a result of what the Secretary of State has done, is that any company in Europe will be able to come and take 100 per cent. of a British television company. One cannot do that in France because one would be prevented from doing so; a foreign company can take only 25 per cent. of a French television company. One cannot do it in Germany because one would be prevented from doing so; a foreign company can take only 50 per cent. One cannot do it in Spain because one would be prevented from doing so; a foreign company can take only 25 per cent. I could go on. That is the difficulty.
  As a result of the short-termism of the institutional fund managers of this country and the short-termism of the British Government, we are leaving our small regional television companies totally exposed to European companies which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are built into consortia with cross-media ownership, which is difficult to break into. That is what we mean by a moratorium. We want that moratorium to continue because the Government have exposed our regional companies in an outrageous way.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Rowlands: May I just draw to my hon. Friend's attention a simple fact? As she pointed out, Central paid a meaningless sum of money; HTV paid a large sum of money for one reason only—that other competitors were
  444
  not only showing that they were competing for a regional station, they were actually arguing the case on ownership grounds and now the Government are changing the rules. In our view, we are left with the HTV company saddled with a huge bill because of the Broadcasting Act and the consequence is that a company such as HTV cannot produce programmes because it has to spend the money paying fees.
  Ms. Mowlam: That is exactly the problem that the Opposition have emphasised. Smaller companies are being put in a position in which it is impossible for them to produce the quality programmes that we would like. I challenge the hon. Members opposite who represent regions throughout the country that have that type of regional television that they want to be protected and preserved. If those hon. Members walk into the Lobbies with the Government tonight they will be calling into question the future of those regional television stations.
  So that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not just Labour hon. Members who agree with me, let me quote from a letter from one of the Conservative Peers in the other place, Lord Buxton. He said in a letter on 7 December:
  "what is being done by the Broadcasting Amendment Order, is a tentative half-measure which produces the worst of all worlds, it will totally unbalance the system, and could lead before long to the eroding of the regional structure."
  That is the type of worry that other hon. Members share.
  Let me return to the final point that the hon. Gentleman made. He says that some of the smaller television companies believe that as a result of this change they will be so exposed after 1 January—exactly the point that my hon. Friend made in relation to HTV—that the Minister has to do something. Otherwise British broadcasting will not be British any more. The same will happen as it did to our film industry and to our insurance industry in the 1980s—it will be destroyed. The Secretary of State can end up by saying that it is important in terms of democratic values and as part of British industry, but what he is doing is potentially destroying both. That is what the Opposition find so disconcerting.
  It is not that we were not saying what we have said clearly; let me just reinforce the argument and give other hon. Members a chance to speak. The Opposition have set out the criteria clearly and we believe that they should be reinforced. We want, above all, for regional television to be retained. By that I mean regional production, quality regional production, with a local management team. Some of the Opposition contributions earlier were about companies being regionally owned. As a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990, most of the companies are no longer regionally owned unless one considers Schroders or Barclays De Zoet, Mercury Asset Management or Warburgs as being regionally owned. That is the problem that confronts us as a result of the Act. Now we want an Act that defends that regional production strongly and continues the regional identity that is there and that independent home-grown broadcasting industry. That is why we have argued for a moratorium. We believe that if that were done, the continuation of the present irrational situation would make things worse for the other options—cable, satellite and the other choices for people in this country.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of my interest in the matter. [HON.

  445
  MEMBERS: "What is it?] I chair the all-party media group of which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is vice-chairman, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is also involved. Does the hon. Lady believe that the order will give the regional television companies more strength to resist overseas predators? I share her view that we want British broadcasting to remain British, so if she can say that the order will not have that effect, I shall have more sympathy with her argument.
  Ms Mowlam: I do think that the order will have that effect for the smaller television companies. There is no doubt that they will be deeply exposed after 1 January, and their future will be in question. That is a serious problem. My honest answer is that, although if the Carlton-Central deal goes ahead the company will be bigger, we still have no broadcasting company big enough to be one of the top 20 in Europe in terms of commercial revenue. As we go into Europe we have a problem with British broadcasting as a growth industry. But there is no doubt that it will help those companies. There is no doubt that that help will not be offered to them. Our problem is that technology is moving at great speed, but our legislation is that of five years ago. We need a vision of where British broadcasting—
  Mr. David Lidington: But the hon. Lady wants a moratorium.
  Ms Mowlam: Yes, I want a moratorium, because I do not want developments at the present speed that expose half the companies while giving an unfair benefit to the others, and that brings about no recognition of the changes in satellite and cable. For example, in August two North American consortia put £650 million into cabling the populated areas of south and west Yorkshire. Where are the British companies? They are not there, because of the irrationality of the present legislation. That is why we need a moratorium, so that we can take the British broadcasting industry forward together. Such vision goes with the need that we have always emphasised for quality regional television. We want those two developments to move forward together.
  If the order goes through, the Secretary of State will place a question mark over the future of regional production and make it harder for our companies to compete in Europe. With one small amendment of the law he will achieve the worst of both worlds.
  12.32 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having the foresight and courage to take the shackles off the British television industry and to allow it the opportunity—no more than that—to move forward, to merge and to compete in the communications industry of the next century.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who spoke for the Opposition, made a plea for vision, but it was backed up by nothing of substance. She made a plea for an outdated broadcasting and television industry. The communications industry of the next century will be about more than simply television or broadcasting; it will allow every household to have a wide flat screen and will bring into that household not only digitally transmitted pictures
  446
  and entertainment, but data, education, home shopping and home banking. There will be video-telephony. In every home there will be a communications centre the like of which most Opposition Members have not even begun to imagine.
  If the United Kingdom is to have the remotest chance of playing a part in the communications industry of the next century, we shall have to create economies of scale. Not one company in this country now—not Carlton, not Central, not Granada, nor any other organisation—has the size and capacity single-handedly to play a major part on that world stage. There is a stark choice before us. My right hon. Friend has recognised that. Thank God that he has done so in time. We must allow major players in this country to merge if they are to attain the size and scale and the financial clout to compete and to create the industry of the next century. If we do not do that, we will be left sitting on the sidelines. I have said for a long time that this country has more creative power and skill than most other countries in the world, but we will need to take it forward from tonight.
  I will be brief in what I have to say. I do not think that we have gone anything like far enough, but tonight is the first step. Opposition Members talk about regional broadcasting. There is one national broadcaster in this country with a number of regional outlets. Those outlets provide good regional broadcasting, including news programmes, and they have regional production centres. The broadcaster is called the BBC. If the BBC can do it, one commercial and terrestrial company can do it if it is necessary.
  Those companies will be competing not with each other, but with cable and satellite which will bring in, in the case of the Hughes corporation, 104 channels when digital transmission comes. Are we seriously saying that, at the moment, there is one company in this country that has the commercial and the artistic power to compete with any of those competitors? The answer is no.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that what he has just said is absolutely right? The BBC acts as a national and a regional company and it will have to compete in the future with the likes of Turner, which has brought in CNN and TNT, and is looking to introduce other stations via satellite to compete with the BBC. Murdoch also has introduced main channels already via satellite, and that company will be looking to expand its market also. If the BBC is to be up against it in future, and if the independent television companies, which are split, are not allowed to join together and to compete rationally—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already informed the House that many hon. Members want to catch my eye during a short debate. It is unfair on people wanting to speak for hon. Members to make long interventions.
  Mr. Gale: I will always agree with my hon. Friend if he agrees that he is agreeing with me. He is, of course, absolutely right. The crux of the argument is simple. We must have a communications industry—not an entertainment, television or broadcasting industry—which plays a part within, not just the United Kingdom and Europe, but hopefully in overseas markets.
  If we are to do that—here I will make a mild criticism of my right hon. Friend—then the step which has been taken tonight has not gone far enough. One has only to look

  447
  at graphs of advertising sales. Due to the nature of competition from satellite and from an increasing number of channels, the advertising sales graphs are falling. If the sales are falling and production costs are rising, as they are, it is absolutely certain that, without economies of scale, a number of the regional companies to which the hon. Lady referred will not survive franchise—takeover or not. They will go to the wall within three years. I will put money, or a bottle of champagne, on that with the hon. Lady.
  If there are no takeovers and the regional companies are left marginalised, they will in three years' time simply not exist because they have no economy of scale or the financial power to compete.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman voted for the Broadcasting Act 1990.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman should know that I served on the Committee which dealt with the Broadcasting Bill. I said then, and I will say now, that that was a Bill for the 1990s. What we are talking about tonight—I hope—is the communications industry of the United Kingdom for the year 2000 and beyond.
  The hon. Lady talked about a sense of vision, but if we are to have that sense of vision, let us not have a moratorium that would put the brakes on.
  Mr. Morgan: Did the hon. Gentleman say that some of the companies for whose franchises, I take it, he voted in 1990 would not survive the next three years? Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly?
  Mr. Gale: I did not vote for those franchises. Indeed, I am on record as saying that the lucky people were those who did not win the franchises, because only a mug would have made a successful bid. Anyone with any sense could see the way the entertainment and communications industries were going. The companies will not survive.
  If there is to be a sense of vision, we must look beyond the regions to what is going to happen in the United Kingdom, Europe and the world in the year 2000 and beyond. What we need is certainly not a moratorium of any kind; we do not want the brakes put on. We want them taken off, just as my right hon. Friend has done this evening. But we must go further. We shall have to get used to the idea that we do not need a review. By the time a review had been carried out, the technology would have overtaken it.
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Gale: No, I am sorry. I have already given way several times. I hope that the hon. Lady will catch the Chair's eye later.
  We need to realise that by the end of the century we are likely to end up with no more than three independent terrestrial television companies in the United Kingdom. We must also understand that there will be mergers—not only between television companies but between television and data and telephony companies; and between all of them and newspapers, too.
  In the year 2000 and beyond there will be an electronic, digitally transmitted communications industry. The only way to bring that about is by economies of scale. We should see this process through with courage. Some Opposition Members, I know, agree with me. If we seize this chance with both hands, we will be left not with the
  448
  rump of a United Kingdom television industry but with an industry at the forefront of a worldwide and powerful communications industry. That is my vision of the future.
  12.41 am
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I had entertained the vain hope that before any Conservative Member embarked on his speech he would begin by apologising to the House and the country for passing the Broadcasting Act three years ago. No doubt my contribution tonight will be a hopeless quest, as I am sure the order will be agreed to.
  I should declare an interest. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists and belong to the broadcasting union. I worked for a number of years for Central Television. I have no financial interest in this matter—but I do wish that the Secretary of State had listened to one or two people who did not have a massive financial interest before he introduced the order. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman the simple truth about what has happened to independent television in the past six short years.
  These events did not come about because of acts of God or the inevitable progress of satellite and cable. The right hon. Gentleman, like his predecessor, seems to think that this is all beyond his control. It pains me to have to remind him that he is part of the Government. Governments exist to control and to regulate in the best interests of the people.
  Six years ago, commercial television had some faults but also one or two great strengths; one was that throughout the country there were powerful regional centres of production. More than 2,000 people were working at Central, in Birmingham, which I know best. There were four busy studios and a range of expert technicians—vision mixers, sound editors and so on, all of whom possessed an expertise that could be drawn on to make good programmes. Most of the company owners and managers lived and worked in the region and watched the output as and when it was broadcast.
  As Conservative Members are phenomenally interested in accounts, I should add that commercial television, with the rest of the broadcasting industry, managed to contribute to a surplus on our balance of trade payments. We were net exporters of television programmes, and all the signs were that the viewers were quite pleased with what was going on, too.
  What has happened to commercial television since then? No one denies that cable and satellite may have created instability, although the problems that they caused are not as great as the Government have suggested. It was the Broadcasting Act 1990 which caused massive destabilisation—no one who has studied the industry would challenge that assertion.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read "Under the Hammer", subtitled "The ITV Franchise Battle—Greed and Glory Inside the Television Business", which was written by an industrial correspondent. It should be required reading. The dust-cover explains that the book
  "tells the story of an extraordinary business circus that became, in the words of one television mogul, 'pure poker'".
  That person was right.
  As a result of the Act, Central—good luck to it—got the franchise for £2,000, while another, Yorkshire, paid £38 million for a franchise. No wonder that company has been destabilised. Will those free marketeers on the Conservative Benches please tell me where the logic and sense are in that system? The consequences of the Act have

  449
  been utterly predictable. I do not know whether Conservative Members are too concerned about such issues, but employment in commercial television has dropped from 16,000 before the Act to about 8,000. Central has reduced its work force from more than 2,000 to about 800. Instead of running four busy studios in Birmingham, it now only regularly uses one of them.
  Television programme production used to appear as a surplus in the balance of trade, but it now appears as a deficit. I do not even pray in aid the experiences of Opposition Members, because even the Baroness herself was disenchanted with the Act when she saw what happened to TV-am. I do not shed any tears over that, but Lady Thatcher described herself as bitterly unhappy about what had happened to that company. I believe that the Prime Minister also commented that the decision was not an optimum success, or used some other similar ringing phrase.
  What are we being asked to approve tonight?
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman suggested that Central had reduced its production facilities. Can he explain why? It cannot surely be because it paid too much for its franchise. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has already said that a large national organisation called the BBC makes some very good regional programmes.
  Mr. Grocott: Regional centres of production have been run down as a consequence of the Government's requirement to pass work out to independent producers. Another inevitable consequence of the Act has been a drift of television production to the south, because those independnet producers tend to be based in London, although they may have a shop-front somewhere else.
  It is ironic that the only part of the network that has been protected by the Government is the merger between London Weekend Television and Carlton. The Government have made sure that London has been looked after.
  The terms of the Act have operated for three years, but Conservative Members argue that they are now hopelessly out of date, despite the fact that they passed the Act. In that time, the Secretary of State has further destabilised the system. He has thrown good money after bad. He is now trying to tinker with an Act that is already bad. We already know two inevitable consequences of his actions: the industry will suffer further job losses, and decisions will be made in London and not in the regions.
  The right hon. Gentleman has started to talk about regional programming in almost patronising terms. It is suggested that one can dismiss all the franchise requirements as long as companies make their regional half-hour news programmes, cover regional sport or whatever. That is supposed to be equivalent to providing for regional television. That is not what it is about. What we want in the regions are companies that make not only regional programmes but national programmes for the network. Companies have the facilities, the range of skills and the expertise to achieve that, but that will not be the result of the Government's proposals.
  Central will be taken over by Carlton and managed and run from London. I belatedly ask the Secretary of State why no reference was made, in anything that he said or in
  450
  press releases from the managers of the various companies that are now making Monopoly money, to the service that is to be delivered to the viewer? The order is all about the needs of the City and the need for companies to amalgamate to compete. There are no measures on how to deliver to the public the service which they have come to expect over the years and which once made British broadcasting admired and recognised throughout the world.
  I ask the Secretary of State, although I fear that I ask in vain, to call a moratorium on broadcasting and to say, "We fiddled about too much and it has had a disastrous effect on the industry." Let us take an overall view of broadcasting and not pick off ITV, the BBC and other parts of the service. Above all, let us recognise broadcasting for what it can be—an outstanding, miraculous medium, which, at its best, television is, rather than something that is there for the delights of advertisers and financiers in the City. The purpose of broadcasting is to enrich our nation and to provide excellent programmes for viewers.
  In vain, I appeal to the Secretary of State and to Conservative Members to consider television in that light. That is what they should be doing, but it will not be achieved by the order, which is why we should vote against it.
  12.51 am
  Mr. Tim Renton: I agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on one matter—the importance of programming. Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), fail to recognise that it is all very well to talk about programming, but what about the cost? There is much difference between original production, which costs £50,000 an hour, and good original production, which now costs £500,000 an hour. One of the purposes of the order is to ensure that the production base of the ITV companies is maintained. That will be achieved by ensuring that enough good, strong companies have the financial strength to produce good, original programmes.
  It is all very well to say that we must keep 15 companies, which will all make regional productions and which are important—let no one regard them as otherwise—but if they are too small, regional production simply will not be very good. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to ensure that our independent television companies are big enough for the quality of programming to be good.
  I wholly agree with the hon. Member for The Wrekin that not all the attention of boards, chairmen and managing directors must be on share prices and huge capital gains. If that were so, I should worry about it, too. What I want to see, however, is an independent television industry big enough to continue to produce extremely good new programming not only for the regions but for export around the world.
  Before continuing—I promise that I shall not speak for long—I must declare an interest. I am a chairman of a new company called Interactive Telephone Services, which is trying to persuade all the television companies to do more interactive programming. That, of course, is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. None the less, I should say that to the House tonight.
  One of the mistakes of the Broadcasting Act 1990—and I was one of its architects at the Home Office—was that we

  451
  listened too much to the argument about the need for regional companies to continue. We were under tremendous pressure to ensure that there was not just one Scottish independent television company, but STV and Grampian, and that Border television continued rather than being merged with Granada or Tyne Tees. We bought that argument, but now, as others including my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) have said, the world has moved on. Those companies are not big enough and will not survive as they are presently constituted.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Lady is an expert on the subject, but if she will forgive me I would rather she made her own contribution than force me to give way to her as I wish to complete my speech reasonably soon.
  Ms Jackson: In the time that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to say no I could have said what I wished to say.
  Mr. Renton: Very well—I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Jackson: I am most grateful. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who spoke with passion about the communications industry and the vision for the future. The communications that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are advertising communications—there is no future for programmes of quality. We have only to look at America, where there are three major companies which service nothing more than the advertising industry. They produce programmes of pap and the advertisements that surround them offend no one. Apparently that is the sort of future that Conservative Members wish to see for the British broadcasting industry—that is a disgrace.
  Mr. Renton: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, she has totally misunderstood the point. The scenario that she has described is precisely what I do not wish to see and do not intend to see.
  The hon. Member for Redcar did not answer my question about the Berlusconi and Bertlesmann takeover. I agree that we obey the EC rules about bids and acquisitions more openly than the Spaniards or the Italians, but as it stands, as from 1 January Berlusconi could make a bid for Central television. If the provisions are not changed, no big British company such as Carlton will be able to bid a higher price. I do not think that that solution would be acceptable to the House.
  The hon. Member for Redcar quoted Lord Buxton. She might have mentioned that he is a founder of Anglia television and has for years fought for the independent survival of Anglia. If anyone is frightened about the takeover of Anglia by continental interests, it is Lord Buxton, because he knows very well that it would be hard for the company to resist it unless a large British company was prepared to take it over. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is paving the way for that to happen, for the survival here of fewer viable units within an independent television sector that will make good programming and also live up to the regional obligations which are written into the licences that the ITC will monitor.
  I hope that the review that my right hon. Friend says that he is to conduct will investigate not only the relationship between broadcasting and the press but the relationship
  452
  between the terrestrial channels and the satellite channels, and between broadcasting and radio. For reasons that we all know—due to the substantial growth of channels, particularly from the Astra satellites—it seems that the position needs to be investigated. I hope that it will come under close scrutiny in the investigation that my right hon. Friend is to conduct. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the difficult steps that he has announced this evening. They are only first steps and they are not easy steps, but it is important to take them.
  12.58 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) prayed in aid of what the Government have done tonight the possible intervention into British television of Bertlesmann and Berlusconi. I strongly question whether anything that the Secretary of State has done tonight has erected an effective barrier against Berlusconi or Bertlesmann if they choose to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman's actions have little to do with protecting British television and have done little to strengthen the capacity of independent television to compete more effectively in other markets. There is already some successful media activity, and Britain has become a European centre for transnational broadcasting. It has become a home for such pan-European channels as MTV Europe, Super Channel, Japansat and Kindernet broadcasting to the Netherlands, and Middle East Broadcasting Centre, TV3 Scandinavia and Kanal 6 broadcasting to the Turks in Europe.
  Substantial activities that did not require the permission of the Secretary of State or the alteration in the ITV map that he is countenancing are going on in this country. Many matters that were left unresolved by the 1990 Act are ripe for consideration. The issue of cross-media ownership is highly anomalous. It is particularly unsatisfactory that foreign companies can acquire British companies although British companies cannot enter the market. There is an imbalance between the position of a company such as Berlusconi looking at acquisitions here and the obstacles in the European Union countries to reverse bids.
  The order does nothing to tackle the problems that face our television industry. What is being done is for financial reasons within Britain, and the consequence is a predictable narrowing of the regional base of broadcasting. During the passage of the 1990 legislation, that was regarded by the Government as the only real justification for maintaining the independent system as we knew it.
  It is strange that the Government should pay so little regard to the views of their own appointed commission on independent television. They have cast to one side and have been somewhat coy about admitting the reasoning of Sir George Russell and his colleagues for seeking an extension of the moratorium. It is strange that the Secretary of State was in such a hurry to allow moves to be made when Sir George Russell and his colleagues made it abundantly clear that the change would be inevitable but should be made in the context of changes that are planned for the BBC in its charter review.
  The commission said that changes should be made in the context of some proper assessment of the decline in advertising revenue for the network as a whole that would result from the increased use of cable and satellite. It also referred to changes that are bound to occur as a result of the

  453
  settling down of the scheme that was put in place only a year ago and those that will arise because of the lack of parity of treatment. Companies had to pay vastly different sums to acquire franchises.
  We are in the middle of seeing how the 1990 Act will work, and to change the ground rules in the way that the Government propose is at best irrelevant to the industry's pressing needs and at worst a further unnecessary destabilisation. We do not have a great deal to go on in looking at the effect of consolidation of the 15 regions, but we have seen what has happened to Yorkshire and Tyne Tees television. In an intervention, a Conservative Member spoke about the effect on Stockton.
  My general impression from speaking to people in the north-east, and Newcastle in particular, is that that consolidation has not been to the benefit of regional broadcasting. It is not simply a matter of a decline in employment in Newcastle: I expect a further decline in broadcasting employment generally. Production activity is being reduced in that greaat and important conurbation of the north-east.
  I cannot see any justification for the proposed takeovers at Carlton and Central other than the avoidance of production by Carlton and the probable stripping out of further capabilities from the two companies. They call that cost cutting and burden sharing and it probably means a reduction in their capability.
  I had hoped that the Secretary of State would adhere to at least the objectives of the 1990 Act in seeking to maintain regional diversity and programme quality and to ensure a degree of stability in the industry while he conducted his review. He has not made the review any easier by the steps he has taken, and I hope that the House will not consider it appropriate to approve the order.
  1.6 am
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It seems incredible that we can be sitting here tonight with the Opposition saying that the moratorium should be continued when the wolves of Berlusconi and Bertlesmann are at ITV's door.
  The order proposed tonight for the ownership of ITV licences is necessary because it will permit ITV to survive in a very hostile world—a world of international media giants and changes in technology which will permit about 104 possible channels. I have seen a demonstration in Winchester which suggested that we could be talking about 208 channels from an ordinary Astra satellite.
  If ITV were confined by an ownership structure which was devised nearly 40 years ago when there was no BBC 2 and no Channel 4, it would have no future. Only the technologically and economically blind could possibly envisage that.
  The core of ITV success has been its capacity to make United Kingdom programmes for United Kingdom viewers, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said this evening. In 1993, far from independent television becoming weaker, the ITV companies spent more than £500 million on original domestic productions for their network. It is, and will continue to be, a major industry.
  While many of us continue to believe that Britain produces some of the best television in the world, we are starting to fall behind our foreign competitors.
  454
  The United Kingdom trade balance for the import and export of television programmes tells a depressing story. In 1985 we enjoyed a £25 million surplus. By 1991 it had fallen and by the year 2000 it is forecast to reach £640 million as new broadcasters turn to cheaper imported programmes. That makes it doubly important for ITV companies to combine their strengths.
  ITV companies must be able to discard the inefficiencies of their current fragmentation if they are to sustain their commitment to the United Kingdom broadcasting network and industry.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in large parts, but if the two takeovers in the newspapers at the moment mean that £2·5 million a week has to come out of programming costs to fund the loans for the bankers, how does that add to programming and production in this country?
  Mr. Fabricant: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assumption First, there has been considerable talk by Opposition Members of Central Television being locally owned. That is not the case, as we know. Central Television is owned mainly by investors from London and its biggest single investor is in Dundee, which certainly is not the midlands. The acquisition of Central Television by Carlton would strengthen the two broadcasting organisations.
  I am not going to speculate on where savings might be made, but there cannot be savings from programming. Although, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, the imposition of fines of 3 and 5 per cent. comes after the fact, like any fine, it is a deterrent. The threat of the licence being withdrawn is the ultimate deterrent. That would happen if the detailed requirements of the ITC licence awarded to both Central and Carlton were not met.
  The world has not stood still since ITV was designed in 1955. It has not even stood still since the Broadcasting Act 1990. ITV needs a strong domestic base, and the confidence to meet new players from the United States of America, Europe and Japan. A number of objections have been raised to the new rules. Almost all of them are based on fundamental misconceptions of the way in which ITV is organised.
  In the short time that I have left, I have three points to make. First, there is no threat to the regional nature of ITV in the new rules. Television stations and their owners are two different things, and they always have been. Nothing in the current rules requires any regional licence to be owned within its region. We have already heard that Central Television is not midlands-owned. It would be better served being owned by Carlton than being owned by Berlusconi or Bertlesmann. If regional ownership, with the essential guarantee of regional programmes, were such a vital necessity, why did the existing ITV companies reduce such regional programming, when it is not regionally owned? The real guarantees of regionality are in the ITC agreement.
  The second guarantee is the powers available to the ITC, and I outlined that in my intervention to the hon. Member for Redcar, and earlier in my talk—[Laughter.]—my speech, my lecture. The ITC has an important role to play in the years ahead, and it is absurd to pretend that commercial restrictive ownership rules are a more

  455
  workable way to protect the public interest. Regional programming is a valuable commodity, and it will be maintained.
  Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: No, I will not, as I have only one minute left.
  Thirdly and lastly, what are the practical options available to the Government? Some have called for a moratorium on takeovers. We cannot stop the clock, sit back and carefully consider ITV ownership. There is no option available to us, because of the change in European rules.
  I live in the midlands, and I would rather have Central Television putting out regional programmes controlled by Carlton than any programmes controlled by the Bertlesmanns and Berlusconis of this world. I commend the order to the House.
  1.13 am
  Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  I shall leave until the end my response to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam)—I intend that as a compliment to her representation of the Opposition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for his robustness and clarity, and for his continuing attention and vigilance on the subject that we have been debating.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) was in favour of regulation of everything. This country is widely regarded as the best-placed market in the world for cable and telecommunications and the interaction between them, because of the Government's insistence on making sure that we avoid becoming over-regulated. The hon. Gentleman said in conclusion that there was nothing in my speech about sustaining the domestic production base. I can only refer him to the text of the speech that I delivered, where he will see that I made it clear that it was the second main objective of the Government's actions. With admirable appositeness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) made exactly the same point—that the maintenance of the domestic production base lies at the heart of our policy. In the cross-media review, we shall not only consider the relations of broadcasting and the press but go much wider.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a case not just of the ITC enforcing the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 but of enforcing the terms of the licence based on the applications made by the franchisees, which include regional production of major network television?
  Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right. On at least one major occasion this year, the ITC has returned to that very issue.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) also referred to cross-media ownership, but the foreign companies that might bid in this market will be subject to exactly the same rules as British companies. The rules apply to bidders from any direction. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said about regional output, I merely quantify what I said earlier. On the basis of the first
  456
  nine months, there will be 11,000 hours of regional output in the current year, whereas there were 8,250 in the previous ones.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) impressed everyone on the Select Committee on National Heritage by his knowledge of this subject, and he added to his reputation tonight.
  In my remaining two minutes, I deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Redcar. I thought that there was in her speech a touch of "Stop the world, I want to get off." From what she said, one would not have thought that the Labour party opposed the introduction of commercial television in the first place or that it opposed the introduction of Channel 4. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that regional television was dying, despite the increase in regional programming hours that I have described, and in particular animadverted on Granada. One would not think that Granada has just been nominated for 12 BAFTA awards, eight more than any other ITV company. The hon. Lady's position on the moratorium was essentially protectionist. The hon. Member for Redcar is said to be much more open minded.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the Opposition's spokesman on broadcasting, said a couple of weeks ago that the Opposition were contemplating a "mid-course correction"—not before time, I should say, but so much for the intellectual continuity of the Opposition's case. I give the hon. Member for Redcar credit for having maintained the Opposition's enthusiasm for a moratorium, although her grounds have subtly shifted. The Independent on Sunday reported that the hon. Lady had
  "surprised observers by coming out in favour of complete deregulation of ITV".
  I detect in her the characteristic of the Liberal Democrat—of running with the hare and apologising to the hounds when they catch up.
  Bruce Gyngell, the former chief executive of TV-am, called the proposed changes
  "the best news I've heard for British broadcasting in the last 10 or 15 years."
  I have never been much given to hyperbole—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 109.

  Division No. 22]

  [1.18 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Congdon, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Brazier, Julian

  Couchman, James

  Bright, Graham

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  457

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Devlin, Tim

  Merchant, Piers

  Dicks, Terry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Duncan, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Eggar, Tim

  Norris, Steve

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Openheim, Philip

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Richards, Rod

  Forman, Nigel

  Riddick, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Forth, Eric

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Sackville, Tom

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Gallie, Phil

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Gorst, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hague, William

  Sproat, Iain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Harris, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Stephen, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Stern, Michael

  Horam, John

  Sykes, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thomason, Roy

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Trend, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waller, Gary

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Watts, John

  Legg, Barry

  Wells, Bowen

  Leigh, Edward

  Whitney, Ray

  Lidington, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Lightbown, David

  Whittingdale, Ann

  MacKay, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Maclean, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Madel, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Malone, Gerald

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mans, Keith

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Marlow, Tony

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clelland, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbett, Robin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Gunnell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hall, Mike

  Cryer, Bob

  Hanson, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hinchliffe, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Hood, Jimmy

  Davidson, Ian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dixon, Don

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  458

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pike, peter L.

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Robinson, peter (Belfast E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Short, Clare

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCrea, Rev William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Maxton, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Meale, Alan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michael, Alun

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wilson, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Wise, Audrey

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morley, Elliot

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

  Broadcasting
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. &c.)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
      That the draft Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

      LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
      That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1993, which laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
      That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Limit) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
      SCHOOL MILK
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7825/93, relating to the supply of milk and certain milk products at reduced prices to schoolchildren; and acknowledges the Government's efforts in securing an agreement which, whilst reflecting the need for budgetary restraint, safeguards the viability of the scheme.
      STATE AID FOR COAL
      That this House takes note of European Document No. 4569/93, relating to State aid to the coal industry; and endorses the Government's intention to work for Council assent to a replacement Decision based on the document in timely fashion before the present Decision expires on 31st December 1993.

      COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8107/93, relating to Community research and development; and endorses the Government's negotiating objectives of securing both excellence and value for taxpayers' money in these activities, enhancing their contribution to economic competitiveness, and seeking in particular an overall amount for the Fourth Framework Programme and a detailed breakdown of expenditure between activities that reflects the United Kingdom's interests and priorities.—[Mr. Conway.]
      Question agreed to.

    PETITION

      Sunday Trading
      1.29 am
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Despite earlier events, I rise to present a petition organised by the Association of Master Bakers and presented to me late yesterday by its president. The petition contains 15,000 signatures of owners, staff and customers of independent bakeries in England and Wales.
      The petition declares that the future of many small food shops is being put at risk by the decision of many supermarket groups to trade on Sundays to the detriment of the variety, vitality and viability of traditional shopping areas in towns and villages in England and Wales, to the detriment of customer choice and to the detriment of employment prospects.
      The petitioners therefore request that this honourable House of Commons debate the future of food retailing in England and Wales and take account of all relevant social, environmental and economic factors when debating the reform of the Shops Act 1950.
      And the petitioners, remaining the loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, offer their humble respect to the House of Commons.
      I beg leave to present the petition.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Foster Carers (Pensions)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  1.31 am
  Ms Ann Coffey: I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring the issue of foster carers and their access to pensions before the House. Perhaps I could begin with some facts. According to statistics produced by the National Foster Care Association, there are approximately 27,000 foster families in the United Kingdom and around 40,000 children in foster care. I congratulate the National Foster Care Association on its ceaseless campaigning on behalf of foster carers.
  The majority of children in care or accommodated by any local authority are in foster homes. In my town of Stockport, 58 per cent. of children in the care of the local authority are in foster homes. Those children range from 0 to 16 years of age. The reason I am giving those rather dry statistics is to give an appreciation of the valuable service offered by foster parents to local authorities for children in need.
  I shall give some more statistics. According to a written answer to a parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on 4 March, 1993, the average cost to the Exchequer is £102 per week for a foster placement, £530 per week for a children's home and £943 per week for a registered voluntary home. I make it absolutely clear that not many foster parents receive as much as £120 per week. Indeed, according to figures calculated by the National Foster Care Association and other sources, only 3 per cent. of foster carers receive any financial reward in the way of a wage. The remaining 97 per cent. receive only boarding-out payments.
  As hon. Members will be aware, boarding-out rates differ. In the north west, which is of specific interest to me, the figures are £42·75 for a child up to seven years and £46·41 for a child from eight to 10 years. I could continue to give the boarding-out rates, but I think I have made my point. The boarding-out payment is intended to cover all the costs associated with care of the child including food, replacement clothing, heating, dinner money, hospital visits, family outings and many other items.
  Foster parents, unlike child minders, cannot set their own charges. Such charges are decided by local authorities. For many years, foster carers have said that the boarding-out rate does not cover the cost of care, which is subsidised by the foster family out of its pocket and good will. I wish to emphasis that because I shall return to good will later in my speech.
  I can remember visiting a children's home some 15 years ago when I was a social worker. That home had a residential nursery, as many children's homes had in those days. Happily, those days are gone because foster carers are available to provide family care to children. Indeed it would cost the Government a fortune to accommodate those 40,000 children in foster care. In Stockport alone, homes would have to be found for 167 children. By my estimate, that means six new homes. I emphasise those economic arguments because I know that the Government will appreciate them.
  To return to the children—who are, after all, the important people in the debate—they are not easy children. They often come from disturbed backgrounds. They come into foster care with emotional, physical and educational

  461
  difficulties. They come at short notice. They can stay for unplanned periods. They can be very needy of love and endless attention. Looking after them needs skill, patience and perseverance.
  Foster parents have other tasks: for example, helping to write and give evidence in court and preparing children for eventual adoption. In addition, the Children Act 1989 requires foster parents to work closely with the children's family, which may involve visits from the family to the foster parent's home—a very sensitive area.
  There is an increasing difficulty in attracting foster carers because it is becoming a tough job although it has its rewards. I fear that the Government are relying on good will too heavily and that that good will may be running out. Some authorities are having so much difficulty in recruiting foster parents that, for instance, one local authority has been known to use child minders as an emergency measure, paying them at an hourly rate. In some cases, that could cost up to £200 or £300 for an emergency placement.
  In this debate I am asking the Government to provide their share of good will and do something for foster carers that will underline the fact that they are valued and that their contribution is valued. I am asking the Government to extend home responsibility protection to foster carers.
  The recent Budget confirmed the Government's commitment to encourage men and women to take responsibility for their own pension arrangements. It also confirmed a move towards establishing a state pension age of 65 for women. That move poses an especial problem for women foster carers because the great majority of them are not in paid employment and are therefore unable to make private pension arrangements. Although a few foster families receive a small fee in addition to the normal cost of looking after children, approximately 97 per cent. of all foster families in the UK receive no taxable fee-paying element whatsoever. That means that women who are not in paid employment because they are looking after foster children in their own home are at a disadvantage compared with women in outside paid employment and those caring for their own children and not in employment, who receive some protection of their pension rights.
  At present, home responsibility protection is automatically paid to anyone in receipt of child benefit, and ceases when the child is 16. I should like home responsibility protection to be extended to foster carers who are at home and not in paid employment.
  As well as an extension of home responsibility protection to foster carers, I should also like there to be an extension of the maximum number of years that home responsibility protection can be granted to foster carers. Twenty years is the current maximum. Foster carers who have themselves been parents will possibly not start caring for other people's children until a later stage in their lives and are therefore likely to have used up most or all of their rights to home responsibility protection in caring for their own children.
  Unless the maximum of years is extended, provision for home responsibility protection is unlikely in itself to have significant impact on the majority of foster families. Figures produced by the National Foster Care Association show that the average woman foster carer is in her middle to late forties. A sample of 4,185 foster families from 30
  462
  local authorities throughout the UK showed that 66 per cent.—two out of three—were aged over 40 and 62 per cent. were aged between 40 and 60. I should therefore like home responsibility protection to be extended to foster carers who are looking after children in their own home and do not have children under the age of 16. I should also like the number of years that they need to be in paid employment to qualify for a pension in their own right to be reduced.
  The alternative to the extension of home responsibility protection would be to use the money saved from child benefit when children are looked after by local authorities to pay voluntary national insurance contributions for foster carers so long as they continue to provide a service, as sums are currently saved by the Government because child benefit does not pass from parents to local authorities or to carers after the first eight weeks of any care episode.
  The Government may say that they would need an army of civil servants to identify and keep records of any entitlement to HRP or voluntary national insurance contributions for foster carers, but it is now possible for the local authority to inform the appropriate Government Department of the foster carers who are approved and registered by them annually. It would seem to be a fairly easy arrangement for the local authority at the end of each financial year to send a list of approved carers to the local social security offices. The officers could then record those carers either for HRP purposes or for the crediting of voluntary contributions.
  I tabled a question on 27 April 1993:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the home responsibility protection to foster carers who do not receive a financial reward from fostering; and if he will give reasons for his answer."
  The reply was:
  "Eligibility for HRP is dependent on entitlement to certain benefits, primarily child benefit. To avoid double provision from public funds for the cost of child care, child benefit is not paid to foster carers who receive an allowance from the local authority. Consequently HRP is not available in these cases."—[Official Report, 27 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 382.]
  However, I am not talking about the cost of child care, because it is clear that the Exchequer benefits from the contributions of foster parents. I am talking about the cost of foster care to the foster parents themselves. It is only fair that the home responsibility allowance should be extended to them.
  In extending the allowance, the Government would offer recognition and show that they value the enormous amount of work done day after day by countless foster parents who pick up the pieces of desperate family situations and provide valuable care for the victims—the children. It would be grossly unfair for the Government to continue to withhold home responsibility protection.
  To sum up the arguments, we need foster carers for children. Foster carers save money. They should therefore not suffer financially when they reach pension age after a lifetime of service to the community. No doubt the Minister will acknowledge that contribution, and he will be sincere in doing so. I ask him to carry that sentiment further and agree to consider the issue again. If he does, he will give a valuable and overdue message to foster carers. He will be saying, "We thank you for caring for our children and in return we shall try to look after you." Surely we do not want foster parents to be consigned to an old age of poverty on the minimum state pension as a result of their

  463
  lifetime of service to the community. I ask the Minister to reconsider, and to extend home responsibility protection to foster carers.
  1.41 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on securing the debate, albeit at a time of night at which attendance in the House is much diminished. However, we are joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) is also with us—but, of course, he is here in his capacity as a Whip, and Whips never sleep anyway, so his being here is not the result of any special effort on his part.
  I know from the background of the hon. Member for Stockport, and from the question that she asked earlier this year, which she mentioned, that this is a subject close to her heart and one of which she has great experience. I have listened carefully to what she has said and have been impressed by the care and concern with which she has put the issue before the House.
  It is, of course, important for all people to think about their pension rights and to plan for their income in retirement, and I would not want to discourage foster carers or anyone else from doing so. On the contrary, the Department of Social Security is devoting considerable effort to encouraging people to consider the matter early in their working lives. Some foster carers will, of course, have built up or will be entitled to pension rights acquired at other times in their working lives, or through their wives or husbands, but I will discuss that aspect in a moment.
  It may be useful for me to begin by clarifying briefly the conditions that have to be satisfied for receipt of state retirement pension. The basic state pension is paid at the full rate of £56·10 per week to anyone, man or woman, who has paid full rate national insurance contributions for about 90 per cent. of his or her working life. National insurance credits are available to assist people who are absent from the work force, and therefore not able to make contributions, for specific reasons such as sickness or unemployment. People are thus allowed a gap of some five years in their record without its affecting their basic pension. A scaled down rate of basic pension is available to anyone with reduced contributions, provided that they have at least a 25 per cent. record.
  As the hon. Lady is doubtless aware, many married women have retained their right not to pay full rate contributions, choosing to rely instead on the pension paid to them on their husbands' contributions, at 60 per cent. of the husband's basic pension—normally £33·70 a week. While I am on that subject, it may be appropriate to mention that where a marriage ends in divorce a married woman who was seeking to rely on her husband's record should not lose out. On retirement, she is still able to use her former husband's record for the years of the marriage where her own record is insufficient.
  Additional to the basic pension, of course, we have SERPS. People have been building up their rights to that additional earnings-related pension since 1978. It is becoming an increasingly large part of the state pensions provision and is set to become even more so as the scheme matures. Entitlement to the basic state pension can, of course, be improved through home responsibilities
  464
  protection, to which the hon. Lady referred. That provision exists to protect the basic pension position of people who are unable to work regularly and are unable to make their own contributions because they are precluded from the employment field due to caring responsibilities at home. It applies to those who are caring for sick or disabled people at home, but its primary application and the one that is relevant to this discussion is in relation to people who are raising a family.
  I should make clear for the record, because there is often confusion about it, that HRP is not a contribution credit and does not make up a deficiency in a person's contribution record. It reduces the number of qualifying years that a person needs to qualify for a full basic pension, and there is a maximum on the number of years, as the hon. Lady has already described.
  HRP was brought in by the Labour Government in 1978. They designed it to be of benefit with only the simplest of qualifying criteria as a passport entitlement which was based on the receipt of a qualifying benefit—in this case, child benefit. HRP coverage in cases of child benefit extends until the child is 16.
  As the then Under-Secretary of State and former hon. Member for Rotherham, the late Brian O'Malley, said at the time of the introduction of the relevant legislation in 1975,
  "it is right that we should adopt a 'broad brush' approach to this to keep the system as simple and as straightforward as possible … We should hope to identify most people eligible for protection during periods of home responsibilities by reference to social security benefits in payment … By far the largest group will be those who are at home looking after children and they will be readily identified through the proposed new system of child benefits which will replace the present system of family allowances."
  So the broad brush nature of HRP is well established and dates back to previous Governments.
  Why, then, it might be argued, can we not extend child benefit entitlement to foster carers? The purpose of child benefit is to provide a measure of financial assistance for families with dependent children. It is paid directly to the person having care of the child—usually the mother. As well as replacing the previous family allowance, it broadly takes the place of the tax allowances which used to be available to the working parent. It is an established principle of social security provision that there should be no double provision from public funds for the same contingency. For this reason, child benefit is not payable where a foster carer receives a fostering allowance from a local authority. Similar provision existed prior to 1977 under the old family allowance scheme. In my view, and in the view of Governments over many years, that is right. Clearly it would not be satisfactory to use taxpayers' funds to make double provision. I have to say that, in keeping with that long-established principle, we have no plans to change the existing provisions.
  If child benefit cannot and should not be paid in those circumstances, could or should HRP be extended to foster carers by some other route? In theory, of course, it could be, although it could be administratively complex and would be a departure from the simple, broad brush nature of the system as was devised by our predecessors.
  Successive Governments have taken the view that such a change should not be made, partly because of the factors that I have described, partly because the pension

  465
  entitlements of foster carers can be built up in other ways and partly because of the provision made for foster carers elsewhere in the benefit system.
  Many foster carers will, naturally, have a husband or a wife who is building up or has built up a full contribution record. A wife can be awarded a category B pension, raising the pension entitlement to the full state pension for a couple on the strength of the husband's contributions. If she is below pension age, the same addition to the husband's pension may be made as an adult dependency increase. Under the proposals made last week for equalising the state pension age, such additions and category B pensions will in future be awarded for a husband on the strength of a wife's contributions as well as the other way round.
  Other foster carers will be bringing up children of their own at the same time as they are being foster carers. In their cases, HRP will already be available. I recognise that a majority of foster carers are over 40 and many will already have brought up their own children, with the result that the period during which they could claim child benefit will have come to an end. However, HRP may be of limited further value in many such cases, as the hon. Lady recognised, since 20 years is currently the maximum number of years for which HRP can be awarded. We plan to raise this to 22 years when the state pension age is equalised. The maximum will be 22 years for men and women. To raise it to more than half the working life required to claim a full state pension would seriously erode the contributory nature of the state pension scheme.
  So it is by no means always the case that foster carers' pension entitlements will suffer as a result of their work, nor is it necessarily the case that their position would be improved by changing the basis on which HRP is awarded, although that would help some people. It can be argued that where pension entitlements might suffer, the state scheme leaves it open to people to take their own action to safeguard their pension provision through the payment of voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions, currently set at £5·45 a week.
  On top of this is the additional consideration that the social security system already provides, quite rightly, some help to foster carers. A foster parent who satisfies the other conditions for income support can qualify for that benefit. Although people would normally be debarred from IS if they work more than 16 hours a week, foster parents are not debarred, however many hours a week they devote to
  466
  fostering. The fostering allowance is totally disregarded, although no allowance is made in the IS assessment for the foster child.
  Alternatively a person who is employed as a foster parent for at least 16 hours a week can qualify for family credit on the basis of that work. In the great majority of cases, of course, that person would be better off on IS, but again the fostering allowance is totally disregarded in the FC assessment.
  This brings me to the subject of the fostering allowance itself. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the arrangements for fostering are covered by a comprehensive set of regulations which are the responsibility of my colleagues in the Department of Health. Fostering is arranged through local authorities who pay foster carers a weekly allowance to cover additional living costs associated with caring. Higher rates go to those caring for children with special needs. I am advised by the Health Department that the number of foster carers has remained fairly constant in recent years, at about 30,000. The amounts they receive vary from £50 to £200 a week, with the average being in the order of £100. I recognise, however, from what the hon. Lady said that some payments may be lower than £50. The fact that foster carers are recompensed by the local authority for the work they do is obviously another factor which must be considered when weighing these issues.
  I would not wish to deny that the hon. Lady has raised a subject of perfectly legitimate concern for some people. She has presented her case powerfully. It does, however, have to be seen against a background of long-established arrangements which have been adhered to through successive Parliaments and Governments of both parties; of the need for tight controls of public expenditure now and in the future requiring all spending proposals to be judged against other priorities; of the alternative routes available for many foster carers to build up or purchase pension entitlement; and of the extensive and well justified provision already made to help them in their work. When we have, quite rightly, to reassure ourselves that every aspect of social spending is justified and defensible, I cannot conclude at present that there exists a sufficiently strong case for changing the present long-standing arrangements.
  I accept, however, that the hon. Lady has raised some valid points on behalf of a group of people who perform a sterling service to the children in their care and to society generally, and I will look in detail at the points that she has raised and the implications of what she has proposed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Brooke
  In the financial year 1992–93, the cost to the Department of the Government car service for Ministers was £167,000. Two vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of National Heritage was not formed until April 1992, therefore data in the form requested are not available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the budget for criminal legal aid for the current financial year; and what amount it is estimated will be spent.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The net provision for criminal legal aid for the current financial year is £564 million, inclusive of the duty solicitor schemes and criminal green form. Latest forecasts suggest an outturn of around £535 million.

  Courts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many court sitting days recorders were engaged in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of court days sat by recorders in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was 16,251, 17,898, 17,046 and 18,056 respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many court sitting days deputy registrars, latterly deputy district judges, were engaged in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of court days sat by deputy registrars, latterly deputy district judges, during the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was 10,750, 13,642, 18,407 and 20,012 respectively.
  216
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many court sitting days deputy recorders were engaged in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of court days sat by assistant recorders in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was 8,804, 9,296, 9,209 and 9,618 respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department on how many court sitting days deputy circuit jud es were engaged in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of court days sat by deputy circuit judges in the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 was 1,455, 1,817, 1,546 and 1,119 respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was paid by the public in plaint fees and issue fees in the High Court registries and county courts in the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and during 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not all readily available. Data on district registry fee income are not disagregated, so no separate data are held for issue fees in High Court registries. Plaint and issue fee income in the county courts for the years requested was as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  59,317,960·34

  1989–90

  71,177,637·85

  1990–91

  85,882,609·11

  1991–92

  99,954,524·94

  1992–93

  98,647,663·98

EDUCATION

  Religious Education
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many responses he has received from the standing advisory councils for religious education to the draft DFE circular 10/93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. DFE circular 10/93 deals with the grants for education support and training programme for 1994–95, and seeks responses only from local education authorities.

  The Department has received 42 responses from the standing advisory councils for religious education to the draft circular "Religious Education and Collective Worship", which issued on 11 October.

  Legal Courses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many discretionary grants have been awarded by local education authorities to enable students to pursue(a) the legal practice course and (b) the bar finals;

  (2) what is the standard level of discretionary grant given by local authorities for (a) legal practice course and (b) the bar finals course.
  217
  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The provision of discretionary awards is a matter for local education authorities, as is the value of such awards.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many students are currently taking(a) the legal practice course and (b) the bar finals course;

  (2) how many self-financing students are currently taking (a) the legal practice course and (b) the bar finals course.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information from the Law Society shows that 6,566 students were enrolled on the legal practice course for 1993–94. For the bar finals course, the Council of Legal Education's statistics show that 1,022 students took the course in 1992–93. Figures for numbers of self-financing students are available only for the bar finals course. These show that during 1992–93 618 out of 1,022 students received no local authority grant.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the relationship between Ofsted and the Department for Education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ofsted is a non-ministerial Government Department established by the Education (Schools) Act 1992. It is headed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Schools, Professor Stewart Sutherland, who is required to advise my right hon. Friend on the quality of education and standards achieved in schools and to oversee the new system of independent four-yearly inspections of schools.

  My right hon. Friend wrote to all hon. Members on 11 November 1992 explaining the work of Ofsted and its relationship with the Department.

  Sex Education
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether local education authorities will be required to monitor the numbers of parents exercising their right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to introduce mandatory sex education and at what ages;

  (2) what he is doing to introduce compulsory AIDS tuition into schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Education Act 1993, all maintained secondary schools will from autumn 1994 be required to provide sex education for all their registered pupils, including education about HIV and AIDS. All maintained special schools will be required to provide such education for all their pupils of secondary age.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parents exercised the right to exclude their children from sex education lessons in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  There was no statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons in the 218
  years in question. Under section 241 of the Education Act 1993 we are introducing, from September 1994, the right for the parent of a pupil in attendance at any maintained school to withdraw that pupil from all or part of the school's sex education provision other than those elements which are a requirement of the national curriculum.

  Union Flag
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of purchasing and installing the Union flag in the foyer of the Department for Education.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of purchasing the flag, the flagstaff and base was £150, excluding VAT.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bomb-proofing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost of bomb-proofing(a) No. 10 and (b) No. 11 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  On security grounds, I do not propose to give this information.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  The Prime Minister
  r: The charge to my office for ministerial use of the Government car service during 1992–93 was £107,395. Two vehicles are involved.

  EU Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to environmental protection he intends to raise at the European Union Heads of Government summit in Brussels on 10 to 11 December.

  The Prime Minister
  The Council will focus on the European economy and the Commission White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment. It will also consider the Commission's report on subsidiarity. I shall continue to emphasise the importance of properly sustainable development, in accordance with the treaty provisions.

TRANSPORT

  Trans-European Road Network
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the route and construction of United Kingdom roads included in the trans-European road network are subject to the planning process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  All schemes in the Department's roads programme, including any on routes in the trans-European road network, are subject to the same procedures.

  Motorway Cones
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to improve the safe and secure laying of cones and the removal of unnecessary cones on motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The laying out of traffic cones has to follow procedures laid down in chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. This sets out British standards requirements for the cones themselves, how they should be positioned at roadworks—in the interests of road workers' safety as well as road users—and how they should be removed as soon as they are no longer required. It is a condition of highway contracts on motorways and other trunk roads that contractors, and their traffic management sub-contractors, adopt the requirement of chapter 8. Together with Health and Safety at Work etc. Act legislation, this already imposes considerable safety obligations on all those concerned with the placement, management and removal of traffic cones. Nevertheless, the Department is constantly reviewing its safety procedures and guidance.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have occurred on motorways as a result of stray motorway cones in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department does not keep records or statistics which show whether any motorway accidents have been caused by stray traffic cones.

  East and West Coast Main Lines
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the estimated repayments which will need to be made on capital raised for improvements to the west coast main line; how these costs will be recouped; what estimate he has as to the average extra cost per journey for passengers and carriers of freight imposed by the need to make these repayments; and what are the equivalent projected costs on the east coast line.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend announced on 1 December that Railtrack will be working with the private sector to devise new performance standards for the west coast main line and that a private sector consortium will be selected by competition to build and maintain the line.

  The precise cost of the project, and therefore the level of repayments, will not be known in advance of that competition.

  Cost comparisons with the east coast main line are inappropriate. The east coast main line project, from commencement of planning to the start of the new service in 1991, took some 10 years to complete. The lines also have different patterns of use.

  Roads, Southport
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he next expects to visit Southport to inspect the site of proposed improvements to the trunk road network to Preston;

  (2) when he expects to visit Southport to inspect the site of the A565 proposed road improvements;

  (3) when he expects to visit Southport to inspect the site of the A570 Ormskirk to Southport bypass.
  220
  Mr. Key
  It would be a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, but I have no plans to visit the sites of these proposed schemes. I shall, though, consider carefully the response to public consultation on the proposed improvements to the A570 and A59 trunk roads.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the table.

  Television

  Radio

  Press

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  4,911,000

  402,000

  1,486,000

  1991–92

  4,396,000

  626,000

  772,000

  1992–93

  1,792,000

  429,000

  2,296,000

  Notes:

  1. The total spend in 1990–91 was £4,360,000 but a breakdown is not immediately available.

  2. The Department did not exist independently prior to August 1988.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to reply in full to a letter from an hon. Member.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 29 November at column 429.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information he has on dealers at car boot sales fraudulently claiming benefits;

  (2) if he will list the occupations most frequently claimed by those fraudulently claiming benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Douglas French, dated 7 December 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the occupations of people fraudulently claiming benefit; including in particular dealers at car boot sales.
  I regret that I am unable to provide the information you request as statistics are not kept on the occupations of those who are found to be fraudulently claiming benefit.
  I can tell you, however, that from October this year I have established a new Security Branch with a responsibility to ensure a co-ordinated and strategic approach to fraud and security matters; and to protect future expenditure against fraud and abuse.

  221
  Part of this co-ordinated response is to maintain statistics that allow analysis of the fraud effort in terms of prevention, deterrence and detection. At the same time we must ensure that statistics are not kept for their own sake and to this end the new Branch is currently examining what statistics are necessary to achieve the three aims I have outlined.
  I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot be more helpful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Development Boards
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget allocated by his Department to industrial development boards in 1992–93 in(a) the Northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The industrial development boards advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on applications for selective financial assistance and on industrial opportunities within their areas. The boards do not have budgetary responsibility for schemes providing selective financial assistance which have centrally held budgets.

  Country

  Year of visit

  Saudi Arabia:

  Secretary of State (then Mr. Ridley)

  November 1989

  President

  January 1993

  Minister for Energy

  May 1993

  Malaysia:

  Minister for Energy

  September 1993

  Minister for Trade

  September and November 1993

  Singapore:

  Minister for Trade (then Lord Trefgarne)

  July 1990

  Minister for Industry (then Lord Reay)

  February 1992

  Baroness Denton

  May and September 1993

  Minister for Trade

  June and December 1993

  South Africa:

  Minister for Trade (then Mr. Sainsbury)

  November 1991

  There is no record of whether these visits included party political activities.

  Tobacco
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of(a)imports of tobacco and tobacco paper and (b) exports of finished tobacco products in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the topic is regularly published by the Central Statistical Office in Business Monitor MA20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Unmanufactured and manufactured tobacco are classified to headings 121 and 122 respectively of the Standard International Trade Classification, while cigarette paper is classified under headings 641.55 and 642.41.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the names of the consultants employed to review the future of(a) the Patent Office, (b) Warren Springs Laboratory and (c) AEA Technology and the costs of employing such consultants in the year 1992–93, with the sum estimated for 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The consultants employed in each case were(a) Price Waterhouse, (b) PA Consulting and (c) BZW. The fees paid to these firms are confidential for commercial reasons.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Ministers in his Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malysia, (c) Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A central record of official ministerial visits overseas during the period in question has not been kept for all markets. The list that follows may therefore not be comprehensive.

  Textiles
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the lowest and highest rates of EC customs import duties for both textile and clothing products.

  Mr. Needham
  The common customs tariff charged on imports into the Community ranges from 0 per cent. to 17 per cent. for textiles and from 6.3 per cent. to 14 per cent. for clothing.

  Hosiery Industry
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the hosiery industry about the level of sock imports from Indonesia and from whom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  On 25 October the Knitting Industries Federation wrote to my Department to request action to restrict sock imports from Indonesia. The case is being evaluated and my officials will contact the federation shortly.
  223
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total of all imports of socks into the United Kingdom (category 12 of the multi-fibre arrangement)(a) in total and (b) from Indonesia, in terms of quantity, value and average price for each of the years from 1990 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested for multi-fibre arrangement category 12 is given in the table.

  MFA category 12 imports

  From Indonesia

  United Kingdom total

  Year

  quantity million pairs

  value £ million

  price pence per pair

  quantity million pairs

  value £ million

  price pence per pair

  1990

  12·2

  3·1

  25

  89·7

  52·4

  58

  1991

  16·7

  5·0

  30

  117·4

  67·9

  58

  1992

  38·9

  11·4

  29

  187·9

  93·6

  50

  Bonding
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies his Department has made of the extent to which bonding requirements act as a barrier to exports by small and medium-sized United Kingdom companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I am not aware of any studies made by my Department into bonding requirements on exporters. Funding bonds is a matter for the private commercial sector, but I would be interested to see details of any particular cases the hon. Member may have.

  Agency Agreements
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to advise United Kingdom companies of the effect of EC directives on the formalisation of agency agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin

  A commercial agent is a
  "self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person (the 'principal') or to negotiate and conclude the 'sale or purchase of goods on behalf of and in the name of that principal".

  The regulations are designed to lay down minimum requirements governing the contracts between commercial agents and their principals. In particular, they provide the agent with additional benefits which may not currently be available under United Kingdom common law, for example the right to a written contract if he requests one. The regulations have been the subject of consultations with industry in 1987, 1990 and in June this year. A number of revisions to the regulations have been made. The major amendments are:—
  (i) Applicable Law: The regulations lay down the basic rule that it is where the agent is, rather than the principal, that determines whether the regulations apply but also enable the parties to opt for the law of another member State to govern the contract.
  (ii) Secondary Activities: The regulations now define the core or essential activities of a commercial agent and
  224
  provide for those who do not satisfy these criteria to be excluded. Such activities would be secondary. There are specific exclusions for mail order agents and consumer credit agents.
  (iii) Indemnity/Compensation: Following comments received from industry, the regulations now provide for the parties to choose either an indemnity or compensation payment upon termination of an agency contract. This will allow greater flexibility.

  A cost compliance assessment on the possible costs to industry of implementing the EC directive is being made available. In addition, guidance notes will be issued in the near future, detailing what we believe is the intention behind the directive. Copies of this guidance note and the cost compliance assessment will be available from the following address:—

  Consumer Affairs Division 2a

  Room 325

  10-18 Victoria Street

  London

  SW1H ONN

  Copies of the regulations themselves will be available from HMSO bookshops.

  Fur
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of fur and fur product exports from the United Kingdom in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Value of United Kingdom Exports of fur and fur products

  Year

  £ million

  1984

  268·0

  1985

  231·7

  1986

  227·9

  1987

  267·6

  1988

  192·1

  1989

  141·8

  1990

  63·4

  1991

  44·7

  1992

  45·9

  Fur and fur products are defined by headings 212, 613 and 848·31 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how his Department was represented at the test to simulate a meltdown accident at a pressurised water reactor, held in France on 3 December; and what are the implications of the results of this test in regard to the future safety of the Sizewell B power plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department was not represented at the test carried out at Cadarache by the Commissariat a l'Engergie Atomique—the French nuclear safety R and D organisation. However, I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority is involved by means of an exchange agreement with the CEA under the nuclear safety R and D programme which is sponsored by the Health and Safety Executive. Both the HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate and Nuclear Electric will be informed of the results through the CEA-AEA agreement. It is not expected that the test will produce results which would affect the safety case prepared for Sizewell B.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the target population set by the European Commission for objective 2 status for areas in the United Kingdom; and by what percentage of the population the list submitted by Her Majesty's Government either exceeds or falls short of their target.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no target population set by the Commission for United Kingdom objective 2 areas. The procedure is governed by article 9 of Council Regulation 2081/93 which, among other things, sets out various statistical criteria, requires member states to propose areas, and requires the Commission to establish the list taking into account national priorities in consultation with the member state concerned.

  One of the recitals to the regulation, which is not legally binding, states that objective 2
  "could cover up to 15 per cent. of the Community population".

  The Government's proposals for the United Kingdom amount to approximately 23·5 million population. I understand that the proposals of all member states together amount to 22·5 per cent. of the Community population. I am discussing our proposals with the Commissioner responsible. Our consultation will be governed by article 9 of the Council regulation.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government are differentiating between areas which had first obtained assisted area status before 1993 from those areas which have recently acquired this status, in their representations for objective 2 status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The Government's proposals for objective 2 are based on the criteria in article 9 of Council regulation 2081/93.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are claiming tax relief for private health insurance; and what proportion of these are higher rate taxpayers in (i) Great Britain and (ii) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that about 350,000 people in the United Kingdom receive tax relief on their private medical insurance premiums for those aged 60 or more. About 1 per cent. are higher rate taxpayers. Separate information for Northern Ireland is not available.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss in revenue resulting from an increase in the single person's tax allowance of(a) £50, (b) £100, (c) £150, (d) £200, (e) £250 and (f) £300; and how many people would be taken out of tax in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated cost in a full year at 1994–95 income levels from the specified increases in the personal allowance and the number of people taken out of tax are given in the table.226

  Personal allowance

  Revenue cost (£ million)

  Individuals taken out of tax (thousands)

  Increased by £50

  320

  120

  Increased by £100

  650

  220

  Increased by £150

  970

  330

  Increased by £200

  1,290

  470

  Increased by £250

  1,610

  580

  Increased by £300

  1,920

  680

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the latest estimate of the number of(a) basic rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers; and how many taxpayers are (i) male and (ii) female;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total number of top rate taxpayers;

  (3) what is the latest estimate he has for the number of people who pay income tax at a rate of (a) 20 per cent., (b) 25 per cent. and (c) 40 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates for 1993–94 based on projections from the 1991–92 Survey of Personal Incomes are given in the table.

  Millions

  Taxpayers liable at

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Lower rate only

  1·8

  3·0

  4·8

  Basic rate but not higher rate

  11·4

  7·1

  18·4

  Higher rate

  1·6

  0·3

  1·9

  All taxpayers

  14·8

  10·3

  25·1

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current numbers of(a) corporate taxpayers and (b) income taxpayers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About 350,000 companies pay corporation tax and 25·1 million individuals pay income tax in the United Kingdom.

  Companies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage of Britain's companies that are working at full capacity.

  Mr. Portillo
  According to the October CBI quarterly industrial trends survey 39 per cent. of manufacturing firms were working at capacity. Estimates are not available for the whole company sector.

  Students
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many students pay income tax; and what is the total number of students who pay VAT.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the number of students who pay income tax is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT is chargeable on a wide range of consumer expenditure and it is likely that everybody has to pay some in the course of a year.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total revenues to the Exchequer from North sea oil since May 1979, expressed in 1992 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total revenues to the Exchequer from the North sea since 1979–80 at 1992–93 prices have been £114 billion.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting of European Economic and Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Union met in Brussels on 5 December. I represented the United Kingdom.

  ECOFIN discussed the Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines for the economic policies of member states and of the Community under the new procedures of article 103 of the treaty. ECOFIN agreed a report to the European Council containing the draft guidelines. The treaty requires the European Council to agree conclusions on the basis of this report which will then be translated into a formal Council recommendation at a subsequent meeting of Finance Ministers. The recommendation will not have legally binding force.

  There was a short discussion on the likely content of the Commission White Book on growth, competitiveness and employment. I said that it was unfortunate that the Commission had been unable to prepare a full draft of its White Book in time for it to be considered by the ECOFIN before the European Council. The Commission circulated the text on 6 December and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  There were no formal votes.

  Privatisation (Consultants' Fees)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide details of all fees to consultants and brokers associated with privatisation and share sales of(a) BT since 1982, (b) British Gas since 1986, (c) all regional electric companies since 1998–89, (d) all regional water companies since 1988–89 and (e) the total.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Fees paid to consultants, brokers, and so on as part of the privatisation programme are treated as commercially confidential. Total fees paid to advisers are quantified within the relevant National Audit Office reports published by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For the sales requested, the total fees paid to advisers were:

  £ million

  BT

  1984

  6

  British Gas

  1986

  5

  Water

  1989

  125·8

  BT

  1991

  7·4

  BT

  1993

  25·4

  1 Ex VAT.

  2 To date.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is shown in the table. Figures are given in terms of grade levels which include equivalent grades, and reflects the position as at October 1993. The figures cover only non-industrial staff in post, exclude agency staff and are calculated on a head count basis with part-timers counted as one. The figures are based on the Department's ethnic origin questionnaire which drew a 93 per cent. response rate.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total staff

  Black respondents

  Asian respondents

  Grade level

  1

  5

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  —

  3

  22

  —

  —

  4

  2

  —

  —

  5

  70

  —

  —

  6

  19

  —

  —

  7

  191

  —

  3

  SEO

  90

  1

  2

  HEO

  222

  4

  2

  EO

  301

  12

  9

  AO

  407

  32

  37

  AA

  281

  20

  19

  Value Added Tax
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that value added tax will not be levied on community care transfer moneys in Scotland.

  Sir John Cope
  Community care transfer funds are exempt from VAT when used by recipient bodies to provide welfare services.

  European Investment Fund
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with reference to the Act to amend the statutes of the European investment bank permitting the establishment of a European investment fund—Cm 2359—approved by Parliament on 29 November, he will state(a) the maximum permitted liability of the fund in guarantees, (b) the initial contributed capital subscribed by the European Community as such, by member states, and by others respectively, (c) who will be inviting others to become members of the fund, and what qualifications they are likely to possess, (d) the limitations placed on the fund in respect of the purposes of the enterprises to which assistance is given, (e) when he expects the statutes of the fund to be decided and how and by whom they will be published and (f) who will appoint its governing body, and by what means, and to whom the person representing the interests of Her Majesty's Government on that body will be responsible.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: The rules of operation of the proposed new European Investment Fund are set out in the fund's statute. At

  229
  present, this document exists only in draft form, but it will be adopted by the governors of the European investment bank immediately after they establish the fund itself. If the draft statute is adopted in the form in which it now stands, the situation would be as follows:

  (a) The fund would initially be limited to providing guarantees with a total value of no more than three times the amount of its subscribed capital. Since the fund's subscribed capital is fixed at 2 billion ecu, £1·511 billion, this would mean that it could grant guarantees worth up to 6 billion ecu, £4·534 billion.

  (b) It is envisaged that 40 per cent.—800 million ecu or £605 million—of the fund's initial subscribed capital would be held by the European Investment Bank, 30 per cent.—600 mecu or £453 million—by the European Community, with the remaining 30 per cent.—600 mecu or £453 million—contributed by banks and financial institutions, which operate within the Community, and which agree to become members of the fund.

  (c) It is for the board of governors of the EIB to invite institutions to become members of the fund. So far as participation by banks is concerned, the EIB has approached institutions which are well established, and well known to it as clients, with invitations to take part.

  (d) The fund will operate through the Community in support of small and medium-sized enterprises, and of projects which form part of trans-European networks.

  (e) The statute of the fund will be adopted by the
  governors of the European investment bank immediately after the fund is established. Establishment, in turn, will take place as soon as the treaty amendment which enables this to happen has been ratified by all 12 EC member states. This is expected to occur early in the new year. Once the fund becomes operational it will of course publish its own statute, but in order to avoid delay it may be possible to arrange for the EIB, or the European Commission, to publish the statute in advance of this.

  (f) The fund's supreme governing body will be the annual general meeting. The membership of this body will be fixed by the fund's statute, with all three classes of shareholders participating. The European Community's representative at the meeting will be one of the members of the Commission, and the EIB will be represented by its president. Both of these will be responsible for safeguarding and representing the interests of Her Majesty's Government, by virtue of the United Kingdom's position as a member state of the Community, and a shareholder in the EIB, respectively.

  All figures converted at 30 November 1993 £-ecu conversion rate (£=1·3232 ecu).

  Private Finance Projects
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the 78 private finance projects listed in the appendix to the text of the Chancellor's speech to CBI Scotland's annual dinner issued on 9 September are currently under construction.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: Of the projects listed, 12 have been completed-or, in the case of services, contracts signed-and there are 17 which are under construction or for which contracts have been signed.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action he is taking to ensure that those individuals who have been wrongly sold personal pension plans are identified and given full redress;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total number of individuals who have been wrongly sold personal pension plans (a) in each of the last five years and (b) since the introduction of the Financial Services Act 1986;

  (3) what is his estimate of the total value of personal pension plans that have been wrongly sold (a) in each of the last five years and (b) since the introduction of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the marketing of personal pensions.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: The responsibility for regulating the marketing of personal pensions and other investment products rests primarily with the Securities and Investments Board, as lead regulator under the Financial Services Act.

  Following the intial findings of a survey commissioned in September into the selling of personal pensions to clients transferring from occupational pension schemes, the chairman of SIB has today set out the action the regulators are taking to establish the extent of any problems that may have resulted from poor compliance with the marketing rules made under the FSA; to rectify any shortcomings; and to obtain remedy for any disadvantage to investors that may have resulted.

  SIB is leading this regulatory action, working closely with the other regulators concerned and with the life insurance industry to establish the extent of the problem and any financial implications for personal pension policyholders. The evidence relates to non-compliance with the regulatory standards. Further detailed work will be needed to assess whether the non-compliance has resulted in poor advice and disadvantage to investors.

  I welcome this initiative, together with the actions already taken by SIB to improve the guidance on the selling of personal pensions. Should the further investigations now under way reveal that any clients have suffered financial loss as a result of bad advice, I have made it clear to SIB that the Government expect effective remedies to be put in place promptly.

  Personal pensions have proved their popularity, combining as they do an opportunity for a flexible career with the security of an income in retirement.

  But as with other investment products people must be able to rely on high standards of professionalism and competence on the part of salesmen and advisers, and be confident that they will not be sold products unsuitable for their requirements.

  I have asked the chairman of SIB to keep me closely informed as this work develops.

WALES

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current estimate of the cost of establishing unitary authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  231
  Mr. Redwood
  The measures in the Local Government (Wales) Bill will result in transitional costs estimated on the basis of a report prepared by consultants to be between £65 million and £150 million over 15 years. The level of these costs will depend on decisions to be taken by the new councils on such matters as staffing levels and management structures. I intend to encourage tight control of costs and believe the consultants' higher figures would be reached only if councils decide to make a large number of existing employees redundant, leading to substantial subsequent revenue savings.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no average annual spend on advertising, but the figures for the two specific years 1979 and 1985, and for the lastest available year 1992–93, are as follows:

  Welsh office publicity spend

  £, 000

  Year

  Radio

  TV

  Press

  Joint1 press and TV

  1979–80

  Nil

  —

  —

  61

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  31

  —

  1992–93

  Nil

  77

  350

  —

  1 Television and Press advertising for the years 1979–85 cannot be readily separated.

  Note:
  In 1992–93 it was decided to advertise the Organ Donor Scheme on TV, which accounted for £70,000 out of the £77,000.

  Schools in existence as at January 1993

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Special

  Clwyd

  14

  13

  13

  13

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  Dyfed

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Gwent

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Gwynedd

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Powys

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  South Glamorgan

  19

  19

  19

  17

  17

  16

  16

  16

  16

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  West Glamorgan

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Wales

  75

  73

  73

  71

  69

  68

  67

  65

  65

  64

  62

  61

  61

  61

  All LEA/GM Schools

  Clwyd

  316

  314

  311

  309

  302

  301

  300

  300

  300

  299

  296

  293

  292

  292

  Dyfed

  400

  398

  392

  387

  382

  379

  372

  365

  365

  359

  354

  354

  354

  352

  Gwent

  343

  338

  328

  324

  321

  312

  296

  293

  287

  283

  279

  278

  265

  263

  Gwynedd

  231

  230

  230

  229

  229

  229

  229

  228

  226

  224

  223

  221

  220

  219

  Mid Glamorgan

  396

  392

  391

  393

  390

  384

  387

  387

  387

  387

  387

  380

  381

  379

  Powys

  147

  145

  141

  138

  138

  136

  134

  132

  131

  131

  130

  129

  126

  126

  South Glamorgan

  239

  236

  232

  222

  219

  213

  211

  211

  210

  210

  210

  209

  210

  210

  West Glamorgan

  238

  236

  226

  215

  210

  208

  208

  204

  203

  202

  198

  198

  198

  198

  Wales

  2,310

  2,289

  2,251

  2,217

  2,191

  2,162

  2,137

  2,120

  2,109

  2,095

  2,077

  2,062

  2,046

  2,039

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publi9sh a table showing the total amount of housing revenue account subsidy payable to local housing

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals have closed in each of the counties of Wales since 1980.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information, which relates to hospitals which have closed since 1 January 1980 and are still closed, is given in the following table. During the same period nine hospitals were opened.

  Health authority

  Number of hospitals closed

  Clwyd

  6

  East Dyfed

  3

  Gwent

  2

  Gwynedd

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  Powys

  1

  South Glamorgan

  4

  West Glamorgan

  4

  TOTAL

  38

  Since 1980 the numbers of patients being treated by the national health service in Wales has increased from 848,432 to 1,248,356 in 1992–93 or 47 per cent.

  School Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools have closed in each Welsh local education authority since 1980.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not collected in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  authorities in Wales in 1992–93, and his estimates for 1993–94 and 1994–95, indicating separately the housing and housing benefit components and showing the difference between the actual subsidy payable and the amount which would have been payable if expenditure on rent rebates had qualified in full for subsidy.
  233
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is set out as follows. The Welsh Office is consulting authorities on subsidy proposals for 1994–95 upon which decisions have yet to be taken.

  £ million

  1992–931 Estimated Outturn

  1993–942 Provisional Outturn

  Housing Element3

  5·1

  3·9

  Rent Rebate Subsidy4 Entitlement

  184·7

  192·3

  Total Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  189·8

  196·2

  Gross Rent Rebate5 Expenditure by local authorities

  212·9

  228·9

  1Local authorities Housing Revenue Account Subsidy 1992–93 Advance Final Claims.

  2Local authorities Housing Revenue Account Subsidy 1993–94 Second Advance Claims.

  3Positive entitlement to housing subsidy.

  4Gross rent rebate expenditure by authorities less incentive area deductions, adjustments for benefit period over-runs and negative housing subsidy entitlements.

  5Rent Rebate expenditure awarded by housing authorities.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for a copy of the British Diabetic Association booklet "Recommendations for Management of Diabetes in Primary Care" to be sent to every general practitioner practice in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The British Diabetic Association has written to all family health services, as managers of primary care services, offering supplies of this booklet for distribution to GP practices. To date, I understand that three authorities in Wales—Clwyd, Powys and West Glamorgan—are arranging for copies to be distributed to practices in their area.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the house condition survey for Wales will be published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The results of the Welsh House Condition Survey are expected to be published in spring 1994.

  Forestry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the Forestry Commission forests and woods in each of the counties of Wales.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each separate piece of land currently owned or leased by the Forestry Commission in Clwyd (a) its name, (b) its area in hectares; and if he will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of land in each county in Wales.234

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Clwyd

  9,457

  Dyfed

  31,002

  Gwent

  8,787

  Gwynedd

  27,954

  Mid Glamorgan

  13,038

  Powys

  31,292

  South Glamorgan

  486

  West Glamorgan

  14,399

  Details of individual forests and woodlands are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have, however, made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual areas to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Political Adviser
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date, on what terms and at what cost to public funds his political adviser Hywell Williams will commence employment; if he will place a copy of his terms of reference in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 4 November 1993, c.334.

  Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to create jobs for the former workers of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have announced a range of measures, attracting Welsh Office support of over £700,000, to assist with economic development in the wake of the closure of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. These include the funding of the project manager for the South Gwynedd Partnership; improvements to Blaenau Ffestiniog community centre; the development of land at Llanystumdwy; and land acquisition at Penamser business park at Porthmadog. I am also considering the scope to accelerate some of the more important schemes in my forward roads programme and the South Gwynedd Partnership is preparing a case for an enterprise zone in the area.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the appointment of a new reviewer of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. John J. Rowe QC has accepted my invitation to succeed Viscount Colville of Culross QC in carrying out the annual review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. Mr. Rowe is a highly respected and senior Queen's counsel who will bring considerable experience to the post.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by the Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes."

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 3–6 December 1993]The responsibility of the National Audit Office does not extend to the six Northern Ireland Departments which have their own similarly appointed body—the Northern Ireland Audit office. There are eight files marked "Not for Northern Ireland Audit Office eyes".

  The marking "Not for NIAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Northern Ireland Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NIAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NIAO while they are current.

  There is no marking, "Not for PAC eyes".

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of providing cars for Ministers during the 1992–93 financial year was just over £856,000. Ministers do not all have exclusive use of a car; these costs therefore include private hire cars and supplement the four cars provided by the Government car service. They also include the cost of cars provided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for Ministers when they are in Northern Ireland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Electricity and Gas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what was the total cost of electricity and gas supplied to the Palace of Westminster in the eight current years to date; and what is his estimate of the extra costs arising from the imposition of VAT on fuel at(a) eight per cent. and (b) 17·5 per cent.

  Mr. Paul Channon
  Until 1 April 1992, the cost of electricity and gas supplied to the Palace of Westminster was met by the Department of the Environment. In 1992–93, the first year that fuel and utilities were met by

  Staff in post in ED Group as at 1 October 1993

  Ethnic group

  Grade level

  Black respondents

  Asian respondents

  Other ethnic minority respondents

  Total staff

  AA level

  243

  186

  18

  4,375

  AO level

  1,157

  1,362

  159

  32,362

  EO level

  233

  355

  65

  17,073

  HEO level

  30

  41

  24

  4,770

  236
  the votes of the Houses of Parliament, gas and electricity accounted for some £740,000, of which the House of Commons paid 60 per cent. So far in the current financial year £365,000 has been spent.

  No extra costs arise from the imposition of VAT on fuel as the tax is already applied in respect of commercial use.

  Christmas Tree
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the total cost of purchasing and decorating the Christmas tree located in New Palace Yard together with the total cost of installing the tree, including the cost of crane hire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Christmas tree in New Palace Yard has been presented to the House by the Forestry Commission. The cost of its installation and decoration, including labour and crane hire, was £800.

  Refreshment Department
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements for any food not required each day by the Refreshment Department to be passed to suitable charities for distribution, including to the homeless.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services.

EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will announce the upper limits on(a) help to a disabled person and (b) the contribution expected from the employer in a five-year period under his proposed access to work scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement as soon as possible about details of the access to work scheme, including the upper limits on(a) help to a disabled person and (b) the contribution expected from the employer in a five-year period.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures are given in the following table:
  237

  Ethnic group

  Grade level

  Black respondents

  Asian respondents

  Other ethnic minority respondents

  Total staff

  SEO level

  7

  18

  3

  1,975

  Grade 7 level

  2

  11

  3

  1,257

  Grade 6 level

  1

  4

  1

  270

  Grade 5 level

  0

  0

  0

  160

  Grade 4 level

  0

  0

  1

  59

  Grade 3 level

  0

  0

  0

  66

  Grade 2 level

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Grade 1 level

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Industrials

  1

  0

  0

  50

  TOTAL

  1,674

  1,977

  274

  62,431

  Part-time staff have been counted as whole units.

  Only permanent staff have been included. Casuals and period appointees have been excluded.

  Grade levels include equivalent grades.

  Figures quoted include Employment Service agency staff.

  The total staff figures include non-respondents to the Ethnic Origin Survey, from which the other figures have been compiled.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement summarising the provisions of those regulations which seek to control the use of asbestos in roofing and other building materials; and if he will indicate the means through which those regulations should be enforced.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]The Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992 which came into force on 1 January 1993 impose major restrictions on the use of asbestos, including its use for some building materials. They prohibit the import, supply and use of all types of amphibole asbestos, including corcidolite—blue asbestos—and amosite—brown asbestos —the two forms most commonly associated with asbestos—related disease. The regulations also prohibit asbestos spraying and the installation of asbestos insulation and a range of building products containing chrysotile—white asbestos—including low—density insulating and sound-proofing materials and roofing felt.

  The Control of Asbestos at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1992 which came into force on 1 January 1993 include a requirement for the substitution of products containing asbestos when practicable and provided the alternative creates a lesser risk.

  The regulations are enforced by Health and Safety Executive inspectors, and local authority inspectors who have powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases have been identified by the appropriate enforcement authorities in each of the last 10 Years for which figures are available, of the use of asbestos materials in building and roofing work contrary to the relevant regulations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]The information requested is not available. However, the figures in the following tables show the numbers of informations laid and the number of convictions secured in the construction industry, under the Asbestos Regulations 1969 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987,as amended, which replaced them. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations cover 238
  all work with asbestos. There were no informations laid during the period under the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1985 or the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992.

  Year

  Informations laid

  Conviction

  The Asbestos Regulations 1969

  1983

  26

  25

  1984

  41

  32

  1985

  23

  18

  1986–87

  11

  7

  1987–88

  8

  8

  1988–89

  4

  3

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  1988–89

  13

  13

  1989–90

  33

  32

  1990–91

  50

  41

  1991–92

  32

  25

  1992–931

  24

  23

  1Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. The figures above include informations laid and convictions for those in the construction industry involved in asbestos stripping.

  2. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 came into force on I March 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure compliance with regulation 8(1A) of the Control of Asbestos Work (Amendment) Regulations 1992 and with its associated approved code of practice; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]Regulation 8(1A) of the Control of Asbestos (Amendment) Regulations 1992 has been in force since 1 January 1993.Health and Safety Executive inspectors and local authority inspectors enforce these provisions. At their visits to Workplaces, inspectors give high priority to encouraging the use of asbestos substitutes as the principal means of preventing any exposure to asbestos whenever this is appropriate.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Health and Safety Commission will review the effectiveness of the regulations governing the use of asbestos products in roofing and other building work; and if he will make a statement.
  239
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]Current regulations governing the use of asbestos products in roofing and other building work are considered to be effective with regard to the protection of the health of workers and the Public. There are no plans at present to extend them, but, in common with other health and safety legislation, there is an ongoing process of monitoring and review by the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received concerning the effectiveness of the regulations governing the use of asbestos products in roofing and other building work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]; The letter from my hon. Friend, dated 24 November 1993, addressed to me is the only representation received on this matter.

  North Norfolk Action
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, Pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, Columns 355-56, if he will estimate the savings on benefits incurred due to persons leaving the unemployment register after interviews and to persons obtaining employment after participating in the North Norfolk Action scheme, stating the number in each case and percentage this represents in each case to the number engaged on the scheme; what was the overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action to 31 October; how much expenditure has been incurred on (a) provider fees,(b) extra allowances, (c)fates to work,(d) publicity, (e) evaluation and (f)Employment Service running costs, showing overall figures and how the provider fees and extra allowances were arrived at; and what is the net saving to the public funds which has resulted from the first six months of North Norfolk Action.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 8 December 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the savings on benefits incurred due to persons leaving the unemployment register after interviews and to persons obtaining employment after participating in the North Norfolk Action Scheme, stating the number in each case and the percentage this represents in each case to the number engaged on the scheme; what was the overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action up to 31 October; how much expenditure has been incurred on (a) provider fees, (b) extra allowances, (c) fares to work, (d) publicity, (e) evaluation and (f) employment service running costs showing overall figures and how the provider fees and extra allowances were arrived at; and what is the net saving to the public funds which has resulted from the first six months of North Norfolk Action.
  Up to 31 October 16 people had found work following participation on the North Norfolk Action programme which represents 13·3 per cent. of all participants. The number leaving the register to go into work following Supportive Caseload interviews was 120 representing 35 per cent. of all those given such interviews.
  240
  Overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action which had been brought to account by 31 October was £205,182. This was made up as follows:
  (a)Provider fees—£87,349.
  1,770 trainee weeks at £49·34 (average cost) per week.
  (b) Allowances—£85,178.
  741 payments (made fortnightly) x £114·94 (average fortnightly payment: represents £47·47 plus £10 per week).
  This does not include other payments such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit etc., which are not paid by the Employment Service.
  (c) Fares to work—£2,455.
  (d) Publicity—£1,500.
  (e) Evaluation—Work to start in 1994.
  (f) Running costs—£28,700.
  It is not yet possible to estimate what, if any, benefit savings have resulted from North Norfolk Action. This is because such savings would be achieved only if people leave unemployment quicker than they would have otherwise have done, but without displacing others, and remain out of unemployment for longer. These effects can be estimated only when we have the full results of our planned evaluation. An evaluation exercise of supportive caseload is being conducted by my Research and Evaluation Branch and external contractors will shortly be appointed to assess the effects of participation in North Norfolk Action. Results should be available during 1994.
  Nor is it possible to make an estimate of the net effect of North Norfolk Action on the exchequer. For example this would require information about how expenditure on North Norfolk Action might have affected unemployment if it had been used in other ways.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the defuelling process will be completed at the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc subject to the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorates's requirements as to safety.

HEALTH

  Concorde (Staff Flights)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the use of Concorde flights by health staff.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the use of Concorde by NHS staff is not collected centrally. We expect health staff to make proper and economic use of public funds when travelling at public expense.

  NHS Senior Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will order the chairmen of all health authorities to initiate action to recover all irregular severance payments to NHS senior managers;

  (2) when she expects to be able to present to Parliament a report on investigations into irregular payments to arid by NHS senior managers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities are required to make payments in accordance with their statutory powers.
  241
  If any payments are found to be irregular we would expect health authorities to consider, in the light of legal advice, to what extent they are recoverable. We supply to the Public Accounts Committee such information as they require following reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General giving cause to do so.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will request the Audit Commission to make a special audit report on the regularity of severance payments to senior managers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners expressed an interest in fundholding and received the start-up management and then did not proceed to become a fundholder in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information for 1990–91 is not available. A total of 310 practices expressed an interest in becoming fundholders in 1991–92 with 253 joining the scheme the following April. Six hundred and sixty-eight practices expressed an interest in 1992–93 with 580 joining the following April. Practices are reimbursed for the additional expenditure involved in preparing to manage a fund.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are five cars and the basic projected annual cost for the current financial year is £253,626.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many families with children with disabilities have received respite care in each year since 1990; and what are the proposed figures for 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about the number of children receiving respite care was first collected centrally, following the implementation of the Children Act 1989, for the period 14 October 1991 to 31 March 1992. No information is collected centrally on the number of families. It is estimated that the number of children with disabilities looked after in England who received respite care during this period, specifically because their parents need relief from problems of stress of caring for them was 2,500.

  The decision to offer respite care is a matter for local authorities. Information for the year ending 31 March 1993 is not yet available centrally.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of respite carers for families of children with disabilities.

  Mr. Bowis
  Plans for respite services are a matter for local authority social services departments, according to local need, resources and priorities.

  Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to Peter Griffiths, former chief executive of the Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust, upon his departure from that post.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Griffiths is still employed by the Lewisham National Health Service Trust, which is the successor authority to the Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust.

  NHS Trusts (Salaries)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued, or is planning to issue, to NHS trusts, regarding pay norms for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no pay norm in 1994–95.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to trust boards, regarding the need to observe a limit on pay rises for trust employees for the current year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 12 November 1992, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chairmen of all health service employing bodies setting out arrangements for restraining public sector pay in the coming year. On 20 January 1993, the chief executive of the National Health Service Management Executive also wrote to general managers and chief executives giving guidance on the application of this policy.

  Copies of both letters are available in the Library.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in her Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of press and publicity officers currently employed is as follows:

  Press —13 full time

  Publicity—20 full time and 1 part time

  Publicity officers are responsible for devising, developing, managing and monitoring a wide range of paid publicity campaigns to further the health promotion and other aims of the Department and the national health service. They are professional buyers of all forms of publicity, for example, advertising, videos, publications and research using around 300 different suppliers.

  Information for the years 1979 and 1985 is not available in the form requested.

  Human Corpses
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy towards the use by hospitals or medical research institutes of human corpses for scientific research into road accidents.

  Mr. Sackville
  Bodies may be donated to licensed medical schools, either in accordance with donors' wishes or when the family has agreed, under the terms of the Anatomy Act 1984. This Act makes provision for the use of such bodies for the purposes of anatomical examination, which is defined in the Act as examination by dissection
  243
  for the purposes of teaching or studying or researching into morphology, that is, the study of the form—anatomy—of the body. This precludes the use of such bodies for scientific research into road accidents.

  The Human Tissue Act 1961, which in specified circumstances and subject to the consent of the donor permits the use of bodies or parts of bodies for therapeutic purposes or for the purposes of medical education or research, does not preclude the use of bodies for medical research into road accidents.

  However, many people will regard the placing of bodies in cars which are then crashed, which is reported to have happened in other countries, as unacceptable as part of medical research. Local research ethics committees, which would have to consider any proposed medical research into road accidents, would be expected to take this viewpoint into account.

  Myodil
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to help those suffering from arachnoiditis following treatment by Myodil used in spinal investigations to claim compensation from Glaxo; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency complied with a High Court order for discovery of documents relating to Myodil in 1991, but has had no further involvement. Myodil has not been marketed since 1987 when it was withdrawn by its manufacturer.

  Broadmoor
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received relating to the extent of racism at Broadmoor; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received no specific representations about racism at Broadmoor hospital, but we recognise, as does the Special Hospitals Service Authority, the importance of ensuring that the needs of black and other ethnic minority patients both there and in the other special hospitals receive proper attention. The recent report of the inquiry into the death of Mr. Orville Blackwood while a patient at Broadmoor made a number of recommendations directed to this. The report was welcomed by the SHSA, which will be reporting to me under the accountability review procedure on progress in implementing the recommendations. Broadmoor hospital has already introduced a strategy for improving services for black and other ethnic minority patients and has appointed a consultant to help establish closer links with relevant community and support organisations. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Waltham Forest District Health Authority
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has received relating to Waltham Forest from(a) the London initiative zone and (b) the London implementation group; and what is the estimated cost of each.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Waltham Forest has submitted to the London Implementation Group, primary health care development plans for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95. The plans contain proposals for improving Waltham Forest's244
  primary care infrastructure and for developing innovative practice in primary and community care. The estimated cost of the 1993–94 and 1994–95 proposals is £5 million.

  Health Benefit Claims
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1), pursuant to her answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 301, on the low income scheme, how many applications in 1992–93 for health benefits were (a) incorrectly filled in and returned to the claimant and (b) not successful in receiving help towards the item claimed; and what is the average financial help awarded to the claimants;

  (2) if she will publish the proposals made by the review into health benefits in respect of reforming or simplifying the AG1 claim form.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Proposals for simplifying the national health service low income scheme claim form AG1 remain under consideration. Implementation of any changes will be discussed with those who contributed to the review, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, before they are introduced. During 1992–93, approximately 18 per cent. of all claim forms were returned to the claimant for additional information or clarification. Full or partial help was offered on each completed claim form except for 3,000 where a capital holding in excess of £8,000 precluded an award. It is not possible to quantify the average financial help awarded. Holders of low income scheme certificates are entitled to receive national health service services free or at a reduced cost as and when these are needed during the currency of a certificate; they do not receive a specified financial award.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients admitted so far in 1993 to hospitals in Berkshire as(a) emergency and (b) non-emergency cases were registered at (i) fund-holding and (ii) non-fund-holding general practices.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Richard Eassie, the chairman of Berkshire health authority, for details.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have been suspended in each of the last 15 years; and how many from each year are still under suspension by regional health authority, district health authority and provider unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  ; This information is not available centrally.

  Self-medication
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the savings possible from her initiative to encourage self-medication.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  GPs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of patients deregistered by their general practitioners in each of the past five years, nationally and by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Psychogeriatric Care Beds
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the report, "NHS Psychogeriatric Continuing Care Beds" published by the Alzheimer's Disease Society, copies of which have been sent to her Department; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report, which makes a number of recommendations for Government action, will be given full and careful consideration.

  NHS Sight Tests
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had with optometrists concerning the level of expenses to be included in the NHS sight test fee for 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The optometrists have been consulted as normal, through the established Whitley machinery, about the level of the national health service sight test fee.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of the current NHS sight test fee is attributable to the reimbursement of optometrists' expenses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service sight test fee contains both a remuneration and expenses element. These components are not separately identifiable.

  Estates Information Systems Group
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the responsibilities and terms of reference of the national health service estates information systems group;

  (2) when the national health service estates information systems group was established; and to whom it reports.

  Mr. Sackville
  The group was established on 1 April 1992 and is part of National Health Service Estates, an

  Clients

  Potentially permanent accommodation

  Lost

  Focus team (Bloomsbury and Islington)

  280

  100

  30

  Mental health team (South East London)

  349

  102

  28

  Joint homelessness team (Westminster)

  443

  66

  92

  HELP team (East London and City)

  150

  33

  32

  Totals

  1,222

  301

  182

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided by the FOCUS team are estimates.

  2. A fifth team set up for Kensington and Chelsea has been running for less than one year. Valid data for this team are not yet available.

  3. The category 'potentially permanent accommodation' has not been taken to include the hostels which have been set up under the HMI.

  4. The exact definition of 'client' varies between teams.

  246
  executive agency of the Department of Health. It provides services to the NHS and other clients on a range of estates information systems and software products on a recover of cost basis. It also contributes to reducing the net cost of the agency's services by marketing activity. As part of the agency it is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff the national health service estates information systems group employs; and what has been its annual budget since it was established, in the current year and its projected annual budgets.

  Mr. Sackville
  The group employs 16 full-time staff.

  Since the group was established its annual budgets have been:—

  £ million

  1992–93

  1·5

  1993–94

  1·6

  As the service is provided on a recovery of cost basis, projected annual budgets will be in line with anticipated demands for its services.

  Mentally Ill People (Housing)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many active clients the four mental health teams have set up under the homeless mentally ill initiative; and of these, how many have moved into potentially permanent accommodation;

  (2) if she will list for each of the four mental health teams set up under the homeless mentally ill initiative (a) the number of active clients, (b) how many have moved into potentially permanent accommodation and (c) how many clients were lost.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: The four community psychiatric teams set up under the homeless mentally ill initiative, for which figures are available, have had continuing contact over a period of time, with 1,222 clients; 301 of these have moved into potentially permanent accommodation.

  These figures are broken down by each of the teams in the table, which also shows the number of clients lost.
  247
  The figures indicate that the HMI has been very successful in making contact with this vulnerable group of people and bringing a significant proportion of them into care.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people entered a registered care home under the homeless mentally ill initiative(a) before and (b) after April 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: Some homeless mentally ill initiative hostels have been set up as residential care homes. These hostels admitted 33 homeless mentally ill people before April 1993 and 27 after that date. In addition 49 homeless mentally ill people identified by the HMI community psychiatric teams entered other residential care homes before April 1993 and 19 after that date.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of permanent accommodation have been provided as part of the homeless mentally ill initiative announced in July 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]: We have funded up to 150 specialist short-stay hostel places: five hostels are already open providing 61 places. More hostels are being developed.

  Negotiations are currently taking place with interested parties, including the Housing Corporation, over the provision of permanent places to accommodate homeless mentally ill people in London.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Regina v.Brown
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will place a transcript of the Regina v. Brown appeal in the Library; and whether the case is being sent to further appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  No transcript of the judgment of the Court of Appeal is yet available.

  The Director of Public Prosecutions has invited the Court of Appeal to certify that a point of general public importance arises in relation to the meaning to be attached to the word "use" when applied to personal data within section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984, and to grant leave to appeal on this point to the House of Lords. It is expected that the matter will be listed in the Court of Appeal before Christmas 1993 in order that the court may consider the application made by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Attorney-General how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The expenditure on press advertising by the Departments for which I am responsible in the financial year 1992–93 was £330,360. Corresponding figures for 1979–80 and 1985–86 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. There was no expenditure on either television or radio advertising in any of the years in question.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Attorney-General how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in his Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  The Attorney-General
  There are currently eight full-time and one part-time press and publicity officers employed in the Departments for which I am responsible. There were no such officers employed in 1985 or 1979.

  Jonathan Goldberg QC
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Serious Fraud Office intends to refer the conduct of Jonathan Goldberg QC in the Levitt case to the Bar Council.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I understand that the matter has already been referred to the Bar Council.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Cabinet Office has no "sensitive documents unit". However, all Cabinet Office records are reviewed for continuing sensitivity in the period before their release by a team of up to four part-time reviewers who form part of the Cabinet Office records section. Records are reviewed in accordance with the guidelines contained in chapter 9 of the Open Government White Paper (Cmnd. 2290) of July 1993. Records that are withheld are subject to regular re-review. Approximately 100 linear feet of records are dealt with during a year.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. David Davis
  Expenditure by the Office of Public Service and Science on press advertising in the last financial year was £608,957, of which £589,838 was incurred in connection with the citizens charter. There was no expenditure in this period on television or radio advertising.

  The corresponding information for 1985 and 1979 is not available in the form requested.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  Mr. David Davis
  During 1992–93, the charge to the Office of Public Service and Science for use of the Government Car Service by its departmental Ministers and the Government Whips was £420,088.

  Cloud Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what help he gives to encourage research(a) on how clouds modulate the climate system, (b) on cloud radiation problems and (c) on cloud profiling radar.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government make funds available under the science budget to the research councils, which determine their priorities in accordance with the terms of their royal charters. Such research is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  The NERC is paying specific attention to these matters through a special topic called "Clouds, Aerosols and Radiation", at a total cost of £733,000. It is also supporting four training awards and four research grants, at a total estimated cost of approximately £700,000.

  31 March 1989

  20 February 1990

  As at;20 February 1991

  12 March 1992

  22 July 1993

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Cornwall

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  2

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  14

  12

  9

  8

  4

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  4

  4

  3

  3

  2

  West Sussex

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  11

  8

  2

  3

  2

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  52

  43

  25

  25

  13

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what animals other than mink or Arctic fox are kept on fur farms in the United Kingdom; what county or region they are in; what number of each particular animal are kept; and what is the minimum statutory cage size for the particular animals concerned.

  Mr. Soames
  No information is kept on the numbers or locations of particular species kept for fur farming except in respect of mink in the United Kingdom and Arctic foxes in Northern Ireland. There is no legislation governing the minimum cage size for fur-bearing animals.

  Rare Breeds
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps her Department is taking to assess the effectiveness of rare breeds in conservation grazing schemes, with particular reference to the Hebridean sheep; and if she will study the means by which set-aside arrangements can be adjusted to help conserve rare breeds and control pernicious weeds.
  250
  The SERC has assisted in some preliminary studies for a spaceborne profiling radar, as a contribution to the global energy and water experiment of the world climate research programme. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of this work from other SERC operations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms have operated in each county in England in each year since 1984; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Soames
  Information is readily available only for the last five years. The number of licensed mink farms in England by county, from 1989 to 1993, is shown in the table.

  Mr. Jack
  Our current research on conservation grazing does not include any work specific to Hebridean or other rare breeds of sheep. However a recent change to the EC set-aside rules has introduced the possibility of limited grazing of set-aside land in the autumn, including grazing by rare breeds.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the incinerators in the north-west licensed to incinerate BSE-infected cattle and scrapie-infected sheep; and how many such carcases were destroyed in each of the last 12 months at each incinerator.

  Mr. Soames
  Incinerators are not specifically licensed for this purpose. One incinerator plant in the north-west in Derbyshire has held a contract with the Ministry for the disposal of carcases of cattle suspected of being affected with BSE since 1 July 1993. Specific information relating to this incineration plant as with all others contracted to the Ministry is classed as commercial-in-confidence.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress her Department is making to implement measures to conform to EC
  251
  Regulation 2078/92 regarding premium payments for the preservation of rare breeds of domestic animals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 December 1993]: Our proposals for implementing EC regulation 2078/92 are based on a careful assessment of environmental priorities and the needs of the countryside. They do not include premium payments for the preservation of rare breeds of domestic animals but do include measures which will benefit local breeds such as, for example, Exmoor ponies in the case of the Exmoor environmentally sensitive area.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of the tonnage of(a) seed potatoes of each variety and (b) ware potatoes by market description growing in England and Wales in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; what tonnages of each were sold for (x) home and (y) foreign seeds, and for human consumption by category; and what was the estimate made in 1992 in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  The total amount of certified seed grown in England and Wales in 1992 was 35,000 tonnes. A breakdown by variety is given in the table. For 1993 the estimate is 48,000 tonnes, but no varietal split is yet available. However, a breakdown by area grown is given in the table:

  Tonnage of certified seed by variety grown in 1992

  Tonnes

  Accent

  112·1

  Ailsa

  77·5

  Alcmaria

  52·9

  Aminca

  18·9

  Arran Cornet

  140·4

  Arran Pilot

  23·9

  Asterix

  3·3

  Ausonia

  535·4

  Balmoral

  119·4

  Bintje

  77·5

  Cara

  4,547·2

  Cleopatra

  50·0

  Colmo

  328·2

  Concorde

  65·6

  Concurrent

  85·0

  Costella

  1·0

  Cultra

  22·0

  Desiree

  1,350·7

  Duke of York

  0·9

  Dundrod

  12·0

  Epicure

  0·3

  Estima

  -6,120·2

  Fambo

  110·0

  Fianna

  3·5

  Foremost

  0·7

  Hermes

  —

  Home Guard

  93·2

  Kennebec

  44·3

  King Edward

  675·6

  Kondor

  150·9

  Lady Rosetta

  45·0

  Manna

  4·0

  Marfona

  3,491·0

  Marianna

  —

  Maris Bard

  1,364·9

  Maris Peer

  602·1

  Maris Piper

  1,415·8

  Minerva

  362·8

  Morene

  5·0

  Nadine

  910·0

  Obelix

  212·3

  Ostara

  223·6

  252

  Tonnes

  Penta

  128·6

  Pentland Crown

  121·4

  Pentland Dell

  1,002·4

  Pentland Hawk

  14·4

  Pentland Ivory

  4·0

  Pentland Javelin

  378·2

  Pentland Lustre

  1·2

  Pentland Squire

  698·8

  Pink Fir Apple

  25·0

  Premiere

  588·0

  Record

  1,157·4

  Red Pontiac

  29·2

  Rocket

  —

  Romano

  3,189·5

  Russet Burbank

  —

  Sante

  445·0

  Saturna

  2,419·6

  Sharpes Express

  6·3

  Shula

  —

  Stroma

  158·5

  Ulster Chieftain

  3·0

  Ulster Sceptre

  43·0

  Vanessa

  214·2

  Wilja

  1,200·6

  TOTAL

  35,287·2

  Area of certified seed by variety grown in 1993.

  Variety

  Hectacres

  First early

  Accent

  2·6

  Alcmaria

  1·6

  Aminca

  0·4

  Arran Comet

  5·8

  Arran Pilot

  0·9

  Colmo1

  13·6

  Concorde

  4·4

  Concurrent

  2·8

  Duke of York1

  2·9

  Dundrod

  1·2

  Foremost

  0·6

  Home Guard

  5·3

  Manna

  0·2

  Maris Bard

  110·1

  Minerva

  19·2

  Nikita

  0·2

  Ostara

  19·2

  Pentland Javelin

  24·2

  Premiere1

  20·3

  Provost

  0·7

  Rocket

  0·5

  Sharpes Express1

  0·6

  Ulster Sceptre

  0·1

  Vanessa

  6·8

  Second early maincrop

  Ausonia

  14·2

  Baillie

  0·4

  Balmoral

  1·6

  Bintje1

  6·0

  Brodick

  2·0

  Cara

  232·0

  Cornado

  0·8

  Desiree

  75·2

  Estima

  196·9

  Fambo

  21·0

  Fianna

  2·3

  Kerr's Pink

  0·4

  King Edward1

  28·8

  Kingston

  1·7

  Kondor

  7·2

  lady Rosetta

  30·5

  Marfona

  131·5

  Maris Peer

  43·4

  Maris Piper

  55·0

  253

  Variety

  Hectacres

  Morene1

  3·5

  Nadine

  58·0

  Obelix

  3·0

  Panda

  5·5

  Pentland Crown

  6·6

  Pentland Dell

  54·2

  Pentland Hawk

  2·0

  Pentland Squire

  53·0

  Picasso

  10·9

  Pink Fir Apple

  0·4

  Record

  17·5

  Red King Edward1

  1·3

  Remarka

  0·6

  Romano

  102·9

  Sante

  4·1

  Saturna

  107·2

  Stroma

  11·5

  Wilja

  58·5

  Total

  1,595·5

  1 Denotes non-immune variety

  Estimates of England and Wales seed tonnages sold for (x) home and (y) foreign use are not available. However, current estimates for the United Kingdom are:

  Seed (tonnes)

  Year grown

  1992

  11993

  21992

  (x) home use

  515,000

  488,000

  n/a

  (y) foreign use (exports)

  30,000

  42,000

  69,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 Estimated in 1992.

  A breakdown by market description of the ware potatoes grown in 1992 and 1993 is not available at the England and Wales level. However, utilisation of potato crops marketed in 1992 and 1993 calendar years is given below. These figures are subject to revision.

  Ware (tonnes)

  Year

  1992

  11993

  21992

  Ware for human consumption

  6,821,000

  6,026,000

  6,902,000

  of which:

  Ware for foreign market: raw

  120,000

  113,000

  98,000

  Ware for foreign market: processed (raw equivalent)

  76,000

  63,000

  76,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 Estimated in 1992.

  Agricultural Tenancy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations she has received on reform of the law relating to agricultural tenancy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Since we published proposals for reform in February 1991, my right hon. Friend has received around 300 representations, almost all of which have expressed support for reform of the kind proposed.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much her Department spends annually on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising and (c) press advertising; and what were the corresponding figures for 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  Expenditure on advertising by MAFF in the financial years 1985–86 and 1992–93 was as follows:254

  (a) TV

  (b) Radio

  (c) Press

  1985–86

  nil

  nil

  £29,000

  1992–93

  £475,000

  nil

  £19,000

  Figures prior to 1982–83 are not available in this form since they do not distinguish between expenditure on advertising and other paid publicity.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations she has received over the past 12 months on the use of organophosphate sheep dip; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Minister has received a number of representations over the past 12 months on the use of organophosphate sheep dip. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on 1 December.

  Press and Publicity Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press and publicity officers are currently employed in her Department; and how many were employed in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Jack
  The number of press and publicity officer currently employed by MAFF is 33. The corresponding figure for 1985 is 30. A figure for 1979 is not readily available.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Mr. Jack
  The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments including MAFF, are stated in the HMG IT security policy document. This document is supported by use of the CCTA risk analysis and management method and baseline security for IT systems risk analysis methods and by supporting advice and guidance published by the HMG IT security authorities. These are regularly reviewed to ensure best practice, have been developed specifically for use within government and have been in operation in some time. The code of practice for information security management was developed by and established for use by commercial organisations and does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing licences have been issued in England and Wales to(a) under 10 m vessels and (b) over 10 m vessels up to the most recently available date.

  Mr. Jack
  As at 1 December some 3,900 10 m and under licences had been approved, or were likely to be
  255
  approved, for issue to fishing vessel owners in England and Wales. There were some 1,690 licensed vessels over 10 m in overall length in the English and Welsh fleet.

  Animals (Transit)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will indicate how many animals were found at ports to be unfit to travel further in(a) 1992 and (b) so far in 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  In 1992 the number of farm animals inspected at portal lairages in Great Britain and found unfit for their international journey was 28,070. Since 1 January this year veterinary inspection of animals for journeys extending beyond United Kingdom territory has been carried out at the point of origin. Numbers of animals so inspected and found to be unfit for their journey are not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters she has received from members of the public indicating that they have seen unsatisfactory treatment of animals in transit so far this year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Very few representations are received giving first-hand accounts of unsatisfactory treatment of animals in transit. The great majority of the letters received about the transport of animals are the result of general campaigns by animal welfare organisations.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations have been received on the subject of the transportation of live animals since 1 November.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1 November the Government have received nearly 17,000 pieces of correspondence, and 10 petitions representing 740 signatures, on the transportation of animals.

  Ministers (Foreign Visits)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the Ministers in her Department who since June 1987 have visited(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Malaysia, (c)Singapore and (d) South Africa on official business; and which such visits included party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1988 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) visited Malaysia and Singapore, in 1991 the Minister of State, Baroness Trumpington visited Saudi Arabia and in 1992 the Parliamentary Secretary, Earl Howe, visited South Africa on official business. None of these visits included party political activities.

  Fishing (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there have been since 1988 under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts in respect of vessels that fish for profit in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  Two owners of vessels in England and Wales have been prosecuted for fishing for profit while unregistered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the extent of the unlicensed dumping of toxic waste off the coast of south Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no information concerning any illegal dumping of toxic waste off the coast of south Wales. If the hon. Member has suspicions that such an operation is taking or has taken place I would welcome any details he may have and I will arrange for the matter to be fully investigated.

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences have been granted to disturb badger setts in each of the last five years; and where were the setts concerned.

  Mr. Soames
  Legislation requiring the issue of licences to allow interference with badger setts came into force in October 1991. The first licences were issued in February 1992 and the number issued since for each of the Ministry's regions is as follows:

  February to December 1992

  January to October 1993

  Northern Region

  1

  1

  North East Region

  5

  3

  North Mercia Region

  28

  18

  South Mercia Region

  13

  19

  East Midlands Region

  11

  11

  Anglia Region

  4

  3

  South East Region

  18

  25

  Wessex Region

  56

  105

  South West Region

  18

  23

  Total

  154

  208

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the link between badgers and tuberculosis in cattle generally, and in the south-west of England in particular, and about her Department's response to the prevalence of TB breakdowns.

  Mr. Soames
  Tuberculosis in cattle in some areas and particularly in the south-west of England remains a worrying problem. It has serious implications for animal health and for those farmers who have disease breakdowns in their herds. In the south-west of England this year there have been 197 new confirmed breakdowns up until the end of November, significantly exceeding 121 for 1992 as a whole.

  Two independent inquiries have looked into the question of bovine TB and concluded that one of the significant factors is the reservoir of infection in the wild badger population. The second enquiry by Professor Dunnet in 1986 recommended that the Department develop a diagnostic test to detect TB infection in the live badger. This has now been done and the test has been evaluated in field conditions.

  The results were presented to a meeting of the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis which met on 18 November. While the panel was not unanimous in its views on the way forward, there was

  257
  general recognition that the Government needed to address the increased incidence of badger-related TB breakdowns. Agriculture Ministers have taken into account the views expressed at the meeting and have decided to set in place an action programme of six measures:

  1. research to develop effective vaccines for TB in badgers;

  2. research to develop new or improved diagnostic tests for the presence of infection in cattle and badgers;

  3. continued monitoring of infection in the wild badger population where appropriate;

  4. continued support for research into ways of avoiding transmission of disease from badgers to cattle;

  5. co-operation with university departments on proposed studies on the effects of badger removal operations on the badger population and its impact on the subsequent spread of disease within the badger population; and importantly,

  6. a trial of a new badger control strategy based on the application of the test for tuberculosis in the live badger.

  The trial will be undertaken in the areas of the south-west of England which have the greatest disease problem. The trial will have to run for at least five years to generate scientifically valid results and will look at the effect on the incidence of TB in cattle in the areas surrounding the farm where a TB breakdown occurs.

  There will be three approaches: no action at all against badgers where the farmer who has suffered the herd breakdown decides that no action should be taken; the application of the existing strategy of trapping and killing badgers on the farm or part of the farm were the disease outbreak occurrred; and finally, in about half the high-risk areas, an extension beyond the farm to apply the live test and to trap and test badgers on neighbouring farms. The trapping and testing will be carried out on a sett-by-sett basis: where a sett is found to contain one or more badgers positive to TB in the test then the positive badgers and any other badgers caught from that sett will be killed. Setts which test negative will not be disturbed. As in the current strategy no action will be taken if there is no evidence to suggest that the original breakdown in the cattle herd was related to badgers. Agriculture Ministers have also decided to continue the existing policy of not killing any lactating sows which are trapped because of the resulting impact on the cubs which are dependent on her.

  In areas outside the trial the existing arrangements will continue which will mean that no action will be taken against badgers on any farm in those areas where there has been a tuberculosis breakdown unless it has been specifically sanctioned by a sub-Committee of the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

  I will be depositing a note in the Library of the House today.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each civil service grade in her Department(a) the total number of people employed, (b) the total number of black people and (c) the total number of Asians.

  Mr. Jack
  The information set out in the table as at 1 October 1993 relates to non-industrial staff in MAFF and its agencies and is derived from responses to a voluntary questionnaire completed by 95 per cent. of staff.

  By grade

  Total staff

  Black

  Asian

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  —

  3

  27

  —

  —

  4

  12

  —

  —

  258

  By grade

  Total staff

  Black

  Asian

  5

  120

  —

  1

  6

  163

  —

  1

  7

  920

  —

  11

  SEO

  985

  4

  9

  HEO

  1,875

  8

  14

  EO

  1,839

  16

  24

  AO

  2,330

  68

  76

  AA

  2,056

  85

  62

  Total

  10,334

  181

  198

  The figures are given by grade equivalent and include all permanent staff, excluding casuals. Part-time staff are counted as one. These figures do not include staff who have classified themselves as "other ethnic minority" when responding to the questionnaire.

  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to combat and eliminate equine viral arteritis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I am meeting representatives of the equine industry on Thursday 9 December in order to discuss possible action that might be taken to combat future outbreaks of the disease.

  Mink
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which type of premises other than fur farms are licensed to keep mink; how many of each type of premises there are; and where they are.

  Mr. Soames
  For the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the most recent for which information is available, licences to keep mink on premises other than a fur farm have been issued to a wildlife centre in Staffordshire and a country park in Lancashire.

  Wages Board
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will place in the Library the responses to the consultation on the future of the Agricultural wages board.

  Mr. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: Copies of all the responses to the consultation have been placed in the Library of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and are available to public scrutiny.

  I am still considering the responses to the consultation. Once I have reached conclusion, a summary of the responses will be made available in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ozone Working Group (Montreal Protocol)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions were taken at the meeting of the Ozone working group of the parties to the Montreal protocol held in Bangkok from 8 to 9 November; and what assessment he has made of the effect on halon production and use in the United Kingdom.
  259
  Mr. Yeo
  The fifth meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol took place in Bangkok from 17 to 19 November. The main issue at the meeting was replenishment of the protocol's multilateral fund, and it was agreed that the fund's budget for 1994–96 should be $510 million, which, after taking account of uncommitted resources, implies a $455 million replenishment.

  It was also agreed that there should be no continued production of halons in developed countries in 1994 to meet essential uses. This means that there will be no production or supply of new halons in the United Kingdom in 1994.

  Durham (Boundary Commission Inquiry)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimated costs of reopening the Boundary Commission inquiry into County Durham; what is the estimated cost to local authorities in Durham; and what additional finance he will make available to them.

  Mr. Baldry
  The resources which we are making available to the Local Government Commission, £5·124 million in 1993–94 and £8·300 million in 1994–95, should be adequate to enable it to complete all the reviews of local government structure in the shire counties of England by the end of 1994. My right hon. Friend has announced proposals for the arrangements for any start-up costs of local government reorganisation incurred by authorities in 1994–95.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has given to local authorities regarding computer systems for operating the council tax.

  Mr. Baldry
  To assist authorities in specifying the requirements of their computer systems to their suppliers, the Department has funded the production of a council tax requirement specification which was distributed to authorities in March 1992. The Department has also produced detailed guidance on the operation of the tax in the form of nine practice notes and a continuing series of implementation letters.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with organisations that look after homeless people In(a) London and (b) other major cities of the United Kingdom as to what help his Department will be giving to such organisations during the Christmas and new year period; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  As part of the Government's rough sleepers initiative, £1·5 million has been allocated to fund seven cold weather shelters in central London this winter. These will provide around 360 bed spaces, open from 1 December to 31 March, for people who would otherwise spend the winter months sleeping on the streets of the capital. A further 280 beds are also available at short notice in the event of particularly severe weather. My officials have been in regular contact with the voluntary sector since July to plan this and to ensure that the programme proceeds smoothly.
  260
  In England—the extent of the Department of the Environment's remit-outside central London, housing responsibility for all homeless people properly rests with local authorities, who should include within their housing strategies measures to meet the accommodation needs of people sleeping rough on the streets. To complement these measures the Department is paying £6·45 million in grants this year to over 170 projects around the country run by voluntary organisations to prevent and relieve homelessness.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of elderly homeless people at risk in central London who do not have access to suitable accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  The most recent count, undertaken by the voluntary sector in June 1993, found nearly 360 people sleeping rough in central London, of whom about 40 were believed to be aged over 60. Most of these older rough sleepers had been on the streets for at least five years. They will have received several offers of accommodation and resettlement support under the Government's rough sleepers initiative in central London, which will continue for a further two years.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has to support the view that the measures contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which allow social services authorities to sponsor individual residents of housing association homes will eliminate the need for special needs management allowance and transitional special needs management allowance.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities have long had the power to sponsor clients placed in homes run by housing associations. One of the basic rules of the Housing Corporation's distribution of the resources available for revenue grants to such homes has been that Exchequer grant should not be paid in cases where clients are sponsored by their social services authority. To help with the introduction of the new community care arrangements, however, the Government agreed with the Housing Corporation that for the current financial year this "sponsorship" rule should be relaxed. No decisions have been taken yet about the arrangements beyond this financial year, but before they are taken we will take into account the representations which housing associations and others have made about this issue.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has given to the findings contained in the report of the National Federation of Housing Associations, "Funding of Registered Care Homes", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Sir George Young
  I plan to meet the chairman and director of the NFHA later this month to discuss the issues raised in its report.

  Local Government Review
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the teacher trade unions with regard to their employment conditions in the light of the local government review.
  261
  Mr. Baldry
  We have received no direct representations from the teacher trade unions, but I have discussed with the Trade Union Congress's local government committee the implications of the review for local government employees in general.

  Environmental Reports
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue his reports on(a) the third annual review of progress on "This Common Inheritance", (b) sustainable development, (c) biodiversity and (d) climate change; and if he will ensure that each report is issued separately for consideration by Parliament.

  Mr. Yeo
  Regarding publication of the Government's sustainable development strategy for the United Kingdom and the other documents following the earth summit at Rio, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 2 December 1993, at column 656. The third report in the series, "This Common Inheritance", which will take account of the strategy, will be published shortly afterwards. We shall lay the documents before the House in the normal way.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for the ratification by the United Kingdom, before the end of 1993, of the climate change convention.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on 3 December,Official Report, column 764.

  Disabled Facilities
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to put an upper limit on disabled facilities grants; what the limit will be; and if it will include value added tax and professional fees.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) on 3 November 1993,Official Report, column 206. The £20,000 limit will apply to all mandatory renovation grants, including grants for disabled facilities, for which applications are submitted to local authorities on or after 14 January 1994.

  The limit is inclusive of any VAT chargeable on works carried out and professional fees and other ancillary costs incurred by applicants in undertaking grant-aided works. However, works qualifying for mandatory disabled facilities grant are zero rated for VAT purposes.

  There is no limit to the size of discretionary disabled facilities grants given by local authorities under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  The Solent
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to lay before the House the revised regulations and designated sites for the Solent under the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are waiting for detailed proposals from English Nature for the listing of Southampton Water and the Solent as a Ramsar site.

  Environmental Assessment Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will participate in the international summit on environmental assessment, to be held in Quebec city in June 1994.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he is grant-aiding in relation to the vertical and horizontal measurements of the distribution of greenhouse gases in his global warming programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Global atmospheric research is detailed in "Department of the Environment Global Atmosphere Research Programme 1992–93, Contract Information Schedules", copies of which have been placed in the Library. The research programme includes measurements of the vertical distribution of ozone, monitoring of a range of greenhouse gases, including a contribution to the international global atmospheric gases experiment, and modelling studies of greenhouse gas distribution. The work is carried out in collaboration with the atmospheric sciences programme of the Natural Environment Research Council and is aimed at improving the representation of greenhouse gases in climate models of the Department's climate prediction programme at the Hadley centre, Bracknell.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations his Department received on the consultation exercise on THORP before 4 October; how many of them were in favour of THORP going ahead and how many against; and if he will summarise the conclusions of the exercise.

  Mr. Yeo
  About 42,500 responses were received during the consultation exercise. They are still being assessed. Detailed information about the responses will be made available once they have all been considered.

  Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Stations
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) of 1 December,Official Report, columns 1034-35, what are the precise locations of the nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department of the Environment which monitors nitrogen dioxide continuously at 21 stations. These are located as follows:

  Site name and area

  Grid reference

  1. Stevenage, Hertfordshire

  TL237225

  2. Cromwell Road, London Kerbside

  TQ264789

  3. West London, London Earls Court

  TQ251788

  4. Glasgow, Strathclyde

  NS595653

  5. Manchester, Greater Manchester

  SJ838980

  6. Walsall, West Midlands

  SO995985

  7. Billingham, Teesside

  NZ470237

  8. Sheffield, South Yorkshire

  SK403905

  9. Bridge Place, London Victoria

  TQ289788

  263

  Site name and area

  Grid reference

  10. Lullington Heath, East Sussex

  TQ538016

  11. Strath Vaich, North Scotland

  NH347750

  12. Ladybower, Derbyshire

  SK164892

  13. Central London 2, London Bloomsbury

  TQ302820

  14. Cardiff Centre, South Glamorgan

  ST184765

  15. Belfast 2, Belfast Centre

  J339744

  16. Birmingham Centre, West Midlands

  SP064868

  17. Edinburgh Centre, Lothian

  NT254738

  18. Newcastle Centre, Tyne and Wear

  NZ250646

  19. Leeds Centre, West Yorkshire

  SE299343

  20. Bristol Centre, Avon

  ST594732

  21. Liverpool Centre, Merseyside

  SJ349908

  Merseyside Housing
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many grants for house improvement grants were awarded in the five Merseyside boroughs last year; how many applications are outstanding:, what representations his Department has received about targeting resources for house improvements and the redesignation of districts as housing action areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Figures showing the number of house renovation grants paid in the Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral local authority areas in 1992 and for the first half of 1993 under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and under the Housing Act 1985 are in the quarterly publication "Local Housing Statistics", issues No. 107, tables 3(a) and 3(b). Figures for the first half of 1993 are provisional. A copy of the publication is in the Library.

  The Department does not collect data on the number of house renovation grant applications outstanding.

  Over 400 written responses were received following the issue of the consultation paper on the future of private housing renewal programmes on 21 June 1993. I announced short-term changes arising from that consultation on 3 November and I refer the hon. Member to the Official Report, column 206.

  Liverpool Airport (Planning Application)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in the Liverpool airport planning application, consider it in tandem with the Manchester application, appoint the same inspector to consider both and base a decision on a coherent approach to the north-west region as a whole.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the application was submitted to the relevant local planning authorities on 3 December. It is for those authorities in the first instance to undertake statutory and other consultations and reach a preliminary view on the proposals, before the question of intervention by the Secretary of State would be considered.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed; what decisions were taken; and what was the voting record of each member state at the Environment Council in Brussels on 2 December.
  264
  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 3 December 1993]: I attended the Environment Council meeting on 2 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment attended on 3 December.

  A common position was reached unanimously on a directive to set further reductions in passenger car emissions. It will apply to all cars sold in the EU as from 1 January 1997. The directive also commits the Commission to come forward, by the end of 1994, with proposals for further substantial reductions in emissions from the year 2000.

  The Council agreed that the Community will ratify the Copenhagen amendment to the Montreal protocol. Member states will ratify, as far as possible, simultaneously and not later than 30 June 1994. Political agreement was reached on the proposed regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The production and use of methyl bromide is to be frozen in 1995 at 1991 levels, with a 25 per cent. cut by 1998. The consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons is to be capped in 1995, with a cut of 35 per cent. in 2004. The level of the cap will be 2·6 per cent. of the chlorofluorocarbon consumption plus all HCFC consumption in 1989. The production and import of HCFC's will be controlled by quotas once 80 per cent. of the cap, or the year 2000, has been reached. Use controls of HCFC's will be introduced. There will be a duty to recover and to prevent leakages of controlled substances in certain circumstances.

  A common position was reached on an amendment to the hazardous waste directive deferring implementation to spring 1995. The United Kingdom abstained because of concern over the definition of hazardous waste which would have had the effect of making all wastes contained on the list deemed hazardous in all circumstances.

  The Council discussed progress reports on the amended proposals for directives on waste landfill and the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and PCTs. There was an open debate about the Commission Green Paper on remedying environmental damage. My right hon. Friend made clear the Government's concerns about over-restrictive liability regimes. Progress on the follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development was briefly discussed.

  In discussion of implementation and enforcement of Community environmental legislation, the Council agreed to work for the consistent and effective application of legislation in all member states. The Council will review the position in specific sectors at future meetings.

  The amended proposals for a directive on packaging and packaging waste and the Community strategy for climate change were discussed at length; the Council will resume discussions on these on 13 December.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the spending plans and the projections of economic growth and inflation announced on 30 November for the level of aid to developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The spending plans announced on 30 November reflect the Government's firm commitment
  265
  to a substantial and effective aid programme. The aid budget, covering aid to developing countries and assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, is planned to rise by £83 million by 1996–97, compared with the 1993–94 provision. The Government do not forecast future aid/GNP ratios. The DAC ratios are calculated on calendar year expenditure.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the combined aid budget for the current financial year announced on 30 November will be devoted to assistance to(a) central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and (b) developing countries, as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The provision for 1993–94, announced last year, is £1,900 million for aid to developing countries and £232 million for assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. From 1994–95 there will be a combined aid budget. Details of expenditure by country and region will continue to be shown in the annual British aid statistics.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the combined aid budget announced on 30 November for each of the years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 will be devoted to assistance to(a) central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and (b) developing countries, as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The combined aid budget will allow the Government to allocate aid more effectively in response to the needs of countries individually. The main focus of our aid programme will continue to be to reduce poverty and suffering in the poorest countries, particularly those in Africa and Asia, as well as to provide know-how assistance for countries in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The levels of our assistance are carefully reviewed each year in the light of the public expenditure survey outcome. Details of expenditure by country and region will continue to be shown in the annual British aid statistics.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used in allocating Government funds to non-governmental organisations working overseas.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For humanitarian aid we require proposals addressing the assessed needs. The key objective in allocating Government funds in such circumstances is saving lives. The size and scope of the disaster, steps being taken by the local government or by the Red Cross or Red Crescent Society and action taken or proposed by United Nations organisations and other non-governmental organisations are also important factors affecting our decisions.

  Funds for long-term development are allocated for activities which are judged to contribute to our aim of promoting sustainable economic and social development and improving the quality of life for poor people generally. Organisations must proviede evidence that they have the
  266
  capacity to carry out the projects or programmes for which they have sought support. They must also demonstrate that they are able to account properly for the funds.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what methods are used to monitor the spending of non-governmental organisations working overseas that receive financial grants from Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  For disaster relief we receive both narrative and financial reports from non-governmental organisations on the spending of grants. The regularity of reporting depends on the period covered by the grant.

  Organisations receiving funds for long-term development work submit regular financial and progress reports and a final report is submitted on completion of the work.

  We also undertaken periodic evaluations, in cooperation with NGOs, of their development work and their systems for assessing its effectiveness.

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to enable the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to respond to emergency situations in the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has approved an additional contribution to UNHCR of £1·35 million—equivalent to $2 million—to help replenish its emergency fund. This will enable UNHCR to continue to make initial responses to emergencies, in advance of putting together a longer-term assistance programme.

  Britain's overall contributions to UNHCR activities this year now amounts to £50·75 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the use of chemical weapons against the marsh Arabs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Reports of the use of chemical weapons in the southern marshes of Iraq last September caused us great concern. We immediately offered resources to the United Nations Special Commission to help it investigate the allegations and a British scientist took part in the UNSCOM 65 mission to the marshes in November. UNSCOM could find no immediate evidence that chemical weapons had been used at the sites visited. However, the mission took a large number of soil, water, fauna and flora samples which are now being analysed. Conclusive results will not be known for some months. We remain committed to supporting UNSCOM in its search and destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the People's Republic of China about the
  267
  freedom of movement of Hong Kong residents who are holders of BN(O) passports after 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The terms of memoranda exchanged by the United Kingdom and Chinese sides and associated with the Joint Declaration enable Hong Kong residents with British National (Overseas) Passports to use these passports as travel documents after 1997. Under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law all Hong Kong residents, including BNO passport holders, will enjoy freedom of travel.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out in detail the procedures and new mechanisms for co-operation in the field of common foreign and security policy to which he referred in his speech in Bologna on 29 November; and if he will indicate under which specific provisions of the Maastricht treaty each of these procedures and mechanisms is established.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The provisions of title V—common foreign and security policy—of the treaty on European Union, which came into force on 1 November, introduce some new mechanisms to make intergovernmental co-operation among the member states on foreign policy more efficient. Chapter IV of the report on implementation of the treaty on European Union, which was agreed at the Brussels European Council on 29 October, sets out some of the practical details of implementation of the provisions of title V. The report is available in the Library of the House.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government support the proposals by the Belgian presidency of the EU seeking to implement a common code on the publicity given to documents provided to or initiated by the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Foreign Affairs Council on 6 December agreed a code of conduct for the Council and the Commission to follow in responding to requests by members of the public for access to documents held by the Council or the Commission. We supported the presidency's proposals, which fulfilled a commitment entered into at Maastricht.

  World Service
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position of the new relay station for the World Service in Thailand; and when he expects it to be completed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have reached agreement in principle with the Thai authorities for the construction of the new relay station. Detailed site survey work, which is required before final project approval can be given, is close to completion. The target date for completion of the project is 1996.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the impact of the 268
  reduction in his Department's grant to the World Service of the BBC on the range of language services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The funding provision for the World Service from 1994–95 to 1996–97 will enable it to introduce two new language services, Uzbek and Azeri. There are no plans at present to discontinue any existing language service, but small reductions are likely in the hours of broadcast of a few services.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the BBC on the practical impact of reductions in his Department's grant to the World Service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The planned funding levels for the 1994–95 to 1996–97 triennium, discussed in advance with the BBC, have been protected despite the toughest expenditure round for years. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the World Service have already provisionally discussed resource allocation for the triennium on the basis of these planned figures. Now that the figures have been confirmed, we will agree with the World Service a more detailed plan for the triennium.

  CSCE Meeting
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the CSCE Ministers in Rome.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply 7 December 1993]: The fourth paragraph should read:
  "I regret that despite intensive negotiations the Council was unable to agree on any new steps to resolve the conflict dealt with by the Conference on Nagorno-Karabakh."
  Unfortunately no agreement was reached at the Rome Council on Nagorno-Karabakh and the Minsk process.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Car Parks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking or considering to ensure that the large car-parking providers offer a more secure environment for the parking of vehicles;

  (2) what steps he is taking to stimulate awareness and activity among car-parking providers on security matters so as to bring their efforts up to those of vehicle manufacturers;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that local government car parking providers ensure a higher degree of security in their car parks;

  (4) what consultations he is planning with major car parking companies to encourage greater security of car parking facilities;

  (5) what consideration he has given to introducing a system by which car owners and drivers can evaluate the safety of available car parking facilities;

  (6) what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the way in which car parking providers can be made more responsible for vehicles parked in their premises for a fee;

  (7) what steps he is considering to increase the degree of responsibility borne by car parking providers for the safety of vehicles in their care.
  269
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Last year, the Home Office published crime prevention unit paper No. 34, "Preventing Car Crime in Car Parks", a copy of which is in the Library. This was widely distributed.

  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), met the major car parking operators, local authority associations, consumer bodies and others in January to discuss what could be done to improve car park security. I intend to have a further meeting early next year to review progress.

  We urge all car park operators to support the national secured car park scheme, which was launched by the police in September 1992, with Home Office support. Under that scheme, operators can apply for an award if their premises meet prescribed security standards. This enables motorists to identify car parks with good security. Both local authorities and private operators are participating in the scheme. Awards have been made to more than 150 car parks and many more are pending.

  There have been no specific discussions with our European counterparts on this matter.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates serving life sentences are at present being detained in any open prison establishment in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of inmates serving life sentences being detained in any open Prison Service establishment.
  On 31 October 1993, the latest date for which information is available, there were 274 life sentence prisoners detained in open Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra money and staffing is now under consideration by his Department to meet the cost of his policy on prison population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about resources for dealing with the projected prison population.
  Following the recently announced Unified Budget decisions, the Prison Service will give priority to providing and staffing additional places. These include over 2000 new houseblock places in existing prisons by 1996–97, at a total cost of £120m, and approximately 3600 places in six new prisons. The first two of these are expected to be completed in 1997–98. It is intended that they should be privately financed and the costs will depend on the size, design, role, site and ground conditions.
  270
  Directly employed staff numbers are planned to increase by 1200 between 1993–94 and 1996–97, at an approximate cost of £30m. It will be for the private contractors to decide the staffing of the new prisons.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current year's budget for each London prison; how much will be spent in the current year in each London prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated December 1993:
  Budgets of London Prisons
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the current year's budget for each London prison and how much will be spent in the current year.

  The position is set out in the following table:

  Establishment

  Annual budget year 1993–94

  Forecast Outturn as year 1993–94

  Outturn as percentage of budget

  £

  £

  Belmarsh

  20,931,948

  20,722,799

  99·1

  Brixton1

  21,226,193

  20,732,800

  97·6

  Holloway

  15,194,894

  14,917,646

  98·1

  Latchmere House

  2,199,317

  2,174,693

  98·8

  Pentonville

  15,292,359

  15,183,192

  99·2

  Wandsworth

  21,022,124

  20,859,075

  99·2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  20,029,785

  19,776,811

  98·7

  1 Includes the addition of £376,000 for plated meals because the kitchen has been closed.

  The figures suggest that there will be an underspend at each of the London prisons but the forecast totals are likely to increase as the prison population is rising during the second half of the financial year. Adjustments may be made to allocations in the year.

  DNA Genetic Profiling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will estimate the number of individuals who will provide a non-intimate sample for DNA genetic profiling purposes by the year 2000, 2010 and 2020 under his proposals; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The numbers will depend upon the extent to which police forces make use of the powers that the Government propose to give to them.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what period he intends that DNA genetic profiles will be retained; and whether the length of time will be affected by the nature of the offence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government do not propose to set any statutory limit on the period during which the DNA records of those convicted of recordable offences can be retained.

  Prisons (Hospital Beds)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of hospital beds at each of the London prisons on 15 November; and what was the number of prison inmates being held in each of the prison hospital wings.
  271
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated December 1993:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Question about prison hospital beds at each of the London prisons on 15 November.
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his earlier Question on 2 December 1993 (column 671).

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how costs are borne in respect of inmates treated at the hospital of a prison other than the one on whose roll they are counted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about costs in respect of inmates treated at the hospital of a prison other than the one on whose roll they are counted.
  When a prisoner is transferred to another prison for medical reasons, the accommodation, treatment and related costs are customarily borne by the receiving prison. The transport costs are borne by the sending prison.

  Baroness Thatcher
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of police security provided for Baroness Thatcher to sign copies of her memoirs at bookshops.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not held centrally.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces regularly patrol car boot sales where the sale of stolen goods is suspected.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Decisions about the deployment of officers are operational matters for chief officers.

  Computer Pornography
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the most frequent means of distribution of computer pornography to children.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am aware of reports of cases where computer disks containing pornography have exchanged hands in school playgrounds, although it is impossible to estimate reliably how many children may have been exposed to computer pornography in this way. In such cases the police are able to act under the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964. There is also evidence of pornographic material being transmitted along public telephone lines from computer bulletin boards. Such activity is an offence under the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the current year's review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and how observations from interested persons or organisations should be submitted for consideration.

  Mr. Howard
  I am glad to say that Mr. J. J. Rowe QC, this year's chairman of the Bar Council, has accepted my invitation to succeed Viscount Colville of Culross QC in carrying out this annual review. Viscount Colville has performed this task with great dedication and integrity and has deservedly won widespread respect. I am extremely grateful to him for this invaluable public service.

  Written observations about the operation of the Act should be submitted to Mr. Rowe, do Room 647, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT by 15 January 1994.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the death of Nauwit Zinzuwadia at Her Majesty's prison Welford road, Leicester;

  (2) how many deaths there have been in each year and in which prisons in each of the last 15 years; what percentage of those deaths have been suicides; and what other categories of death have been registered;

  (3) what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths in prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated December 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your three recent Parliamentary Questions about deaths in custody.

  Death of Nauwit Zinzuwadia at Leicester Prison
  You asked for a statement about the death of Mr. Zinzuwadia in Leicester prison on 16 June this year. I will endeavour to explain the sequence of events, but may I say at the outset how very saddened we in the Prison Service are by this tragedy.
  Mr. Zinzuwadia was received into Leicester prison from Leicester Magistrates' Court on 24 July 1991 charged with burglary, threats to kill, affray, and having an imitation firearm with intent.
  Upon reception, Mr. Zinzuwadia did not display any suicidal tendencies although he did report a history of alcoholism, and treatment for depression at Leicester General Hospital.
  Mr. Zinzuwadia was granted bail on 11 September 1991. On 7 January 1992 he was committed for trial to Leicester Crown Court, and on 5 October 1992 he was convicted of affray and possessing an imitation firearm with intent, and was remanded for pre-sentence reports.
  On 30 October 1992 he was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, and on 10 November 1992 he was transferred to Ashwell Prison.
  At Ashwell Mr. Zinzuwadia was treated for various minor physical complaints, but did not show any psychiatric symptoms until 18 May 1993, when he was diagnosed as depressed and paranoid but not suicidal. Anti-depressive medication was prescribed and Mr. Zinzuwadia was to be seen again the following day.
  It appears from the medical records that Mr. Zinzuwacdia

  273
  expressed dislike of the open regime at Ashwell. On 19 May consideration was given to transferring Mr. Zinzuwadia to Leicester after his condition was reviewed and continued to cause concern. Initially, Dr. de Silva at Leicester was not prepared to accept Mr. Zinzuwadia due to pressure on accommodation in the small health care centre at that prison. After discussions with the Duty Principal Medical Officer, however, the transfer was agreed. On arrival at Leicester Mr. Zinzuwadia was located in the ward and he was seen by Dr. de Silva on 20 May. Mr. Zinzuwadia indicated that he was being "got at" by other inmates at Ashwell and felt unable to cope with prison. He displayed no suicidal
  Mr. Zinzuwadia settled well at Leicester and associated normally with other prisoners. On 24 May his medical condition was reviewed. He was assessed by Dr. de Silva as stable, level in mood and displaying no evidence of serious mental disorder or suicidal ideation, and was returned to Ashwell. His symptoms are ascribed to cannabis abuse, and he was warned about this.
  On 15 June Mr. Zinzuwadia became disturbed, assaulted a member of staff and had to be restrained using Control and Restraint techniques. He appeared to have become paranoid about staff. Dr. Moore, the medical officer at Ashwell, was concerned about Mr. Zinzuwaida's disturbed mental state and contacted Dr. de Silva to see whether Mr. Zinzuwadia could be returned to Leicester. She considered he needed further psychiatric assessment at the parent health care facility at Leicester. It was agreed that Mr. Zinzuwadia was suitable for transfer. On arrival back at Leicester Mr. Zinzuwadia was placed in single furnished accommodation in the health care centre under normal observation.
  At 8.30 hours on 16 June Mr. Zinzuwadia made a phone call to his wife, and was permitted to make further calls on the official line as his phonecard had been used up. A Health Care Officer noted that the phone conversation seemed normal.
  Later that morning Dr. de Silva interviewed Mr. Zinzuwadia and concluded that he was displaying symptoms of an acute paranoid psychosis. He prescribed 100mgs of Largactil to be taken three times a day. No suicidal tendencies or fears of injury from anyone else were identified. Mr. Zinzuwadia was located in single accommodation as a precaution, as he had recently been displaying paranoid tendencies and had assaulted staff only 24 hours previously.
  Later on 16 June Mr. Zinzuwadia requested a family visit for the following day, and this request was agreed by Dr. de Silva, who noted that he did not seem in a depressed mood at this time. Dr. de Silva saw him again on the landing of the health care centre at around 15·30 and noted no signs of distress.
  At 18.30 on 16 June both a Health Care Officer and an inmate cleaner spoke to Mr. Zinzuwadia after the evening meal and he gave no obvious indications of any distress, although the Health Care Officer formed the view that Mr. Zinzuwadia "didn't seem talkative".
  At 19.10 on 16 June the same Health Care Officer looked in to Mr. Zinzuwadia's cell and saw that he was standing against the window bars, opposite the cell door. He was looking towards the floor, and his arms were hanging down by his side. The Health Care Officer spoke to Mr. Zinzuwadia, who did not reply, so he entered the cell and established that Mr. Zinzuwadia was hanging from the window bars by a ligature made of white cord. He supported Mr. Zinzuwadia by using his own body to wedge Mr. Zinzuwadia's body against the window bars while he unhooked the ligature from around the neck. He carried Mr. Zinzuwadia to the bed, shouted for help, and began resuscitation. No pulse was detected.
  An inmate responded to the shouts, ran to the cell and at the Health Care Officer's request ran to the office to summon help. The inmate also collected a resuscitation box from the treatment room.
  Another officer then arrived with Dr. Chahal, and resuscitation was continued. An external ambulance crew also arrived and attempted to monitor Mr. Zinzuwadia's respiration. After discussion between Dr. Chahal and the ambulance crew, resuscitation was discontinued, and Mr. Zinzuwadia was pronounced dead at 19.30 hours.
  At the inquest, the jury concluded that he died from suicide whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed. There was no finding of any lack of care on the part of the Prison Service.

  Deaths in custody 1978–1993
  You asked for a breakdown of deaths in custody by Prison Service establishment since 1978, distinguishing suicides from
  274
  other deaths. The information is set out in the attached tables. Information about suicides includes all apparent self-inflicted deaths.

  Measures to reduce deaths in prisons
  There are generally around 70–80 deaths in Prison Service custody each year. A little over half of these (41 in 1992) are self-inflicted. Most of the remainder are by natural causes. I shall assume that our interest lies principally in self-inflicted deaths.
  Suicide is a very complex problem, to which there is no simple or single solution. There are many vulnerable people in prison, and we cannot remove all the causes of distress which lead to emotional crisis. Identifying prisoners at risk is an imprecise science, and much depends on the willingness of prisoners to confide their feelings in staff or volunteer befrienders. It is also extremely difficult, without resort to oppressive measures, to prevent a prisoner who is absolutely determined to kill himself from doing so.
  The Prison Service is, however, committed to the care of prisoners and we are taking a wide range of measures to enhance the quality of care. Our strategy involves both "primary care" to create an environment which helps prisoners to cope with problems, combined with "special care" to identify and support prisoners in times of crisis. The strategy aims to minimise the risk of suicide though it cannot eliminate it.
  The key elements of primary care are good relationships between staff and prisoners, active regimes, decent physical conditions and maintaining a safe and ordered environment. This includes action to reduce bullying: one of the main causes of suicidal crisis, particularly among young prisoners. We issued an anti-bullying guide to establishments in June.
  Personal officer schemes have now been introduced into the vast majority of establishments. The relationship between the personal officer and the prisoner is the crucial first line of help with the prisoner's problems.
  Our approach to the provision of special care is multi-disciplinary. Suicide is far from being simply a medical problem and we aim to involve the whole prison community. All establishments have Suicide Awareness Teams which meet regularly to review local policy, monitor incidents and develop new ideas. They also maintain staff and prisoner awareness and identify training needs. We have a dedicated Suicide Awareness Support Unit in Prison Service Headquarters to develop national policy and spread good practice.
  Branches of the Samaritans are represented on local Suicide Awareness Teams and at most establishments visit prisoners regularly. Some also have special phone links. Samaritan services to prisoners are co-ordinated by a national liaison officer.
  "Listener" Schemes, in which selected prisoners are trained by the Samaritans to befriend other prisoners in distress, are now established in 40 prisons and planned in many others. You may be aware that Leicester prison is currently introducing a Listener scheme.
  Staff training in suicide awareness has been reviewed in the light of new research, and a new package recently issued to establishments, together with a video ("Misadventures") which was produced in collaboration with the Samaritans.
  We have also carried out a thorough review of our procedures and documentation for managing prisoners identified as at risk. This review has taken as its starting-point Judge Tumim's conclusion in his report of 1990 that the existing procedures relied too heavily on medical assessment and treatment. New procedures, which will be introduced by 1 April 1994, aim to improve communication and teamwork, and particularly to make greater use of the skills of prison officers in identifying, counselling and supervising those at risk.
  A new screening form will also be introduced, aimed at improving the way prisoners' health care needs—both physical and mental health—are identified on reception. Assessment of suicide risk will continue to be part of the new reception procedure.
  The provision of specialist health care services remains an important aspect of the strategy, particularly where suicide risk is related to treatable psychiatric problems. The Director of Health Care is carrying out a comprehensive programme of development aimed at ensuring that prisoners have access to the same standards of health care in prison as people in the community. Where prisoners are suffering from mental disorders under the Mental Health Act 1983 the policy of the Government is that they should be cared for within the NHS rather than the penal system.

  275
  The Prison Service, the Criminal Department of the Home Office and the Department of Health are together taking a range of measures aimed at diverting mentally disordered people from prison, improving the psychiatric assessment of prisoners and facilitating transfers to hospital under the 1983 Act in appropriate cases.
  As the tables accompanying this letter are too lengthy to be produced in Hansard, copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

SCOTLAND

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last attended a meeting of the Fisheries Council to discuss developments in the common fisheries policy as they affect the Scottish fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I attend Fisheries Councils regularly, the most recent being the Luxembourg Council in October, and will do so again on December 20.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the health service in Scotland to discuss hospital waiting lists.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health last discussed hospital waiting lists with health board chairmen on 25 June. Departmental officials last discussed the matter with health board general managers on 27 October.

  Lecturers and teachers, by local education authority area in Scotland March 1986 to March 1993

  Full-time equivalents

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Borders

  1,202

  1,187

  1,190

  1,178

  1,189

  1,225

  1,252

  1,281

  Central

  3,358

  3,301

  3,310

  3,307

  3,208

  2,956

  2,959

  2,951

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,753

  1,748

  1,748

  1,722

  1,696

  1,713

  1,713

  1.713

  Fife

  4,287

  4,228

  4,248

  4,259

  4,247

  4,264

  4,215

  4.443

  Grampian

  5,888

  5,871

  5,827

  5,571

  5,898

  5,878

  6,205

  6.015

  Highland

  2,396

  2,632

  2,657

  2,644

  2,703

  2,786

  2,859

  2,892

  Lothian

  7,787

  7,970

  7,856

  7,868

  7,855

  7,887

  7,705

  7,912

  Strathclyde

  27,643

  27,746

  27,396

  27,286

  28,102

  27,442

  27,389

  27,351

  Tayside

  4,609

  4,580

  4,634

  4,711

  4,820

  4,733

  4,618

  4,630

  Orkney

  260

  267

  263

  281

  287

  286

  291

  302

  Shetland

  398

  398

  400

  409

  421

  442

  451

  481

  Western Isles

  501

  513

  517

  488

  495

  472

  476

  444

  SCOTLAND

  60,083

  60,441

  60,045

  59,724

  60,919

  60,085

  60,133

  60,415

  Health Care (Glasgow)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health issues in the Glasgow area.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman and the board of Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health matters in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Sport and Recreation
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the development of sport and recreation in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Government's policies for sport and recreation in Scotland are implemented principally through the Scottish Sports Council, which receives annual grant-in-aid from my right hon. Friend. The council's objectives are to increase participation and improve performance in sport and recreation at all levels.

  Education (Administration)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in respect of each local education authority area in Scotland in each year since 1986 the number of people who are(a) wholly engaged in administration, (b) engaged in administration and teaching and (c) wholly engaged in teaching.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 December 1993]The table details the full-time equivalent number of lecturers and teachers employed in Scottish local education authority areas as at March in the respective years. No information is held centrally on the number of lecturers, teachers and other staff who, either wholly or partly, carry out an administrative role. The information is taken from the joint staffing watch, a survey run jointly by the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Specific information on the numbers of school teachers can be found in the statistical bulletin "Pupils and Teachers in Education Authority Primary and Secondary Schools".

  Mr. Lang
  I would be happy to meet the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board on a mutually convenient date to discuss health matters in Glasgow.

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the starting date of the proposed new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Stewart
  Lothian health board's acute services strategy, which includes proposals for a new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, is currently out to public consultation. My right hon. Friend looks forward to
  277
  considering the proposals in detail once public consultation is complete and the board has submitted its final plans to him for approval.

  Jetstream Factory, Prestwick
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with other Departments concerning the future of the Jetstream factory at Prestwick; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has been in close touch with colleagues in other Departments, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry, about Jetstream Aircraft. The Government's commitment to the future development of the Prestwick manufacturing factory is evidenced by a substantial offer of regional selective assistance—one of the largest offers ever made in Scotland.

  Structural Plans
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on accepting or amending draft structural plans from regional councils.

  Mr. Lang
  Policy guidance on structure plans is set out in SDD circular 32/1983 and planning advice note 37, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since its inception.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since the inception of the European regional development fund in 1975, Scotland has benefited from awards totalling almost £1·2 billion.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the budget of Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise's budget for 1993–94 stands at £451·3 million. My right hon. Friend shall be announcing shortly Scottish Enterprise's budget for 1994–95 in his statement on public expenditure in Scotland.

  Drugs-related Deaths (Glasgow)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a full public inquiry into drugs-related deaths in Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. A conjoined fatal accident inquiry was held into four of these deaths on 1 and 2 November. To enable consideration to be given to the wider policy issues, the Crown Office has made available to the Scottish Office information collected by the procurator fiscal about these four and other similar deaths during the past two years. This information is being studied by the drugs task force under the chairmanship of my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State which is currently reviewing policies to tackle drug misuse in Scotland.

  Salmon
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he proposes to take to assist the Scottish salmon farming industry.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The minimum import price for Atlantic salmon introduced by the European Commission with effect from 20 November provides a temporary floor to the EC market. I hope that the industry will respond quickly to the Commission's invitation to update the information it submitted in 1991 in support of allegations of dumping on to the EC market by Norwegian exporters, so as to allow a further investigation to proceed. In addition, Scottish Office officials have met the Commission Services about the introduction from 1 January 1994 of a reference price for salmon to provide a basis for any future safeguard action, as well as discussing with the industry the possible establishment of producer organisations and other measures to reduce cyclical fluctuations and market imbalance for salmon.

  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of rod-caught Salmon on Scottish east coast rivers in the last recorded year and five years ago.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My Department's catch statistics show that 64,124 salmon and grisle were caught by rod and line on Scottish east coast rivers in 1992 as compared with 69,439 in 1988.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the European Union set-aside rules and payments for Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Since the introduction of the arable area payments scheme my right hon. Friend and I have received representations about the set-aside rules and about payments from a number of organisations and individuals.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the arable set-aside scheme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The main purpose of the set-aside element of the arable area payments scheme is to reduce arable production in all member states. It therefore has an important role to play in meeting the objectives of reform of the common agricultural policy.

  River Clyde (Dredging)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his officials last met representatives of Clydeport Ltd. to discuss the dredging of the River Clyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office officials meet Clydeport Ltd. from time to time. Such contacts cover a range of topics.

  Local Government (Monklands)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the standard and quality of local government in the Monklands area of Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My colleagues and I continue to take a close interest in the provision of local government in the Monklands area, as elsewhere in Scotland.

  Howie Report
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with regard to the consideration of the Howie report in view of the representations which have been received.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am still considering the Howie committee's proposals for the reform of upper secondary school awards in Scotland in the light of the representations which have been received. Decisions will be announced as soon as possible.

  House Building
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public sector houses were built in Scotland last year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in table 5 of the Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin (Housing Series) No. HSG/1993/8— "Housing Trends in Scotland"—which is available in the House Library.

  Industrial Waste
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for making safe sites contaminated by industrial waste; and what will be the cost to the Exchequer.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Responsibility for dealing with contaminated sites rests with the site owners. Any Government contribution towards the cost of decontamination is likely to come mainly through the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks, which have between them £95 million to devote to environmental activity, including decontamination work. The level of priority and resources to be allocated to such work is a matter for the local enterprise companies to decide.

  As far as local authorities are concerned, the capital allocation to their general services budget is not targeted and it is for each council to determine its own priorities for expenditure on any such work.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he is taking to tackle homelessness in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Housing authorities have the statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness. On 1 December I announced £4.35 million extra resources for expenditure on 36 homelessness projects by housing authorities in 1993–94.

  This is in addition to the £513 million allocated to housing authorities in March for investment in public and private housing in 1993–94. Homelessness is one of the three priorities which housing authorities have been asked to address in their housing strategies and output targets.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss current financial problems in Scottish agriculture.
  280
  Sir Hector Monro
  I have regular meetings with the National Farmers Union of Scotland at which we discuss current issues and prospects for the fanning industry. The last such meeting took place on 13 October. My right hon. Friend last met the SNFU on 24 November.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries (Payment)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now review the regulations and rules governing eligibility for payment from public funds to those represented at fatal accident inquiries.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to do so.

  Irvine Development Corporation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given to the wind-up programme for Irvine development corporation.

  Mr. Stewart
  The consultation exercise on the making of wind-up orders for Irvine, Cumbernauld and Livingston development corporations has now been completed. After giving careful consideration to the responses received, I have now made wind-up orders for all three corporations. These orders will come into effect on 1 January 1994 and will provide for the wind-up of the corporations to commence on 1 January 1994 and be completed by 31 December 1996. They also include provision for the revocation of the corporations' special development orders on 31 March 1996 with protection to preserve the effect of any certificate of authorised development for a further period of five years.

  Firth of Forth (Road Bridge)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public consultation he proposes to hold on whether a second road bridge should be built across the Firth of Forth at Queensferry; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposal for a new bridge across the Firth of Forth is part of a package of proposals which includes improvements to road, bus and rail services in the cross-Forth and west of Edinburgh areas.

  Other proposals were identified in the Government's paper "Setting Forth" which was the subject of wide-ranging public consultation in 1992. A scheme to build a new bridge would be subject to the usual statutory procedures, which would include formal consultation before a possible public inquiry.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of which areas of Forestry Commission land assurances have been issued that they will not be privatised; and according to what criteria these decisions are made.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]Ministers will await the advice of the Forestry Review Group before considering what action, if any, should be taken in respect of the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands.

  Mr. Laurence Peterken
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions were attached to the appointment of Mr. Laurence Peterken to the NHS executive.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 December 1993]A condition of Mr. Laurence Peterken's appointment as special projects director was that he agreed not to pursue any action against Greater Glasgow health board.

DEFENCE

  Eurofighter 2000
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stage of development has been reached in the Eurofighter 2000 project; and if he will make a statement with particular reference to the partnership between the Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Aitken
  I met my German opposite number, State Secretary Schönbohm, in Munich last month. We reviewed the progress of the EF 2000 development programme with the senior management of the German and United Kingdom partner companies in the Eurofighter consortium, and were assured that first flight would occur in April 1994 and that there are no major technical problems affecting this or other aspects of the development programme. We agreed on the importance of the project to both countries.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has incorporated the code of practice for information security management, published by the British Standards Institution, into relevant contracts with information technology suppliers.

  Mr. Aitken
  The code of practice for information security management has been developed by, and established for use by, commercial organisations; it does not specifically address the requirements for the protection of official information. The security requirements for IT systems and services used by central Government Departments have been developed specifically for use within Government, and are reviewed regularly to ensure best practice.

  Defence Radiological Protection Service
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the unclassified reports produced by the Defence Radiological Protection Service since January 1992; and if he will place copies of each unclassified report in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  The list of reports is given:

  Title

  Report number

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths in United Kingdom—1991.

  ISBN 0 11 772746 6 (Available from HMSO at £10·50)

  282

  Title

  Report number

  Survey of the Garden at 1 and 2 Repository Road, Woolwich

  1/92

  DRPS Compendium of PQs and Answers for 1990 and 1991

  2/92

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Survey—Hong Kong

  3/92

  HMNB Chatham—Dose Statistics 1970–1989

  4/92

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Survey of the Falkland Islands

  5/92

  Determination of the Neutron Sensitivity of Thermoluminescent Detectors

  6/92

  Response of the MD 3 Radiac Instrument

  7/92

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Survey—Gibraltar 1992

  12/92

  MOD Tritium Inventory

  13/92

  DRPS RADON Dosimetry Service—Investment Appraisal

  14/92

  Acceptance Testing of Temperature Controlled Baths

  15/92

  Laboratory Support to RAF St. Athan

  16/92

  RPA Group Performance Indicators

  17/92

  Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—12/92

  1/93

  RAF Carlisle Clearance Survey

  2/93

  Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—1/93

  3/93

  Laboratory Support to RAF Brize Norton 2/93

  4/93

  Generic and Inherited Effects of Radiation

  5/93

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Survey—Bermuda 10/92

  6/93

  Radiofrequency Survey of Little Content Farm

  7/93

  Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—3/93

  8/93

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Survey of Holy Loch 1992.

  ISBN 0 11 772764 4 (Available from HMSO at £8·50)

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Survey—Diego Garcia 11/92

  10/93

  Dose Statistics 1992

  11/93

  Training of Health Physics at DRPS

  12/93

  Investigation to Determine Background Levels of Radon in DRPS Radon Dosimetry Laboratory

  14/93

  Laboratory Support to RAF Carlisle—8/93

  15/93

  Etch Envelope Investigation for Radon CR-39 Elements

  16/93

  Ditton Park Surveys

  17/93

  18/93

  19/93

  Laboratory Support to INM Training

  20/93

  Flushing of CR-39 Storage Cabinets

  21/93

  283

  Title

  Report number

  Marine Environmental Radioactivity Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths in United Kingdom—1992

  1—

  1To be published by HMSO at end of 1993.

  I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Radioactivity Surveys
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statment on the findings of(a) the marine environmental radioactivity survey of Gibraltar, DRPS report 12/92, (b) the marine environmental radioactivity survey of Hong Kong, DRPS report 3/92, (c) the marine environmental radioactivity survey of Bermuda, DRPS report 10/92 and (d) the marine environmental radioactivity survey of Diego Garcia DRPS report 11/92.

  Mr. Hanley
  The reports referred to are part of a routine programme of environmental radioactivity surveys which is carried out by the Defence Radiological Protection Service around all berths in the United Kingdom and dependent territories that are used by nuclear powered warships. In each case, the findings demonstrate that there has been no radiological hazard to any member of the public as a result of nuclear powered warship operation.

  Sea Harrier Squadrons
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for Royal Navy Sea Harrier squadrons to request participation in flag exercises in north America.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to request participation by Royal Navy Sea Harriers in flag exercises in north America.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for Royal Navy Sea Harrier squadrons to conduct training at Canadian forces base Goose Bay.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are plans for Royal Navy Sea Harriers to conduct training at Goose Bay.

  RAF Aircraft (Goose Bay)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons, and of what types, were dropped by Royal Air Force aircraft during training from Canadian forces base Goose bay in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Numbers of practice weapons dropped in the southern low-level training area weapons range are as follows:

  1992

  1993

  Inert 1,000 lb bombs

  285

  100

  Inert 28 lb practice bombs

  315

  180

  There is no regulatory requirement to hold records of weapons expended for more than one year; details of weapons dropped in the years before 1992 are therefore not available.
  284
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the requirements of(a) Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 units and (b) Royal Air Force Tornado F3 units for use of medium level airspace for training at Canadian forces base Goose bay.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF's principal requirement for training at Goose bay is to enable Tornado GR1s to practice operational low flying and to conduct day/night, all-weather, terrain-following radar operations. There is, therefore, no requirement for Tornado GR1s to operate in medium-level airspace other than on the rare occasions when aircraft require an air test. Tornado F3s deployed to Goose bay would not plan to operate regularly at medium level, although they may do so from time to time in support of the low-level training sorties of other aircraft.

  Military Aircraft (Practice Interceptions)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the minimum horizontal ranges to which a military aircraft carrying out a practice interception on a non-co-operating civil aircraft is permitted to approach its target;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the changes made to procedures for practice interceptions of civil airliners, following the aircraft proximity hazard incident off Fife on 22 October 1992;

  (3) what instructions are contained in the group air staff orders of No. 11 Group Royal Air Force, concerning the procedures to be followed by RAF aircraft conducting practice interceptions of non-co-operating civil aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 29 November 1993,Official Report, column 369.

  Armed Forces (Commitment)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made on the ability of the armed forces, on the completion of "Options for Change", to meet all the commitments in NATO, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Falklands, Cyprus and emergency duties; what areas will have priority; and which areas will have to be reassessed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government's plans for force restructuring are set out in "Defending Our Future", the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates. They are kept under constant review to ensure that Britain's armed forces remain well placed to meet our commitments at home and overseas. We have demonstrated our readiness to make adjustments to our plans to ensure that this remains the case.

  Fife (Aircraft Proximity Hazard Incidents)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access the joint airmiss working group had to the recordings of radio communication between the RAF Buchan air defence radar unit and the RAF Tornado involved in an aircraft proximity hazard incident with an Air UK BAe 146 aircraft off Fife on 22 October 1992, for the purposes of their investigation into that incident.

  Mr. Hanley
  The joint airmiss working group did not investigate this incident, which was reported under the
  285
  parallel aircraft proximity hazard—APHAZ—scheme. APHAZ reports are investigated initially by the Civil Aviation Authority and analysed by an independent body of aviation, civil and military specialists known as the joint APHAZ assessment panel—JAAP. In this case, the JAAP had no access to the radio recordings or transcripts from RAF Buchan since these were classified. The JAAP did, however, receive reports from RAF Buchan and RAF Leuchars, the home base of the Tornado aircraft involved in the incident.

  Information Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operation of his Department's sensitive documents unit; how many staff are employed in its operation; and approximately how many documents per annum come within its purview.

  Mr. Hanley
  MOD records are reviewed for continuing sensitivity in accordance with the guidelines set out in the open government White Paper—Cm 2290.

  There are 27 mostly part-time reviewers—equivalent to 15 full time—five of which—three full time—are employed on sensitivity review. Records reviewed are accounted for in linear footage. In the 12 months to 31 October 1993, some 340 linear feet of records were examined by the sensitivity reviewers.

  Nitro-cellulose and Nitro-glycerine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there is a strategic requirement for the United Kingdom to retain the capability to produce nitro-cellulose and nitro-glycerine for small arms ammunition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We do not regard the maintenance of this capability in the United Kingdom as a strategic necessity. As with all elements of the defence industrial base, however, we monitor developments in the industry carefully.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicles are currently in use by British forces in Bosnia; how many offer full armoured protection to the occupants; and how many are soft skinned.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently 917 vehicles of all types deployed in the United Kingdom within the former Yugoslavia. Of that number 190, including 65 Warriors, are armoured, giving all-round protection. The remaining 727 vehicles consist of trucks, bulk fuel vehicles, Land Rovers, engineers' plant and mechanical handling equipment. Not all of those vehicles will be in use at any one time.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he has received to provide assistance in the investigation of alleged war crimes in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None, although British forces in Bosnia have facilitated investigation by providing armed escorts and armoured transport to United Nations investigators of alleged war crimes. They gave similar assistance to Dame 286
  Anne Warburton during her investigation earlier this year into the treatment of Muslim women in the former Yugoslavia.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the provision of assistance by British forces in the investigation of allegations of war crimes in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  British forces in Bosnia provide assistance where possible to the United Nations or other official investigators of alleged war crimes on request.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units have been identified to replace United Kingdom forces currently serving in Bosnia when their tours of duty expire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  No decisions have been taken about a further roulement of British forces in Bosnia in April-May next year. As a matter of sensible contingency planning, however, the 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment has been identified and warned off as a possible replacement for 1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards, if a further six months deployment were to be undertaken.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information on alleged war crimes committed in Bosnia has been gathered by British forces deployed in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Any information British forces come across during the course of their duties is passed to the relevant United Nations authorities for investigation.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy developments have occurred in relation to the provision of assistance by British forces in the investigation of allegations of war crimes in bosnia in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Defence Support Agencies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the criteria that he uses to assess the quality of work carried out by defence support agencies.

  Mr. Hanley
  The quality of the service delivered by defence agencies is measured in a number of ways which are tailored to the particular circumstances of each agency. Typically, these include key performance targets and agency reports and accounts, all of which are published annually, and the close involvement of the end user either through customer satisfaction surveys or formal boards, where representatives can ensure that their requirements are met and highlight any concerns. In some cases, defence agencies have achieved accreditation to BS5750 or have adopted a total quality approach to their activities—both giving my Department additional measures or quality or performance.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a list of all the performance targets that have been established for defence support agencies.
  287
  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter of public record.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence support agencies he intends to establish in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Areas under review for defence agency status in the next 12 months are the Ministry of Defence police; RAF Training Group; the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation; the Naval Marine Services Organisation; Army Logistic Information Systems; Army Engineer Services; RAF Signals; test and evaluation; Sales (Disposals); Service Children's Schools abroad but outside the Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) defence agency.

  This process will involve, inter alia, consideration of operational implications and of prior options, including privatisation and contracting out. Final decisions will be taken case-by-case if it is clear that the best solution is to retain the activity within the Ministry of Defence.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the weighted number of allied quality assurance publication non-conformances by the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence support agency in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  This matter falls within the responsibilities of the chief executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Captain D. Symonds, Royal Navy, to Dr. David Clark dated 7 December 1993:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the weighted number of allied Quality Assurance publication Non-conformances by the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation Defence Agency (NARO DA) in 1992–93:
  The weighted number of allied Quality Assurance publication non-conformance by the NARO DA in 1992–93 was:

  Number

  Fleetlands

  548

  Almondbank

  124

  NARO Total

  672

  The ratio of weighted non-conformances per audit showed a 19·6 per cent. improvement over the year in 1992–93.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy developments have occurred in respect of defence support agencies in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1992 the Department conducted an internal review of next steps in the Ministry of Defence. Four main conclusions were reached: that greater attention needed to be paid to the Department's ownership role vis-a-vis its agencies; that programmes of training and education needed to be developed; that reviews for agency status should place much greater emphasis on strategic and management planning; and that resources should be provided for the development of agency accounting and management information systems.

  Action has been taken or is in train under each of these headings. In addition, it was decided that the distinction
  288
  formerly drawn between executive agencies in defence and defence support agencies had become counterproductive as it meant that agencies were viewed as falling into one or the other and as defence support agencies report to the Secretary of State through military or management channels of command rather than directly, this led to the retention of unnecessary central control. Accordingly, all next steps agencies in defence are known as defence agencies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of all of the penalties that he has imposed on defence support agencies for non-performance in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Each year all the defence agencies are set clear and challenging key targets. They are required to demonstrate their performance against targets in their annual report. In the assessment of performance and setting of revised targets a judgment is made by agency owners as to whether the targets set for the previous year have been too demanding or not challenging enough. The question of imposing penalties has not arisen.

  Devonport and Rosyth
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he intends to take decisions about ownership restrictions relating to the sale of Devonport and Rosyth dockyards;

  (2) if he will publish full details of ownership restrictions relating to the sale of Devonport and Rosyth dockyards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 2 November to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson),Official Report, column 132, and my right hon. and learned Friend's comments to the House on 18 October, Official Report, column 41.

  Ammunition and Propellant
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign companies currently supply the armed services with ammunition and propellant.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not procure propellant separately. Overseas companies who currently supply the Ministry of Defence with ammunition are:

  GIAT, France;

  Hirtenberger, Austria;

  Muiden Chemie, The Netherlands;

  Simmel, Italy;

  Borletti, Italy;

  De Kruithoorn, The Netherlands;

  Nico, Germany; and

  La Crox, France.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence married quarters were empty on(a) 30 September 1993, (b) 30 September 1992, (c) 30 September 1991, (d) 30 September 1990 and (e) 30 September 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of vacant Ministry of Defence married quarters on the dates requested was as follows:
  289

  Vacant Service MQs

  Surplus MQs in the process of sale

  30 September 1993

  10,124

  1,106

  30 September 1992

  9,167

  1,560

  30 September 1991

  9,834

  1,461

  30 September 1990

  10,934

  1,711

  31 July 19891

  13,505

  1,798

  1 Figures in 1989 were collected over a different reporting period.

  The majority of vacant quarters at any one time are either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, held for future developments or already allotted to service families who are due to move in shortly.

  Operation Deny Flight
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of British participation in Operation Deny Flight.

  Mr. Hanley
  The additional cost to the Defence budget for this financial year is currently estimated to be about £30 million.

  NAAFI
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 686, what (a) management and (b) disciplinary action was taken as a result of the letter to Aims of Industry sent by James Rucker of 14 March 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. Mr. Rucker's letter indicated correctly that NAAFI is a non-political organisation and could have no relationship with Aims of Industry.

  Mine Clearance
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were trained by the British Army mine clearance training team during its participation in the recent United Nations operation in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom's mine clearance training team trained a total of 42 Cambodians. The United Nations assigned the team to an area dominated by the Khmer Rouge, which withdrew its co-operation with the United Nations operation at an early stage and refused to permit further training. By the time the United Kingdom team had been relocated, this first training stage of the United Nations mine clearance operation was largely complete. The United Kingdom team was, however, able to participate fully in the subsequent United Nations supervision of mine clearance work by Cambodian teams which cleared over 45,000 mines and pieces of unexploded ordnance.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of deploying the British Army mine clearance training team as part of the recent United Nations operation in Cambodia.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to identify costs for specific elements of the British contingent deployed to Cambodia. The final cost of the United Kingdom deployment is not yet available, but to the end of September, some £2.5 million has been reported for the current financial year.
  290
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the source of financing for the deployment of the British Army mine clearance training team as part of the recent United Nations operation in Cambodia.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of British military involvement in the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia is in accordance with established interdepartmental arrangements whereby the Foreign and Commonwealth Office meet the extra costs of any deployment for the first 12 months and the full costs thereafter. The United Nations has overall financial responsibility and reimburses admissible national costs.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future deployment of mine clearance training teams; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government remain ready to consider requests for help with mine clearance training, as with all other forms of assistance in peace support operations.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with United Nations officials about the level of international demand for mine clearance training teams; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None, but the United Nations has appointed a demining expert with whom the military adviser to the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations has had general discussions, as have officials from my Department and their counterparts at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Morale
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of changes in general service morale over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no evidence of any significant change in service morale over the past three years. This has been a period of considerable uncertainty for service personnel, but they continue to carry out their duties in a thoroughly professional manner. We aim to relieve uncertainty by making early announcements, whenever possible, of decisions concerning their future.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the current state of morale amongst the chiefs of staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chiefs of staff accept the need for changes in the size and shape of our armed forces, and the reasons behind those changes. They recognise the considerable challenges posed by the changes and have a number of understandable concerns about the magnitude of the task and the uncertainties for their services. They are nevertheless fully committed to the Government's objective of preserving front-line capability through improvements to the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of its support.

  Officers and Other Routes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the change in the ratio between officer and other ranks between 1980 and 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the ratio of officers to other ranks in each of the three armed services in 1970 and 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  The ratios of officers to other ranks on the dates specified are as follows:

  Date

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  All

  1 April 1970

  1: 6·60

  1: 7·79

  1: 4·55

  1: 6·25

  1 April 1979

  1: 6·23

  1: 8·11

  1: 4·92

  1: 6·54

  1 April 1980

  1: 6·10

  1: 8·33

  1: 5·06

  1: 6·64

  1 April 1992

  1: 5·15

  1: 7·43

  1: 4·71

  1: 5·92

  These figures exclude locally enlisted personnel.

  The ratios are based on strengths and reflect the requirement for officers and other ranks at the particular time. In the 12 years between 1980 and 1992 there has been a substantial restructuring of the armed forces to reflect changing requirements, notably those arising from the end of the cold war. This restructuring continues and further proposals may result from the defence costs study which is currently examining all aspects of support to the front line. The Ministry of Defence does not use officer:other ranks ratios as a control mechanism.

  Racial Harassment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he holds centrally of the number of complaints of racial harassment in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Army and Royal Air Force maintain central records of complaints of racial discrimination and ill-treatment involving a racial element. During the period 1 January 1993 to 30 November 1993, there were five such complaints in the Army and two in the Royal Air Force. One complaint in the Army has been resolved and the remaining four are under investigation. Neither of the complaints in the Royal Air Force was substantiated. The Royal Navy expects to introduce a system to record complaints involving a racial element by spring 1994.

  Expenditure
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the release of information on future expenditure plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Defence expenditure plans are published annually in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and cover the next financial year and the two following.

  Arms Transfers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), of 29 November,Official Report, column 370, what criteria have been agreed with the EC and P5 concerning the export of defence equipment; and if he will make a statement.
  292
  Mr. Aitken
  Copies of the EC criteria and P5 guidelines concerning the export of defence equipment have been placed in the Library.

  Release of Information
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy developments in relation to the release of information have occurred in the last 18 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to the open Government initiative, and releases as much information into the public domain as possible without compromising security. Major examples include: the December 1992 announcement that, in future, service board of inquiry reports will be released to next of kin; the ongoing review of closed departmental records to assess suitability for release to the Public Records Office—some 2,500 have been released to date—and the implementation this August, in conjunction with members of the media, of a new defence advisory notices system, replacing the old D notice system. This year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, "Defending Our Future", also represents a significant step forward in increasing openness, giving unprecedented access to the defence planner's perspective and to the way in which force structures are determined.

  Light Armoured Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made on the planned procurement of a new range of light armoured vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our future light armoured vehicle programme is still in its early stages. Feasibility studies are currently being carried out by three consortia for a new tactical reconnaissance armoured combat vehicle—TRACER. Our requirements and procurement strategies for other future vehicles have yet to be determined.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions his officials have had with foreign companies regarding the planned procurement of a new range of light armoured vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The most recent discussions about our future light armoured vehicle programme, involving representatives of foreign companies, have been progress meetings between officials and the consortia who are carrying our feasibility studies for the tactical reconnaissance armoured combat equipment requirement—TRACER.

  Reserve Forces
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of all of the representations he has received relating to his proposals on new legislation for the reserve forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Our consultative document "Britain's Reserve Forces: A Framework for the Future" was published on 12 October 1993. The period for responses closed on 23 November, but late replies are still arriving. By Monday 6 December, some 133 responses had been received. Many of the letters reveal the private addresses
  293
  and service affiliations of individuals, and it would therefore be inappropriate to publish them. I will, however, arrange for a factual summary of the responses, supported by appropriate extracts from the replies themselves, to be placed in the Library.

  Separately, more than 400 further replies have been received by Sir Alexander Graham, the chairman of the National Employers' Liaison Committee for the Reserve Forces, in response to a request from him to employers for views. He has undertaken to prepare a consolidated response from NELC which will also be placed in the Library.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has regarding the policies of other NATO countries towards their reserve forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The policy of NATO countries towards their reserve forces is a matter for their respective Governments. All member countries, except Iceland which has no armed forces, are able to mobilise their reserve forces in times of crisis and war.

  There are, however, regular exchanges of views between representatives of the reserve forces of member countries under the auspices of the Confederation Inter-Alliée des Officiers de Réserve, and between the respective heads of the reserve forces in the National Reserve Forces Committee.

  Conservative Party Conference
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred on defence votes in respect of staff from non-Defence Ministers' private offices visiting Blackpool during the Conservative party conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Ethnic Origins
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to monitor the ethnic origins of those leaving the armed forces.
  294
  Mr. Hanley
  The ethnic origins of personnel leaving the armed forces will be monitored as part of the ethnic monitoring of all regular serving personnel.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz),Official Report, 29 November, column 364, if his proposed survey of the ethnic origins of serving personnel will provide a detailed breakdown of (a) rank and (b) regimental or other unit affiliation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It will be possible to produce a breakdown of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by rank, regiment or unit from the information obtained in the ethnic origin survey. It is our intention to publish a breakdown by service and rank in defence statistics in due course.

  Nuclear Tests
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what announcements he has to make about nuclear tests following the United States Government's anouncement on 7 December.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom has carried out no secret nuclear tests. However, a British nuclear test at the Nevada test site on 25 September 1964 did not proceed as planned and did not produce a nuclear yield. For this reason it has not been included in lists of nuclear tests carried out by the United Kingdom.

  RAF Training (Germany)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current training arrangements for the RAF based in Germany, what training areas are used; how many flying hours are planned per month and how many are achieved; how often and where alternative training takes place; and how often training runs fail to take place due to shortage of spares.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford
Richard Douglas, Lord Bishop of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

EC: Increase in Expenditure
2.43 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the reason for the proposed increase in the expenditure of the EC; and whether they propose to agree to it.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the financial framework for the European Community until 1999 was agreed at the Edinburgh European Council of December 1992. The Government will ask Parliament later this Session to approve a Bill giving force to the changes in the Community's system of own resources as agreed at Edinburgh.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he say what is the increase in expenditure next year over the current year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the 1994 budget will go to the European Parliament to be discussed on Tuesday next week and will probably be voted upon on Thursday. So I cannot give the precise figures, but the Council's second reading of the draft budget came to a total of 73.1 becu, which is £56.1 billion or thereabouts.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I can supply the figures for which the noble Lord asks? The figures show that when ECOFTN met on 15th November last to consider and approve the draft budget of the Community, it represented an increase of 4.204 billion ecu in terms of payments and 4.264 in terms of commitments. Translated into pounds, that means an increase of over £3 billion over last year. Will the Minister confirm that in the light of those figures the British Minister at the next ECOFTN meeting will resist the proposals for increases which will most surely come from the European Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the European Parliament will doubtless look at the budget in the way that the European Parliament looks at the budget. I know that the noble Lord will be the first to congratulate the Government on what they achieved at Edinburgh, which was a marked reduction over what the Commission proposed.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the Government's reaction to M. Delors' grandiose scheme for borrowing countless billions in order to clear unemployment in the EC by subsidising clapped out industries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we will look at everything that M. Delors puts to us with great care. When it came to the question of the own resources ceiling, he put forward a figure of 1.37 per cent, for 1997. We whittled that down to 1.27 per cent, by 1999. I am sure that we shall be able to look at his proposals in the same constructive mood.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is it not rather late in the day to be talking about these global figures? Does the Minister agree that the problem, if there is one—and indeed there is—is that the formula to which we agreed and upon which the agreement is based brings about these excessive figures. Is there no way of subsidiarity being brought in so that we can have a say, despite what was agreed in Edinburgh, as to the actual amount that we should pay? It seems to increase every time the matter is brought forward.
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. There is a provision for an increase in the Community budget. That was what was agreed at Edinburgh. It was entirely due to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the increase was limited to the amount that it was.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the answer to the question is that the reason is that we agreed to it? The answer to the second part of the Question, whether the Government propose to agree to it, is yes, because they have already agreed to it. In other words, it is all over and done with and we have no scope for any change whatsoever.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, to which question does the noble Lord refer?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I refer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter: what is the reason for the proposed increase? Am I right in saying that me answer is that we have already agreed to it, and therefore the second part of the Question, whether the Government propose to agree to it, is a nullity? The answer is yes, because they already have.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is why I gave the Answer referring to the Edinburgh Council, because it has been agreed to.

Legislation and Ministers' Parliamentary Speeches
2.48 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that speeches made by Ministers of the Crown do not amplify, amend or interpret primary legislation, either during its passage through Parliament or after it has been enacted.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I confirm that the law as enacted by Parliament is contained in the text of any statute. The only change made in the recent case of Pepper v. Hart was to permit the courts to use certain parliamentary materials "as an aid to the construction of legislation" in particular circumstances.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that partly encouraging reply. May I remind him that the use of ministerial statements in order to supplement Acts of Parliament is a dangerous practice, and that it points to the need for our spending more time and exercising more care in order to achieve clarity, not only as to detail but as to the principles covering that detail? Will the Government be taking steps to overcome the decision in Pepper v. Hart in due course?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is well known that the distinguished committee over which my noble friend presided came out against the introduction of any such rule as that in Pepper v. Hart. The formulation in Pepper v. Hart nonetheless does stress that what is required at all times is to ascertain the intention of Parliament and to ascertain it from the interpretation of the words. All that is now permitted is to go some way and use certain parliamentary materials the better to try to ascertain what that intention was. I of course accept that it will be necessary at all times for the parliamentary draftsmen to continue to strive so far as possible to encapsulate the desired policy in the wording of the statute and to make that as accurate as possible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the matter is even further complicated by the incorporation of European legislation into British law? Does he agree that, in view of the growing ambiguities, preambles and recitals ad infinitum in the European legislation, the situation becomes more and more difficult and makes decisions much more a matter of conjecture than logical argument?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, over the past few years the courts in this country have become to a certain extent used to handling European legislation and to adopting the kind of criteria for interpretation which that legislation requires. They also enjoy the very great advantage that in the last resort the Court of Justice in Luxembourg can provide a final answer on any matter of interpretation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I acknowledge that the original Answer was legally correct, but would my noble and learned friend confirm that the facts in Pepper v. Hart were quite peculiar? Is it not the fact that in truth the words of the statute were capable of two meanings and that the Government argued against the meaning which their own Minister had given to Parliament in explanation of the statute when the point was raised? Does he agree that it was rather a peculiar thing to do?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as so often my noble and learned friend has put his finger very
944
accurately on the spot. It was indeed a rather unusual case. Perhaps that explains why their Lordships found it a convenient case to adopt the argument which they did.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I plead guilty to being the successful advocate in Pepper v. Hart. Would my learned friend, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, confirm that nothing in that decision suggests that the courts are a mere reflecting mirror of what Ministers say during the passage of legislation? Also, does he agree that now it is important that Hansard should be much more widely available to the public at large?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it was the case that the eloquent argument of the noble Lord was the argument that prevailed. It is important that Hansard should be available. It is also important to notice, as I understand was stressed in the argument presented to the Judicial Committee of this House, that what is trying to be ascertained at all times is the meaning of the words in the legislation. I believe that that was the way in which the argument was presented.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if that decision should result in Bills having more and more of the i's dotted, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how that will fit in with the oft repeated request that Bills should go toward the intention rather than include every single detail?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is always desirable in a Bill that the appropriate amount of detail should be included. What is required in all cases is a formulation which is precise enough to encapsulate the intention of Parliament in the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I am delighted to hear him say that Hansard should be more readily and widely available? Would he pass that sentiment on to his colleagues and advise them that Hansard has been raised in price since 1979 from 49p to £7.50p? In the light of his feelings about this matter, will he therefore recommend to them that the cost of Hansard be brought down very considerably and that a free copy be sent to every public library in the country?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord raised the matter in this House not so long ago. In this context we are concerned that it should be available in particular to those lawyers and such who have to advise clients in these matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, however unusual the circumstances of Pepper v. Hart, that case established a precedent for referring to Hansard which is bound to increase the length and cost of all court work? Will he bear that in mind in considering my earlier request that the Government should take steps to overcome that decision?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it will be appropriate to see how the decision works out in practice. There is obviously a risk, which was stressed

945
by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the course of his speech on that case, that there will indeed be an increase in the length of proceedings. It is also fair to point out that one other noble and learned Lord indicated that in an appropriate case the use of an award of costs could be used to penalise any misuse of the new principle.
Lord Archer of Sand well: My Lords, may I invite the noble and learned Lord to elaborate a little on his answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham? Will he confirm, as we would expect, that he himself will do everything possible to discourage government departments and public authorities from invoking legislation against the citizen in a sense contrary to explanations and undertakings given to Parliament during the legislative process? Does he agree that the best way to minimise problems arising from the construction of ambiguous legislation is for governments not to introduce legislation until it has been carefully thought through and drafted?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to the noble and learned Lord that it is clearly undesirable for the Government to find themselves arguing against the spirit in which the legislation was brought before Parliament. For the rest, I confirm that it is always desirable that the policies should be thought out and encapsulated in appropriate words.

NHS: Surgeons
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that surgeons in the NHS have no cause to feel insecure about the future of their profession.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, surgeons have no cause for concern for their future. Their continually developing and evolving skills will always be essential to the National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply from the Minister. I have been approached by many surgeons and I have been to their hospitals. Is she aware that they are concerned because they do not know just how long the hospital in which they work (such as Bart's or the Royal Marsden) will last? Is she further aware that if they have to leave they will have to take with them their specialised instruments, very specialised screening and other essential items which an ordinary doctor does not require? Surgeons are very specialised people in our National Health Service and they are very anxious at the moment. Does the Minister feel that consultation with them would be to the benefit of her department as well as the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very well aware of the anxiety and uncertainty felt at the moment, especially in London. As I explained to your Lordships'
946
House, if there are changes in hospital services they will go out to consultation and the staff will be involved very closely in that consultation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the reasons why there has been a postponement of the reduction in the hours of junior hospital doctors is that there appears to be a shortage of consultants in post? Can she explain why that is. so and what action she is taking to deal with it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are very few areas in which there are shortages in terms of specialties. But there are a few, including paediatrics, anaesthetics and psychiatry. We are addressing those issues, particularly the paediatric shortage, which we believe we shall be able to overcome quite shortly.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that another reason for any possible feelings of insecurity, not merely among surgeons but among nurses and physiotherapists, is the scare stories peddled by UNISON and the Labour Party?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is absolutely right. A great deal of strife, comment and rumour are circulating at the moment. That is picked up by the press, who enjoy it and use it to sell their newspapers.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, without wanting to spread scare stories, uncertainty in the professions in this country is so widespread that the only two professions with any certainty at the present time are undertakers and Members of your Lordships' House? The connection for the moment escapes me.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful for the second comment made by the noble Lord. The uncertainty is predominantly in London and perhaps there is a little in other major cities. Throughout the rest of the country the National Health Service is in a stable condition.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is at any rate one certainty? Those who can pay for (their treatment obtain it promptly. A two-tier service exists now and it is getting worse.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I totally refute that. Waiting times have come down considerably. In London the waiting list has shrunk by 40 per cent. We are giving treatment more quickly to those who need it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the main reason for the uncertainty among the professions is the delay in the announcement with regard to the future of the London hospitals? We were promised that we would hear something before Christmas. Is that still a firm bet?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement as soon as possible.
Lord Howell: My Lords, as regards cities such as Birmingham, is the Minister aware that security for

947
medical staff is not helped by such acts as the Secretary of State carried out recently? She arrived at the headquarters of the West Midlands Health Authority before talking to anybody and before reading the paper drawn up by all the consultants in every hospital in Birmingham. The paper concluded that hospitals were full to overflowing, that there were no empty beds and, in their view, only 1 per cent, of patients should not be in hospital. Before reading that paper the Secretary of State arrived in Birmingham and told the press that there were too many beds, too many hospitals and therefore some had to be closed down. Was that wise action?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, services in every city are being considered. That is what the management in the health service is requested to do; it is part of its job. This country is fortunate in having my right honourable friend, who is careful to ensure that she visits services before decisions are taken. She knows the National Health Service better than almost anybody. The fact that she is prepared to make those visits is something that we should all applaud.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the feeling of uncertainty among surgeons and others must be much greater for those in the lower echelons of the service, particularly in London hospitals? After all, a surgeon has the chance to move to another hospital which will take over his specialty. We should be much more concerned about the people a long way below the line—the porters, the domestics and cleaners—who will feel the pinch much more.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, for consultant and nursing staff, we set up a clearing house in London to enable them to find jobs in other parts of the country. Indeed, on my travels I see some of the people who have moved from London to work in Newcastle, Southampton and other cities. But the noble Baroness is right: it is absolutely essential that when services move we look after the interests of all staff concerned. Many services will not close; they will move to other buildings. But I appreciate, for example, that for people on low incomes that can present a real difficulty.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say how the department proposes to deal with the problem of operating sessions which are cancelled due to lack of funding, leaving surgeons, trained nurses and equipment idle? Only this week I was told of a consultant whose operating sessions on the NHS were reduced from seven to two per week. He now spends the balance of that time in the private sector.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when one looks at the situation in London, it is interesting to note that the number of consultant staff is twice that in inner city areas in other parts of the country. Over the years we have got out of kilter. We are telling health authorities and hospitals that they must live within their means. If that requires doing less work, then that is what they must do.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister saying that she is satisfied with a situation where "doing less work" means a surgeon who was giving seven sessions a week to the health service is now giving two?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am saying that the distribution is uneven. That is one of the issues that we are trying to tackle in London. Clearly where surgeons are required in other parts of the country they will be used. We need more surgeons, but at the moment there is a concentration of them in London which presents some of the problems which are so evident.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is the intention of the Minister of State to visit all NHS top management and leaders of the medical profession? Both bodies agree that that would be helpful and hope that the noble Baroness can confirm that this afternoon. Both the leaders of the medical profession as well as top management believe that it is time that the Minister of State, rather than the Secretary of State, met them to discuss the whole situation. They are happy that that is going to happen. Can the Minister say also whether it is true that a leading London teaching hospital is to sack 500 members of staff to reduce costs? If that is so, specialists, doctors and surgeons believe that the remedy provided by the Government and the department is worse than the disease.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Minister of State for Health has been both assiduous and diligent in visiting hospitals before any decisions are taken. But we shall see changes in London; we make no bones about that. Clearly we shall see fewer staff working in the health service in the future, as I have already told your Lordships.

Haiti: Sanctions
3.7 p.m.
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the cost and the rationale of Britain's participation in the blockade of Haiti.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in support of the United Nations activities and in the interests of regional stability, Ministers agreed to allow the West Indies guardship, HMS "Active", to participate in operations to implement sanctions. That participation did not adversely affect HMS "Active's" programme or responsibilities and was accomplished at no extra cost to Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, the second half of which was extremely reassuring. I note that we are blockading Haiti in accordance with a United Nations resolution. But we'do not obey all UN resolutions, notably the ones in the Middle East. Can the Minister say what is the principle of selection and why we obey the United Nations in some respects and not others?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the West Indies we have an interest in maintaining regional stability because of the dependent territories for which

949
we are responsible. In addition, we fully support UN efforts to restore democracy in Haiti, where horrendous breaches of human rights have taken place.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is suggested that we should be selective regarding whether or not we respond to decisions taken by the United Nations. Will the Minister take it from me that basically we should support United Nations initiatives? If we do not, we cannot expect other countries to rally in support of them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and agree with him. In the specific case of Haiti, since the overthrow of President Aristide, Haitians have endured widespread violations of fundamental human rights, including detention without trial, torture, abduction and murder.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on these Benches we strongly agree with the Minister regarding the importance of re-establishing democracy in Haiti and all efforts to do so should continue. But can the Minister tell the House what the next steps will be in that difficult situation? For example, can he say what is the Government's position to be in discussions with the US Government and within the UN if Mr. Malval, the Prime Minister of Haiti, should resign, as he is currently threatening to do?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the next step in the process will be a meeting which the French are hosting for the "Friends of Haiti", who are the United States, France, Canada and Venezuela. Those four countries are meeting in Paris on 13th and 14th December to discuss the next steps. Senor Caputo, the UN and OAS special envoy, has agreed to attend. Obviously, we shall be interested in the outcome of that meeting.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in answer to the supplementary of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, is not the Government's position that in United Nations matters they follow the policy of the United States, whereas in nuclear matters they are currently quarrelling with the United States? The Americans would rather that we got rid of some of our nuclear weapons but the Government quite obstinately refuse to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall leave the latter part of the noble Lord's question to my noble friend Lord Cranborne, with whom he conducts a weekly dialogue on the subject. As to the first part, I reiterate what I think I said in my first reply to my noble friend. We have interests in the West Indies. It is in our interests and in the interests of those dependent territories that we have stability in that area.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether we are interested in restoring democracy in all countries in the world or just some? If the answer is the latter, can he say on what criteria we decide which countries we will assist and which we will not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we pursue a policy which encourages democracy in all parts
950
of the world. Indeed, our policy as far as concerns NATO and the defence of the West proved to be enormously successful when democracy came to all those countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain—without too much help over many years from many of the friends of the party opposite. In the case of Haiti, as noble Lords will know, President Aristide won an election in November 1990. He was inaugurated in January 1991. General Cedras led an army coup against him in September 1991. Since that date we have, along with our friends in that area, pursued a policy of attempting to restore democracy to the island.
Lord Richard: My Lords, on reflection, does the Minister feel that it would be rather wise of him to withdraw that unworthy remark he made about the Opposition?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord that I think I said "some members of the Opposition".
Lord Monson: My Lords, is there any evidence that Haiti, under whatever government, has ever tried to destabilise any other West Indian country or dependent territory?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that I can directly answer that question. But I would say to the noble Lord that the violence and violation of human rights that go on in the Haitian part of the island are the kind of thing that could easily spread to other parts of the West Indies. It has to be in our interest and in the interests of the people of the other countries in the West Indies that we prevent that.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is it the Minister's position that there were no violations of human rights when President Aristide was in power?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, President Aristide was allowed to be in power for such a short time that I do not think that one could make any fundamental judgment on what his regime might have been if it had been allowed to survive. The simple fact of the matter is that since the army took over, the situation in that country has been very unhappy and indeed very bloody.

Business
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Unstarred Question standing on today's Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has been postponed. The Question will now be asked on Thursday 16th December.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the rule of law relating to the sale of goods in market overt. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Obligations of Citizenship
3.14 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to call attention to the conditions necessary for the maintenance in the citizens of this country of a proper respect for each other and for the law; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I start slowly, it is to enable those noble Lords who are not interested in the subject to disembarrass themselves from those who are.
A good way to discover how much people respect each other and the law is to look at the way they behave towards each other. A crude but apposite way of doing this is to see how often they commit crimes against each other and the law.
From me outbreak of the First World War to the present day the increase of recorded notifiable offences, aside from a handful of exceptional years, has been continuous in this country. What has changed is me rate of increase. The graph shows a very gradual incline until the mid-1940s. Then, after a brief dip to half a million in 1950, we proceed on an ever steeper curve, via 1.6 million in 1970, 2.5 million in 1980 to 5.4 million in 1992.
During that period, of course, the population has grown, but that does not account for the increase in recorded crime. The figures for the second half of the century make that clear. In 1950 the number of such crimes per 100 of population was only about one; it was five in the 1970s; and it is no fewer than 10.6 today. The rising curve in this graph also is almost continuous.
It is noticeable indeed that neither graph reflects either times of exceptional prosperity or times of exceptionally high unemployment. We need to look somewhere else for the causes. Two of the more obvious physical changes in our circumstances over the period may perhaps be relevant. There has been an enormous increase in our mobility. Journeys that took a few people weeks in the 1930s are now accomplished in hours by thousands. International crime has become easier, and its local effects wider, as the volume of traffic passing through our ports and our Customs posts has multiplied. That physical change may account, for instance, for some of the increase in drug related crime. There are no exact statistics for that kind of crime but there is no doubt that addiction is increasing and it does contribute to crime.
Mobility has enormously increased within the country also. To illustrate the point, I refer to an event when my father first became a Fellow of the Queen's College at Oxford. The then head porter recounted how when he first started on his career—he was a man of some seniority—his first job at the end of the summer vacation had been to weed the grass that had grown between the cobble stones in the High of Oxford during the summer vacation.
The nationwide tide of traffic which has changed all that has a corollary—enormous numbers of cars parked in almost every street in the country. Never has so much valuable private property been so frequently accessible to theft or damage, by so many, for so long.
The accessibility of cars, like me accessibility of drugs, provides the opportunity for crime and may account for up to 28 per cent, of all crime. But it is only the opportunity; it is not in itself a cause. For that we have to look for something else that is in, or absent from, our culture.
Another striking change in society is the ease and volume of communication. The telephone has virtually wiped out social correspondence and with it mature reflection before social communication, which may have an effect of its own. But much more important have been the uses to which the new technologies of communication have been put—and in particular the nature of a growing volume of material available on tape and now on disc. To many of your Lordships to whom the Metropolitan Police have on two occasions shown a small sample of the pornographic and sado-masochistic videos available illegally in this country, either on sale or by satellite from countries prepared to harbour the authors, their corrupting effect is self-evident.
There is also a large and perfectly legal trade in material that is not a great deal better. Theories claiming that this did no harm have for long seemed simply silly to many of us. Poor little Jamie Bulger's horrific death means, I believe, that that silliness is now exposed and generally agreed. But for the record I have to point out that millions, if not billions, of pounds are spent by advertising agencies annually, all of them prepared to swear that the medium does very effectively mould the behaviour, even of mature adults. If it did not they would not get their money. In any case, I simply cannot believe that, as a teacher, a medium which informs, instructs and sets norms of behaviour for children, when properly used in the classroom, does not have precisely the same effects when it is improperly used at home on the same children either on their own or, worse still, in the presence of approving adults. Those approving adults share with the producers of this vicious stuff the responsibility for its effects.
And what a responsibility it is. I gather that the latest invention is of a disc containing video games, some of which provide the player with a victim and even a sexual victim. Surely it must be more important to find the means of denying access by people, particularly young people, to this sort of resource than finding a means of denying their access, for instance, to other people's motor cars. I hope that the Minister will give the House an indication of whether the Government recognise that priority.
But as we are talking about respect, what can possibly be the way in which the creators of that sort of material think of the fellow human beings whom they seek to make their customers? I believe that they would not have been able to ply their trade on anything like the current scale were we not a tolerant society. Before I look at what tolerance is in that context, I wish to draw noble Lords' attention to two aspects of our current reaction to crime.
The first relates to people convicted of crimes serious enough to render them liable to go to prison, but who are not so dangerous that they have to be locked up. You can argue about the effectiveness of non-custodial treatment. Properly conducted with the right customers it is much more effective than any form of custody; but what you cannot argue about is its cost and its effect on the family. The average cost of custody per inmate, per month, in 1991 was £1,915. The average cost of supervision in the community at £110 is only a few per cent, of that. Custodial treatment costs over 15 times as much as non-custodial and devastates the family. I am glad, therefore, to see a fall in Crown Court custodial sentencing since the 1980s for all except sexual offences, and I hope that the new secure training order will be used only where the young offender cannot otherwise be restrained.
The second aspect relates to what happens when the prisoner is released. With a re-offending rate of 60 per cent, or more, that release does not mark the end of the problem for society. I look forward to hearing more about a new scheme for them from my noble friend later today.
Above all, however, this one thing is clear: the remorseless and generally accelerating curve of the graph of crimes per 100 head of the population shows that the whole of what we are now doing is not enough. According to the Home Office, already 25 per cent, of all our young men have committed a non-motoring offence by the age of 21, and 35 per cent, by the age of 35. By that age 6 per cent, of all males will already have been in prison or in youth custody. The extrapolations of those figures bear careful thinking about; and while noble Lords are thinking about them, it should be remembered that they deal only with recorded crime and known criminals. If we did not live in a tolerant society would it still be so? I wonder.
But we do and it is in that society that we practise a third response to crime; namely, prevention. It is better than cure. We have all met and practised it, I trust, at home, if not in our own upbringing then in the upbringing of our children. But the home is not the only forum. I also commend to your Lordships all those schemes throughout the country ranging from football teams to jazz bands in which adult volunteers get young people, who would otherwise be driven into destructive acts by the sheer frustration of their circumstances, to face challenges, learn responsibility and mutual respect.
I shall not again detain your Lordships with the Divert Trust which, with other friends, I founded last April to encourage this work except to say that the grants of over £94,000 each from the Home Office and the Department of Health are being well and effectively used. Divert young people from crime and, in the process, give them self-respect and respect for each other.
Despite all this effort the curve of offending continues to rise. Would it be so, I again ask, if we did not live in a tolerant society? What is "tolerance" in that context? As I use the word, tolerance is what I call an incremental condition. The exercise of tolerance accustoms one to what one is tolerating at the level at which one is experiencing it. When one is accustomed
954
to it that level becomes acceptable and one goes on to tolerate another level, which is a stronger level of the same, and so on. It is a process and not a condition. Athletes recognise that as a principle in training for endurance tests. Barmen recognise it as the source of ever larger cheques from their customers as they get older. Even editors and producers recognise it in deciding what to print in their papers or to put out on the air. Piquancy, titillation and even honest outrage, get worn down by repetition of the same dose and only revived when the dose is increased. In comparing today's press and screen with the press and screen in 1950 or 1970 or even 1980, I believe that noble Lords will see what I mean: the direction of change is constantly downwards—more lascivious, more prurient, more invasive of personal privacy, and more destructive of a proper respect for almost all those whom it touches.
Children may not spend much time reading newspapers, but in 1987 it was reported that an average schoolchild, although he spent 1,200 hours per year in school, spent 1,000 hours watching television. It all affects behaviour. That is one way in which society, within which we are trying to cope with crime, is changing; and it is not changing for the better.
There are other factors which also affect the way in which we look at life itself. Let us consider consumer credit, to go to an apparently unrelated theme. The enormous recent growth in personal credit was heralded—was it not?—by the advertising slogan, "Take the Waiting out of Wanting". Thousands gladly did so. The figures, using 1989 prices as a constant, make that clear. In 1981, the year before the lifting of hire purchase controls, the total consumer credit outstanding was £21 billion. In 1989 it was £48 billion. The indebtedness of the average household in 1980 was £1,000 and in 1990, £2,250. To take the story a little further back, the increase in real terms of consumer credit outstanding between 1975 and 1990 was from £5 billion to £15 billion—surprisingly enough, roughly in a straight line through the deregulation of hire purchase.
That creates another suspected reason. The campaign, of which the invitation to "Take the waiting out of wanting" was part, included massive advertising of consumer goods and presented life—persuasively, I believe—as a quest for possessions and possession itself as the goal of life.
It was at about that time that the collectivist consensus, which had dominated British politics since the 1920s, finally came to an end. One of the central motives for reversing that trend was to secure economic efficiency. That is a necessary part of any government's programme. In order to achieve it and to explain their programme to the electorate, Ministers have laid understandable emphasis on the importance of market forces acting without distortion. That emphasis has increased over the years.
I must make it clear that I am not talking about policy—time is too short and this issue is too important to leave it. I am talking about the presentation of policy. In that context we should not only look at government, but also at a whole cohort of City and financial commentators, many of them actually hostile to the Government, whose language has percolated throughout

955
society. The jargon of economics today suggests to the uninformed who hear it—that relates to most of our population—not that market forces are the predominant influence over the economy, as the soil and the weather are the predominant influences over farming, but that market forces are the only influence and therefore the only consideration. That message, addressed to a society already half-taught by advertisers to regard life as a mere quest for possessions, encourages a profoundly materialistic view of life; a view which is not resisted by a press which annually prints a list of over 200 or so of the wealthiest citizens this time round. How easy it is, at this stage, to misinterpret also the very proper emphasis on self-reliance as an encouragement to self-regard or straight selfishness.
That brings us to the central issue in this debate. The criminal statistics that I have quoted, or a study of any popular newspaper, shows that our citizens do not have a proper respect for each other. I believe that that is because, as a nation, we are becoming daily more cynical and more materialist. For more and more of us the hunt for possessions has become the purpose of life. We, as a nation, are in danger of believing that the real worth of a human being is not his character, not his personality and not what he has given to the world, but how much he has taken from it. Anyone who believes that of life is very unlikely to survive it.
It is time for us to recognise the great Christian truths on which our society was founded. The great faiths of the world also recognise that life is not only a material, but a spiritual, experience. We need to turn to the great Christian truths on which our society was founded but which we seem to be turning away from like sleepwalkers. I say this heartened by the presence of the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate: do not blame the Churches for a lack of leadership. There is nothing wrong with their preaching. Some send me their sermons and I listen to others—and I know. Unfortunately, sound sermons do not get reported. The media are not at present our allies in this. Goodness is no longer news. "Bishop condemns sin" does not sell newspapers or attract advertisers—and if market forces rule anywhere, it is on the editor's desk and the cutting-room floor.
It therefore falls to laymen from time to time to back up the clergy. They preach that life is a spiritual journey in which we learn that respect for one another is of the essence. God who commands us to love Him commands us also to love one another. That is not offensive to the minority faiths in this land as I hope we shall hear from one of their representatives later. It is at the heart of the Gospel and we need to learn it.
The state has a role in that by making such teaching possible in its schools, and we have passed statutes for that purpose, but the real responsibility lies with us as individuals, as formers of opinion which, like it or not, we are. We need to reassert upon earth the spiritual values and standards which saw us through two world wars and which we need if we are to survive the peace.
At the heart of those values is respect for one another. If your Lordships think that I have said anything particularly strange in your Lordships' House this
956
afternoon, I remind those of you who were in time, as I was not, for Prayers today, that we pray daily and prayed today, after the safety, honour and happiness of the Queen, for,
"the publick … peace and tranquillity of the realm, and the … knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same, in true Christian love and charity one towards another". If that is back to basics, back to basics let us go. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees that in many respects his party is now putting too much emphasis on the market place which, at the best, is short-term and, at the worst, is wrong?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not think that it is customary to reply to an intervention at this stage, so I merely ask the noble Viscount to read Hansard tomorrow and to remember that I was talking about presentation, not policy, because I am anxious to avoid a political debate and to try to send out a clearer message from this House than could be sent out by a political debate.
3.33 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the way in which he has expounded the thesis that was expressed in his Motion. I suppose that knowing of his valuable and estimable work with the Divert Trust, we might have expected him, as he did, to refer to the need to turn people, and particularly young people, away from crime. I suppose that we might have expected him to concentrate in the first part of his speech, as he did, on criminal statistics. I suppose that knowing of his background and his faith, we might have expected him to turn that into an appeal for individual responsibility which, in many ways, without sharing his faith, is an appeal which all of us share.
However, speaking personally—and I have not consulted any of my colleagues on this because the Motion is couched in such vague terms that no issue of party policy is called into question—I find myself at variance with the noble Lord both in his analysis of crime and its causes, and in his analysis of society and social policy. I am interested that he claims that he is referring only to the presentation of policy rather than to the policy. I should have thought that it might be more appropriate for your Lordships to refer to policy matters rather than to the presentation of policy—and that is certainly what I propose to do.
I start with the issue of crime. If the Motion had related only to the rise in crime, in my view it would have been entirely inappropriate for Conservative time in your Lordships' House to have been taken up with such a debate because the Conservative Government over the past 14 years have very little upon which to congratulate themselves. The noble Lord protected himself by referring to the rise in crime going back to the 1940s, but perhaps I may remind him that since 1979 detected crime has risen by 124 per cent; that car crime, for example, has risen by 162 per cent; that we are now at the top of the European burglary league; that in terms

957
of the detection of crime, a 38 per cent, clear-up rate in 1979 has declined to a 26 per cent, clear-up rate in 1992; and that as of now, only one crime in 50—2 per cent.—results in a prosecution. All those things seem to indicate that crime would not be a proper subject for the Conservatives to introduce into the political arena; nor would the claim that the Conservative Party has anything particular to offer for dealing with the crime wave even if it were true that recorded crime and prosecuted crime were an adequate measure of criminal activity in our society—and I suggest that, for the reasons which were adequately covered in the debate on the gracious Speech, that is by no means the case.
Therefore, I think that it is only timely to pass on from the question of crime statistics to the wider issues which the noble Lord raises in his Motion. However, I do not think that I can do so without commenting on his observations about consumer credit or rather, to give it its true name, debt. It was, after all, a Conservative Government who took off the hire purchase controls. It was, after all, a Conservative Government who, by financial deregulation, made it enormously easier for those who wish to lend money to the men and women of this country almost regardless of whether they could afford to sustain the payments and interest. It was a Conservative Government who were responsible for the binge in consumer spending and consumer indebtedness which was the most conspicuous feature of our economy in the 1980s. I do not think that it comes well from any noble Lord on the Government Benches to refer to debt as if it were a problem for individuals rather than for our social and economic system.
The noble Lord then extended the argument—rightly and, indeed, necessarily—to a discussion of what he called the "tolerant society". I thought that we were going to get somewhere then, but I discovered that, for the noble Lord, a "tolerant society" is a term of abuse. To him, tolerance is something deplorable. He reminds me of Barry Goldwater who said that extremism in the cause of virtue is no vice and that moderation in the face of vice is no crime. I have paraphrased and I am sure that I have not got it quite right —in fact, judging by the face of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, I have probably got the sense wrong as well as the words, but I think that he knows what I mean. In effect, what the noble Lord is saying, is that tolerance of things of which he happens to disapprove is somehow a virtue, and that a tolerant society, in which I would hope to live, is something that is deplorable. It reminds me of Authur Hugh Clough in The Latest Decalogue, condoning sins that we are inclined to by damning those that we have no mind to. I do not find that a happy way to look at mutual respect among our fellow citizens.
Then of course the noble Lord came to the crux of his argument when he started to refer to what he called the "collectivistic consensus". He started to blame it for all the evils that he described so graphically in his speech. I am an unrepentant supporter of the collectivistic consensus; I am an unrepentant opponent of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who said that there was no such thing as society; I am an unrepentant opponent of the present Prime Minister when he says that it is our duty to condemn more and to understand less. I believe
958
that it is our duty to attempt to understand more and to right the social evils in our society. I believe that that is the only effective way to give our citizens a proper respect for one another and for the law. Therefore, I make no apologies for returning, as we did in the debate on home affairs on the gracious Speech, to issues of social policy and the objectives of social policy.
Perhaps I may consider what might be the objectives of social policy in our society in order to achieve the objectives that the noble Lord wishes to attain. Let me divide them into four: security, opportunity, democracy, and fairness. When we look at security, I am reminded, as I see the constant attacks on different aspects, and sometimes the whole, of the welfare state, of the way in which non-commissioned officers in the Army tend to treat the people responsible to them. It is common practice, from my limited national service experience, that those in authority in the Army do not like units to settle down and be content with their lot. They like to make them uneasy, for there to be always the possibility that any secure way of organising Army life may be disorganised and upset. That may be correct in military terms—I have no understanding of that whatever—but it is not decent in social terms. What has happened in our society for the past 15 years or so has been a deliberate and concerted attempt to upset the kind of security that our people have had in their lives as well as their relationships with one another and with the state.
Let us look at the effect of that. It would not be appropriate for me to go over the argument about poverty that I put forward last week in the confidence debate, but surely it must be our objective in society not just to relieve poverty—that must be a second best—but to prevent poverty. What progress, I ask the noble Lord and the Government, has been made in that respect in the past 14 years? I suggest that the answer is that we have increased the differences between rich and poor; we have increased the amount of poverty; and we have increased the depth of poverty in our society. That must be damaging to our proper respect for one another.
Opportunity: I do not suggest that opportunity is about what the Government can do for people. I do not suggest that the Government play the critical role as initiator in providing opportunity; but they play a role in helping people to do things for themselves. Again, I ask the noble Lord and the Government: what is it in the policies of the past 14 years which has encouraged people to do things for themselves rather than being put into the dependency trap which has been the key to our social policy over the past few years? Is it not a fact that there are many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of our people who would be better off if they were to take action to go into work rather than to depend upon the state?
I welcome the statement made in the Budget last week about child care. I welcome a number of individual initiatives in that respect, but; the marginal taxation rate at the lower level is enormously higher now than it is at the higher level of our society. That must be damaging to individual responsibility, and must help to create the dependency state which I hope that the noble Lord and I will agree is undesirable.

959
Democracy: I hope, again, that we agree that decisions made by people will be better decisions than those which have been made for people. Again, at the risk of repeating the debates which have taken place over the past two weeks, I must remind the noble Lord that the proportion of public expenditure which is now the responsibility of quangos (people appointed by government rather than elected by the people themselves) has increased, is increasing, and clearly will continue to increase, and is now higher than the expenditure of elected local authorities as a whole. It is not just that it is wrong in democratic terms to take away from people the responsibility of making their own decisions; it is inefficient; it is bad business; it does not make for good decisions.
Finally, in this litany—I apologise for it—I refer to the issue of fairness. I do not believe that there will be any great consensus on the issue of fairness, especially between the better off and those who are less well off. I do not expect there to be a consensus. Just as we all have ideas which will be different, one from another, about how much better off we need to be so as to be satisfied, so the idea of fairness of someone sleeping in a doorway in the Strand, and the idea of fairness held by—I shall avoid noble Lords—someone living in a castle will be different. We do have some concept of fairness in respect of relationships with one another. We do not expect total equality. We do expect the progressive reduction and ultimately the elimination of inequality. Equality which is brought about by accident, by parental wealth, or by other factors has no relevance to our own worth and our ability to contribute to society. In that sense, I do not feel that the noble Lord has given to the House any impression of the urgency of the need to increase fairness in our society as a way of inducing in our citizens a proper respect for one another.
Again, I have no hesitation in returning to the arguments of recent weeks and to the arguments of Keynes and Beveridge. Beveridge identified social evils 50 years ago as being want, ignorance, disease, squalor and idleness. I hope that I showed your Lordships at that time that we are not making progress in any of those respects. We are not doing so, partly for selfish reasons, in the sense, as Galbraith put it in The Culture of Contentment, that a majority of people in this country is doing perfectly well, thank you, and perfectly willing to abandon the rest of the people in this country to their fate.
My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham put it clearly when she quoted Beveridge on 23rd November this year. He said:
"Want, squalor, disease, ignorance and idleness are common enemies of us all—not enemies with which we may individually make a separate peace escaping oneself to personal prosperity, while leaving our fellows in their clutches. That is the meaning of social conscience—that one should refuse to make a separate peace with social evil".
It is the denial of a separate peace with social evil which is at the heart of what I described with pride as the collectivist consensus. It is that collectivist consensus which, in the end, will produce in this country and society the proper respect of citizens for one another and for the rule of law.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in expressing the gratitude of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his introduction to the debate and for the characteristic sensitivity and clarity with which he spoke.
The debate takes place against a background of continuing controversy about the relative importance of attacking the causes of crime over against the punishment of offenders. It takes place against the sharp memories that each one of us will have of the murder of James Bulger. Certain television and media pictures have the power to capture for us a particular moment or a particular horrific episode and to recall the emotions aroused. There were pictures of the shopping centre at Bootle; the small boy being dragged away to his death while an anxious mother hunted for him; and the later pictures of two boys, still, as we might have hoped at the age of innocence, in the dock accused of murder, of which they were convicted. Those pictures encapsulate for us a horrific moment and arouse in us a variety of emotions, compassion, anger and anxiety.
In the wake of that case we are spending much time debating the causes of such a crime. We must also acknowledge the power of evil in our world. The parallel between that act and the fictional story told by William Golding in Lord of the Flies is striking. A group of choirboys is marooned on an island. With the inhibitions imposed by adult presence removed they revert to barbaric behaviour. One of their number, the shortsighted boy called Piggy, is first teased by having his glasses smashed and then murdered. William Golding was contending that evil can take hold of any one of us. It is not that we are intrinsically evil but that our inner weaknesses allow us to be used for evil purposes. The James Bulger case must leave us reflecting upon the nature of evil.
But we cannot stop there because the Motion invites us to consider:
"the conditions necessary for the maintenance in the citizens of this country of a proper respect of each other and for the law".
The phrase "a proper respect for each other and for the law" makes it clear that the purpose of law is to serve the needs of people. That is an Old Testament emphasis. Old Testament law is always framed to provide for the protection and the needs of people. We look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits.
That emphasis is reinforced in the New Testament where the supreme commands are to love God with all our heart and mind and will and to love our neighbour as ourself. I am no lawyer but my understanding of English law is that it has that same person-oriented intention to provide the citizen with security of law within which his freedoms are respected and his obligations honoured.
The Motion deals not with love but with respect. In that regard it is worth taking note of the words used by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in February 1993 in the "Credo" column of The Times. He described "respect" as being:

961
"a cooler virtue than love. But though it lacks the dynamism of love and love's emotional fire, it may to that extent be more serviceable and more universally applicable. Respect is rooted in the idea of the other person as other. Others are not to be taken for granted or exploited or diminished".
The Motion calls attention to the conditions necessary for the maintenance of that respect. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and many in the Churches, I take the view that the chief necessary condition is a climate of belief in God. One might expect a Bishop to say that, but it was borne out in a recent study of religion, morality and politics published by Nuffield College, Oxford. It was referred to in a recent article in the Guardian. The report indicates the high correlation between regular churchgoing and the acceptance of moral prescriptions and traditions. We in the Church of England have long argued that regular churchgoing, belief and behaviour belong together. One generation gives up going to church, the next generation abandons belief and the third generation loses the values by which its behaviour is governed. I do not claim for one moment that only people who go to church behave well. I am claiming that it is within a climate of belief generated by going to church that moral prescription is accepted.
Britain, together with other northern European nations, has a notably low level of religious observance. The Churches are aware of that and with the rest of society must bear some responsibility for this state of affairs. But the fact that we share this situation with, for instance, Scandinavia, Holland, Germany and other countries of northern Europe indicates that there are factors at work here which are common to that continent; that it is not simply laziness on the part of people or ineffectiveness on the part of Churches.
It is a situation, however, with which the Churches are not content. It is one which they do not intend to allow to continue. "The Decade of Evangelisation", or evangelism, is precisely about drawing people back to religious observance so that their beliefs may be strengthened and their behaviour formed and fashioned in accordance with tradition. In a recent exchange a Minister claimed that he had not observed any national crusade about right and wrong. I do not wish to dwell on that particular episode. However, it is worth pointing out that in the 1970s there was a national crusade, "The Festival of Light", and that in the 1990s there is an international initiative, "The Decade of Evangelisation", to which I have referred. Both of those initiatives have at their heart a stress on right and wrong. But they set that stress in the context of belief in God, the social as well as the individual dimension of wrongdoing and the necessity of God's grace—the power from beyond, which is also the power within—enabling us to grow towards God's intention and purpose for us.
People need not only knowledge of right and wrong but motivation to act upon that knowledge. Such motivation comes from what might be called "living models"—that is, those who embody goodness and inspire us to seek it. Fear of punishment is an ineffectual force by comparison. I believe punishment to be important but it is for the experience within one who has done wrong of the consequences of his or her
962
wrongdoing. I believe that it is the experience of those who embody goodness which inspires us to follow them. Any society needs its saints.
For many of us, those who embody goodness in our early years are, or should be, our parents. The lack of good parenting is a severe deprivation for any child. It is right that a great deal of attention should be paid to the quality of love and commitment within families. I know that in recent weeks the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has addressed that issue. Family life and marriage enrichment is a major area into which the Churches put resources, money and people. In my own diocese there are family centres, family workers, marriage enrichment weekends and a whole network of support which exists for those who are struggling to improve their parenting skills.
Many of us need that kind of support. It is perhaps necessary in particular for the families who in one way or another are impoverished not necessarily economically but in self-confidence and skills. The adults may lack the knowledge, skills and self-confidence that would make them effective parents. They may also be living their lives in the face of daily adversity that saps their energies and abilities to cope.
In that regard it is worth making a point about single parents, who have frequently been targeted in the recent debate. I have been a single parent, bringing up two children on my own and I know the loss that children suffer when they have only one parent. I know also the support which single parents need. But I believe that that is too easy a target. Single parents are a cross-section of people who have many different reasons for being single and we should not concentrate our attack in their direction. Whether parenting is worse now than it was in previous generations is open to debate. Some would argue that the fact that so many women work in the labour market with no compensating increase in family care from other sources creates deprivation.
My own observations lead me to conclude that many families are well able to cope with working husbands and wives. They do that by a variety of means—for example, the greater involvement of the father in parenting and the use of grandparents, friends and childcare facilities. Turning the clock back either to moral and religious authoritarianism or to the working father/stay-at-home mother model of family life would not really offer options, let alone solutions, to our present difficulties.
In so far as compliance with the law has been eroded by a lack of moral certainty, the secular remedy, as opposed to the remedy which I was offering a moment ago, must surely be the need to develop self-discipline and internal control in children, together with respect for society and for the development of a personal stake in the communities in which they share. In that regard, schools play a significant role by combating truancy and by developing a supportive and positive ethos which favours good discipline and considerate behaviour.
Religious and moral instruction, not least in Church schools, are important. The Church and the Government have worked constructively together in that area and the Government have shown great commitment which the

963
Church welcomes. In turn, we are glad to hear the praise which government Ministers have given to the work of Church schools.
A more debatable matter, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is the influence upon people of circumstances—poverty, inactivity and lack of direction and purpose. I do not propose to address that area except to say that it is obvious to me and, I should have thought, to anyone who has visited a modern housing estate with high unemployment that those conditions are not conducive to a proper respect for persons and the law. Countervailing pressures may be brought to bear from families and from society but hopelessness and a sense of being excluded from the life which others enjoy are tough enemies to fight against.
I quote from a recent report by NACRO, which stated:
"Parents struggling to raise their families in poverty and isolation on badly designed housing estates might well benefit from new ways of listening to children or exerting consistent discipline. But their interest in learning and their ability to apply new parental skills is bound to be limited if the external pressures remain unchanged".
To provide genuine opportunities and a real sense of worth for every citizen in every part of our country is an integral element in meeting the aims set out in the Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to video. I merely wish to echo what he said about that. I should point out that the effect on our imaginations of so much that is available to us to experience must indeed, as the noble Lord said, be very strong. That matter must be addressed.
Also, I should like to underline the comments which the noble Lord made about consumerism. There is a good deal of debate in the articles that I read which puts forward the idea that consumerism is the new religion. Therefore, perhaps it is no surprise that in another place today a debate is taking place on whether that new religion should have a place in the existing Sunday.
The citizens of this country come from a diverse mixture of traditions and cultures. The tradition of this country is one of tolerance. That is a tradition which, I daresay, has been broken in our own day, particularly by racially motivated acts of aggression and violence and by a resurgence of racism, notably against people of immigrant origin.
We share that diversity of society and that increasing intolerance with our neighbours in Europe, who face the same dangers and opportunities. We are bound together with them in a body based upon human rights and the rule of law; that is, the Council of Europe. The Vienna Declaration of October of this year, adopted unanimously by the 32 member states, including the United Kingdom, gave expression to an anxiety about the place of minorities in our societies. I quote only one phrase from that declaration, which invited member states to reinforce guarantees against all forms of discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin or on religion. I believe that that is another integral element in the conditions necessarily called for by the Motion.
It is clear that we are addressing a complex problem
964
and that an effective prevention strategy will need to target a good many factors at the same time. Multiple problems need multiple solutions.
I conclude with another quotation from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on the theme of respect which embodies what I wish to say in this debate. He said while referring to our national life:
"My own growing conviction is that at the heart of it there lies this progressive breakdown in the structure of moral relationships. These once gave people confidence in what they were and how their lives took shape and meaning from a God-given order outside themselves. We now live in a new world in which many of the landmarks have been removed. To restore a sense of moral order is going to be hard though not, thank God, impossible. The strengthening of mutual respect, the bottom line in personal and social ethics, would be a good starting point". That strengthening will take place as many bodies become involved in a partnership, in working towards those aims. We in the Churches commit ourselves to continue to work for the aims of this Motion.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I too begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing what is a very important and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. I enter into it with some considerable hesitation. I do not pretend for one moment to be an expert on the causes of crime or, indeed, on the causes of a lot of our troubles today. The remarks which I make are my own thoughts about the matter, and they are not intended to be taken in any political connotation.
I should just like to touch on a number of issues. Before doing so, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. I shall read extremely carefully his speech because I believe that he said some very important things this afternoon which clearly deserve much closer study.
My noble friend Lord Elton began by giving an enormous number of statistics about crime and, indeed, they were followed by statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. No one can argue with them because they are facts. They are facts which are extremely distressing because for a whole number of reasons, one has always imagined that as people became more prosperous, the need for crime would diminish. We seem to have the reverse of that. That is one of the puzzling aspects of the whole matter.
I believe that we are beginning to see a kind of breakdown in the fabric of society. Like all your Lordships, when talking to people one finds that one of their greatest anxieties is whether or not they are about to be burgled or whether or not their car will be broken into and whether, in fact, they have been burgled. There is great anxiety throughout society. For example, elderly people are terribly worried about opening the front door—certainly after dark—but even in the summertime after about 6 o'clock in the evening. That seems to, be quite contrary to one's childhood memories. I recall that we never even bothered to lock the front door, let alone do anything else, on many occasions. But that world has gone for good. It is no use trying to put the clock back.
Perhaps I may offer just a few observations. One comes to ask oneself how we arrived at the situation in which we now find ourselves. I remember very well when my first child was born in 1951. Some American

965
friends sent me a book by Dr. Spock about the bringing up of children. I can see that that rings a bell with other noble Lords. When I read it I felt singularly depressed because, having as a child been told whenever I was wrong that it was entirely my fault, I suddenly discovered on becoming a mother that anything that went wrong with the child was my fault. It seemed to me that I had obviously been born at the wrong moment.
However, the truth is that the child-centred philosophy has had a very profound influence on our thinking. The idea that children ought not to be repressed and that parents were invariably responsible for the misdeeds of their children has, I believe, affected us all. Of course, sometimes parents are responsible; but not always. As a result, the message that it gave to children was, "I am not responsible in this particular way". It is quite a short step from there to say, "What I want. I should have", whether it is someone else's possessions, sex, drugs or whatever.
I think that the latter had an undermining effect. The first group of people that it undermined were parents. They were greatly undermined by the philosophy. That was then picked up by the theorists who could argue very cleverly that of course it was not the fault of the child and that everything should be made all right for him. That was the view of the the theorists, whether they were sociologists, teachers or psychologists. At the end of the day, poor old mother could not say anything at all because there was an expert somewhere who knew far more about it and she was likely to be shouted down.
The child-centred philosophy then went into the school. I was astonished to be told only a month ago by a primary school teacher that, "I must not say anything negative about my children". Why, I ask myself? Some kinds of behaviour are clearly better than others. As a result, I believe that it weakened education standards because everything had to be made interesting and enjoyable. However, I hasten to add that I am not at all suggesting that lessons should be dull or that that is good for anyone. But the truth of the matter is that some things do require hard work and commitment.
Many youngsters now leave school almost unemployable after 11 years of compulsory education. I shall return later to that point. They do not in fact come up against what might be described as reality until they get a job and then, of course, they discover that it is not the individual that counts: the business that they are in must be put first. They suffer consequently from what is called "stress", because they have found themselves in a very different world. Moreover, they go on to blame other people. Whenever one opens a newspaper or turns on the television, I find it astonishing that one nearly always sees someone getting the blame. If you are lucky you will get a lot of money because you can pin the blame on someone else—that is, anyone but yourself.
The latter has had a very profound effect on our thinking, not only in family life, where it is most important, but also in education and in society as a whole. I am not suggesting that one should turn the clock hack and say that children are always wrong, but surely there is a middle, common-sense path which supports parents and deals with children.
966
Much has been said about being an affluent society. I should have thought that we would all agree that it is desirable to be an affluent society. Indeed, I do not think that anyone particularly wants a poor society or one like the third world. The problem that confronts us is that: we are an affluent society, frequently without a moral structure to underpin it Once you have great affluence—and the importance of that affluence is really, at the end of the day, what you do with it—but no moral structure, you run into difficulties. Again, it is the taking away of individual responsibility.
Having made just two points—of course, there are many others that could be made, but this is not the subject of a long lecture—I ask: what should be done? First, we need to look for the support of marriage and of families. I believe that the terrible statistics on divorce, on single-parent families and on the numbers of live births outside marriage (which I believe is now something like 30 per cent.) are really very alarming. They are undermining the whole fabric of society. Therefore, in so far as I have had the time to study them, I think that the proposals of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that there should be conciliation and reconciliation before the breakdown of marriages must be a very positive step in the right direction. It is not for me to say whether all the details are right, but it seems to me that we ought to do everything to try to encourage couples to stay together so that they have the right opportunities to bring up their children.
Whereas many one-parent families do extremely well against the most terrible odds, the truth is that anyone who has brought up children knows how difficult a task it can be. Indeed, it is difficult when you have a happy marriage, enough money and a home—it is seven days a week, 365 days a year and hard work. But it is very hard work for the single parent on his or her own, as the case may be.
The second aspect at which we should look carefully is the education system. We have had many debates in the House on education. I certainly do not want to rehearse any of the arguments. However, I believe that the Ofsted report published only yesterday shows that a proportion of schools are not actually teaching the requisite number of hours and that there is a very high percentage of truanting in some schools. It also shows that the standards are too low. That means that a number of children will end up unemployable. It is particularly serious for boys and young men who seem to be the prime offenders rather than girls and women.
If one looks at the unemployment statistics, one sees that unemployment is lower among women than among men. As a result, it seems to me that boys and young men are going through the education system frequently truanting, ending up unemployable, and are likely to lead a completely feckless and irresponsible life; and, ultimately, they are turning to crime, though not necessarily in that sequence. However, there is a measure of truth in what I say. We must take the matter seriously—stretching all children as far as possible so that they get the best results from their compulsory education.
Every speaker who has spoken so far has touched on the subject of violence and pornography on television.

967
realise that it is extremely difficult to talk about the subject. I say that because either it suggests that you spend your life looking at it so that you know what it is about: or, alternatively, that you have never looked at it at all and do not know anything. I do not pretend for one moment that I spend my life glued to the television. I have far too many other things to do. However, nowadays I find myself frequently switching it off. I simply cannot look at some of the scenes broadcast on television. I believe that the steady dose of violence which appears before children is very serious. I am not talking about video nasties; indeed, I am thankful to say that I have never seen one. But I sometimes watch Saturday morning television with my grandchildren. Of course, it is a make-believe world, but it is a violent one. There are constant scenes of violence. I share with my noble friend Lord Elton the view that the idea that this has no effect on children is a complete illusion. What on earth is teaching all about if it is not concerned with putting in front of children good and desirable things from which one hopes they will learn? If one gives them the opposite of that, they must be learning from that too. This is a serious aspect of life.
I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate she will say something about the Government's attitude to the import of these unpleasant video nasties. I hope she will also refer to the Government's attitude to violence and pornography on television. It is all very well to say that violence on television is only broadcast after nine o'clock at night but we all know perfectly well that many children stay up far later than nine o'clock.
I have said that I think that an affluent society without a moral underpinning is a dangerous place. I believe that we are witnessing in our country today a first generation of school children who are growing up without a moral framework. In many cases they grow up without any religion at all. I am frequently asked to address school children. It is no use my making any kind of biblical allusion because no one has the remotest idea what I am talking about. That is a sad fact. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said, Christian belief is important. I am lucky to worship at an evangelical church which is full to bursting every single Sunday. It has a vast youth group and vast numbers of children attend the Sunday school. That is a good thing and I wish more churches were as full as that one. It is a tragic fact that churchgoing is declining when we need that commitment so much.
In the past one reason why there was less crime was that adult society stood together. Parents had a fairly clear idea what they believed in even if they did not know it exactly. They had a clear idea about the difference between right and wrong. Whatever was said in the home was reinforced when the child attended school. There was a clear set of precepts about right and wrong. Those precepts were certainly reinforced if the worst came to the worst and a child appeared before a court. There was a clear pattern for everyone. Now I believe there is a great deal of moral confusion. People are not sure what to say to children and they are not clear in themselves what they think about these things. This muddle is conveyed to a whole generation who do not
968
know the difference between right and wrong. One can detect that when one hears young people being interviewed. They may worry about being caught, but the whole moral concept of life is quite alien to them. We need to return to a moral concept.
I am not here to apportion blame to anyone as regards how we have reached this state. I believe it is much more important to consider how we might move forward to help in the fight against crime, in supporting family life and in supporting all those parts of society which serve to stabilise it. If this debate advances that at all, it will have been well worth while.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I join in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having introduced what I regard as possibly the key challenge of our age. I found it rewarding to listen to all the subsequent contributions. Speakers have presented their extremely valuable thoughts on a subject that I believe transcends partisanship—I speak from the Cross—Benches on this issue—and religious differences. This is a problem that should exercise every single one of us as members of humanity. We cannot escape responsibility in this matter.
As already intimated in the wonderful speech which I heard with particular interest from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, if legislation were the answer, the solution would be simple. Just enact the law originally ordained in the Third Book of Moses over 3,000 years ago—"Love your neighbour as yourself". Let us pass such a law in both Houses of Parliament and we have the answer. If people really loved others and cared for others as for themselves, there would be no crime, no divorce and no disrespect. The trouble is of course not only how such an enactment will be enforced, but—this is an even bigger problem—will such a law, even if proposed, be passed in today's climate of public opinion? I have my doubts.
Quite recently, when I publicly advocated some biblical laws on morality, a demonstration was organised against me in the name of freedom of sexual preference. Presumably such freedom to choose alternative lifestyles now means that adultery or incest between consenting parties should also no longer be denounced as morally wrong. Today it is a sin to speak about moral wrongs. By noisy protests, a tiny minority seeks to impose its views on the morally sensitive majority under pain of intimidation and defamation. So the law itself cannot always help us, at least not much.
Let us turn to education. I am sure that I speak for many in applauding the Education Secretary for removing sex education in schools from morally neutral science and insisting on relating it to moral responsibilities and family values. I recall when the AIDS campaign was first launched under the slogan, "Don't Die of Ignorance", I told the then Education Secretary that this was misleading. Ignorance is not a fatal disease; no one dies of it. People die as a consequence of undisciplined behaviour. Indeed, more important than clean needles are clean conduct and

969
clean thoughts. Protection during moral lapses is only the second best. The first choice should be self-control, and that first choice is hardly ever mentioned.
It is to be hoped that state education will now be increasingly geared to cultivating some moral virtues, not least to have respect for others and for the law in the words of the subject of this debate. But this, too, does not suit our libertarians. To inculcate moral values, they insist, is the job of parents. Quite so, but what if the parents are neither able nor willing to undertake the job? Shall their children be left without guidance on what is right and wrong, aimlessly floundering in a sea of indifference and amid squalls of turpitude?
Then there are, of course, the crusaders against indoctrination, always pleading: let the children grow up to decide for themselves and to discover these truths on their own. Imagine we were to adopt the same attitude towards the sciences and the arts. Imagine that we did not teach our children the discoveries of Pythagoras, Archimedes, or Newton and left them to find those insights for themselves. Imagine not introducing them to the artistic creations, the literature or history of past masters, leaving our children to explore those human attainments and discover them on their own.
Do we really expect our young people to have the genius of an Abraham or a Moses in discovering monotheism and social justice or the originality of our greatest thinkers and scholars? Do we expect that our youth will arrive unaided and unguided at conclusions which it took mankind's finest brains and most inspired minds to reach in thousands of years of accumulated wisdom? What a strange and pernicious doctrine that in matters of faith and morals we may not communicate the intellectual and spiritual heritage of earlier giants lest our children be subjected to indoctrination.
Neither legislation nor education can by themselves provide the answers. However, they can help in combination with other efforts. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few illustrations.
We now have league tables of scholastic achievements in schools. We ought to have similar league tables for moral excellence. National attention ought to be drawn to schools which are free from drug problems, which have no teenage pregnancies and which excel in social service schemes through which pupils help the aged or the disabled. All that should be designed to create a greater awareness of the need for caring and self-discipline in the fabric of our society. Only the state can generate popular enthusiasm for social virtues and moral eminence.
Secondly, as we have heard, the most potent influence in shaping public opinion, for good or for evil, is of course the media. The media's assumed right to exploit, and often to magnify, the misery or disgrace of individuals in order to boost their circulation is indefensible. Such mischief-mongering in the private affairs of others may eventually cost the nation its most treasured asset, by replacing reverence with scorn and breeding contempt where there should be affection, inherited from one generation to another.
Finallly, I have a suggestion bearing on the root of decadence and unhappiness in our society, to which
970
passing reference has just been made. We now have a divorce rate of more than one in three marriages. The resultant toll of human misery is incalculable, causing millions of children to be deprived of their birthright of a loving home and to be raised instead in a wasteland breeding crime, bitterness and resentment.
Marriage is now a disaster area, breaking the morale of millions of citizens and destroying their capacity to contribute to society. We do not allow people to drive a car unless they have had some training in the use of what might otherwise prove to be a lethal instrument. Failed marriages are even more dangerous and cause far more casualties among the parties and future generations. We need not idly tolerate the disintegration of our society through lack of respect and caring. We can insist, by legislation, on not giving to any parties a licence to be married unless they have been trained at courses preparing them for the responsibilities as well as for the joys of marriage and of parenting. We are irresponsible in allowing young people to go on the supreme adventure of married life without insisting on any form of training and preparation.
We can begin to reverse the current trend, helping to raise citizens who will respect each other, living by ideals which can never age or fade.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will share my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Elton for choosing this subject for debate and for the very fine speech which he delivered, particularly the excellent latter part with its highly spiritual emphasis.
I cannot help feeling that this House is the right place to discuss these matters. I find it a little difficult to envisage a debate on this subject in another place. Somehow it would not fit. Here we have the advantage of spiritual leaders such as the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, to whom we have just listened with enormous interest and respect, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. Perhaps I may add a personal view. I always listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon with particular interest, not only because he speaks extremely well but also because the title of Bishop of Ripon was for many years borne by my grandfather, whom I still remember as one of the right reverend Prelate's predecessors in that splendid diocese. It always gives me a. thrill to hear a Bishop of Ripon address your Lordships' House. That thrill was accentuated by the admirable address by the right reverend Prelate.
The other advantage of this debate is that, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, it has been entirely free of party issues. We have not attempted to score party points. I hope and believe that we shall continue the debate in that spirit. We have plenty of other opportunities to raise party points.
There are two aspects to the Motion. The first is to encourage respect for each other. That is an important aspect of the matter. How are we to educate our people

971
to have respect for each other? How are we to eliminate jealousies, ill feeling and prejudices? It is a very serious aspect.
In that regard I want to make one further point which has not so far been made in the debate; namely, the difficulty which now arises in connection with the bringing up of children. A great many wives now work full time. If they have young children real difficulties arise in looking after them. It is extremely difficult for a woman to do a good job for her employer and at the same time to supervise her children's upbringing, particularly if she has several children.
I believe that a good many of the recent cases which, sadly, we have seen of children who have misbehaved in one way or another, sometimes violently, are often cases where not only the father but also the mother are in employment and there is a lack, therefore, of continued supervision, training and support for the children. That seems to me to be a weakness in the way our society has gone.
I understand the point that if both husband and wife are working the family income is more or less doubled, and that is a great attraction; but it does not get away from the real, practical difficulties involved in the upbringing of the children. The only suggestion I can make is that the Minister will consider that allowances should be stepped up as soon as is financially and economically possible so that, if the wife decides to stay at home to look after the children, the family will not be financially excessively penalised. I think that that is an important but fairly modern aspect of our society. In my young days, few married women had a job; now the great majority do and they do extremely well. But that does not detract from the fact that if they have children it must be enormously difficult for them to supervise their upbringing. Therefore, the only practical way of dealing with the problem seems to me to attempt to restore the financial balance; undoubtedly either mainly by way of tax concessions or allowances for married couples in order to discourage the wife from feeling any necessity to go out to work and earn money.
The Motion also refers to obtaining greater respect for the law. Sadly, it is true that the law is very widely disregarded. One curious aspect of that is that in former times, when there was a good deal of lawlessness, the expedient of all governments was to step up the penalties, to make punishment more severe, to secure that breaches of the law were more and more heavily punished. We, on the other hand, have in recent years gone the other way. I feel rather tempted to point out that the abolition of capital punishment—and I have always been opposed to its abolition—has had repercussions right through our criminal legal system.
Having decided to eliminate capital punishment and substitute life sentences, we find that the whole pattern of legal penalties has been pushed in the gentler direction. In fact, a life sentence is extremely difficult to operate. It undoubtedly causes great difficulty to prison staff because a person who is genuinely in for life has every incentive to misbehave and make trouble. Therefore, prison staff have a natural liking for
972
arrangements to be made for his release. It is a fact that a life sentence now, certainly for a younger person, is hardly ever served.
Here we have the law being put in a slightly absurd position. We have the judge saying, with due solemnity: "You will go to prison for the term of your natural life". But if the prisoner is at all sophisticated he knows perfectly well that that is not so. He knows that he will be released sooner or later; first on leave and, secondly, on suspension of the sentence. The whole deterrent effect which a life sentence should have is very much undermined. That is the direct consequence of the abolition of capital punishment, therefore shunting the penalty from death to the so-called life sentence.
Not only does that undermine the deterrent, it also increases the opportunity for crime. We have recently seen three cases in the past year in which a prisoner, convicted of murder, was sent to prison technically for life but has been released and committed a second murder. It is therefore an indication that we seek to deal with a crime wave by the opposite method from the one which would normally be used in those cases—that is, of making penalties more severe. On the contrary, we are making penalties more gentle.
Equally, with the prisons being very full, there is naturally an incentive to my noble friend the Home Secretary, and those who serve him in the Home Office, sometimes to release on what is oddly called "home leave" or sometimes to end the sentence. I am afraid that that undermines the deterrent effect of the law.
Perhaps I may support that with a personal reminiscence going back to the days of capital punishment. At the Old Bailey I was defending a young member of a gang of robbers who used violence. I very soon learnt that the prosecution proposed to introduce into the case the suggestion that the people taking part in it were armed. I therefore went to see my young client in his cell at the Old Bailey and said: "I must know whether or not that is so. The way in which I conduct your defence will obviously be affected by that aspect of the matter. Were you armed?" He looked at me with horror and said: "No. If I had a gun and shot and killed somebody, I'd swing for it, wouldn't I?" I was able to tell him that in the then state of the law his assessment of the legal position was wholly accurate.
The significance of that example is that a young man who was quite prepared to indulge in violent crime, robbery with violence, drew the line at murder. Now that line has been very much blurred; now the penalties are becoming similar. Therefore, one of the matters which we must look at is the whole of our penal system. The threat of the courts does not deter in the way that it used to. Undoubtedly, that has a great deal to do with the vast increase in crime, apart from the fact that in more and more cases the offenders are never found out. The number of cases where no conclusion is reached is considerable.
Thus, there are two aspects to the matters raised on the Motion. One is the highly mundane one, to which I have referred: whether the penalties of our law are sufficient. I suggest that they are not. I believe, for example, that if we held a public referendum on capital

973
punishment there would be a strong affirmative vote in favour of it and that would restore the whole balance in dealing with the more serious offences.
The other side has been discussed at some length: what I called earlier the "spiritual" side. It is necessary that a lead should be given and I pay tribute to the way in which the Churches seek to do that. A lead should be given to persuade people of all kinds and at all levels of society of the basic principles of the Christian faith, the basic respect that each individual should have for every other individual and that, therefore, the whole idea of using violence, fraud or any other expedient in order to damage other people should be dismissed. That is the thought that has emerged from this debate. If that thought is given more prominence in our society, the country as a whole will owe a great deal to my noble friend Lord Elton.
4.50 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, we have been privileged to listen to speeches of a very high standard, which have tried to deal—all that we can do is try—with the problem which has people bewildered and frightened from John o'Groat's to Land's End, in the council estates as much as in the comfortable homes of this country.
I join with noble Lords in paying sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, not only for raising the subject, but for the way in which he graciously opened the door before us all by providing the fundamental statistics with which we have to deal.
Many years ago the government of the day used to publish the statistics of people killed and injured on our roads during holiday periods. I always felt sorry when I heard the figures announced. Then one year my eldest sister was killed in a road accident. I remember, when the statistics were announced at the end of the year, I turned to my mother and said: "Our Ada is one of those, Mum". The tragic statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave us represent real people, whose lives are being spoiled, and who in the 1990s cannot find an anchor for responsible social conduct.
I have been very moved by the positive attitude that has been taken throughout the debate. We live in a period when the old guide-posts on which we relied have been pushed aside. When the sign-posts which showed us what was right and what was wrong seem to have been pulled up and thrown away, it is natural that it is not easy for us to find the cure. We can see the results. I listened with anxious care to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as I did to the learned former Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who also spoke before me. Change we cannot avoid.
I have been privileged, as have many other Members of this House, to live to a great age. My mother was a Victorian. She had Victorian values—and they were not bad values. I came from a single parent family. My mother was left with five children at a time when there were no social services. It was a very different world from the one in which we live today. I never heard her complain. She was the breadwinner for us and I was in my teens before I had a stepfather, who then had a great influence on my life and whom I respected and loved
974
very dearly. As I look at the problem today, I am reminded that I was nurtured in a home where I was taught to look at people in terms of their possibilities. I was trained as a schoolmaster, and I spent thirteen and a half years in the classroom. Whenever I looked at my children I knew that they had unequal gifts. I knew that they came from very different sorts of backgrounds and homes. But I also knew that not one of them was without gifts. Each had potential.
I believe that somehow we have to rely still on the three structures upon which we have always relied for order and discipline in our lives, and for courtesy and respect. The first is the Church. It is so easy to criticise the Church, especially for those who never go to church. They criticise it; I love it. I listened with deep respect and attention to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Ripon. I believe that the church, the school and the home are far more concerned with the well-being of society than even are the police. I do not deny that the police are very important. We have to have people who will ensure that those who do not obey the law are at least punished so that others see the example.
One of our weaknesses today is that we are almost afraid to teach the young self-discipline. A teacher who corrects them has to be so careful. We have copied America until it is almost impossible. If you scold in a loud voice, you can be in trouble and be told that you are intimidating or bullying. The adolescent who grows without self-discipline is a menace to society. The adolescent who grows having been encouraged to develop self-discipline at home and in school is a blessing for the community.
Every Member of this House has links with charities. We are aware of the army of young people in this country today who step forward for sponsored exercises and are willing to work for people whom they will never see—people in the third world or who may be sleeping in the streets of London—who are in dire need.
The danger, of which I am very conscious, is that on a subject like this it is easy for any of us to let our prejudices get out of control. I realise that. But I am also aware that we are failing. I believe that we are failing partly in the training colleges. Much greater emphasis ought to be given when we train our teachers to the responsibilities they have for the moral, as well as the academic, development of the youngsters who are in their care. Teaching is a high calling. In my eyes it is as high as the priesthood. It is there to help others to discover themselves. The responsibility of the state is to enable the teacher, with a proper sized class and with proper conditions, to fulfil that responsibility for us.
I am reminded by the very fact that I am sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, that 4,000 years ago the Commandments were brought down to us. How they have stood the test of time! Every civilised country has based its rules upon them: "Thou shalt not kill … Thou shalt not steal … Thou shalt not tell lies … Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbours … Thou shalt not be jealous"; and the positive rule of worship at the centre.
Towards the end of the Old Testament, in the Book of Haggai —I hope that the noble Lord, Lord

975
Jakobovits, will not mind a Methodist inter-pretation—the Jewish people had returned from exile in Babylon and were busy making money, minding their own business and getting on very well. But there was one thing that they had forgotten. They had forgotten to build a temple. Haggai reminded them that any community without worship at the centre was in danger; because when people worship they have moral codes and standards. In my belief, a civilised society is impossible without a moral code.
I move to my conclusion. Parliament does not often turn its attention to great moral issues such as the one that we are discussing tonight. I disagree on this matter with my friend (as I hope I may call him) the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In fact the other place could have a very good debate on this subject—and it would do them good, too.
I know that the country wants leadership. In every home, every mother who nurses a baby must hope that her little one will grow to fulfil his or her full potential and play an honourable part in society. That does not depend on income. Income is important, as everybody knows. I have had a taste of poverty, and I know that money is important. But it is not everything. You can be rich and go to pieces if you do not have the right beliefs. Wealth does not protect anyone against becoming a criminal. We see that when we look at the City today. I hear cheers from some noble Lords.
Let me conclude. My Lords, I believe that today we are better occupied than another place, which is wondering how to tamper with Sunday. We are occupied with the question of how we can apply the bandages and cure the ills of this generation. As surely as I stand here, we shall need a moral basis.
5.3 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. But it is also a disadvantage because any speech after his is bound to be an anticlimax. I should also like to join in thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Elton who has raised a most important and difficult issue. It is important because it affects not only this generation; it will affect future generations for a long time to come. It is difficult because it involves changing people's attitudes, which is always a very long process. That is all the more reason for starting to tackle the issue seriously today.
The Prime Minister and Mr. Patten have made a good start. But the real problem lies in the hearts and minds of people. Action by government alone cannot solve the problem, but it can make an important contribution.
Let me deal first with attitudes to crime. As my noble friend said, there has been a dramatic increase in crime over the past 40 years. There are now few areas where doors can be left unlocked or parks where children can play alone. In earlier days burglars concentrated on the rich people and, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, they were very seldom armed. Now not even pensioners are safe from assault and theft. The police are in danger too. Those are just a few examples. But rather than concentrate on punishment we need to
976
tackle the problem at source. As other noble Lords have said, crime prevention is much better than detection and punishment.
I believe that there are three basic causes for the lack of respect for each other and for the law to which my noble friend referred: home influence, teaching at school and poverty or deprivation. That comment is supported by substantial research carried out by Cambridge University, which looked into the subsequent careers of 400 eight year-old boys from the East End. There is no doubt that the tendency to crime is developed very early in the child's upbringing. If any two of those basic factors (home, school and poverty) are absent, great damage will result. I say that because the argument is often used that poverty and unemployment are not relevant factors in the problem of preventing crime. It is argued that past experience shows that to be true because in the early 1930s there was vast unemployment and much greater poverty than today but there was not nearly so much crime.
But then, for most young people, however poor, parental, family and school influences were benign. Discipline was strong and parents were backed up by teachers. So despite poverty, there was relatively little crime.
Over the past 40 years all that has changed. The so-called liberal principles have restricted the influence of good teachers—and there are many good teachers. Too often they are not backed up by parents. There are also many good parents, but too many of them do not help the teachers very much. Too many teachers are not respected as they used to be. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was always respected when he was teaching. There is a crying need for much greater discipline and that will only be achieved by the mutual support of parents and teachers. So I welcome very much the emphasis on improving teachers' training in the Education Bill that is going through this House.
Parent-teacher associations also have a valuable part to play in improving the mutual help and co-operation between parents and teachers. Charities too—I have made the point before—also have a big part to play. I have mentioned Schools Outreach, which sends well trained counsellors into schools at the invitation of the teachers to help in pastoral care. That is one good example. Another example is the organisation Exploring Parenthood, which provides an outside counselling service. I believe that such organisations can make a big contribution to solving the problems that have been mentioned today. But they are all short of money. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance that that problem will be examined, not only because it is a very good investment, but also because the charities are able to adopt a very much more flexible attitude in dealing with the many difficult cases that come in front of them.
Overall a real difficulty is the need to deal with present crime and the factors—some of which I mentioned—which will reduce future crime. There is no more important issue than that and we must be prepared to make adequate financial investment now in the future

977
standards and happiness of society. If we do not, we shall he concentrating on present punishment rather than future prevention.
In that respect Churches have a big role to play. In the past it seemed to me that there had been some evidence that our Churches had been too ready to trim their sails to the prevailing wind of opinion instead of seeking to lead, emphasising the eternal Christian truths of right and wrong, of sin and forgiveness. But I am sure that the attitudes of the Church and its leaders have changed and are now moving in a much more robust direction. But the Churches can only work to full effect in a receptive climate. The responsibility is with us all to create that climate.
Another important factor is the concept of service; of doing a job well for its own sake and its value to the community as well as seeking a fair reward. The enterprise culture and the culture of market forces of the 1980s did a great service in improving the strength of the economy and the creation of wealth. But with that came the idea that the only incentive is financial reward. Everyone needs adequate incentives, but I suggest that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of, "I'm all right Jack". I should like to see it come back to a more central position with service to the community regaining a better balance with materialistic reward. It can be done and the law has a part to play in that. But it will need also the example and speeches of politicians, industrialists and the teaching fraternity.
As said earlier, this is a vast subject and the solutions are long-term. Because of that I hope that we can develop inter-party agreement on the way forward so that we can move as fast as possible. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduce so many party points into the debate. We heard many valuable contributions today and there will be many more. They will help us along the path of preventing crime rather than concentrating on the need to punish it when it occurs. I repeat therefore how much we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Elton for bringing forward this extremely important problem.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for instituting this most interesting debate. I listened with great respect and admiration to the speeches which noble Lords made covering the whole gamut and arc of our system and our problems. I hope that I shall not let the side down by descending to more specific issues; I should like to go back to the words of the Motion, which say that we must find ways,
"for the maintenance in the citizens of this country of a proper respect for each other and for the law".
In other words, people should have better manners. That is one way of describing it. But it is really talking about human nature. That seems to me to be the problem. The problem with human nature is that we cannot change it—but we can learn to live with it. Therefore, if we are really trying to find a way to achieve the objective of the Motion, we should look at our education system.
978
I am not sure that the Bill that we discussed on Second Reading yesterday will help us a great deal. If we are to make the education system do its job towards creating the kind of society we want, we should introduce statutory nursery schools throughout the country. I cannot imagine anything more likely to prove effective. Whether they are provided as play groups or classes in schools does not matter, they could pay heavy dividends.
I know that there are many good reasons why that cannot be done. One of the reasons, according to the report by the National Commission on Education—which, incidentally, makes a solid recommendation that we should introduce statutory nursery schools—is that it will cost £860 million. That is a lot of money. But I dare to suggest that we would soon get the money back by fewer people being sent to prison. Therefore I hope that when the Minister replies she will assure us that the Government will at least consider the recommendations from the report of my noble friend Lord Walton, and do so seriously and genuinely.
Nursery schools must be good for children. do not believe that there is any point in arguing or gassing about that. But one aspect that is not often mentioned is that not only are they good for the children, but also they are extremely good for the parents, particularly when the parent is a young mother and possibly single.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the hard work involved in bringing up children. It is grilling hard work. If nursery education existed then the mothers would at least get a break—four days a week or whatever it is—from the treadmill of bringing up children. I cannot imagine anything better for them.
There is another point. When the children go to nursery school the mother will probably meet other mothers and those who are running the schools who will be able to give them good advice on how to bring up children. When one considers what it must be like to bring up children, possibly without a husband and at the top of a tower block, it mist be seen that we need nursery schools. That is all that I wish to say and I hope that the Government will give the matter serious consideration.
5.18 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Elton for the debate and for introducing it so clearly and interestingly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, in regard to the importance of human nature. I am not sure, however, that I go all the way with him in saying that we cannot do anything about it. I shall come back to that matter.
Many points were made about the problem that the conditions do not exist in this country at the moment which are conducive to implementing the respect called for in the Motion. When a young burglar grinds his feet into the face of an 84 year-old lady, those conditions do not exist. When 10 year-olds are committing murder, when a 12 year-old commits rape and when families—as discussed already in the debate—are being undermined, those conditions do not exist.
What, therefore, are we to do about it? Let me continue with a quotation from a letter to The Times

979
from Professor Sims and Professor Gray a few days ago and touch on the problem of the media, which has been much mentioned. The letter states that,
"much modem violent material portrayed on video, film and television propels the viewer into identifying with the perpetrator and not with the victim. The viewer is encouraged to see the story and the acts of violence through the eyes of the person who inflicts harm, to despise the victim as weak and inferior, and to banish any feelings of guilt or remorse".
A very serious change is coming upon us today if we are looking heroically through the eyes of the perpetrator of violence and not just watching the violence dispassionately. The general public have no doubt that media violence provokes violence in reality. Nor have television advertisers any doubt that the media mould behaviour.
The occasional large fraud in the City must also be noted. Whether the sentence of Mr. Levitt to 180 hours' community service is correct is not for me to judge but a great deal of doubt has been expressed about it. There is a problem in that many people are now saying, "If you are big enough, you get away with crime". Perhaps I may quote from Mr. Graham Searjeant, writing in The Times on Monday. In his article he touched on a subject being debated in another place today. He stated that,
"corporate bully boys who have flouted the law [on Sunday trading] used financial muscle to dissuade local authorities from enforcing it. Dismayingly, at least eight of Britain's top hundred quoted companies have chosen to flout, challenge or at best ignore the law: a majority of those involved in retailing … What does this tell us about the attitude of big business to other inconvenient, controversial or anomalous laws and regulations: tax laws, accounting standards, environmental and health rules?"
These facts are not conducive to respect for the law or respect for each other. That is very serious. If you are big enough, you get away with it.
If my noble friend's statistics of criminality are considered to be too much on a level, one way of increasing the level would be to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and make it illegal not to love your neighbour. I wonder whether any other noble Lord would be joining me in prison because I know I would fail that rule. If it became the law I know that I would have to go to prison. I suspect that some other noble Lords might be joining me. We could perhaps continue the debate there.
I turn to a more positive line and quote from another source:
"The old values: neighbourliness, decency, courtesy. They are still alive. They are still the best of Britain. It is time to return to those old core values; time to get back to basics, to self discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting responsibility for yourself and your family".
Self-discipline, respect for the law, consideration for others—that is what we are debating today. The quotation is from the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the Conservative Party conference. That is what the Government are talking about, so let us consider how government policy is being implemented today.
I believe that what we need to continue and what my right honourable friend has initiated in a debate on the state of the nation throughout the nation. What are the core values that the nation needs to consider if we are to have respect for each other and respect for the law? I should like to make a few points on that, and I hope that
980
all noble Lords will continue the debate both in this House and outside it. What we all want to see is an upsurge of social and personal morality. They go together. First, I should like to pinpoint my view—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will comment on it—that the vulnerable, poor and needy in this nation are still suffering. It is Conservative policy to encourage enterprise and initiative. That is right. It is also Conservative policy to have a safety net for those who are not coping with life in this nation. I believe that too many people are falling through that safety net. Whether the Budget in another place last week was sufficient to mend that, I have my doubts. We need to continue the debate, in this Chamber and elsewhere, on ways of repairing the holes in the safety net. People were sleeping in the Strand in the bitterly cold weather we had recently and are still sleeping in the Strand in the current wet weather. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that, although I do not live in a castle, I believe that some castles in which people live are probably even draughtier than doorways in the Strand.
Secondly, I wish to touch once again on the very real problems of the City. Fraud is just as unpleasant as burglary. It seems to me that it is not being punished in the same way. I should like to see people who work in the City being bitterly ashamed and repentant of crime that is committed in the City. I am a solicitor. I am bitterly ashamed when I see any other solicitor maltreating his clients, being guilty of fraud or purloining clients' money. That is very serious; I hate it every time it happens. We all need to be repentant of our own professions when they fail in moral ways. If I take a client's money and use it for myself, as all too often is happening in the solicitor's profession today, I am guilty, I feel very ashamed. I am not showing respect for my neighbour.
Thirdly, I wish to touch on the question of families. By "families" I include both single parent families and extended families. I was very glad to hear last week from the director of housing of Westminster City Council that the council likes to encourage on its estates three generations of a family. That means there is real support for families under attack. I would support anything that can be done to encourage extended families to live within easy reach of each other.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, referred to the lack of training for marriage. Training for marriage is an important part of our encouragement of families. The right reverend Prelate talked about marriage enrichment courses. I was made by my children the other day to see a film called "Lethal Weapon". I believe that there are three such films around. At the end of the film I asked what was the lethal weapon. They said, "It was the hero", a man called Mel Gibson, if I remember aright, who was doing a lot of extremely violent things. I feel that people who go into marriage without any training can often be a lethal weapon and cause a lot of harm to the other spouse, to their children and to third parties as well.
Fourthly, I shall touch on the question of education. Again, there is a great need for moral teaching in

981
education. Perhaps I may quote from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education who said:
"Young people should be given a moral framework. Moral values lie at the heart of education. No school should be a value-free zone".
If we teach in schools no moral values we are teaching that there are no moral values. I warmly welcome what my right honourable friend is saying about the matter. This is an extremely encouraging turn in education and greatly needed.
Fifthly, I shall touch briefly on films and television. President Clinton is reported to have said that he wants to seek to curb excessive violence in films and television because of its detrimental effect on young people struggling at the edges of society. As I believe my noble friend Lord Elton said, we should see legislation to classify the new computer and video games that are shortly coming to this nation. Some of them are awful in their pornography and violence. That will need to be curbed, just as 10 years ago your Lordships introduced legislation that brought in the classification of videos.
Finally, I wish to touch on the role of the Church. I hope that ministers, both clergy in the Church of England and in other Churches, will be more ready to help in religious education in schools than before and that headmasters and headmistresses will also use the help of ministers in teaching religious education. All too often it is not up to scratch.
There have been many attacks on both the Church of England and other Churches following the Jamie Bulger murder trial. I was glad to see the support from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who said:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury has given very good sermons and lectures on family values. I have read and seen them, but they are never reported".
I would like to challenge the media to produce some of the extremely positive statements about moral issues given in today's debate. I shall be glad to see whether any of the media report what has been said today because it is largely good and encouraging for the nation.
The whole Church, Anglican or otherwise, needs today to be a mission Church, teaching right and wrong and teaching the core values of mutual respect and respect for the law. I do not know if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon is planning to make his diocese a mission diocese as some right reverend Prelates have been doing. But the need of the nation today is for the Church of England and the other Churches to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, to teach the law of the Bible and the standards which it inculcates into people. That good news which I hope to see the Churches teaching more and more includes what is right and wrong. It includes the teaching of good and evil as well as the need for repentance from wrong and the forgiveness which is available to those who fail to measure up to this Motion today by showing respect for each other and for the law.
5.34 p.m.
Viscount Oxfuird: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton. He has initiated a very important debate and has elevated it, as so many other speakers have, above politics. It has attracted a veritable plethora of points from all sides of the House.
I grew up in New Zealand at a time when respect for the law and for one's fellow citizens, was taken for granted. I am sure that that must have been the case here in the United Kingdom from which of course New Zealand has taken so many of her traditions and particularly those of fair play and civilised behaviour. When I was at school, cricket was defined as the game you play between the two rugby seasons. We played hard—and perhaps that is manifest in the recent performance of the All Blacks in this country—but not necessarily with perfection. One or two mistakes have been made.
We read in the press and we have heard from some noble Lords this afternoon some horrific stories. We must acknowledge that things are not as they were and that there are some serious issues to be addressed. Kipling wrote a piece of poetry called, The Gods of the Copy Book Heading. The right reverend Prelate referred to the difference between what was happening in another place and what is happening here this afternoon. Perhaps the debate in the other place is about the gods of the market place. I hope that the debate here this afternoon is about the Gods of the Copy Book Heading.
Having said that, I am not of the view that all is doom and gloom. Through my own children and their friends, I come into contact with a fairly good cross-section of the up and coming generation. In general they seem to me to be a pretty well-disciplined and polite group, given the chance. Their grooming does leave something to be desired but, according to my youngest son, I am quite old.
Perhaps the fact that they are children of a time when belief in the work ethic was being re-established in this country might have something to do with it. It provides us with a clue to the solution to part of the difficult conundrum that my noble friend has set this afternoon.
It is tempting of course to look back with rose-coloured spectacles to the seemingly golden era of the 18th and 19th centuries when Britannia ruled the waves, politeness and courteous behaviour were the norm and all seemed well with the world. What can we learn from that era? Perhaps we can learn something from that era when a belief in God, a belief in Queen and Country, self-reliance, an acceptance of one's civic responsibilities and a pride in one's workmanship held sway.
The issues that we are addressing this afternoon are extremely complex. We are seeking to establish those factors that create attitudes within us either to respect the law and one's fellow citizens or to hold them both in contempt. Our attitudes are moulded by so many things, by literature, music, the wireless, television, the videotape and its product, the video nasty.
But the roots of the attitude problem that we are facing go back to well before the Second World War.

983
Writing Conquest of Happiness as long ago as 1930, the late noble and distinguished philosopher and mathematician, Lord Russell, said:
"One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as it is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways".
Frankly, I do not agree with his late Lordship but then why should I, for Voltaire said:
"One owes respect to the living; but to the dead one owes nothing but the truth".
The hedonistic philosophy that became fashionable in some circles between the wars has, in my view, planted seeds which have done a great deal of harm.
Many noble Lords have made reference this afternoon to the changes in our education system that have taken place since the Second World War and that is certainly a major factor. I had intended to take up some of these education issues myself this afternoon, but after the debate last night, I have a distinct feeling that your Lordships have dined well on that subject. Instead, I have reached back—again to Kipling and to his poem A song of the English which was written in 1898. Its sentiments are particularly relevant to the Motion that we are debating today:
"Keep ye the law—be swift in all obedience—
Clear the land of evil, drive the road and bridge the ford.
Make ye sure to each his own
That ye reap where ye hath sown;
By the peace among our people let men know we serve the Lord!"
Wise words that are still very relevant today.
The major matter that I would like to highlight this afternoon is a belief in national and civic service. I come from a generation when a spell of national service in one of our Armed Forces was taken for granted. I believe that it did a great deal of good and gave us a legacy of young people who had acquired a proper respect for authority, a degree of self-reliance and a belief in themselves which put them a significant step closer towards showing a proper respect for each other.
I do not advocate a return to national service since circumstances today are so totally different, but I do think that there is a case for examining the opportunity to pass legislation to introduce a spell of perhaps one year of community service for all young people. That is not my idea. I am deeply indebted to a friend, General Sir John Wilsey, who, as many of your Lordships probably know, was General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland and is now GOC, Land Forces, United Kingdom. He is a man who has led. He has led men throughout the whole of his career and is, in my view, a man of absolute authority in this matter.
The transition from youth to adulthood is not an easy one. The energies, ideals and enthusiasms of the young need to be fostered and harnessed to the benefit of the individual and society as a whole—and never more than in this materialistic age. The United Kingdom is, in fact, still in a minority of nations in the world in not involving its youth in some form of compulsory service for the Armed Forces or for the community.
For maximum impact, this scheme would require all young people to leave their homes and live together in
984
their own structured communities perhaps under the supervision of retired service officers. This new resource of young talent and enthusiasm would enrich the lives of our senior citizens and the disadvantaged, but would also help to generate an attitude of respect, and of caring, and of compassion in our younger citizens. A spell in a structured environment would also help to teach a greater respect for authority and generate a greater sense of self-reliance. If correctly structured all participants in this enterprise and indeed society itself would be beneficiaries. I put forward this idea as just one small step towards creating a healthier, more respectful and more enlightened environment within our community. I wait for the cry, "Where do we get the money?" We are spending it already. Surely it is only a matter of redirection.
I would say finally, as I have said already, that my noble friend Lord Elton has set us a most difficult problem this afternoon. There is no single solution to the complex issues that we are facing, but I am certainly more optimistic than some noble Lords that some of the measures that have already been put in hand will provide a contribution towards the solution. Abraham Lincoln said:
"Service is the rent we pay for our place on earth".
5.46 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I had understood that this was to be a five-hour debate and I have committed myself to be elsewhere at 8.30 p.m., so I may have to leave before the end of the summing-up by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
I have one small and positive suggestion to make, although I shall come at it obliquely. The basic needs of man are food, shelter, clothing and the sense that there is some meaning and purpose to his life. Over the past 2000 years Western man has built around his life an enormous superstructure—a plethora of material needs and expectations. But for many there is no longer a belief that there is a higher purpose to their lives. That means that people have to fall back for their sense of self worth on their role in society or on material success. When those fail, there is nothing to underpin them in a sense of self worth.
So many of the ills of our society stem from the problems of people who do not respect themselves and who feel themselves to be alienated from society and unwanted by society. A person who feels that he or she has no worth and no place in society and who feels denied an opportunity to participate in society will tend either to fall into depression, which may lead to drug or alcohol abuse, or will confront society on his or her own terms. That tends to be what we mean by "crime". It is interesting to note that there are far more men criminals than women. Is that because there are more men who feel worthless? The question is worth asking.
Perhaps the most important cause of a sense of worthlessness in our society is unemployment. I am not getting at the Government. I am a pessimist and I believe that the problems of unemployment in this country and the problems of unemployment in the future are structural and are much greater than we yet understand.

985
we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. I was talking to an Austrian banker over the weekend. He told me that Austrian businesses are moving quietly over the border into Czechoslovakia where he assured me that labour costs are one-twentieth of those in Austria. Many of your Lordships' will be familiar with south-east Asia and conscious of the competition that it will offer to Europe over the coming decades. Finally, there is the technological revolution. I see around me, again and again, in the businesses with which I am associated the need to make capital investment and to mechanise, at the cost of employing people.
We have a situation where the prospects of full employment, even for the well educated, may not be too encouraging, but the prospects for those who have slipped through the educational net, who are untrained and unmotivated, are bleak indeed. They face the prospect of low paid irregular employment or unemployment most of the time. It is therefore essential for the stability of our society, as well as for the sake of the individuals concerned, that we should do whatever we can to prevent young people slipping through the educational net. There is something we can do, and which is being done, but not in a co-ordinated or effective way at present; that is, to help to ensure that by the time all children go into school they have the emotional readiness for school which enables them to participate in the work of the school, to become involved in it, and not to become drop-outs and rejects.
I should like to read to your Lordships a short extract from an article by Ernest Boyer who is president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He says:
"In the last two decades, our understanding of child development has grown at a dramatic pace. Above all, we now know that later learning depends heavily on what happens to a child in the first few years of life. We realize that infants whose development has been compromised during pregnancy are less likely to succeed in school. We understand, too, that even healthy children who are neglected, abused, or subjected to significant instability in their early years can be educationally impaired".
With the permission of your Lordships, perhaps I may read one more extract from a presentation produced by an American foundation called Heart Start, which states:
"The fact is that success in school depends on characteristics largely formed by the age of three. And those characteristics are not a fund of factual knowledge, nor the ability to read or recite the alphabet, nor familiarity with numbers or colors. They are the characteristics of children, of whatever background, who come to school curious, confident, conscious of what behaviour is expected of them, comfortable in seeking assistance, and able to get along with others—qualities largely developed, or not developed, in the first three years of life".
The acceptance of moral values which have been spoken of extensively this afternoon is dependant largely upon the acceptance by the young child of the fact that there are boundaries to acceptable behaviour, whatever those boundaries may be. It is because of that essential role of the parents in determining the whole future of the young child's life that I am launching a campaign to draw attention to the importance of the parenting of young children and to increase the education and support available to parents and
986
prospective parents. The object of the campaign is to help the children. The method is to help the parents. In doing so, I hope that we shall help society as a whole.
The first step has already been taken with the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and her all-party parliamentary group for children. We formed last week an all-party parliamentary group for parenting which it is intended will work closely with the children's group. The next step will be to raise £50,000 over three years, and I should be grateful for any of your Lordships' help in that matter so that we can extend the all-party commitment to as many as possible and, it is hoped, to all local authorities.
Many other things need to be done. I hope that all noble Lords who accept the importance of the influence of parents on the life of the young child will join the all-party parliamentary group. There is a great deal that can be done and a great deal which must be done. We must see that it is done in the interest of the children concerned and of our society.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Elton on introducing such a timely debate. It is of course timely because the behavioural problems of a minority are causing increasing trouble, pain, suffering and burdens to the majority. Sadly, that minority is increasing. At the moment one in every thousand of the adult population of this country is in prison, and on the whole people are not sent to prison unless they are pretty bad. That is a large and frightening minority.
I hoped that we would hear some radical thoughts from the Opposition about what should be done about the problem. After all, the Labour Party has had 14 years to think about such matters, and so I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am prepared to admit that the statement that there is no such thing as society was perhaps one of the more provocative statements made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, but I should prefer to debate that statement than the slogan which the noble Lord repeated four times, that what he wanted was a "collectivist consensus". I tried hard to work out what he meant by that. My only conclusion is that if I were Mr. John Smith I would not go into the next election holding up a banner saying, "Vote for the collectivist consensus".
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, gave an important message about how society has changed. Despite statistical inequalities in income, which of course exist, society is much more equal than it was. Part of that is due to prosperity and part to technology. I am not talking about just the basic things such as warm housing, healthy food, a reasonable education and health standards; I am talking about the extra good things of life. Television has been referred to a great deal. All of us in this House, and throughout society, watch the same television programmes. In many ways, that is a great equaliser. We buy the same consumer goods. Most people have most of the main consumer durables. Most people now have a telephone. Many people have bank accounts. One of the effects of the past

987
14 years is that we are now much more a middle class society—by that I mean a much more individual society—than we were. That is a big change.
I wish to make three specific suggestions which have already been referred to obliquely. First, I believe that there is a need for more and better education in citizenship; secondly, unlike my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, I believe that we should reintroduce national service, but with non-military options as well as a military option; thirdly, I believe that much more imaginative use should be made of community service as a means of dealing with offenders.
Perhaps I may say a brief word on each of those topics. I deal first with citizenship as regards which I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne said. The lessons of good and bad citizenship, which should be learnt by everyone, should be taught by the parents in the home. It would be nice if that were the case, and if something comes of the noble Lord's proposals it would be tremendous.
In the meantime we must seriously consider introducing a course in citizenship as part of the curriculum. The course would not be part of the school curriculum and it would not be long. It would be a course that people would take as soon as they left school at the age of 16, 17 or 18. We could debate how long it would be—perhaps one month—and the syllabus. I believe that it is necessary for people to be taught the difference between good and bad citizenship rather than learning it at the hard anvil of experience often at the expense of other citizens.
My second suggestion relates to national service. It existed in this country for about 20 years from before the war until 1960. It ended a generation ago. This is the only country in the European Union which does not have national service. Belgium is abandoning it at the end of this year, but I am afraid that Belgium is in a poor state. In some countries, including France, Denmark and the Netherlands, there are alternatives. Of course, we could debate the length of the service and the alternatives that could be available. There may be opportunities perhaps in the fire service, lifeboats, the ambulance service and so forth. I would like everyone to undertake a period of national service, which would be compulsory and mandatory. Military service would be one of the options. I do not have great sympathy with those in the military who sometimes say that it is wasteful to train national service people to be soldiers, sailors and airmen. I can think of no more valuable a role than the provision of such training. I believe that we should debate this again as a practical proposition.
A long time ago I served as a special adviser in Whitehall under Mr. Heath's government. I wrote a paper on the re-introduction of multi-option national service. Mr. Heath's private secretary minuted, "The Prime Minister does not wish Mr. Schreiber's paper to be circulated any further or discussed by anyone". I think that we now have a slightly more radical government and I hope that they will at least consider the proposal.
My final point relates to community service which, as a means of dealing with offenders, has been in existence
988
for 20 years. Some 5 million hours per year are worked by way of community service. The current prison population is about 48,500. Let us assume that in prison there is an eight hour working day, which few prisoners do in fact have, and a 48 working week year. There are, therefore, in prison about 3.6 million hours of work available per day, 18 million per week and 880 million per year.
The trouble is that the alternative of non-custodial community service represents less than 1 per cent. of those prison hours. Therefore, it is not greatly used. Perhaps I may refer to the relative costs. All the administration costs of community service amounts to about £100 per month per person. If we assume that the average number of hours spent per week is five—that is 20 hours per month—the cost is about £5 per hour. It costs £2,000 per month to keep someone in prison; that is £24,000 per year. Even if one divides that by the totally unrealistic figure which I gave for the working week the administrative cost per hour is £30. That is six times the cost of community service.
Why is community service not used more? I suggest that part of the reason is that in some areas it is felt that there is not sufficient work to be done. I was horrified to be told recently by a magistrate friend that some years ago a senior probation officer in Camberwell said that it would be better not to pass so many community service orders because there was insufficient work to be done. My magistrate friend asked, "What about picking up litter?". The answer was, "That would not be in accordance with the dignity of our clients". I know what I prefer. As it happens, I enjoy picking up litter; it is a satisfying occupation.
About 70 per cent. of community service orders are completed satisfactorily. For one reason or another it does not work for the remaining 30 per cent. of people, some of whom have to be sent to prison. Community service which involves making play equipment for schools, refurbishing village halls and helping in the gardens of the elderly is tremendous but it is a relatively "soft" form. If people do not accept that form, then we should have a much tougher alternative form. There could be gangs of people who have to keep so many miles of motorway spotlessly clean. The sentence would not be so pleasant and it would not be imposed in the first instance, but it would be a back-up.
The objective of my three suggestions—the education in citizenship, the return of national service and a more imaginative form of community service—is to keep people out of prison; to make it less necessary for so many people to go to prison. The people of this country are becoming increasingly outraged by what they see and by the apparent impotence of society—and in this sense society exists—to deal with the problems of law and lack of mutual respect. I believe that in many cases radical solutions would be accepted by the community. I hope that the Government will indicate that they have some radical thoughts in mind.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Elton has secured today's debate and raised the crucial issue of our respect for each other and

989
for the law. I congratulate him on the careful wording of his Motion. Clearly it came about as a result of the tragic murder of little James Bulger, which so touched the heart of the nation; of the Prime Minister's avowed intention to return to basics; and of the wide realisation in this country that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society if little James Bulger can be murdered by boy A and boy B who are 11 years old. Noble Lords will judge the matter for themselves but I believe that to be the case.
In recent weeks there has been an unseemly disagreement between the Church and the Government in speaking out on moral issues. A Home Office Minister said that the Church had been "strangely silent on moral issues". His comments seem to have ruffled feathers within the Church of England hierarchy. But does the Church of England meet the needs of real people in this country? If one wants to know the answer all one has to do is to visit an Anglican church at a typical 10.30 a.m. Sunday service. Will one see crowds of people fighting to get in the door and a queue trailing down the High Street? Regrettably, one is unlikely to do so. There are some notable exceptions and I rejoice for them. But in broad terms one will see a desultory three or four, or five or six people going to church. Only 10 per cent. of the people of this country go to church. That is a clear indication that the Church is failing to meet real needs in the modern world today. I can say that with complete certainty. Your Lordships will know that the human being is a very perceptive creature and, if he perceives that a certain course of action will be to his advantage, he will quickly adopt that course of action for himself for his advantage. He has clearly seen that the Church is not doing that at present. Therefore, something needs to be done.
I take the view that we all share a responsibility for promoting respect for each other and for law and order. We all share a responsibility to speak out on moral issues. Of course the Church could do better at that task and I for one should welcome more preaching of the gospel week by week and more exposition of scripture. In turn, that would lead to more conversions to Christianity and people's real needs would be met.
The Government too cannot shirk their responsibility, especially when their own actions sometimes seem to undermine respect for law and order. For example, I am thinking of the way in which the large supermarkets have blatantly broken the Sunday trading laws over the past few years. The Government have stood idly by and delayed introducing proposals for reform. As your Lordships will be well aware, they are being discussed in another place today. It seems to me that the Government allowed respect for the law to be undermined in that case.
Again, the Government's preferred option with regard to Sunday trading is, as is well known, total deregulation. Let us suppose that that option were accepted in another place and in your Lordships' House. Would that not be yet another example of unrighteous laws being passed? Over the past 50 years a great raft of unrighteous laws has been passed by Parliament, starting in 1951 with the abolition of the law prohibiting witchcraft. Total deregulation would be yet another
990
example, because it would be a direct and absolute contradiction of the fourth Commandment, which states:
"Six days you shall labour and do all your work but the seventh day is a Sabbath for the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work; neither you, nor your son nor your daughter nor your manservant or maidservant; nor your animals; nor the alien within your gates".
That is fairly clear. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It saddens me that the Government should even contemplate the possibility of passing another unrighteous law.
One such law is the abolition of the death penalty for murder, which took place in 1965 and about which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter spoke so effectively earlier in the debate.
I ask my noble friend who is to wind up whether the Government have carried out an in-depth analysis as to the fundamental cause of the rise in crime in this country. I gave her notice of that question, which I hope she received, and I apologise to her for not giving her longer notice. It seems to me that the answer to that question is crucial. If my noble friend could tell the House in the clearest possible terms what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, is the fundamental underlying cause of the rise in crime in this country, that would be extremely helpful.
When one has a problem, one either puts a fence at the top of the cliff or an ambulance at the bottom. Obviously, a fence at the top is far more effective than an ambulance at the bottom, but, to put the fence at the top, one must analyse very carefully exactly what is the cause of the problem. Otherwise, how does one know exactly where to put the fence? If one does not put the fence in the right place, people will continue to topple over. As a result of that and the difficulty of it, the Government's answer usually is to put an ambulance at the bottom. In this particular case, that means more policemen on the beat. I am not against more policemen on the beat but it is not the fundamental answer to the problem. If I heard correctly on the radio this morning, the Home Office is saying that they are running out of money and might not even have money to pay for the ambulance at the bottom, which is a sad state of affairs.
Whatever the Government and the Church say, it is hard for them to go against the grain of what our children are learning from their parents and in school. The family and education have unique roles in promoting respect for each other. I shall not develop that theme further now because I recently spoke at some length on that subject in your Lordships' House in the debate on the gracious Speech. I merely say that, in order to rediscover proper citizenship and responsibility, the Government need to pay very close attention to how their policies impact on helping families to stay together; for example, we shall all have to study the Green Paper on divorce published by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with that question in mind, looking to the future.
Finally, I urge the Government to recognise that respect for law will be encouraged as families, schools, the Church and Government all play their part in that

991
task. No one group can achieve that on its own but one might expect the Church to lead in that regard. Proverbs 29:18 states:
"Where there is no vision the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law".
Noble Lords will judge for themselves, but I believe that that sums up the position in this country today.
In broad terms, I support the Government and agree with what they are doing, otherwise I should not be sitting on these Benches. But it seems to me that the Government lack vision and as a result of that, the people are unrestrained, out of control or doing their own thing. "But happy is he who keeps the law". Regrettably, even the Government cannot be put in that category, as I seek to show with regard to Sunday trading, where they blatantly allowed disregard for the law to continue for a number of years, which makes me extremely sad.
Only the spirit of God can save our nation and the Church is His instrument for so doing. I hope to see the state and the Church going forward in tandem and in harmony. If they show enough determination and imagination, there is hope for this country yet.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing such an interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is an obvious remark to say that respect for each other and the law begins in the home and that where it is lacking children begin life at a great disadvantage. My noble friend Lord Joseph used to describe that as the cycle of deprivation, which can go from one generation to another, getting worse and worse.
On the other hand, there are many children brought up in homes where they learn right and wrong in a disciplined atmosphere from loving and caring parents. Those children do not make the headlines but there are millions of them throughout the country. They visit old and lonely people on a regular basis to keep them in touch with what is going on and to do their shopping and gardening for them. Those children are growing into good citizens. Therefore, when we look at the background of the home I agree that there is concern but there is also hope.
Another powerful influence is the Church. That was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and others. It is unfortunate that the Church no longer holds the centre of the stage in our national life as it used to. Nevertheless, I believe that the Churches remain more rooted in the hearts and minds of people than attendance at church would sometimes suggest.
I come from a country parish in Somerset. Our congregations there are growing and the church is once more the centre of life in that community. I cannot believe that that parish is an isolated example. But we live in a secular age and it is absolutely right that Church leaders should speak out not only on spiritual matters, even though some of their remarks may cause embarrassment to governments and politicians. One cannot separate the body and the soul this side of the
992
grave. The Church is concerned with both of them. Above all, the Church teaches us that good can overcome evil. Good Friday was followed by the glorious triumph of Easter.
Another potent force which has been mentioned in today's debate is education. There is cause for concern here. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools has just reported that some education is unsatisfactory or downright poor. We all know examples of lack of discipline, of low achievement and of truancy. They are real problems. When I sat in another place I regularly received letters from students in higher education who could not construct a letter or even spell. On the other hand, the chief inspector has also said that much of our education is satisfactory or of a high quality.
We now have the national curriculum. It is having teething troubles, but the emphasis on core subjects and assessment of individuals and schools is widely supported and should raise standards. Physical fitness is one of the important aspects of education. It used to be fashionable at one time to decry team games. Fortunately, that time is now passed and it is recognised that such games can help to build character. In a team game, one has to ensure that one gives of one's best so as not to let the side down. In my book, the greatest of team games is cricket. There are just glimmers of hope reappearing for English cricket. So far as concerns Rugby, after Twickenham the other day we can begin once more to look the All Blacks in the face.
Law and order has been frequently, and understandably, mentioned during the debate. Crime is clearly a serious blot on our national life. "Respect for each other and for the law" seems to be at a low ebb. Despite enormous increases in government expenditure, tougher penalties and an emphasis on law and order in the gracious Speech, we seem to be fighting a losing battle. Of course, the problems go back to the home and the school and will not be resolved overnight. But, even there, I suggest that it is not all gloom.
I attended a police seminar last Friday. I was struck by the strong emphasis that came out in the speeches and the comments that were made on the need for partnership between the police and all of us. We have the special constables who for many years have done a great job of work. We now have an increasing number of business companies that recognise the need to employ security firms to assist in tightening up their arrangements. Moreover, more recently the neighbourhood watch schemes have rapidly developed throughout the country. They are good examples of the public getting organised to assist the police. They should soon begin to produce useful results.
The influence of the media, especially of television, has also been mentioned this evening. There is too much sex, violence and sheer rubbish on our television screens. That is bound to have a bad influence, particularly on the young and the impressionable. However, I must not weary your Lordships by developing that theme on this occasion.
I hope that I have not sounded complacent. Of course, we have deep-rooted and serious problems concerning behaviour. But too much introspection and

993
gloom can paralyse the will and our determination to act constructively to right the wrongs. Where there is life, there is hope.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have had a very general, wide-ranging and philosophical debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for initiating it. I do not intend to detain your Lordships for too long with philosophy this evening, except to remark that it has always seemed strange to me that killing seems to be a good thing for children. For example, we allow children to watch the bloody mayhem of the "A-Team" any time; but kissing is confined to adult hours. When it comes to children's television, it seem to me to be a case of: make war not love.
However, on the practical side, what can we do to improve the situation? There are plenty of areas to cover. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned a particularly important one; namely, reducing the high rates of taxation which exist in our social security system and its morality-sapping effect. There are many things that we can do. We can support the many good initiatives which exist in our society. I shall not attempt to cover many of them; I shall concentrate on just three in the field of education.
Education is fundamental to the question of behaviour and morality in our society. My experience of inner cities is based on the time when I ran a small business in south-east London. The children that the young people who I employed there saw as customers were under-qualified, bored and with no great hopes for the future. However, they were bright enough. It did not matter 'what kind of car you had locked your keys into, they could open it in seconds. They had all the native intelligence that it takes to do well at school, but the schools had failed them.
The aspects of inner-city education at which I should like to look are the contributions made by sixth-form colleges, by nursery education and by the process of raising our expectations. First, there are many good sixth-form colleges in the country and many of them are in inner cities. I shall single out the one in Birkenhead that I visited just the other day. Sixth-form colleges serve a defined community and are part of that community, but their atmosphere is something that they generate themselves; in other words, it does not seem to be affected by the deprivation and despair around them. They are places that are full of courtesy, respect and self-discipline. They would come very high on the league tables of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. The children in them want to work. They enjoy working there. They feel that they are succeeding and going on to further success. They act as a beacon to the children of that community. They can look at those who are managing to achieve what they are capable of achieving.
The colleges work with that situation. They reach out to the primary schools and the community. They send their pupils out to them to provide the youngest children with role models so that they will lift up their ambitions and see what they can become, rather than being influenced by the chaos around them. They work with the secondary schools by sending their teachers out to
994
build on those ambitions and to focus them. A sixth-form college like the one in Birkenhead pulls up the children of the community towards it. It lifts their aspirations in a way that other institutions do not.
The 1992 Act has offered sixth-form colleges many new opportunities and much freedom. The best of them are making good use of that. However, the Act also contains its dangers. It is very difficult now to see how it is possible to start a new sixth-form college in an area which needs one. Indeed, the emphasis seems to be the other way round in allowing schools in areas served by sixth-form colleges to develop their own sixth forms, which is greatly to the benefit of those schools but to the detriment of the children and of the communities.
Secondly, there is nursery education. If sixth-form colleges pull children up towards them, nursery education gives them the push at the beginning. There is a great deal of evidence—not only from the recent reports of Ofsted and the National Commission on Education—that nursery education in areas of deprivation makes all the difference. I hope that the Government will act on that evidence, but I hope they act judiciously. I say judiciously because I do not see much point in giving extra money to institutions which are already failing to provide good education. If we are to make an effort with nursery education, we need to make sure that it is in institutions having high expectations and out to achieve something definite. I also say judiciously because the research that has been done on nursery education has all been carried out in areas of high deprivation and does not have any direct relevance to most of the rest of the country.
The critical study, the big study in America that everyone knows about—the High Scope study—was clone in an area of extreme deprivation arid involved spending what would now be the equivalent of £10,000 per annum on each student. It seems to me reasonable that a child of a prosperous family might be better off left in that family, or better off if the money were spent instead on the child's primary education and not on the early years. We just do not know. The evidence does not show that. However, when it comes to deprived areas, nursery education is a must and I hope the Government make some early progress on it.
And so, thirdly, from the ends of education to the middle—that great area where Ofsted's recent report Access and Achievement in Urban Education shows the damage done by low expectations and by the idea that the children of the poor and of the working class of immigrants are in some way not capable of doing well at school. Ofsted shows how damaging that belief is when it is held by teachers. Its recent report—or rather the reactions to its report—on Crooke primary school show how widely those low expectations can be held by the LEA, by governors, by teachers and even by some of the parents—to the extent that they regard a failing school as being a good one. Indeed, those expectations are widely held.
An article in the Spectator not so long ago argued, on the basis of identical twin experiments, that intelligence was entirely inherited and that therefore the working class were not worth educating. One sees that also in the parties opposite. There was an amendment put down to

995
the last Education Bill requiring that school performance information should also show pupils' backgrounds, including,
"socio-economic factors, ethnic origin and gender".
That is to say, if the school is doing badly and you can look at the tables and see that there are poor people there, or working class people, or Asian or Afro-Caribbean people, then you are inviting people to say, "What do you expect with those sort of children." What I expect—what I am sure all of us expect—is that we should educate children to the best of their own individual abilities.
I do not believe that the parties opposite really believe that background makes a difference to education and to one's ability in education. I do not think that anyone really believes that the children of the middle class, indeed perhaps of the aristocracy, are in some way better than the children of the working class. The truth, surely, is that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are disadvantaged at school too. Our objective should be to restore equality of opportunity to them. If we are to measure how well we are doing at that, and if we are to try to produce some figure which shows whether equality of opportunity is something which we are offering children or not, and if, as I believe, you accept that intellectual potential is not dependent on wealth or class but is something which is fairly broadly the same throughout our community, then you need an absolute measure—the sort of measure that this Government have chosen in their performance tables.
Then, if a school is doing badly and showing low results in GCSEs, you conclude that those children are not enjoying equality of opportunity and you devote intellectual and financial resources to try to bring about improvements, either at the school, if that is what is failing, or in the community, if that is what needs support, through nursery education or the sort of initiative talked about by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. But if you use a measure which is corrected for background—a measure which might, for instance, equate an inner city school where 20 per cent. of pupils get five GCSE A to C grades with a county school where 55 per cent. of pupils achieve those grades—then the natural reaction is to say, "That is OK then. They are the same". Then you leave the inner city, and the children in the inner city, to under-achievement, deprivation and despair. That is what has been happening.
We have accepted that inner city children should not do as well as the rest of us, and that is why the school performance tables, as they are now, despite all their idiosyncrasies, are a key to improving urban education. They lead us to have high expectations of a school whatever the background of its children. Any other performance measurement lets the Government off the hook of improving education in the inner cities.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has provoked a fascinating debate. It has really come down in the end to what influences create our sense of values in our modern society. He couched his Motion carefully in drawing attention to,
"the conditions necessary for the maintenance in the citizens of this country of a proper respect for each other and for the law".
As he pointed out in his introduction, we live in an age of swift communications and this has had a profound effect on our society. I would immediately distinguish when we talk about crime—I shall come to the statistics in a moment—the difference between what is so often reported in our papers with regard to the internationally organised drug crimes, racketeering crimes and terrorist crimes which are backed by millions of pounds of capital and other crimes. In the former the criminals employ swift communications and adopt a businesslike approach to their manoeuvring. That kind of crime is international and needs to be dealt with on an international, and certainly a national, basis.
However the vast majority of crime that most people are concerned with in this country consists of often unpremeditated acts of violence, burglary, theft from cars, vandalism and other such acts. That crime is of a totally different nature and it needs a totally different approach. In an affluent society, people's expectations are raised and in many circumstances they are raised to such an extent that certain people themselves realise that their ambitions cannot ever be fulfilled legally. Therefore the temptations are great.
I listened with great interest to the two formal religious contributions from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I also listened most attentively to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who is a lay preacher. It occurred to me that, if we happened to have a religious community in Britain and if everybody basically accepted Christian or other precepts and our society was composed of church-attending people, whether of the Christian, Jewish or Mohammedan religion or any other, the crime rate would be low. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, knows, I live in one of the areas of the country where there is probably the least law breaking. I can go to bed at night and not worry whether I have locked the door. I rarely take the key out of my car. I do not know how long that will last. It is a leftover from an earlier age. No doubt the situation is changing and is influenced every day by television and so on.
I am amazed that none of the formal contributions mentioned the question of regard for the weaker brethren raised by St. Paul. In considering the influence of television, videos and so on, we are not concerned with the effect of those on right-thinking members of society or those people who have a proper sense of values and judgment; we are concerned with their effect on the "weaker brethren". In an affluent society which is subjected to many influences, we would be fools indeed not to realise that the television set and the video

997
in the corner are an important part of the environment. They probably also serve to increase the proportion of citizens who may now be described as weaker brethren.
It is useless to think that society can go back. We hark back to the 19th century as a golden age. Have people not read Dickens? Have they not read of some of the terrible crimes of the 19th century? We know perfectly well that, even in a well run society, as the society of those days is sometimes thought to have been, serious and horrible crimes were committed.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to many statistics. He probably obtained much of his information from Digest 2 Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales. I see him brandishing his copy. Perhaps I may refer to that document for some international comparisons which we ought to bear in mind. Under the heading:
"Percentage of the population who were victims of one or more crimes in 1989/1991"
In those three years the highest rates of over 25 per cent. of the population being victims of crime occurred in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States of America, where, incidentally, church attendance is very much higher than in our country. Rates of between 18 per cent. and 25 per cent. occurred in Belgium, Czechoslovakia, England and Wales, Finland, France, West Germany, Italy, Scotland, Spain and Sweden. Low victim rates of less than 18 per cent. occurred in Japan, Northern Ireland, Norway and Switzerland.
I was particularly intrigued by the last four names. Although the Republic of Ireland did not return statistics for that purpose. I know that the rate in the Republic of Ireland is also low. In Northern Ireland, despite all the terrorist offences which occur there, the influence of the Churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, probably accounts for the relatively low crime rate. Norway and Switzerland are small countries where everything is organised on a small scale and is very much decentralised and controlled. Japan is a mystery to me but it is a much more structured society than this country.
In order to put everything into perspective it is interesting to note that just over one half the offences of theft and one-quarter of all recorded crimes in this country are made up of thefts of and from cars. That is a huge proportion. Although we have talked about the increase in violence, only 5 per cent. of recorded crimes are violent or sexual offences and two-thirds of those are minor woundings. If my memory serves me aright, in 1992 there were some 690 cases of homicide in our country, and 95 per cent. of those were solved by the police. The police investigate serious crimes very well indeed. While 600 homicides is an unacceptable level, perhaps I may again put the figure in perspective by pointing out that it is lower than in the city of New York. That figure covers the whole of our country, England and Wales.
The rise in crimes reflected in the statistics is also in part a result of a great increase in the past few years in the reporting of offences, particularly burglary, due to the requirements of insurance policies. The statistics show that people who are most likely to be burgled are
998
those living in council houses and flats in deprived areas. Those most likely to be the victims of crimes of violence are not old ladies or young girls but young males between the ages of 18 and 30.
That catalogue is not reassuring but it puts the statistics in context. There is no doubt that there is a general feeling that respect for each other and for the law is decreasing in this country. The question is, what can we do about it? Villains have been suggested from Dr. Spock and his child-oriented philosophy to the absence of a death penalty to the affluent society, and. so on. In this debate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accused the other side of failing to fulfil a community responsibility, and on the Benches opposite the blame was laid on the lack of emphasis on individual responsibility on this side of the House. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.
Despite all the temptations to go into debt, it is useless to pretend that an individual does not realise that he or she is getting into debt and into trouble. Yet it is equally right for people to point out that society too owes a duty to individuals to safeguard them from too great temptation in such matters.
One of the first things that we could do would be to curb our total reliance on market forces. Far too much emphasis has been placed on market forces. I am a great believer in free enterprise, but it does not cure everything. We have underestimated markedly the value of public service, wherever it arises and whether it is undertaken by individual citizens, teachers, civil servants, people serving in the Armed Force; or anyone else. It is very important. People can fulfil their lives by giving service to their community as opposed to making a quick buck as fast as they can.
Secondly, we should become more responsive to the heart-rending cries concerning the effect of certain videos and a diet of continual violence and pornography. Most people are not influenced by it, and we all recognise in this debate that, thank God, the vast majority of young people in this country are, growing up to be law-abiding citizens with a proper sense of values. However, we recognise that the influences upon their children are likely to be different from the influences on them. We must prepare to meet that situation.
Education is clearly important. If people come from a poor home, whether it is a single parent home—and there are excellent single parent homes—or from a broken home or one where the parents give no guidance (and we all know that there are such homes) education generally becomes supremely important. It would be a great investment if in this country we had nursery education for all. We have heard that a great many women go out to work. We shall not reverse that trend but we should provide nursery education for their children. If the individual cannot pay for it, then the state must help. A noble Lord pointed out that if a single mother who is under great stress is able to have a break; if she can send her child to a nursery school for some hours in the day then that must be a great benefit.
There is also a case for much greater equality in the country. The bosses of industry have helped themselves obscenely during the past decade, as they have in the United States. I do not think that that accords with most

999
people's sense of values and sense of judgment. There is too great a gap between the rewards of the poor and the rich and it is too obvious a gap. I myself am engaged in industry and we all know that there is too great a gap between the top earners and the others. We know well that most industrial institutions could switch from a highly paid chief executive to a much more modestly paid chief executive of equal ability with no difficulty at all. We have stood by and watched those inequalities develop.
Lastly, although this is not a debate on capital punishment, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, introduced the subject and I wish to deal with it before I sit down. I take a diametrically opposite approach from his, as I did in the other place years ago. I was against the death penalty as a result of my experiences at the Bar. In the first murder case in which I was involved, everyone wanted the man reprieved—the prison governor, the police officer in charge, everyone. Even the judge tried hard to get a recommendation for mercy. It all failed and he was executed. He had committed a crime passionnel on the spur of the moment and that was it.
With the next case in which I was involved, the man walked free. If I had been sitting on the jury, he would not have. Shortly thereafter, there occurred the case of Timothy Evans, who was executed for the alleged murder of a small child. The chief witness for the prosecution was a man who, subsequently we knew, had committed four murders before that happened. Evans was executed. He was almost certainly innocent.
If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is right, the people convicted at Birmingham and at Guildford would have been executed. I know nothing of the facts but the Court of Appeal has told us that those were wrong convictions. It seems to me that, if one's contribution to this debate is to say that one of the things that is wrong with the country is that there is no death penalty, we need to look much more deeply into the subject. I cannot agree with that contention, as I did not agree with the noble Lord many years ago.
Altogether, this has been a valuable debate and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is to be congratulated on bringing the matter before the House.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, before launching into my speech, perhaps I could offer the apologies of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He was unable to stay for the rest of the debate because he has gone to see his father who is seriously ill in hospital. I am sure that after all that has been said in the debate about parental duties and relationships, we fully understand the duty that he felt he had to fulfil.
I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating the debate. I had the privilege of making my maiden speech in this House in a debate that he initiated last year. In that debate, I said that my background before coming here was that of an academic philosopher and I did not think that I would be much use to my party because it was not clear that the
1000
Labour Party needed a spokesman on Plato and Aristotle. However, it turns out that there are occasional debates when philosophical expertise turns out, I hope, to be useful. It occurred to me this afternoon that, many moons ago, when we were both at the University of Manchester, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and I used to go to philosophy and religion seminars together.
I shall take to heart the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, about not making a political speech. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made most of the more acerbic points that I would otherwise have been tempted to make. However, I wish to make two points that are reasonably gentle but nevertheless a little telling.
We have heard much about the importance of parents taking responsibility for their actions. We have also heard, quite rightly, from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about people who do wrong things in taking responsibility and—in his words—repenting of them. I should like to see the Government taking a lead and Ministers resigning more frequently when they make fundamental mistakes. After all, it was a very honourable member of the party opposite who set a wonderful example in that respect over the Crichel Down affair in the 1950s. I think that if politicians of all parties are going to pontificate about the duties and responsibilities of parents, they ought also to take seriously their own responsibilities in the discharge of their public duties. I should like to see Ministers resigning much more often.
I think that we are in some danger of defining the political aspect rather narrowly. For example, when the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, was arguing, as I understood him, in favour of a confessional state, based upon religious principles and the Church and state in some kind of tandem, whatever might be said in favour of that view it is hardly non-political. Thus, there is a danger in merely labelling as political outlooks with which one does not happen to agree.
I have also noticed that the weather seems to have been keeping up a reasonably apocalyptic background to the views of some noble Lords about the prospects for British society.
I wish to start the substance of what I have to say with some remarks on the nature of respect which is part of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We are heirs to two traditions about the nature of respect. The first is, if I may call it that, the Liberal or Social Democratic tradition which sees respect in public policy as a recognition of a status, of the moral equality of all individuals. The second is a more communitarian view which can be found on both the Left and the Right that respect is not a status, it is something which has to be earned. Respect is a recognition of an achievement of some kind.
The first view, which has been associated with the idea of liberalism and social democracy, is that in the public sphere respect for persons is embodied in the rights and entitlements which a person enjoys in an unconditional way as a citizen. Those rights would include civil and political rights and also social and

1001
economic rights. The view is that those rights are practical ways in which the underlying, unconditional right to respect is embodied and protected.
The second view has attained a good deal of currency recently through the work of many people on the radical Right in the United States, particularly those working in the area of social policy, such as Workfare and so on. On that view, respect has to be earned and social policy should be geared to inducing people to achieve those forms of behaviour in which respect will be earned and achieved. So, for example, welfare benefits will become dependent on living what is seen as a virtuous life. That is to say, working for a living, staying married and so on.
The achievement view of respect certainly has, in my view, an important place in private life. We obviously discriminate among our friends and acquaintances in terms of their achievement and we favour some and not others. But it may be either dangerous or unattainable in public policy because it requires, first, that we hold a publicly acceptable and accepted concept of virtue in terms of which we recognise respect and the way in which it has been achieved and earned. I do not know that we have that. Secondly, there is the view that we know what kinds of institutional mechanisms are likely both to encourage and to reward the virtue that we are trying to inculcate into people which will earn our respect. Again, that is a dubious view, in my estimation. It is rather paradoxical, coming from the radical Right in the United States, because part of their other range of political commitments is to do with the failures of government, limited government and the fact that government cannot do much and what it does do it normally does badly.
It is rather strange for government to be taking on a moral agenda, as it were, linking social policy to the achievement of virtue, as is happening to some extent in the United States, when that is also coupled with a critique of the role and competence of government and the state. So in order to place respect as an achievement at the heart of public policy we would need a very strong sense of public morality and virtue and a strong view about the competence and scope of government. I do not believe that we have either of those.
One reason why I do not believe that we have the kind of public morality, a public view of virtue, that would enable government to treat respect in the achievement, as opposed to the status, sense, is due to the historical effect of the growth of the free market economy. I do not want to be taken as a severe critic of the market. In fact I spent the last 15 years writing books and articles trying to persuade my own party to take the role of the market more seriously and give it a central place in its policy making processes. I am not trying to make a partisan point However, I believe, along with the North American philosopher, David Gaultier, that the market is what he calls a morally free zone. I believe that it is a morally free zone for the following reasons.
First, central to the defence of the free market in the writings of thinkers such as Hayek, Friedman, and others, is that the role of the state is to ensure the conditions of free exchange. If each individual act of exchange is free, then the outcome is legitimate
1002
whatever the degree of inequality it might yield. The effect of that is to neutralise the claim that market outcomes can be criticised in terms of moral principles such as social justice. In that sense it is a morally free zone.
Secondly, the market is seen by many of its major supporters and intellectual defenders as the embodiment of moral subjectivism. It is central to Austrian economics from which most contemporary economic liberalism comes. It is the realm of choice. Value is a consequence of choice, and the worth of a person in economic terms is how other individuals freely choose to value what that individual is able to provide. In that sense it is a morally neutral zone. It is the institutional embodiment of ethical subjectivism.
Thirdly, it leads to the growth of instrumental rationality, in the sense that individuals value things for the benefits and for the economic advantages that they can get from things. That is fair enough. That is central to the market and there is no harm in it. But again, the idea of what constitutes reasons for action is uncontaminated by moral principles.
Finally, the predominant model of human relationships in markets is that of contract. The market produces many, many benefits—I do not want to be taken to be undermining that—but if it does not embody in itself any substantial morality other than a framework for the exercise of free choice, and if its dominant moral relationship is that of contract, then it seems to me that we should have concerns about the relentless advance of the market. It may well drive out other kinds of moral ideals and turn all relationships and all moral conceptions into an image of itself. That is to say, we need to have clear boundaries to markets.
If I had to make a party point at this moment (and I will not resist the temptation just to do so) it seems to me that the Government could be much clearer about where they think the limits to markets actually lie. We keep thinking that we have reached the limit of privatisation and contracting, and then we take yet a further step. It would be nice to know whether the Government have any view about whether there is a clear moral boundary, as it were, beyond which markets should not go. The market is in some danger of remaking the whole of society in its own image. We need only to think of the way in which marriage is now seen in terms of contract, which I believe is a wholly inappropriate and far too instrumental way of trying to think about the relationship between two people who presumably marry because they are in love with one another. The idea that that relationship can be conceived in terms of contract seems to me to be a fundamental error. Yet without those boundaries the market keeps remaking our relationships in its own image. So we do need some kind of limit, some kind of idea of where the boundary is.
Most of us have intuitive ideas. Richard Titmuss once said about the blood donor system that, if blood can be bought and sold, then anything can be bought and sold. I was reminded of that earlier this week in a report in the paper—I do not remember the details now—where a chaplain in a hospital had been asked to cost the price of his ministering to dying patients

1003
because it had to be costed as part of the accounting procedures within the hospital. I believe that everyone in this House would realise that at that point some kind of moral boundary had been violated. We need to keep the market in its appropriate moral place.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Would he not recognise that over many generations Conservative philosophy has aimed to limit exploitation within the market, whether it be the exploitation of employees, consumers or, as more recently, the environment?
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I would accept that, and certainly the Conservative Party in the 19th century and since had a very honourable record in that respect. I am trying not to make this a partisan point. All parties in power, in whichever country in the West, are presently having problems in trying to define the appropriate relationships between market, state and community. I wish that parties would be prepared—my own party as well—to say a little more precisely what in their view should fall within which kind of boundary; namely, whether this is part of the state, that is part of the market, that is part of the voluntary sector and that is part of the community. That is the point I am trying to make. I am not trying to criticise the Conservative Party alone for failing to do that. I believe that that is one of the central questions of modern politics.
The result of all this is that because markets embody moral subjectivism, and because they are spilling over into more and more areas of our life, we are finding that morality is in a sense becoming privatised. It is becoming attenuated. It is seen in terms of our family life and our immediate circle, in terms of how to behave in relation to family, friends and acquaintances. It is not seen in terms of public morality because some notion of public morality is being driven out by the emphasis on individual choice, which has its most obvious roots in the market sector.
Does that matter? I believe it does. In many cases public institutions which we can hardly do without—punishment is the one that comes most obviously to mind—require ultimately some kind of moral justification. Frankly, we are floundering about in relationship to punishment at the moment because we do not have any clear sense of what the moral basis of punishment is. We can all exchange preferences about what regime we would like, but we do not seem to have any very clear public view about what is the moral basis of punishment. I teach students every day of the week who take the view, "Well, it's all subjective, isn't it?". Because people take the view that everything is a matter of choice and it is all subjective, and there is no content to a public morality, we get into difficulties in trying to think about what is the moral basis of indispensable public institutions, such as punishment, which cannot be taken to the market. At least, I hope that the Government do not have it in mind to take punishment any further down the market road than they have already done.
Given, as I believe, that we need some kind of public morality to underpin public institutions, then the question arises—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord
1004
Hooson—as to what kind of moral resources we could draw upon to do that. While I have the greatest respect, speaking as a Christian, for all those who have spoken from a Christian perspective, it seems to me frankly incredible that one could believe that the morality underpinning the public institutions of our society could be refounded upon a kind of general commitment to and conversion to Christianity. If that is so, we have to recognise the fact, like it or not, of moral pluralism: that there are people with different views of the good, different views of the purposes of human life and so forth. We have to legislate and find some kind of legitimacy for legislation in that kind of context. That leaves us broadly with two alternatives. One is, perhaps, the 1960s alternative; namely, that the state so far as possible should be neutral between conceptions of the good and in a sense it should only limit liberty for the sake of liberty; that is to say, it should provide that framework of law within which individuals should be as free as possible to do as much as possible of whatever they choose to do, so long as in doing so they do not infringe the liberties of other people. That is one alternative. I used to believe that. I do not think it works now because I do not feel that it has sufficient social glue about it, if I may put it that way.
The second alternative is to adopt what the American philosopher John Rawls calls legislating on the basis of the idea of an overlapping consensus; that we have to recognise the moral pluralism of society and try to see what, as it were, we can agree about from our differing points of view, whether that view is Christian, Islamic or secular.
We must use that common agenda as a basis for public policy and public authority and treat everything else as a matter of private life. A liberal society is one that requires Christian or other religious beliefs to be treated as private beliefs unless they can form part of an overlapping consensus that can provide the basis for legislation in the public sphere. I believe that that is the way forward. Without it, we shall start to have a range of laws which will seem to be wholly illegitimate to substantial minorities in our society. They will not accept that kind of moral standard if we try to underpin the law by a very specific and substantial set of moral principles. I say that with some regret, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, I am a Christian. But I do not think that Christian morality is a basis in a pluralistic society for public legislation.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the few Members of your Lordships' House who, like me, are Johnnies-come-lately and have not grown up within its ambience, must be struck by the breadth, depth and intellectual insight which characterises debates in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords will agree that this afternoon has been no exception. This has been one of the most profound discussions that I have heard. It is certainly for me the most challenging to sum up, especially as I neither play rugby nor watch cricket and have no immediate intention of resigning.
In thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for initiating this debate, I would like to pay a tribute to him for his

1005
choice of title, for his penetrating analysis, his lucid arguments, and for giving your Lordships an opportunity to examine so many issues which lie at the heart of our society today.
Over the last centuries we have grown accustomed to three pillars of society: Parliament, the Church and the law under the monarchy. All of them are interdependent. When one pillar is removed, the structure becomes unstable. The Church's role has been to teach moral values and to minister to spiritual needs. I agree with my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Ashbourne and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in his profound speech, that in an age when many people choose not to listen, it is difficult for the Church to fulfil its responsibility.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in a moving personal testimony expressed his love of the Church. Many of your Lordships share that love. But if people reject the Church, they must accept some of the responsibility for establishing their own moral values. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who is such a distinguished spiritual leader, that neither the Government nor the law can have all the answers.
Although the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sought to place the lion's share of responsibility on the Government, the state is only a part of the influences which affect the behaviour of people in this country. So, as society searches for new values, it is our task to ensure that the Government's policies are based on sound principles that people understand and share: common sense, concern for the citizen and respect for the law.
Getting back to basics does not mean turning back the clock. The challenge is to move forward in touch with the instincts and aspirations of the people. We must make sure that our public services are relevant to their needs. Our aim must be to build a nation in which respect for the law and concern for others are common ideals, not exceptions to the rule; and in doing so we should look to our strengths.
I share some of the optimism expressed by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird in his wide-ranging speech that not all is doom and gloom. Although I do not endorse the philosophical arguments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, concerning respect (I shall have to study Hansard to follow all his arguments), I believe that there are many people in this country who do earn our respect.
This country has a proud record of voluntary work. We have over 29,000 lay magistrates. We have a voluntary lifeboat service, which is the biggest and oldest in the world. We have over 6 million carers. We have 23 million people working in voluntary organisations. There are 300,000 school governors. These are people who are respected, who show respect for others and who participate in the running of our country. They are good, righteous people. They provide the sure foundations for a decent society upon which we should build.
Many of your Lordships referred to the role of the media. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the
1006
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, as well as my noble friends Lord Elton, Lord Brentford, Lord Marlesford, Lord Dean of Harptree and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon expressed their concern at the influence that the press has in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, mentioned manners. I agree with him that manners are about showing respect for each other. They are the sign of a society confident and at ease with itself. But what is so distasteful about some of the press is that they appear to have so few manners. Some make a virtue of not showing respect: they intrude, and in doing so can destroy people's lives. But a free press is essential for the maintenance of democracy and it is a long-standing principle that the Government do not intervene in editorial policy, I believe it was Alan Ayckbourn who said: "We all believe in the freedom of the press; it's just the newspapers we don't like"—that is the rub.
The Government welcome the Press Complaints Commission's efforts to strengthen the existing system and look to it to vindicate its claim that self-regulation can be made to work. In particular we are encouraged by those newspapers which are including the code of practice in some journalists' contracts as recommended by the commission.
My noble friend Lord Brentford quoted from a letter to The Times from two professors at the University of Leeds on their view on media violence. There have been over 1,000 studies into the possible effects of the media in the past 30 years. The conflicting views of the various researchers cannot easily be summarised but from all the studies we cannot draw conclusive evidence of a causal link between the media and violent crime. Nevertheless, the Government believe that common sense must tell us that what is shown must have some effect on at least part of the audience. We believe that broadcasters must therefore assume that there is a link and should exercise due caution.
The Government therefore welcome the moves by the BBC and the Independent Television Commission in issuing new guidelines for programme producers and purchasers on the portrayal of violence. The study of the two professors from Leeds University whose work was described in the letter to The Times will be a valuable addition to the body of evidence in this matter.
In terms of the exposition on video nasties by my noble friend Lady Young, I have to claim to be an inexperienced watcher. The Government share her concern and that of my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Brentford, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that video nasties have an impact on people's lives, especially, as it was expressed, on the weaker brethren. That is why all video recordings, with a few minor exceptions, have to be classified in advance by the British Board of Film Classification. It is a criminal offence to supply any video that has not been classified or to supply to anybody who is not of the age to which the classification refers.
That is the most vigorous control over videos, certainly in Europe and probably in the world. It was further strengthened in the Video Recording Act of 1993 introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and the Government will be

1007
taking steps to strengthen it even further in the coming Criminal Justice Bill to be introduced in another place next week.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote, in his succinct and powerful speech, distinguished homes, school and poverty as three major influences in our society. I should like to turn to the second of those. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, lucidly expressed the responsibility of teachers. Although they take their share of criticism, like my noble friend Lord Lucas I believe that the great majority are committed and caring. The same goes for most parents, who give their children the attention and encouragement they need. More and more people understand that a good education is the passport to wider opportunities and a good job. Sadly, there is still a minority of parents who fail their children through a sad lack of commitment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that a few teachers show contempt for excellence. So we must never give up the fight to put higher standards and real learning at the centre of our education policy. That includes moral values and perhaps in the future, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford suggested, citizenship. It is a constructive suggestion and one that I should like to take up with my honourable friend the Minister for Education.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned self-worth. That is a factor. But self-worth is instilled in early life and requires, among other things, good education and teachers and parents ensuring that children leave school with a level of basic skills in spelling, grammar, simple arithmetic, historical facts and geography. But that requires hard work and discipline—back to basics.
I endorse the view of many noble Lords that there is no substitute for discipline and hard work and that young people's energies must be harnessed—a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird in his interesting contribution. In trying to reflect those attitudes the Government have promoted the right of communities to take over the management of their own schools so that they can reflect the attitudes that the community strives to portray. That gives people responsibility and pride. Like a "best kept village" competition or a neighbourhood watch, people want to join in improving their schools.
The Government share the concerns of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lady Young on the question of truancy. We agree that truancy can be the start of a life of crime. Recent events have borne that out all too tragically. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, suggested that the Government should have moral league tables—a novel idea. We are not suggesting that. But the Government have new tables on truancy which show that some schools need to do more to keep children in school and off the streets and the "truancy watch" schemes recently endorsed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education are to be encouraged.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and my noble friend Lord Lucas wished to see greater provision of nursery education. As one who started and ran a pre-school playgroup I take pride in saying that the Government
1008
recognise that pre-school education has an important part to play. The Government's policy is to encourage diversity of pre-school provision. More than nine out of 10 three to four year-olds are in some form of pre-school education, group daycare or pre-reception classes. However, I hear the stronger calls that are being made to expand that still further.
I turn to the question of the law. The law only works where there is consensus. The police have always relied on the public for information; so, where people have lost respect not just for the police but for the law, the consequences for communities can be dire.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that in some respects the law may need strengthening. But so do the enforcers of the law. This Government are anxious to ensure that we have enough bobbies on the beat, so we are freeing police officers from the burdens of bureaucracy. We want to see them working with the community against crime as recognised and respected individuals; not filling forms behind a desk. The Home Secretary is cutting the paperwork and stripping out tiers of middle management. The potential prize—up to 5,300 extra officers on the front line—is a rich one indeed.
My noble friend Lord Elton started his arresting speech by examining the crime rates, as did other noble Lords, and espoused some of the reasons for them. He is correct in drawing our attention to the increase in the temptation on our streets and in our more prosperous homes. But most crime is committed by young people. Yet those of 14 and under have largely been beyond the reach of the law no matter how many crimes they committed. The proposed secure training orders—custodial sentences for 12 to 14 year-olds—will give the public the protection they need. Of course, such tough measures are a last resort, to be reserved for the hard core of persistent young criminals. For the vast majority of young offenders cautions and community based measures are enough to steer them away from a life of crime. I agree with my noble friend bard Elton that prevention is always better than cure.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will welcome the other ways in which we can ensure that our system of criminal justice is respected. Some were outlined in the Home Secretary's 27 points for action: ensuring that cautions are used for first-time and minor offenders; tightening up on the abuse of bail, and abolishing the so-called right of silence.
My noble friend Lord Brentford was anxious that we should be concerned for victims. We recognise that they need our support. My noble friend may take comfort from the fact that we are raising our funding for Victim Support to £10 million next year—a real-terms increase of 25 per cent. in just three years. We will give victims a better deal, seeking their views when decisions are made on bail and other vital matters.
My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Brentford expressed their anxieties about soft sentencing. I should perhaps first stress that the Government's role is to ensure that courts have the powers they need to deal with the offenders who appear before them. Tough penalties are available for the most serious offences. Imprisonment is now mandatory for murder

1009
and the maximum for other grave crimes such as manslaughter, rape, wounding with intent and robbery. Courts are now treating violent and sexual offences more seriously. Average sentences for rape increased by over 70 per cent. between 1984 and 1989, while average sentences for assault increased by almost one-fifth over the past decade.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked whether the Government have analysed the causes of rising crime. The Home Office research and planning unit carried out a number of research studies which dealt with the predictors of offending. They show that the reasons why people become offenders are complex and wide ranging. Though basic character plays its part, people are influenced throughout their lives by a variety of factors which may encourage them towards or away from criminal acts. It is through experiences in the family, school, the community, the workplace and through leisure that the benefits of obeying the law and the costs of not doing so are learnt.
It has been apparent for many years that demographic changes and other factors would make the rapidly growing cost of the welfare state more difficult to sustain in the future. To allow the welfare state to become unsustainable would be the greatest betrayal of those in need. All parties agree that some changes are necessary. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brentford that we all have a responsibility as taxpayers to help those who cannot provide for themselves. The Government have a duty to ensure that resources are focused on those who need them most, that we are even handed and that people who are able are encouraged to make their own provision for themselves and their families.
I now turn to the family. My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree started his thoughtful speech by mentioning the role of the family. On the day when we are launching the International Year of the Family, I should like to support him, my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, in recognising that a loving family provides the best start in life. It provides a stable framework within which children can learn the limits of acceptable behaviour, right from wrong and the benefits of respect for others. My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Boyd-Carpenter expressed the view that marriages need support. I agree with that. The family is a fragile structure. It needs help from neighbours, friends and the community. Very few marriages can exist in isolation. Interestingly, there is no correlation between wealth or poverty and divorce rates, though there is some evidence that the children of lone parents may be less likely to stay in permanent relationships themselves.
In reply to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, this Government recognise the courage which many lone parents exhibit and the skills they exercise in bringing up their children successfully. We have a prime example in the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. But that does not mean that we are not concerned by those parents who undertake a second marriage with little regard for their past responsibilities. The results of divorce or desertion has left this country with an alarming number of lone parents. Our aim must be to
1010
have a fair and objective system for child support but to recognise that no mother or father should be able to buy off his or her responsibilities with a lump sum or a settlement that may prove inadequate or unjust. Circumstances of both the mother and the father may change and there is no justification for the state to pick up the bill for maintaining children unless the natural parents are unable to do so.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, welcomed my right honourable friend's Budget provision for paying a child care allowance to help mothers to work. We know that that is particularly welcomed by single mothers. The noble Lord also asked for some evidence that this Government are concerned with those who are less well off and unable to fend for themselves. I have a battery of statistics here, but as time is getting on and the noble Lord is not able to be with us I shall move on.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon asked what effect bad modern housing estates have on families. I was interested in the comments of the right reverend Prelate on the isolation of some families on modern estates. He will be pleased that the resources we devote to those worst estates were maintained in the Budget. The measures involved will physically improve the security of those estates—concierge schemes, entry-phones, providing individual tenants with defensible space. But the right reverend Prelate was quite right to comment that multiple problems need multiple solutions. That is why we have established the single regeneration budget which will include those resources for the worst estates. It is also why we are giving increasing emphasis to community involvement in regeneration—City Challenge, Estate Action, and now a statutory right to manage.
As one would expect, we, have had a very succinct and original contribution from my noble friend Lord Marlesford concerning community service and national service; and from the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, on market forces—a very closely argued case which was skilfully replied to, in part anyhow, by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, for which I am very grateful. As I have said, I shall study Hansard to follow those arguments closely.
In conclusion, I believe that the people of this country are faced with a paradox. On the one hand they expect the Government to be a cure-all, but they never quite live up to their expectations; on the other, their greatest source of satisfaction is their own achievements. This Government's policy is to give back to the people their schools, their health care, their houses, their opportunities and their responsibilities. We know that when people seize the initiative to manage their own lives, they gain self-respect, pride in their achievements, and, in managing their own communities, respect for each other.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that full and detailed reply—a richer harvest than we often gain at the end of these exchanges—and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed so much and so diversely to the debate.

1011
Convention does not allow me to reply to the debate; indeed, it only gives me a couple of minutes on my feet. I shall simply say that it appears that under all the nostrums and anxieties that we have displayed —right from the nursery school where a child must learn its right from its wrong almost before it learns its right from its left, through to the teacher training college where teachers must absorb the morality which they have to pass on to the children, and all that we have heard about the public service and national non-military and military service—and beneath the judicial, the administrative and economic conundrums that we are faced with, lies a deep moral and spiritual malaise. Your Lordships have
1012
accepted that. I hope that we shall indeed return to the roots of our spiritual heritage not to build foundations anew but to water the roots from which we grow.
Opening a debate like this is always rather like rubbing an Aladdin's lamp. I have no wish for the excellent genie that has sprung from it to be put back in the bottle. Like my noble friend Lord Brentford, I hope that this debate will continue outside this Chamber for many months to come. I am tempted not to withdraw the Motion because I long to see what Papers I would get, but I nevertheless beg leave to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.

  RUSSIA: "MILITARY DOCTRINE"
  RUSSIA: "MILITARY DOCTRINE"
  UNHCR: UK SUPPORT
  UNHCR: UK SUPPORT
  PAROLE BOARD: FULL-TIME APPOINTMENTS
  PAROLE BOARD: FULL-TIME APPOINTMENTS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1989: REVIEW
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1989: REVIEW
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S COMMENT
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S COMMENT
  WARSAW CONVENTION: REVIEW OF LIABILITY LIMITS
  WARSAW CONVENTION: REVIEW OF LIABILITY LIMITS
  ROAD ACCIDENT COST EVALUATION: TOTAL DISABLEMENT
  ROAD ACCIDENT COST EVALUATION: TOTAL DISABLEMENT