Sitting of 22 January 1993

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

    Stoke Mandeville Hospital
    9.34 am
    Mr. David Lidington Aylesbury): It gives me great pleasure to present a petition about the future of Stoke Mandeville hospital, in my constituency. It is signed by 12 residents of Aylesbury and the surrounding area. However, the sentiments expressed therein are common to a much larger petition signed by about 27,000 people in Aylesbury and the surrounding area but the wording of which did not conform to the regulations of the House.
    The petition reads:
    That Stoke Mandeville Hospital has for many years provided health care of a high standard to local people, that the Hospital has gained a high reputation, not only locally, but nationally and internationally and that people are now fearful that this high quality health care may not be available in the future.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House may urge Her Majesty's Government to make proper provision so that Stoke Mandeville Hospital can continue to offer medical treatment of the highest quality to all patients referred there.
    And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Visitors (Right of Appeal)
    Mr. John Fraser: I have pleasure in presenting a petition, which I strongly support and which is signed by many of my constituents and residents of south London, mostly from local churches and voluntary organisations, about the removal of the right of appeal for
    610
    visitors which is contained in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill which will come back to the House from another place.
    The petition reads:
    That Great Injustice will be done by the Provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill in removing from those wishing to visit the United Kingdom any appeal against refusal of a visa or Entry Certificate; that under the present system a substantial number of appeals against refusal of leave to come to the United Kingdom as visitors are upheld by independent adjudicators; that friends and relatives wishing to come together for family occasions or in times of bereavement as well as joy may be prevented without any recourse to appeal and this will cause much resentment and hardship and injustice.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will reject the Provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
    My constituents and the petitioners hope that the petition will have some effect in correcting what they regard as a gross injustice against them, their relatives and their friends.
    To lie upon the Table.

    St. Bartholomew's Hospital
    Mr. Chris Smith: I have the honour to present a petition urging that St. Bartholomew's hospital should not be closed but saved. The House will recall that Professor Tomlinson dismisses 900 years of history in seven paragraphs. Millions of people around the country do not wish St. Bartholomew's to close. The petition is signed by 126,000 people, in addition to the 500,000 people who delivered a petition to 10 Downing street only a month ago.
    The petition reads:
    The Humble Petition of the patients and friends of St. Bartholomew's Hospital
    Sheweth
    That St. Bartholomew's Hospital is an indispensable resource for the health and welfare of the local community, a national centre of medical excellence, and provides all patients with a high quality of care.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do all within your power to ensure that St. Bartholomew's Hospital remains open for the benefit of local residents and patients who rely on its services and would be harmed by its closure.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c
    The petition is strongly endorsed by me, thousands of my constituents, and hundreds of thousands of Londoners.
    To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

  Shops (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) but, of course, its subject matter may be referred to in the course of the debate.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am pleased, Madam Speaker, that you are in the Chair to call me to open this important debate. I intend to cut short my speech, which would normally take half an hour or 45 minutes if Second Reading were being moved by a Minister or by one of our Front-Bench spokesmen. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to participate in this major debate and, although I am the promoter of the Bill, it would not be fair to deny hon. Members, whatever their opinions, the opportunity to speak simply because it had taken 45 minutes to move Second Reading. I hope that my attitude will be reflected in the time taken by other hon. Members who speak.
  I am glad to see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have now taken the Chair, because when you were elected to your position you promised me that you would take the opportunity of calling me on 22 January. The House will note that you have not even been able to do that—and that since you were elected you have not called me at any time.
  I introduce this Bill on behalf of my sponsors. Sometimes sponsors simply add their names to private Members' Bills and forget that they have done so, but that has not happened with this Bill. The sponsors have met regularly for discussion, and the Bill has been dealt with collectively, as an all-party Bill, from the day that I presented it until this morning. I am glad to report to the House that the Bill was presented with unanimous agreement. Hon. Members from the Conservative and Labour parties, and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, discussed it at the meetings.
  This is not a Labour party private Member's Bill. I do not know whether it has the backing of the Labour Front Bench—perhaps we shall be told that later, if at all. I pay tribute to my sponsors and hope that they will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They have given the Bill exceptionally loyal and industrious support and encouragement.
  I thank, too, the Keep Sunday Special campaign workers, especially Michael Schluter, David Blackmore, Paul Diamond, Hannah Reed, Claire Barford and John Alexander, who have worked so hard for such long hours for so little remuneration to prepare the way for today's debate. I also thank Garfield Davies and Bill Conner of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the Co-operative parliamentary group, and the members of RECOST, the Retailers Council on Sunday Trading, especially retailers such as CWS, the CRS, the John Lewis Partnership, Iceland, C and A, Etam and Greggs, as well as many others who have given unstintingly towards developing and preparing my Bill.
  612
  I also thank all the main church denominations which over the years have continued to uphold the principles of keeping Sunday a special day for friends, family and voluntary activities. Those are the principles for which my Bill stands. Ten minutes ago we had prayers. I should like to thank the people who have prayed for me and for my sponsors, and who have prayed that the House will consider the question seriously on behalf of church denominations and organisations throughout the country.
  At this point I declare my interest, in the hope that others who may have an opposing view will declare their interests, even if they are not mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests. Because of selfish interests, millions of pounds are being spent in the fight by those who oppose the Bill. I am proud to be the senior sponsored Member of Parliament on the USDAW parliamentary panel. I represent in the House the interests of 350,000 shop workers, and I seek to promote their concerns whenever I can. They are among the poorest paid workers in the country, and the measures that we are debating are vital to protect their income and their quality of life.
  I believe that Lloyd George once said that democracy means government by discussion—but it becomes effective only if one can stop people talking. I hope that that will be a lesson to us all. Let us hope that our contributions will be brief so that all hon. Members may participate.
  Before outlining the Bill, I shall put three questions to the House. First, should not right hon. and hon. Members ask why it has taken the Government from 1986 to November 1992 to offer the House a measure to reform Sunday trading? Why has it taken six and a half years for the Government to spring to life when the need for reform has been evident to everybody?
  The second question is, why has it been necessary to delay until the end of January the Second Reading of a private Member's Bill which was drawn number three in the ballot in May 1992 and had its First Reading in June 1992? Is there a hidden agenda to prevent this Bill from reaching the statute book? [Laughter.] I warn Conservative Members who are laughing that one of the opportunities that the House gives to Back Benchers is the right to introduce private Members' Bills. If we are lucky in the ballot immediately following an election, and come out at number three, even in a long Session such as the present Session, we do not expect to wait eight months before our Bill is given a Second Reading debate.
  The Government know that we have only until November before a new Session starts. With three months for the summer recess, and a month or so for Easter and Whitsun together, four months of that time will be taken out. What earthly hope have Back Benchers of their Bills becoming law, even in a long Session, when the Government do not allow the House to debate Second Reading until eight months after their Bill is presented? That is scandalous, and it is time that something was done in the House to protect Back Benchers' rights.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman may be called later. I know that a number of hon. Members who share the hon. Gentleman's opinion want to be called as well.
  My third question is why a Government who are committed to law and order enforce every Act on the

  613
  statute book except for one. Is there any financial link between the retailers who break the law and the party that allows them to do so? That question should be replied to. It is no good the Government hiding behind the cloak of Europe or behind the other cloaks they have used for two or three years and allowing their supporters flagrantly to break the law, which is causing concern throughout the retail industry.
  I shall now deal with the goals of the Bill. Today's debate is not about the details of the Bill, because they will be debated and sorted out in Committee. Our debate today is about the cause for legislation. Our debate is about ends, not means.
  I have here a booklet entitled "Towards a New Shops Act." I hope that all hon. Members have received a copy. I have sent copies to all 650 hon. Members to ensure that they are aware of the Bill because it is so involved and complicated. On pages 6 and 7, I have set out the seven goals which are the basis of the Bill.
  The first goal is to guarantee a common day off for family and community activities, including church worship. The second is to protect the right of workers not to work on Sunday. The third is to protect vulnerable smaller retailers from pressure to work a seven-day week.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: I have already said that I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman and I get on very well in the House, but I do not want interventions which take up a lot of time.
  The fourth goal is to protect our high streets and those who use them. The fifth is to protect those living near shopping centres or main roads. The sixth goal is to provide for the reasonable needs of consumers and the seventh is to prevent unfair competition. I hope that hon. Members will note that consumers' convenience is only one factor in resolving the Sunday issue. It would be unfair only to consider consumers instead of striking a balance among the various groups with an interest in whether shops open on Sunday.
  Some hon. Members who speak today may wish to spend the time of the House in pointing to minor problems and anomalies in the drafting of the Bill—[Laughter.] It is nice to have a laugh. We do not have the backing, as some hon. Members have, of the big retailers and, therefore, of their legal teams. We do not have the services of Government-paid parliamentary draftsmen. Even if we had, I remind the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who is a supporter of the Government, that, whenever a Bill receives a Second Reading and goes into Committee, a ream of amendments is tabled, not by members of the Committee, but by the Government. The hon. Gentleman should not laugh at a Bill that is constructed by people who are volunteers. Let us have some substance in the debate today and not shibboleths.
  There is one decisive question before the House today: do we want to keep Sunday a special day or not? No other legislation, apart from the Bill, will guarantee to keep Sunday special.
  I have some words for those who object to my proposals. Some say that we can deregulate without any adverse effects. That is an attractive argument because it implies that we can have our cake and eat it. Advocates of that view say that we should look at Scotland where there
  614
  is already Sunday trading. My reply is that we should indeed look at Scotland, but that we should look at it carefully and not superficially.
  In the major cities, Sunday trading is already the norm for many Sundays of the year and it continues to grow rapidly. Many shop workers are on single time and have no day off in lieu. Church attendance has dropped sharply, which may or may not be associated with the growth of Sunday shopping.
  Closer to home, let us consider what has happened to Good Friday in England and Wales. It was once a quiet day like a Sunday. Competitive pressures have now made it like any other shopping day because we did not pass legislation to protect it.
  It is said that people want Sunday shopping. That argument rests on opinion polls. After the election, hon. Members must have realised how unreliable those polls are. Some years ago, I attempted to introduce a ten-minute Bill to stop the taking of opinion polls during elections and by-elections. I had tremendous support from the House, but, unfortunately, as usual, the Government did not afford me the time to get the Bill on the statute book.
  It is true that 5 per cent. of the population go to supermarkets on Sunday—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is one of them. It is also true that 95 per cent. of the population do not. They are the silent majority who neither want nor need Sunday trading. I well understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow may occasionally shop on a Sunday. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is in the House of Commons from dawn to dusk every day of the week.
  It is said that there is no feasible way to design a law on Sunday trading which will work. How are such laws made to work in almost every other European country? Almost 300 million people out of the 340 million in Europe are governed by laws restricting Sunday trading. The House knows that where there is a will, there is a way.
  I shall now deal with the key points of the Bill, which are set out in the booklet "Towards a New Shops Act". I will not repeat them except to outline the four main areas. First, certain types of shop would be allowed to open. The Bill is based on a list of shops and not on a list of goods. Shops that opened could sell all the goods in the shop. Secondly, the types of shop that we wish to allow to open are summarised in the word "REST", which stands for recreation, emergency, social gathering and travel.
  Thirdly, we propose a system by which shops will register with the local authority if they want to open. That would ease enforcement and the registration system would be self-funded. Fourthly, there are detailed provisions for employee protection. Given the difficulty of enforcing employee protection in practice, the employee protection in the Bill stands on two legs. The first leg is that most shops would be shut, so most employees would not be asked to work. The second leg is statutory protection for the minority who would have to work.
  If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading today, I should welcome discussion in Committee on a number of controversial details of the Bill, such as whether we should allow do-it-yourself shops to be included in some form of definition. We could also discuss whether the size of the corner shop should be increased from 1,500 sq ft and whether all shops should be allowed to open for two or three Sundays before Christmas. I realise that strong views are held on each of those points, and we shall be able to consider the arguments in detail in Committee.

  615
  As I have just said what I expect to discuss in Committee, let me once again quote Lloyd George:
  "I would rather be an opportunist and float than go to the bottom with my principles around my neck."
  That is important when we consider whether to accept the option that we are proposing.
  Pages 31 to 33 of "Towards a New Shops Act" contain a list of organisations. Appendix 2 lists those who support the REST proposals. Hon. Members will note that that represents a formidable number of people, but it is by no means the entire list. I have been heartened by the amount of mail that my sponsors and I and the Keep Sunday Special campaign have received supporting the REST proposals.
  I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber today will have received a considerable amount of mail in support of the REST proposals. I received a card last week which stated, "Chin up." It was a note of encouragement from no less a person than Joy Brodier of Bedford who sent that now famous postcard to Terry Waite. In her card to me, she said that any help that she could give on the REST clause would be readily available.
  On her card, Joy Brodier wrote that she had sent Christmas cards and requests for Keep Sunday Special proposals to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Employment as well as to that Education chappie whose name she could not remember—and we can all understand why. She also said that today's debate would be taking place the day before her 40th birthday. She hoped that it would be a cause for rejoicing. I share her sentiment.
  Retailers who have written to me claim that it is not commercially viable for most retailers to trade every day of the week. Six days trading would merely be spread over seven. There is no extra money out there to be spent and, as margins in food retailing leave no room for manoeuvre, seven-day trading would inevitably increase costs and they, in part, would have to be passed on to the customer.
  Currently, some supermarkets claim that Sunday trading is boosting turnover. All I can say is that they are stealing business from those who are upholding the law. One major retailer stated on that issue:
  "We have a human side too and staff welfare and community issues have also played a major part in our argument. Of our 11,000 staff, 80 per cent. work in the stores and many of them would be called upon to work on a Sunday rota. For some it may not be an inconvenience, indeed for a few it may be welcomed, as double time may well help the family budget. But for most it would be an unwelcome intrusion into their family lives."
  Of course, supporters of deregulation are making great play of their support for workers' rights and many of the big names have promised to ensure that only volunteers will work the Sunday rota. However, business cannot operate on a voluntary basis. Pressure will be brought to bear and, within a few years, Sunday working will become the norm for up to 2 million retail and supporting staff. Hon. Members should note that up to 2 million staff may be affected by our decision today.
  Smaller shops are not restricted to the high street. Most street corners and village centres have a local store that serves the immediate community and, dare I say it, provides the Sunday newspapers and other essentials that
  616
  are part of what makes Sunday special. Many of those stores are suffering now and more will be forced to close if Sunday becomes a free for all.
  How do community issues fit into the equation? I use that concept in the broadest sense to encompass quality of life. Sunday trading must encourage the move to out-of-town shopping. Malls, retail parks and superstores are most likely to attract the Sunday shopper. The high street is already under threat in many areas. If inner-city life is to be encouraged to thrive, its lifeblood of trade must be preserved.
  Let us be clear: Sunday trading will devastate shopping as we know it. That will happen not tomorrow, not next year and perhaps not in this millenium. However, the next generation will certainly suffer the consequences of shopping totally geared to suit the articulate, better-off and more sophisticated members of society.
  The Bill, based on the REST proposals, clearly states that those small shops should be alllowed to trade. However, for them to argue their own case against deregulation would obviously be seen as protectionist. Indeed, it may be, but the implications of those community shops disappearing affect us all. We will be affected by noise, pollution, transport and the general hustle and bustle that are part of the rat race that we endure today. Surely Sunday trading can only make life more hectic and disruptive. One day of peace and rest, for whatever recreation one cares to follow, must be sacrosanct and it should be preserved.
  We feel that the only people who want Sunday trading are non-shop workers. However, do they realise that if Sunday trading is approved, they too will eventually have to work? After all, people have only one wage packet per week, in whatever way or on whichever day they spend it. More hours to work would mean larger wage bills and that would put many small shops out of business.
  Most shop staff work overtime at Christmas and in respect of late night shopping six days a week. Sunday trading would mean late nights and seven working days. That would mean 365 days a year of shopping and 365 days of hustle and bustle with no pause after six days to recharge. There would be no time for family lunches, family teas or family visits. There would be no time to visit mum or dad, grandma or grandfather, no time to worship and no time for recreation.
  Shop workers would have no chance to spend one day a week with friends and family. There would be more pressure on young people to work the whole weekend. There would be more pollution, more noise, more traffic wardens. Security officers, cleaners and caterers would be forced to work. There would be no proper compensation for working unsocial hours. One's life would be controlled by one's employer for seven days a week. There would also be higher prices as retailers covered costs. At that rate, shop workers and all those involved in retailing would surely be returning to Victorian times.
  I am sure that hon. Members will be glad that I have now turned to the last page in my notes. Winston Churchill once stated:
  "Sunday is a divine and priceless institution … a necessary pause in the national life … it is the birthright of every British subject … our responsibility, privilege and duty to hand on to posterity."
  Most of us will unreservedly agree with those sentiments.
  Let me appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members, because this may be the last chance to protect the

  617
  traditional English Sunday in the form that so many of us enjoy. I ask the House, not from any financial interest or for reasons of private gain or for selfish motives, but for the sake of our grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters and our future grandsons and granddaughters and generations to come, to let them live to enjoy what we have enjoyed. The House should vote for my Bill today and keep Sunday a special day for ever.
  10.10 am
  Mr. Michael Alison: It is a great honour to speak second in this debate, following the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), as one of the co-sponsors of his Bill. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has manifested the qualities of patience, doggedness, subtlety, courtesy and, occasionally, ruthlessness. That is the prerogative of Members of the Whips Office in every part of the House down the ages. As part of my association with the hon. Gentleman, I hope that I shall never lack a pair on a critical Bill.
  It is both daunting and intriguing to reflect on the fact that, whatever view we take about Sunday trading and whatever side we are on, we have in common that we are all trying to conquer a peak—the formulation of a reasonable framework of acceptable Sunday trading laws. The formulation of such a reasonable framework has baffled and defied the most expert political and parliamentary mountaineers throughout the century. Endless Back Benchers have tried and failed to produce a sensible framework for Sunday trading. Even Baroness Thatcher found this particular peak beyond her extraordinary political skills. So the question is: will we, this generation of the House, be the crew which will pull off the final assent? Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is sitting on the Front Bench this morning, be the Minister who goes down in history as the guy who got to the top?
  Against that background, it is reasonable to remind ourselves of the common ground which both assault teams share, so to speak. I doubt whether there are any hon. Members in the House who do not subscribe to the practice and principle of a day of rest for ourselves and our fellow human beings. We will probably go further on the same common ground and specify that the day of rest should be in the proportion of one in seven. The seventh day off but not necessarily Sunday, seems satisfactorily sanctioned by culture, tradition and the natural rhythms of exertion and relaxation, whatever one's religious views may be.
  I would go further and argue that there is another important reality in the amount of common ground which is shared on both sides of the debate. Supporters of both options lie in different parts of the House. The approach of the Keep Sunday Special campaign is echoed in the Bill. The other element of common ground between, say, the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council is not only the validity and necessity for a day off but that the day off should be the same day off for as many people as possible.
  I am struck by the extent to which those who want more Sunday shops to open or more Sunday shopping hours than the present Shops Act 1950 allows argue that Sunday shopping is an important aspect in itself. Sunday shopping is a family and social recreation. Shopping is essentially
  618
  something that Mum and Dad and the children can do together precisely because Sunday is a general day off from work and school.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I will be brief. This is very much a British matter and a matter of important domestic legislation for us to put right, and therefore one should not look too much overseas or to Europe at other examples.
  It is interesting to reflect, however, that in Germany, for example, the national day of rest is solemnly enshrined in its constitution as a sacred principle. The most successful welfare capitalist economy in Europe enshrines the national day of rest as a sacred principle, and German retailers fully accept that. Why can United Kingdom retailers not accept the same principle? As we do not have a written constitution in the United Kingdom, is not the excellent Bill sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) the best way of dealing with the problem?
  Mr. Alison: I am not sure whether I am sad or glad about my hon. Friend's intervention because I was doing my best to emphasise common ground and therefore trying to keep Europe and religion out of the argument. If my hon. Friend insists on introducing Europe and religion, let me endorse the fact that the religious Catholic Italy, the secular non-religious France and the Catholic and Protestant Germany, as European partners and neighbours of ours, all subscribe to the common principle which keeps Sunday special. The Shopping Hours Reform Council shares the view that there should be a day off for most people and that that day should be Sunday. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
  The real issue about Sunday trading is not essentially one of principle nowadays; it is one of degree. Nearly everyone agrees that there should be a day of rest and that the day of rest should apply to as many people as possible for family reasons. The real question then is whether we should maximise the extent of Sunday trading, compatible with giving as many people as possible a day off and on the same day, or whether we should minimise within the agreed framework the extent of Sunday trading. I have no doubt that the answer is that we should minimise, not maximise, the extent of Sunday trading for the reasons that I have outlined.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, with the clearly established pattern of rest on Sunday for most of the population, the best way of preserving a single day of rest for most of the population is to leave things as they are, with suitable minor amendments as proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)?
  Mr. Alison: I very much share my hon. Friend's view. However, I do not want to rest too much on the idea of leaving things as they are at present, because in place today is something positive and constructive but which introduces the notion of some change. I partially go with my hon. Friend, but essentially we agree.
  To maximise the scope for Sunday shop opening, which is the approach adopted by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, for example, we might improve the quality of life at the margin for millions of people. I entirely endorse and recognise the improvement in the quality of life which

  619
  there might be for a large number of people. The trouble is that it would cause much more acute detriment to a smaller number of people. It is like that old joke about the pig and the chicken discussing the significance of bacon and eggs—the egg being relative and marginal for the chicken and the bacon being absolute and final for the pig.
  The argument of proportionality should direct our attention, above all, to the smaller number of people for whom the detriment of more widespread Sunday opening is more akin to the fate of the pig than the inconvenience of the chicken. If Sunday opening is maximised, shop workers may have real difficulties with their jobs—their consciences, getting the premium rates of pay which all agree they should have if they must work on Sunday, their family life and so on. The same applies to various ancillary workers who would have to be drawn in to sustain and support those who had to work on Sundays if the maximised approach were adopted.
  In some ways, the most serious detriment would be suffered by the tens of thousands of small shops run by individuals or couples. For reasons of competition they would have to open seven days a week and they might literally find it lethal—this is getting close to the fate of the pig—to have to open seven days a week with no relief.
  So the detriment caused by maximising Sunday opening would be serious for certain categories, although they would represent relatively small numbers of people. Against that background, the detriment to the millions who would find Sunday shopping convenient and enjoyable, is relatively minor, although not without significance.
  It is an interesting phenomenon that where shops open on Sundays without restriction there is a tendency for more and more people to switch their shopping to Sunday. We should weigh the implications of that. Once we liberalised the laws, there would be an intensification of the tendency to shop on Sundays and, therefore, of the detriment to those who are most vulnerable. The very fact that there is a tendency for shopping to move to Sundays when there are no restrictions emphasises, paradoxically, the essential postponability of shopping. If people switch their shopping to Sunday, it means that they give priority on Saturday or Friday afternoons or evenings to activities which are more important to them, such as sporting, cultural or family events. People might say that as the shops were open on Sunday they could leave the relatively minor task of hunting around for the spares or whatever they need to Sunday because it is less important. That shows the postponability and marginality of Sunday shopping for the millions of people for whom it is a convenience but not a critical factor in their lives. They are content to switch their shopping to Sunday if the shops happen to be open.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: If people want to do their shopping on Saturday should they have access to sporting activities on Sundays, which means that people have to work on Sundays? I am confused about my right hon. Friend's point about sporting activities on Sundays.
  Mr. Alison: I did not touch on sporting activities on Sundays. I said that people who postponed their shopping to Sunday did so because they wanted to spend Saturday
  620
  doing other things which had greater priority in their programme, including sporting events and so on. Therefore, it would be more convenient to them to do things which are less important to them on Sunday. That is the only point that I make in that context.
  For the reasons that I have given, I believe that a minimalist approach to Sunday trading is both reasonable and humane. The Bill presents a rational but positive framework for Sunday trading based on the REST acronym of the hon. Member for Ogmore, which stands for recreation, emergency, social activities and transport. That gives us a reasonable framework of minimalist opening.
  Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend said that the Bill would help those who want recreation. Is he aware that it would close the vast majority of garden centres in England?
  Mr. Alison: That point is disputed. My hon. Friend heard the speech by the hon. Member for Ogmore. He said that he was introducing essentially a negotiable framework against the background of a minimalist approach. If he is prepared in Committee to think about the prospects for DIY, he is clearly prepared to think about tidying up any doubts at the margin about garden centres. Essentially the approach is to allow garden centres to be open. If there is any doubt about that, let my hon. Friend join the Committee and table appropriate amendments. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ogmore will consider them.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's experience is the same as mine. He might confirm that some of the fears expressed by garden centres were expressed by people who looked at earlier definitions than the one contained in the Bill, which refers to a wide range of goods, characterising those sold in garden centres, which can be sold under the Bill.
  Mr. Alison: I am particularly glad to note the little firmness on the Benches immediately in front of me of colleagues who have picked out a specific item which worries them. Our essential approach in the House today should be to make the decision in principle on whether to go for maximalist or minimalist approach to Sunday opening. As the hon. Member for Ogmore has already said, if the House allows us to follow the Keep Sunday Special campaign lines, many of the technical and specific points will be negotiable in Committee within the framework of the minimalist approach.
  I hope that the House will endorse the approach inherent in the Bill and think about the detriment caused to small numbers of people at the cost of relatively limited inconvenience to millions of others.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Alfred Morris: There are private Members' Bills and so-called private Members' Bills. Some are genuinely private Members' Bills, others are not. Those which are not are Government Bills masquerading as private Members' Bills. They are Bills which Departments of State have failed to have included in the Queen's Speech and which Ministers, or their Parliamentary Private Secretaries, hawk round among hon. Members who have won high places in the private Members' ballot. Those who accept them from Ministers

  621
  tread the primrose path to the statute book. They are given a drafted Bill, speeches and briefings for all stages, and the virtual certainty of achieving Royal Assent.
  I sometimes think that such Bills should carry, parenthetically, after their short titles, the letter (G), so that people here and in the country will see just how many "private Members' Bills" are, in fact, Government Bills and, therefore, how much of the parliamentary time allocated to private Members is used instead for Government legislation. The point is one which the Select Committee on Procedure might like to consider.
  The measure of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is a private Members' Bill properly so-called and I honour him both for his independent spirit and his success in presenting a Bill so worthy of enactment. He has given the House a Bill which is the first serious attempt to reform Sunday trading law in a sensible and practical way. It respects the special nature of Sunday, while allowing a reasonable range of activities to be pursued. The Bill offers the best possible way of tackling a mess which gets messier week by week.
  I have the honour to be sponsored by the Co-operative movement, the first ever Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for the city of Manchester. In declaring my interest, I declare also my pride in being a representative here of a movement whose traditions are among the most admirable this country has to offer.
  While there are some details of the Bill we shall want to examine closely in Committee, in particular the case for increasing to 3,000 the square footage limit on small shops allowed to open and the need to allow travel agents to do so—they are concerned purely with recreation—the Co-operative movement supports the Bill as the best framework for reforming the Sunday trading law. In our view, it is far better than the alternatives, which offer only variations on the theme of total deregulation.
  Our support for the Bill has four bases: first of all, social policy. We believe that the traditional Sunday, characterised by the opportunities that it gives for recreation with family and friends, is of high value and worth preserving.
  Mr. Dicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morris: In fairness to other Members who want to speak, t cannot give way; more especially as a Privy Councillor, I owe it to them to speak briefly if they are to have any chance of speaking at all.
  We recognise that many people do work on Sundays and that some others may wish to do so; but we believe that for retail opening to become the norm would be a major step towards destroying the social benefits of the traditional Sunday for most of the British people. We recognise the need for some shops to open; we recognise that some people regard shopping as a leisure activity; we recognise that others might wish to shop because of their other responsibilities at home and at work. On balance, however, we believe that Parliament should not throw out the baby of demonstrable social benefit to the majority with the bathwater of occasional inconvenience to a minority.
  I turn briefly to employment policy, the second basis for our support. We are a major employer, but we support the trade unions who represent the Co-operative movement's employees when they say that the best protection shop workers can have against exploitation in regard to Sunday
  622
  working is a legal one. We know that there are shopworkers who want to work on Sunday because they receive premium payments, but the overall position is that people would rather not work on Sunday. All of us know that premium payments are by no means universal, nor are they permanent. In a recent survey completed by the Institute of Retail Studies at the university of Stirling, it was found that indeed 30 per cent. of Sunday workers receive no premium payments. Extension of Sunday working in a low-paid work force must result in worsening conditions and wages. At the same time, premium rates in all industries will be threatened if Sunday increasingly becomes a "normal day".
  Consumer policy is the third basis for our support. Sunday trading is of most commercial benefit to large private multiples that have been able to invest large capital sums in big stores, often in out-of-town locations. They will be the main beneficiaries of deregulated Sunday trading. The existing illegal trade shows how well placed they are to swallow the trade of smaller shops, more especially food and convenience shops. Retailers who lose out because of Sunday trading are those who do not have access to large investment funds—small traders and the co-operatives. The legal structure of co-operatives, which gives them their democratic practice and allows only a limited return on capital, also limits their access to equity capital. They are unable, for these reasons, to match the recent massive rights issues of the big food chains. There is no need here to spell out why small traders have problems about capital, nor why deregulation will totally deprive many small villages of their only shops.
  There would be an argument to maintain diversity of size and legal structure in the retail industry, even if consumer interests were not involved. But they are involved. Co-ops and small shops give particular consumer service to small communities where there is no superstore because it could not make money, and also to a huge number of consumers, a high proportion of them elderly and disabled people, with no access to a car for a trip to the out-of-town retail park. They will suffer if local shops close down from Monday to Saturday because the non-local supermarket opens on Sunday.
  The fourth basis of our support is law and order policy. Over the past few years, a growing number of large companies have decided blatantly to ignore the Shops Act 1950 and to open for business on Sundays. We are not concerned whether this was avoidance, or evasion, or finessing or flouting of the law. There is no escaping the reality that a number of large companies have traded illegally. Their conduct debases the law and demeans Parliament itself. The effect is that the law in general is brought into disrepute. The public reaction is that there is one law for the rich private multiples and another law for their poor consumers, who may buy illegally but must not shoplift from the law-breaking retailer—even on Sundays. How can parliamentarians, who make the law and work to uphold the rule of law by discouraging crime, possibly agree to a new Sunday trading law that would, by mass deregulation, serve only to reward transgressors by scrapping the law which they broke?
  Of course, other traders have been in touch with me as well as my trading colleagues in the Co-operative movement. An enterprise which has two grocery stores in my constituency tells me in a recent letter:
  "For staff, the possibility of unrestricted Sunday trading is extremely worrying.

  623
  Quite simply, many if not all staff would be required to work at least occasionally on Sundays, possibly on a shift system. This would be offensive to their religious beliefs and disruptive of the social and family life of shop employees. While we would not attempt to force any dissenting employee to work on Sundays, there would almost certainly be perceived pressure on store staff to do so, despite any legislated protection. People in most other walks of life are not suddenly forced to give up their Sundays. Why should shop staff?"
  The letter goes on:
  "The unemployment situation would be worsened further by the higher costs involved by Sunday trading in food retailing in particular. Finally, the small local self-employed High Street convenience stores, which currently survive on Sunday trading, would progressively be forced out of business, throwing whole families out of work."
  This is one of many letters that I have had in support of the Bill. They demonstrate that the Bill is both worthy of and enjoys widespread approval in the country. Again I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and wish him all success in promoting what is a sensible and reformist Bill, whose enactment has become an urgent necessity.
  Friday is often regarded as the "a" in etcetera of the parliamentary week. With my hon. Friend's Bill to debate, that is certainly not true of this week. He merits our highest regard and appreciation and that of everyone who is now prepared to challenge those who have treated the law of this country with studied contempt.
  10.38 am
  Dame Angela Rumbold: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on promoting this private Member's Bill on what has undoubtedly been an exceedingly controversial topic for years. I am happy that he has done so because it is high time that the subject was debated in the House, where a broad set of views are represented which we can consider and determine when voting on his proposals.
  I disagree with the Bill, not least because it is inconsistent and does not keep Sunday particularly special. The Bill seems to sanction Sunday shopping by trying to update the Shops Act 1950 and bring it into the 1990s.
  As the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I spent much time talking to many people whose interests were almost entirely concentrated on ensuring that we change the Shops Act 1950. When I first approached the subject, I thought that we should try to stay within the existing framework and create as few changes as possible. I am a person who believes in as little change as possible, which is why I am a Conservative. I like to see things remain more or less as they are.
  I studied the 1950 Act carefully. 1 looked at its provisions and wondered how they could be reshaped to suit today's circumstances. The first factor to strike me when I looked at the practice of shopping and retailing was that I could not compare the position in 1950 to that of the 1990s. It is as unlikely that we shall be able to compare what happens in the 1990s to what will happen in the year 2030.
  If we produce a Bill that merely updates the Shops Act 1950—as I believe the Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore does—it will not stand the test of time. The House should
  624
  be in the business of enacting legislation that is both simple and lasting. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's Bill will achieve those ends.
  It is not just our shopping habits and the sort of goods that we purchase in today's economy that have changed, but there has been a dramatic change in our way of life. People's lifestyles today are different from those of 1950. We may regret that—part of me regrets it. It would be nice if things were much the same today as they were some years ago, but they are not. The economic realities of life mean that a substantial number of households no longer contain one person who stays at home and one person who works. They do not contain somebody who is available to carry out all the tasks within six days and devote himself of herself entirely to the family at home on Sunday.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Lady will recognise that the changes that she has described apply to other European countries? Will she explain how the French, Germans and Italians, who have experienced the same changes in social practices and economic factors as we have over the years, have been able to retain a Sunday without the commercialised opening of shops which she and her supporters appear to advocate in Britain?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I can explain that easily. I am a British citizen and part of the British legislature; I am interested only in what affects people in this country. I am not legislating for France, Germany, Italy or any other country, nor would I try to do so.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way as I realise that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
  I have set out why I believe that it would be enormously difficult to encapsulate all those factors simply by updating the Shops Act 1950, as the Bill does. I realise that we must make changes, but I want to keep them simple. I want simple changes to accomodate the needs of modern life. The simplest, most straightforward solution to the problem is deregulation, with protection for Sunday shop workers.
  When I was a Minister and listened to debates on Sunday trading, I was forcefully struck by the fact that it would be difficult to persuade the House to accept total deregulation. I was pragmatic and realised that some concessions would have to be made to those people who wanted to restrict Sunday shopping.
  We must consider carefully how to restrict Sunday trading. We could consider ways to restrict goods. We could decide to restrict certain goods from being sold on Sunday, but it would be almost impossible to make a durable list of items that could not be sold on Sunday. That is simply because, in 10 years' time, goods will have been invented that were not originally contained in the legislation. That would create anomalies, such as those that currently exist in the 1950 Act, which allows one to buy a Chinese takeaway, fried chicken and kebabs, but not fish and chips, which is nonsense.
  If we rule out restricting what can be bought on Sundays, we could consider restricting where one can buy goods. The Bill tries to do that. It has been suggested that we could restrict the size of the premises from which goods may be bought on Sunday. We could restrict large

  625
  hypermarkets and supermarkets from opening and allow to open only small corner shops, which people have, for many years, used by custom and practice. The hon. Gentleman's Bill also tries to do that, but we would create a mess if we tried to legislate for that.
  We could allow all shops to open, but only within certain hours. Such restriction does work and is possible. If we restricted opening hours on Sunday, we would have to think carefully about whose businesses we should serve. Newsagents want to open first thing on Sunday morning as people like to read their newspapers with their breakfast. Chemists will have to open to provide medicines in the case of emergencies.
  We could restrict commercial family activities on Sundays until after midday or 1 pm. We could ensure that everyone wanting to visit a garden centre or partake of similar activities would have to go in the morning, which would keep Sunday afternoon shopping-free. However, such regulation would not help in the case of licensed premises. People tend to drink alcohol on Sunday, as well as Saturday and Monday.
  We would also have to consider new industries that have grown up, such as video shops, many of which would be forced to close down if they had to close after 2 pm on Sunday—that is a sad fact. I am not in hock to the video production industry, but I know that employees of its employees work on Sunday and a large number of people enjoy the opportunity to use video shops. We would have to build into the legislation provisions to cover such activities. If one wants the legislation to provide for exceptions, each one must be built into it. Over a period they will become untenable and the legislation will have to be amended.
  Mr. Dicks: People who want to keep Sunday special for recreational activities often do not want professional recreational activities on Sunday, which is another anomaly. People who want to watch professional football or go to the races on their day of rest should be able to do so but it means that people will have to be employed at those events.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: That is absolutely true—my hon. Friend makes a good point.
  Another exceedingly worrying aspect involves those employed in the retail business, who may come under pressure to work seven days a week. I considered that subject carefully. Clearly, one must accept that a number of people in this country currently work on Saturday and Sunday. Like it or not, legions of women find working on Saturday more satisfactory and more beneficial to their family life. They work on Sunday so that their partners can participate in family life and be with the children. They also work on Sunday because the current economic circumstances—which have existed for some time—mean that it is important for women to contribute to the family finances. Are we to say that we will not allow such women to work on Sundays? The House should think seriously about that.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right hon. Lady's Government are busy trying to get rid of the wages councils, which are one of the few protections for low-paid women workers. Does she seriously suggest that women work on Sundays out of choice and not
  626
  because they are driven to do so by appallingly low wages, which are still universal for the sort of jobs about which the right hon. Lady speaks?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: It is obvious that the hon. Lady does not speak to the kind of people who come to speak to me about the importance of being able, if they choose, to work on Sundays. The hon. Lady might get a surprise if she spoke to some of those women because she would realise how important it is for them to have a choice.
  Like it or not—and many do not—Sunday shopping has become a family activity. People like to go out as a family, even if only to the garden centre. Many people also enjoy Sunday shopping together. That is surprising to me because I intensely dislike shopping in a supermarket. I am greatly bothered by the notion of trying to restrict Sunday trading because many of the people—usually women, but occasionally men—who have to do the weekly shopping are forced by the restrictions to do it at the same time as everybody else. Many people have not experienced pushing a loaded supermarket trolley in a large crowd of people. People who work hard six days a week should not be told, perhaps by those who do not have to push loaded trolleys, that they will not be allowed to shop on Sunday. Such arrogance is unacceptable in this day and age.
  It is no part of our work to restrict people's choice about when they should shop or their ability to work on days which many others might regard as unsocial; for some people such days and hours are a lifeline. I share some of the worries about making Sunday like Saturday or Monday, but I do not think that deregulation would cause that to happen. It does not necessarily follow that because shops are allowed to open they will. Apart from the times when they opened just before Christmat in the past two or three years or so, that has not been perceived generally to happen.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: No, because I am coming to the end of my speech.
  Mrs. Winterton: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Yes.
  Mrs. Winterton: It is generous of my right hon. Friend to give way towards the end of her speech, to which I am listening carefully. Does she agree that a totally deregulated Sunday allowing opening for even six hours a day would be a gamble as to whether the things that she mentions survived? She spoke in great detail about why, when she was in the Home Office, she had come to her conclusion that shops should be open for at least six hours. Why did she not have the courage of her convictions then to introduce such a measure?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: As my hon. Friend knows, my career in the Home Office was, sadly, brought to an untimely end. I do not think that it is a gamble. We live in a reasonable and responsible society. We have to trust retailers and the British public to operate a voluntary code about how they behave on a Sunday as opposed to a Saturday, a Friday or a Monday. That is deeply built into the way of life in this country. I do not think that it would simply change overnight and it is somewhat hysterical of those who oppose that view to worry about it too much.
  I share my hon. Friend's concerns about employee protection and it is important to establish that those

  627
  currently in work should not be subjected to unreasonable pressure to work seven days a week when that is not their wish. It would be possible to establish a voluntary code of practice for retailers. However, it may not be possible, and on that issue alone I need to be reassured. That might be achieved by legislative protection to ensure that people could not be pressurised to work more than six days a week. I admire the hon. Member for Ogmore for introducing the Bill, but there is no way in which I will support it.
  10.55 am
  Mr. David Alton: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for the adroit and humorous way in which he introduced his Bill on which we can base new laws. It commands support throughout the House, but it also has its opponents. I hope that it will be victorious.
  I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member—I presume she is right hon.—for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). Her time at the Home Office may have been brought to a premature conclusion, but it was not entirely clear from the exchange between the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) whether the right hon. Lady had been elevated to that title. I shall assume that she has.
  The right hon. Lady gave a variety of reasons for being opposed to the measure. She said that the legislation would not last for eternity; but no legislation does and that is not a reason for voting against it. We regularly reform legislation: this is a reforming Parliament and, of course, no legislation is cast in concrete. Whatever the House decides on Sunday trading, I should be surprised if in 40 years' time we did not consider the issues again.
  The right hon. Lady said that many of the changes in this country had not been for the good of our nation. Many of us agree when we look at the social ecology and at many of the things happening in our land. An estimated 1 million elderly people do not see a friend, relative or neighbour in an average week. One in three marriages end in divorce and the breakdown of family life, and there has been a great rise in criminality.
  I agree that many of the changes in our society are not for the better, but that is another reason not for being defeatist, but for recognising that those are challenges and that we must do all that we can to enshrine family and community life and the values which, on other occasions, the right hon. Lady would certainly espouse. We must examine legislation with a view to seeing how we can keep relationships together and give people time together.
  The right hon. Lady said that because we are British we do not need to take any notice of what is happening elsewhere in Europe. Given that we are making slow progress on another Bill, most people agree that that argument does not stand up.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I did not say what the hon. Gentleman says I said about this country. I said that I am in the British legislature trying to influence legislation for this country and for our people. That is my main point. Therefore, I do not need to take into account what happens in other countries.
  Mr. Alton: That is a reversal of arguments that have been advanced in debates over the past few days. Ironically, the hon. Member for Congleton, who intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, and the right hon. Lady would find themselves in different Lobbies in Divisions on the other legislation. It is slightly paradoxical for Europe to be quoted in this way.
  Every other European Community country has been able to enshrine in its statutes legislation to safeguard their workers and Sundays—and I shall return to that point in my speech. It is not impossible for us to do the same in Britain. We do not have to do what everybody else does, but it is absurd to suggest that it is not possible to legislate in that way because we are British and somehow do not have the same capacity as our friends across the channel to introduce safeguards.
  The right hon. Lady also said that there were anomalies in the Bill. The hon. Member for Ogmore has already generously stated that in Committee he will listen to the arguments and that, to use his words, he will be reasonable and pragmatic when considering any anomalies and any concerns that are raised then.
  It is an interesting new theory that no legislation to be presented to the House in future by any Government will contain no anomalies. Many of us will be relieved to know that that will be the case. We were also told that registration might be too complicated. That will come as good news to everybody who has to pay value added tax. Presumably, therefore, VAT will be abolished. Why bother to register for elections? It is very complicated. People cannot put their minds to it. The whole House knows that these are pretty implausible arguments. All that came from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who was responsible for trying impartially to change our laws. It is no wonder that so many of us were suspicious of her when she was in her former post.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill would require a large number of small businesses to register the nature of their turnover in a way that they probably do not even record at present? At a time when we are trying to lift the burdens on small businesses, is not that just what we ought not to be doing?
  Mr. Alton: There are 200,000 small retailers in this country, many of whom will be forced out of business unless we ensure that the hypermarkets and supermarkets are unable to trade on Sundays, thus forcing them out of business. To suggest that it would be beyond the wit of a small retailer to fill in a registration form if he wished to trade on Sunday is absurd.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Alton: No, not at the moment. I have given way on a number of occasions already.
  The right hon. Lady referred to the question of choice. She said that choice should be elevated to the position of a religion or a philosophy. It was the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who, in his recent excellent book "The Persistence of Faith", said that the word "choice" comes from the same Greek root as the word "herasis". It may be that the word "choice" could be regarded today as a modern heresy: that it is my right to do whatever I want, regardless of the consequences. Choices are invariably

  629
  made at other people's expense. Nowhere is that more likely to be the case than here. As the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said earlier today, there are plenty of opportunities for shopping. In the average retail week, 51 hours are available for shopping, so there are plenty of choices already.
  It is worth recalling that, when we last considered this issue in 1986, a cross-party coalition in Parliament said that it did not want Sunday to be deregulated. It was the only time during that 13-year period that the Government were defeated on a whipped vote. But did they give up? No. They continued to come back to the House to try to find ways around it.
  The story line has constantly changed. We were told to wait for the decision of the European Court; but it came out in favour of keeping Sunday special. No longer, therefore, were we told to wait for the decision of the European Court. We were then told to turn a blind eye to anyone who broke the law. That was said by people who on other occasions tell us that they belong to the party of law and order. That is no example to set to people in our cities and communities who are becoming more and more lawless.
  The Home Secretary now offers us his well-known three-card trick. That is through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: if there are many different options, he will eventually get what he wants because people will be so confused. I have news for the House: I do not believe that that will happen.
  If we had the Home Office's preferred option, which is riven with anomalies and confusion, we could end up with no legislation whatsoever, with no reform of the Shops Act 1950. That is why it is so good that the hon. Member for Ogmore has provided us with this practical alternative. It is not based on the principle of he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is based upon his experience of working with shop workers throughout the land who are entitled to protection, a view which has cross-party support in the House because it provides the best means of ensuring that Sunday is not turned into yet another Saturday.
  As the European Court has recognised, workers are entitled to a common day off to be used for family and community activities, including time to go to church. Sundays also guarantee equilibrium and stability in busy and pressurised lives by balancing stressful work with time for leisure and recreation. By limiting retail activity on Sundays, we also protect shop workers and those employed in ancillary services from pressure to work unusual hours. For close on 1,000 years, Britain has had laws regulating commercial activity on Sunday, so it is not an impossibility. We have done it for nearly 1,000 years. It was Churchill who once said that our most prized institution is Sunday. He spoke wisely when he used those words. We should remember them today.
  As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) mentioned earlier, safeguards are enshrined in the German constitution. If one looks at the effects on the German economy, one can see that those safeguards have not caused economic chaos or the disintegration of the German economy. It may be the secret of Germany's success—the recognition that workers need time off, that their rights should be enshrined in the constitution and that they should be accorded dignity and respect.
  Shop workers are already in a low-paid and vulnerable sector of the economy, for 70 per cent. of retail companies pay their workers less than £3.50 an hour. There is
  630
  pressure, as we heard from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for even further deregulation in that respect. Shop workers who refuse to work unsocial hours will not get jobs; they will not be employed; they will not be promoted; they will be the first to be given redundancy notices. Deregulation will lead to inescapable pressure, particularly on women, to work on a day that they would prefer to spend with their families and children.
  There is also the problem that faces people who live alongside shopping areas. Only a week ago residents in the Allerton road area of Liverpool came to see me at my advice centre to tell me about the problems that they are experiencing because Woolworths had decided to open its shop there on Sundays. That has led, in the streets of little terraced houses adjacent to that store, to early-morning deliveries, to car doors being banged, and to the roads being congested with parked cars. Even on the one day that they did not have to suffer that commercial activity, they now have to put up with the bustle of hectic business and the consequntial noise, hassle and stress. Most absurdly, of all, no extra money for shopping is available, anyway. If the advocates of Sunday secularisation could only see beyond their greed, they might realise that the financial gain will be negligible.
  There is one more reason why I shall support the Bill. In a country where a crime is committed every two seconds and where one in three families experience divorce and the breakdown of family life, the Government are presumably concerned about the reasons for our chronic social maladies. Many of our problems stem from the inadequate time spent together by families. There is no substitute for parental interest, guidance and support. If the Home Secretary gets his way, many children and young people, to say nothing of the elderly relatives who enjoy a Sunday visit, will have even less time spent upon them in future. The social costs far outweigh any supposed advantages of unlimited shopping free for alls.
  The Bill protects workers and family and community life. It recognises the basic human need that we all have for unpressurised time for leisure and recreation. It rightly takes a stand against the cult of materialism and the sheer greed that motivates so many other decisions that are taken today. The Home Secretary has made his position clear: a totally secularised, deregulated Sunday. Therefore, I am glad that we are in a position to ask someone else, who is opposed to that objective, to steer through the House a Bill that reflects the will of Parliament as it was expressed in our last vote on the issue.
  It is for those reasons that I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading today.
  11.8 am
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: For me, Friday mornings are very precious indeed—second only in importance to Sundays—because, like most north-western hon. Members, I like to be at home, in my case in Lancaster, on Fridays. I am here only because I regard the Bill as absolutely essential to the maintenance of family life.
  My favourite occupation on Fridays, come what may, is to go around—we are lucky to have it—our covered shopping market. It is an old Victorian market which, sadly, was devastated by fire, but nevertheless it survives. I wander around the aisles of that lovely old market, do my

  631
  shopping and natter to people. I vividly remember the previous time when the matter of Sunday trading was before the House. I saw a highly respected confectioner rushing around the market like a steam engine. I said to her, "Mrs."—I will not reveal her name—"what on earth are you doing? I have never seen you go around so fast." "Ooh," she said, "it's my birthday tomorrow, and if the Bill to deregulate Sunday goes through, it will be the last Sunday that our family will ever be able to spend together, because at least one of us will have to be on duty." That business is a family-run concern. That is concrete example of what will happen throughout the land.
  I also represent a delightful country area. We are dependent on two things: our schools, which thankfully we have managed, with something of a battle, to maintain, and our village shops. These would be substantially threatened if we allowed the deregulation of Sunday and did not preserve Sunday by this Bill which strikes an admirable balance. I am proud to say that I admire the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for saying that he is willing to consider clearing up any uncertain matters in Committee, for example in relation to garden centres.
  Whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are bringing up a family—I have a rather hefty sized family—or attempting to keep law and order in the Chamber, which is by no means an easy job, or keeping law and order in the country, your prime duty is not to give in to law breakers. One does not give biscuits to a bad child. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not call an hon. Member who is obstreperous—that includes me—and the Government should certainly not reward large, wealthy retail chains by scrapping the law that they have so flagrantly violated for the perfectly simple reason that they can afford the fines.
  I am in favour of law and order, I am in favour of family life and I am very much in favour of the Bill.
  11.12 am
  Ms. Janet Anderson: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whatever our views on Sunday trading, many hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who, by pursuing his private Member's Bill has at least given us an opportunity to have this debate—an opportunity which has so far been denied us by the Government, despite the Home Secretary's statement to the House on 26 November, when he declared his determination
  "to settle the vexed question of the reform of the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales."—[Official Report, 26 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 997.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has brought forward his Bill in a genuine and honest attempt to sort out the current mess and confusion over Sunday trading. My hon. Friend declared his interest. I should like to declare my long-term interest in this matter. Before I entered the House, when I was a prospective parliamentary candidate, I worked in my constituency as the northern region organiser for the Shopping Hours Reform Council.
  As legislators, we must ask ourselves whether the Bill will achieve consensus and establish a satisfactory situation in respect of Sunday trading or whether it will merely serve to sustain circumstances which meet neither the wishes of consumers nor the rights of shop workers.
  632
  Our overriding priority must be to bring the Sunday trading debate permanently to a close, achieve consensus, and reconcile the rights and conditions of employment of shop workers with the desire of the public to shop on Sundays.
  It is essential that any reforming legislation takes sufficient account of reality to command the respect of the general public. Without public support, many local authorities will regard enforcement of this legislation as having as low a priority as that of the current law. Also, the provisions need to be simple and easy to enforce.
  The problem with the Bill is that it flies in the face of public opinion. Surveys carried out over 18 years by the well-respected Consumers Association have consistently shown a two thirds majority in favour of liberalisation of the law on Sunday opening, yet in many ways the Bill is more restrictive than the Shops Act 1950. It would close some shops that are currently permitted to open, such as convenience stores and some newsagents if they are larger than 1,500 sq ft. It would also close coin-operated launderettes which can currently operate legally. Moreover, it would close the very shops that most people want to use on Sundays. Although I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that he would be willing to consider concessions on DIY stores, there is a significant question mark over garden centres.
  In the view of the Consumers Association, the Bill contains so many complexities that it will create as much confusion and uncertainty as the current Act causes. The main reason for that is that it continues the type-of-shop approach, which was rejected by the Auld committee on the ground that it would not be any easier to select a defensible list of shop types for exemption than it would be to select a list of goods. That view is also upheld by the eminent QC, Eldred Tabachnik, who concluded that
  "far from removing the themelessness which characterises the 1950 Act, the Bill is every bit as, if not more, anomalous than the current law"
  and that
  "the categories of trading on Sundays permitted by the Bill comprise an arbitrary hotch potch."
  There are numerous illustrations of the types of problems. No doubt some are due to drafting errors, but most are simply inherent in any such type-of-shop approach and they are exacerbated by the 80 per cent. rule. In effect, the Bill would close almost all petrol stations on Sundays. To be exempt from the closure requirement, a petrol station is required to sell only petrol. If it wished to sell any other product it would have to apply for class A registration. In order to be eligible, it would need to be less than 1,500 sq ft, and 80 per cent. of turnover would need to be from sales of goods from the prescribed list. Petrol is not included in that list.
  Mr. Michael Lord: It is important, whatever else we do, to get some of our facts right; we might differ on our opinions. Is the hon. Lady aware that the House of Commons Chamber measures 68 ft by 45 ft 6 in? It is a little more than 3,000 sq ft. I have no small shops of that size in my constituency. We are talking about 3,000 sq ft, and 1,500 sq ft is still half of the Chamber. I do not know of many garage forecourt shops that will be seriously inconvenienced if their sales area is restricted to that size.
  Ms. Anderson: Many motorway service stations would fall into that category. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the House of Commons Chamber should be open on Sundays—perhaps he is.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Anderson: No, I will not give way.
  The Bill permits the purchase of a ladder from a garden centre but not from a DIY shop. However, many DIY centres have a garden centre section. DIY retailers might consider sectioning off parts of their store to enable illegal trading in that section to continue. The list of anomalies goes on. I am simply seeking to illustrate the point that the Bill will not end the debate and division on Sunday trading, but will guarantee that they continue.
  I know that the position of shop workers has greatly exercised my hon. Friends; it is also a matter of great concern to me. I can do no better than to quote from the general secretary of my trade union, John Edmonds of the GMB, which represents some 60,000 shop workers, the overwhelming majority of whom are women. In a recent letter to hon. Members, Mr. Edmonds said that the
  "continuing confusion over Sunday shopping has become intolerable for employees within the retail industry."
  He also said that local authorities, businesses, shop workers and the public need clarification of the law to put an end to the ridiculous charade which blights the nation's Sundays. He said that it is unacceptable that people should be forced to work on Sundays against their will; I know that most hon. Members would agree.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am aware of the remarks in that letter, but, as a fellow member of that union, I believe that it was a mistake. My hon. Friend has already accepted that there is a need for the House to debate these issues and resolve them. Because of the lack of any Government Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has provided us with the opportunity to do that. Given the request from the general secretary of the GMB, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be best for the Bill to be given a Second Reading, so that all the issues to which she referred could be properly debated in Committee? Will she therefore support the Bill's Second Reading?
  Ms. Anderson: I know that my hon. Friend's views command a great deal of support in the House, but I am afraid that I disagree with them. We should have an opportunity to consider all the possible options and that is why I hope that the Government will not renege on their promise to bring forward appropriate legislation soon.
  Mr. Edmonds said that he believed that it was unacceptable that people should be forced to work on Sundays. I agree, because that would contradict religious freedoms, jeopardise family life and be intolerable for existing employees. The GMB and I would support legislation that includes the voluntary principle and carries with it sensible guarantees for trade union recognition rights to enforce that voluntary principle.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms. Anderson: No. I must get on because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Edmonds also went on to say:
  634
  "We do not believe that Ray Powell's proposals match our policy, nor that they will clarify the position. They would rather add further confusion."
  I understand that Mr. Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers union has sent a similar letter to some of my hon. Friends.
  As a Member representing a northern constituency and as the mother of three teenage children, I must tell the House that the only time that I get to do my weekly household shop is on Sundays. The same is often true for the more than 70 per cent. of married women who now work outside the home. I also know that there are many women in my constituency who welcome the opportunity to work on Sundays when they do not have to pay for child care because they can rely on their partners. Women want to shop on Sundays and women want to work on Sundays. The Bill does not recognise those demands.
  11.22 am
  Mr. Michael Stern: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) not only on her speech, with which I totally agree, but on displaying what must be the ultimate courage in the House—opposing a Bill proposed by her own pairing Whip, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
  Before the hon. Member for Ogmore leaves the Chamber, I should like him to know that I shall follow the two injunctions that he made. I shall try to speak for as short a time as possible—he spoke for nearly half an hour—and, in response to his request, I shall declare my specific interest in the Bill. Until the recent growth in Sunday trading among supermarkets and large shops, it was impossible for me, given that I work six days a week at a minimum, to shop with my family. My family life has been enriched by the recent opportunities to shop that have arisen. [Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. Members regard their days off as so limited that they would not wish to broaden their horizons. They will find that the 4 million people who now regularly shop in large stores on Sundays would agree with me.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore referred, rightly, to the document that has been distributed, at considerable expense, to every hon. Member of the House, entitled "Towards a New Shops Act". That document sets out the aims of the Bill. I should like to do the hon. Member for Ogmore the honour, despite the fact that he is no longer in his seat, of referring to the aims set out in the document. It states that the Bill is designed
  "to guarantee a common day off"—
  but not for those people who, for whatever reason, would wish to have a different day off. It is also designed
  "to protect the right of shopworkers not to work on Sundays."
  It says nothing about those people who want the right to work on a Sunday. It states that the Bill is designed to protect smaller retailers from pressure to open. It says nothing about those smaller retailers who wish to open. It also states that the Bill is designed
  "to provide for the reasonable needs of consumers."
  That is something on which the consumers are not entitled to have a say; they must accept whatever the hon. Member for Ogmore defines as their "reasonable needs". The document also states that the Bill would prevent unfair competition. It will do that by preventing all competition in any circumstances.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stern: I am conscious of the fact that the promoter did not give way during his speech and I am anxious to make sure that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak. However, I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she is brief.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I shall be brief. Does he accept that 25 per cent. of the business of small shops comes from trading over the weekend and on Sundays, but only 2 per cent. of the business of supermarkets comes from such trading? Therefore, when he says that he is concerned about competition, is not he really concerned about protecting the supermarkets from the smaller shops?
  Mr. Stern: I have no way of checking the hon. Lady's figures and I am happy to accept that they are correct. However, if she considers the trading patterns of supermarkets and the profit margins to which they work she will find that 2 per cent. can be a major factor when determining the viability of a business. As for competition with the small shops, the hon. Lady will find that many people, given the opportunity, prefer to work and to shop in larger stores.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: So the hon. Gentleman is protecting the larger stores.
  Mr. Stern: We should not single out those people who should be protected.
  The aims set out in the reasoned amendment standing in my name and that of several hon. Members are the reverse of those in the Bill. In any legislation on Sunday trading, employment and business opportunities should be encouraged and meaningless distinctions between one shop and another should be abandoned. Such legislation should protect the quality of life of most people, as they choose to lead it. It should avoid the imposition of extra duties on local authorities and extra burdens on businesses. Above all, it should not destroy jobs. More than 140,000 shop workers would lose their Sunday work and earnings if any Bill remotely like the one before us today were passed. About 50,000 of them would lose their only employment. Is it really the job of the House to destroy employment on such a massive scale, especially since, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, most of these people are women who have been the beneficiaries of one of the great liberalisations of our society in recent years—for the first time, they have an equal opportunity to choose when and how to work and how to organise their family lives instead of being tied to a previous view of society supported by law?
  The Bill contains other anomalies with regard to encouraging employment. I represent a Bristol constituency and must therefore very much resent the fact that in a tourist area such as Bristol, which is not by the seaside, tourist shops would be barred from opening because only seaside tourist resorts are covered by the Bill's exemption.
  Another aim is to encourage business opportunities. As I said, about 4 million customers now pass through and buy at the four leading supermarket groups that currently open on Sundays. The report of Eldred Tabachnik QC, which has been made available to most hon. Members, states that the United Kingdom is no longer a nation of
  636
  small specialist shops. An increasing number of shops were never contemplated by the 1950 Act and are not even considered by the Bill.
  For example, bureaux de change provide a great service to tourists, but they would not be able to open on Sundays. Professional offices increasingly find that their clients can see them only Sundays because they also have to earn a living, but they would also be debarred from opening—I speak as a former full-time practising chartered accountant. The Bill would destroy many of the opportunities for businesses that have opened in recent years.
  The Bill perpetuates rather than ends the meaningless distinctions between one shop and another. The hon. Member for Ogmore said that he would accept amendments, but he must stand by the Bill as he has presented it to the House—either he meant what he said in the Bill or he did not. What is the point of getting rid of the 1950 Act when, under the Bill—
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stern: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have undertaken not to give way because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  If the Bill were passed unamended, the vast majority of garden centres would have to close—we have that from the garden centres themselves. The remainder of the garden centres which are able to register to open under the Bill can be closed on an arbitrary basis if, by accident, their sales of particular and ill-defined goods happen to go over the limit set by the Bill.
  Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Stern: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore claimed that video hire shops would be unaffected, but he may not have noticed that video hire shops also sell videos and, under the terms of the Bill, if they sell one video too many on a Sunday, they will be closed.
  The Bill covers the sizes of shops which are permitted to open. There is a good working rule which hon. Members could apply to shops in their constituencies—if a shop has one window, it is under 1,500 sq ft and would be allowed to open. As a general rule, a shop with two windows will be more than 1,500 sq ft and will be forced to close
  Mr. Lord: Nonsense.
  Mr. Stern: It is not nonsense—it is based on survey.
  With reference to the anomalies which will arise under the Bill, I refer to a letter that I—and, I believe, many other hon. Members—have received from the Boots Company. It states that some brands of toothpaste will qualify for sale on Sundays, others will not and some
  "food supplements and vitamins will be legally saleable, others will not."
  It asks how it will be
  "possible to differentiate between items in a pharmacy that can be sold only for two hours on a Sunday and those … that can be sold … without restriction?"
  The letter points out that the Bill allows
  "baby foods to be sold in garden centres, nappies on garage forecourts, and condoms in video hire shops all day Sunday but none of these to be sold at any time in Pharmacies."
  What ridiculous legislation.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ogmore is not here to listen to what I regard as one of the major defects of the

  637
  Bill. Despite his not being here, I make this point to him as the proponent of the Bill with all honesty and sincerity, as a member of an ethnic minority. The explanatory document that he has caused to be circulated refers to regulations which are and are not in the Bill relating to Jewish and Muslim shops. The document states that
  "shops owned by Jewish proprietors are permitted to open on Sunday mornings, provided the shops also shut on Saturdays."
  That is a provision of the 1950 legislation which is not changed by the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore has clearly not noticed that most Jewish shops in urban areas found it impossible to survive without expanding under the 1950 Act and that most such shops, especially the successful ones which are permitted to open on Sundays, would be forced to close because they comprise more than 1,500 sq ft. That would certainly apply to most urban Jewish butchers.
  There is an equally thoughtless reference in the Bill and the explanatory document to Muslims. The document states:
  "We did not consider it necessary to make a special provision for Moslems because their religion only requires them to be at prayer for 2 hours on a Friday."
  Are not Muslims entitled to take their own view on how to spend the remainder of their day of rest? Do they have to have a licence to practice their religion and nothing else? If a shop is permitted to open on Sunday because of the religion of the proprietor, surely the proprietor is entitled to decide how best to organise his own business even if he is a member of an ethnic minority.
  I deal now with the notion of protecting the quality of life. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen for highlighting some of the Bill's anomalies in relation to petrol forecourt shops and motorway service area shops. If the Bill were passed unamended it would be very much more difficult for ordinary people to travel by car on a Sunday because there would be far fewer petrol outlets and far fewer shops on motorway service areas for chance purchases.
  If the Bill were passed unamended, people could forget the idea of buying fresh fruit and vegetables on a Sunday because greengrocers would be forced to close. They could also forget the idea of doing any DIY on Sundays and could find, as I frequently do, that they are short of a screw—[Laughter.] Following Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie's evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage yesterday, I see that Camillagate has had a greater effect on the House than was originally anticipated.
  Under the Bill, DIY stores would be closed and the practice of DIY, which is commonly carried out on Sundays, would be severely limited. Markets would also have to close and, certainly in my constituency, markets are extremely popular on Sundays. Under the Bill, a total of 145,000 shops in England and Wales which now open on Sundays would be forced to close.
  Time is short, so I shall leave it to colleagues to deal with the impossible burdens that the Bill would place on local authorities and businesses. A vast bureaucracy would be established merely to enforce what are, in essence, unenforceable provisions.
  In conclusion, I shall describe, as I promised, the overall damage that the Bill would do to jobs. I shall read out and, if necessary, table a letter that I received yesterday from a constituent. The lady, who has asked that her name and address should not be used, lives in an area of my constituency which was a socialist fiefdom in local
  638
  authority terms until last May, when the people saw the light. It is one of the poorest areas of my constituency. My constituent writes:
  "I am a mother of two children aged 4¼ and 2½ and I am expecting a third child in April. I work in Asda, Cribbs causeway, Bristol on Sundays. I intend to return to work again after my baby has been born. I am a Sunday only worker. I work on Sundays, because I want the best for my children, not the worst. They have a lot more extras and holidays, clothes and outings and they wouldn't have had any of it, if I didn't go and work. When I leave the house on Sunday mornings I leave happy in the knowledge that my husband will be caring for them and that they will all enjoy some "quality time" together. I also get a well needed break from the children and household each week and I look forward to my own independent time … I don't believe in dumping my children on childminders to go to work in the week."
  I see nothing wrong in anything that this lady says in her letter. Yet the Bill would debar her from the quality of life that she wants for herself and her family.
  The Bill would arrogate to the House the right to determine employment patterns, business opportunities and trade. In a civilised and moderately free society, I do not believe that the House should have that right.
  11.41 am
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) in his fairytale and, if I may say so, screwy misinterpretation of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West made out a case for total deregulation—"Set the people free"—but his proposed deregulation would enslave many more people.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned ethnic minorities. I believe that one of the great virtues of the Jewish tradition is the tradition of family life—parents together with children. The Jewish community is one of those least likely to break the law, partly because of the strength of its family life. After all, it was the creation ordinance which set aside one special day, and that has had a profound effect on the Jewish tradition over the centuries. That one day set aside has a relevance for today. It is part of a pattern, and the Old Testament creation ordinance has a special meaning now, when there is so much social fragmentation.
  I shall first consider the history of the Bill and the other measures to reform the clearly anomalous Shops Act 1950. In 1986 a miracle happened. The Government had a majority of more than 100, and the Bill was whipped—yet it was defeated, because the good sense of the people of this country, as reflected in the House, did not want total deregulation. The people realised that there was value in having one day set aside, away from the pressures and heavy rhythms of life.
  Since then the Government have done nothing, and we have had the law breakers—those who have chosen to defy the 1950 Act. First, there was just a little defiance, on the four Sundays before Christmas. That reminds me of the housemaid's explanation: "It's only a little baby". Then the law breakers moved on from those four Sundays to total defiance of the law, with the acquiescence of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General.
  Then there was the reference to the European Court of Justice. Anyone who practises at the Bar, as I do, knows that that process is very tardy. Indeed, that was the motive behind the reference. There was no prospect of the

  639
  European Court ruling against our practice under the Shops Act 1950. As has already been said, all the European countries except one have their own special legislation concerning Sundays, so there is no possible case for suggesting that our practice would be deemed to be in restraint of EC trade.
  The motive behind the Government's acquiescence in the actions of the law breakers was an attempt to buy time and to create facts. That is part of the reason why I support the Bill.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I have been trying to restrain myself from intervening because I do not want to take time away from other hon. Members, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is embarking on a course which he knows is wrong. The Government did not take the Sunday trading case to the European Court; it was referred there by the House of Lords, because, due to an earlier judgment by the European Court, the courts could not determine their judgments. The Government have always argued that our laws were on all fours with the treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Anderson: If the Government had been so concerned, they would not have said that the law was in abeyance; they could have supported the local authorities, which were frightened because of the potential financial impact on their poll tax payers. Instead, the Government said that they would not support Kirklees, Torfaen and the other councils, but left them to their fate in the certain knowledge that the local authorities would not be able to oppose the big boys, the superstores, the sharks who are happy to swallow up the minnows and the small people. The Government acquiesced in lawbreaking by not supporting the local authorities, which wanted to be protected about any costs that might have been awarded against them. The Attorney-General could have intervened and taken over the action on behalf of the local authorities. But the Government failed to do so; they acquiesced.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government had to abide by the conclusions of the court. The Attorney-General cannot overturn them. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House with his account of the legal position.
  Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Attorney-General could not have taken over the actions from the local authorities? That is nonsense. Is he seriously suggesting that the Attorney-General could not have said to the local authorities, "We are prepared to stand behind you and guarantee the costs that may be thrown away in a prosecution"? Of course he is not. The local authorities were left on their own, and because of the cost pressures they could not proceed in legal actions.
  We now have a Home Secretary who, on his own admission, wants total deregulation. That has been the Home Office view ever since it got a bloody nose over the 1986 Shops Bill. The Government have acquiesced in law breaking, seeking to create facts, although they know that most people in this country do not want Sunday to be just like any other day. If we accept the Government's position and wait for a Government Bill, more time will have been bought for the big boys. Another year at least will go by,
  640
  and another Christmas. Facts will be created and then they will say, "Look, that is the tradition. All the barriers have been thrown away." That is my charge against the Government—that they have acquiesced.
  This is an all-party Bill. If I wanted to advance a conspiracy theory, I could say that we should consider the way in which B and Q finances the Tory party dance—and how the Tory party has danced to B and Q's tune thereafter—but I shall not go into that because this is an all-party Bill.
  The substantial reasons in favour of the Bill are as follows. I believe that the mass of the people want Sunday to be different. They want it to be a time when the family can be together—husband and wife, or wife with her children, if she is a single parent. Deregulation would have profound effects on the family. In the public interest, the Government should do nothing to increase the pressures on families. Of one thing I am confident: total deregulation would being greater pressure on family life, greater fragmentation, and a great increase in the social problems that we face today. I am equally confident that there would be an acceleration in the closure of smaller shops and in the move towards out-of-town shopping, which has adverse social effects.
  The Swansea Herald of Wales has carried out a survey of market traders in Swansea market. It shows overwhelming concern about the fact that families will be forced to work on Sundays. Their freedom will be diminished, yet the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West claims to be in favour of freedom.
  The Government will put forward options after a decent lapse of time when the positions have been established. Essentially, there are only two options. The Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposal is not a realistic option. It is a slippery slope—a halfway house. The council wants total deregulation. It cannot have it directly, so it has put forward a proposal which it knows will slip from hour to hour to hour, in the way that the pub licensing provisions have. That is the council's motive.
  By contrast, the REST—recreation, emergency, social gathering and travel—proposals, which are the foundation of the Bill, have a coherence and logic. More importantly, they have a stopping place, whereas under the Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposal it would be easy to say, "Just an extra hour: it does not really matter." It is what is called a creeping commitment in planning law, with the plea, "Just another house on this site."
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and those who drafted the Bill, which has coherence and logic. More importantly, it accords with the spirit of what most people want. We do not want Sunday to be just like every other day of the week. Profound and adverse social effects will follow if we give the unfettered freedom of total deregulation, which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and his friends in the Shopping Hours Reform Council want.
  11.51 am
  Mr. James Coachman: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Shops Bill is No. 3 on the Order Paper today. It also seeks to bring some sanity to Sunday trading. I am the promoter of that Bill and if I talk a little about it, I hope that you will forgive me. I shall try to do so only in the context of this Bill. I

  641
  congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on having come higher in the ballot than I did. If our positions had been reversed, we might have been discussing my Bill rather than his.
  In 1986, when the Government introduced the Shops Bill, which was defeated on Second Reading, I spoke in favour of total deregulation. At that time, the only two options on offer were either total deregulation or living on with the inconsistencies and anomalies of the Shops Act 1950. In the past six years, other options have developed. The options offered by the Bill by and large carry on the restrictions and presumption to closure of shops on Sundays contained in the 1950 Act.
  My Bill—I shall move its Second Reading if we reach that point today—presumes a rather different position. It presumes that shops will be allowed to open, with small shops opening over a wide number of hours on a Sunday and large shops opening over a far more limited period of six hours between 10 am and 6 pm.
  One of the tests for any legislation should be that it will enjoy public support and confidence, that it will be easy to understand and to enforce where necessary, and that it will stand the test of time. I shall seek to prove that this Bill would not stand the test of time or fulfil the other two conditions, whereas my Bill would.
  We have heard much about the anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 which have produced the present unsatisfactory position. The ludicrous anomalies include the fact that it is legal to sell partly cooked tripe, but not a tin of tuna. It is legal to sell fodder for mules, but not cat food. It is legal to sell bandages, but not nappies. It is legal to sell pornography, but not bibles. I remember the debate in 1986 and those positions were exhaustively debated.
  If the Bill proceeds, it will produce a set of anomalies that are at least as confusing, complex and difficult as those contained in the 1950 Act. The Act is, without doubt, out of date. At that time, only 26 per cent. of married women worked. Now 70 per cent. go out to work. In 1950, most shop workers were full time, whereas most now are part time. Shopping has changed since 1950. Do-it-yourself centres and garden centres were unknown. Video shops and out-of-town shopping centres were unheard of. Since 1950, sadly, Christian religious observance has declined while that of Muslims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, has increased.
  There has been extreme difficulty in enforcing the Shops Act 1950. Some 145,000 shops are reckoned to open on a Sunday and almost all of them sell things that are prohibited under the Act. Only 4 per cent. of those 145,000 shops are large stores. It is overwhelmingly small and convenience stores that open on Sunday.
  There are provisions about tourism in the 1950 Act whereby seaside towns have a limited exemption for shops to open during the summer season. Those provisions would continue under the Bill. The problem is that shops in Scarborough could open whereas those in York could not. Shops in Great Yarmouth could open, but those on the Norfolk broads could not. Shops in Margate may open, but those in Canterbury or Rochester may not. Shops in Torbay may open, but those on Dartmoor may not. That is clearly nonsense. I shall not go into all the anomalies in Bill which have already been listed.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) courageously made her stand against the Bill and she did so on a number of sensible grounds. She
  642
  prayed in aid the letter from the general secretary of the GMB, John Edmonds. He is the representative of 60,000 shop workers, so the House should listen to his advice.
  We have also heard of the inconsistencies in pharmacy. It is worth noting that many pharmacies are legally obliged to open on Sundays under NHS rota agreements with family health services authorities. A restriction to only two hours would often place pharmacies in breach of their obligation. The go per cent. threshold could mean that they would be excluded from opening at all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West brought into sharp relief the question whether we would be able to buy family planning aids on a Sunday. We certainly should not be able to buy them from Boots, according to the letter that he and I received from that organisation.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore stated that he was proud to declare his interest on behalf of the Union of Shop, Diestributive and Allied Workers. It is worth examining that point. USDAW represents many thousands of shop workers, many of whom will be disadvantaged if the Bill becomes law. That is something which we should all be well aware of in these days of difficult employment conditions. One hundred and forty thousand jobs would be at grave risk as a result of the Bill.
  We have heard much about turning Sunday into an ordinary day. The charge is that if supermarkets opened, the high street shops would open and Sunday would be just another Saturday. That was the thrust of the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). In that regard, I need simply refer to Scotland. There is total deregulation in Scotland. I would not propose total deregulation and I suspect that not many hon. Members would support it at the present time. Scotland enjoys total deregulation, but comparatively few shops—about 25 per cent.—actually open on a Sunday.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he said "at the present time". With regard to Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman consider not the static picture, but the dynamic picture and consider how the number of shops opening has accelerated over the past few years?
  Mr. Couchman: I am told that over the past three years, when there has been an atmosphere of uncertainty about Sunday trading, just 2 per cent. of shops in Scotland which did not open on Sundays before 1989 have decided to do so. That does not reveal a great dynamic in terms of shops opening in Scotland. Scotland has had deregulation from time immemorial as I understand it.
  Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend is taking great pains to criticise the Bill. However, he said earlier that he favours deregulation. Some of us believe that the proposals for the Shopping Hours Reform Council are deregulation by the back door. My hon. Friend is very honest. If he believed that total deregulation could be approved by the House, would he support it?
  Mr. Couchman: Yes, so long as there was a measure of worker protection. I want to make the position clear. My Bill on the Order Paper includes a substantial measure of worker protection. No one is compelled to shop on a Sunday and no one should be compelled to work on a Sunday. That is terribly important. I also believe that those who work on a Sunday should be rewarded with

  643
  premium payments although I stop short of the position in the Shops (Amendment) Bill which prescribes double-time payment for Sunday working.
  That provision would have an enormously detrimental effect on small shopkeepers who would find it very difficult to afford to pay double time as it is a very big premium. It is also worth noting that the majority of shops in Scotland open on the four Sundays before Christmas. That is their premium time. However, immediately Christmas is over, they return to their normal pattern.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: It is an absolute myth that the majority of shops open in Scotland on Sundays. I live in Linwood and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that certain shops do not open. However, the experience with Sunday opening in Scotland is not happy. If I get the chance, I will explain that in detail later. We have lost thousands of shop workers' jobs in Scotland and many small shops have shut. I do not know whether that is the result of unfair competition.
  Mr. Couchman: I look forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scottish Office Ministers have said on several occasions at Scottish Question Time that they have received fewer than half a dozen complaints over the past year about the shops legislation in Scotland?
  Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will no doubt repeat that point later, if he has the opportunity to speak.
  I do not want to take up too much time now, because it is just possible that we might reach my Bill and I will have to speak again when I move its Second Reading. I am also aware that many hon. Members wish to participate in this debate.
  It was my considered view in 1986 that I would support total deregulation. I have changed that view to the extent that I would need to see worker protection written on the face of any Bill seeking to bring the Sunday trading regulations up to date. The Bill would have to be simple and easy to enforce and I was keen to ensure that in my Bill. That is why I have decided to include small shops up to 3,000 sq ft—as has been said, the size of the Chamber. That is the size of many convenience stores, which is rather more realistic than the 1,500 sq ft suggested by the hon. Member for Ogmore. Those shops could be registered easily with local authorities in case of a dispute because the Inland Revenue valuation office already keeps such figures.
  Shopping has become popular. Many people shop on Sundays for the very recreation that the hon. Member for Ogmore included in his REST proposals. I am minded of the Sundays that I enjoy when I visit antique fairs. I do not look forward to those Sundays being prohibited by the Bill. Many hundreds of thousands—and perhaps millions—of people go to Sunday markets and to car boot fairs. They will lose that recreation on a Sunday under the terms of the Bill. Where both partners work, people may want to visit a travel agent or an estate agent on a Sunday either to book a holiday or to obtain house details. That will be prohibited by the Bill.
  644
  I conclude with the opinion of Eldred Tabachnik, who I believe is well thought of in Labour party and union circles:
  "The Bill is rife with ambiguities and uncertainties. The particular exemptions permitted and the division between exception and registration appear to have no coherent theme. And on crucial issues like the 80 per cent. rule and the effective scope of the registration provisions, the Bill provides no clear guidance for retailers."
  That sums up very well why the House should reject the Bill. Although the hon. Member for Ogmore has given a generous promise of amendments in Committee, I believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed. It is designed to close shops rather than to open them. The Bill should not receive its Second Reading today.
  12.7 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I disagreed with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), but at least I found his remarks far more logical than those made by the hon Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) who claimed to speak on behalf of that great city. He expressed concern about the commercial and tourist trades. He would have been far more plausible, at a stroke, if he had supported us when we fought to remove tolls on the Severn crossing. Those tolls are a positive deterrent to cross-channel trade and the reason why so few people from Wales now visit Bristol. They are also a major burden for people from Wales who work on the other side of the channel.
  I recognise that the Sunday trading issue is very complex. I have noticed that many of the big companies have not been prepared to accept the law as it stands. Likewise, some of our local authorities have, for various reasons, been reluctant to take action against them. It has been said that the law is an ass. With such conduct on the part of the big companies, the law has certainly been undermined. As parliamentarians, we should certainly safeguard against that. There are anomalies in the list of goods which can be sold on Sunday. Overall, there is now a recognition that the Shops Act 1950 needs to be brought up to date.
  The Bill introduced by my good friend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) meets the needs of the day. My hon. Friend is a staunch trade unionist who hails from the Rhondda valley. Throughout his life he has fought for the interests of working people. I feel sad and disappointed that the trade unions have not been able to present a united front on this issue. There is something in the old adage: united we stand, divided we fall. That may be the case on this occasion.
  It has been said that the Labour movement in Britain owes more to Methodism than to Marx. That may be so, but I know that in the Labour movement a person has the right to exercise his or her conscience. I intend to exercise my conscience today and vote in favour of my hon. Friend's Bill. What is more, many of my constituents have written, urging me to do so.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman not see the irony in that he takes upon himself the right to exercise his conscience and, by doing so, seeks to take away the right of citizens to exercise their individual consciences?
  Mr. Hughes: I have no wish to do that at all. I am here as the bona fide representative of the people of Newport, East and I have been elected on eight consecutive occasions at general elections.
  I would not claim to be a devout Christian, although I attend church from time to time. However I do not wish to walk down the main street of Newport or of any other town in the United Kingdom and witness all the shops being open as they are on the other six days of the week. Over the years—indeed, over the centuries—the rhythm and pattern of our lives has been shaped by the seven-day cycle and the fact that one day of the week—Sunday—is different from the rest. To ignore and try to change that pattern can lead only to more stress and more nervous disorders, which are already prevalent in our society today.
  Sunday is different, and long may it remain. It is a day perhaps for the family. I have been blessed, Mr. Lofthouse, with a happy family life.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene. It is probably because we have spent so much time in Committee in the past week that the hon. Member has lost his way. With all his experience in the House, I am sure that he knows how to address the Chair.
  Mr. Hughes: We need to pay more attention to family values if we are to maintain the stability of our society. The partial breakdown of family life, together with heavy unemployment, has played a major part in the ever-escalating crime figures which give such cause for concern.
  In conclusion, I fully realise the need to bring the law up to date. In that regard, the principles of the Bill are worth supporting: first, to guarantee a common day off for family and community activities, including church worship; secondly, to ensure rhythm in people's lives, balancing work and recreation; thirdly, to protect vulnerable sections, the retail work force and those employed in ancillary services, from pressure to work unusual hours.
  We had an important case in Newport only a matter of weeks ago when Spar grocers insisted that their work force work until 11 o'clock at night. When the workers objected, they were arbitrarily dismissed. That is the reality of the matter as I see it.
  I can support the principles contained in my hon. Friend's Bill with a clear conscience. I will be supporting the Bill in the Lobby this afternoon. The second Reading is essentially a debate on principle. There can be no mass adjustments in the Committee on the Bill, but the principle overall is a good one. Keep Sundays special is a declaration which the House should wholeheartedly support.
  12.16 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I hope that it will assist the House if I intervene with a Government view at this point. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear this—on winning such a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and on the sincerity and humour, which I much enjoyed, with which he introduced his Bill this morning. It was natural and right that he should devote his opportunity to Sunday
  646
  trading because I know, having listened to him before, that he has taken a long, close and principled interest in the issue.
  Like the rest of us, the hon. Gentleman feels that the Shops Act 1950 is outdated. Again like the rest of us, he is deeply concerned that it is so little respected, so widely disregarded and difficult for local authorities to enforce. Like him, the Government and, indeed, the whole House believe that it is high time that the issue is resolved so that the law is clear, commands general respect and can be effectively applied. Where views diverge is how that is to be achieved.
  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), whom I am delighted to see in her place, made an excellent and thoughtful speech. She voluntarily spent much time trying in vain to create common ground between the different campaign groups.
  Similar differences of view are to be found on both sides of the House. That is why the Government are taking the unusual course of preparing a Bill which will put before the House the three main options for change—the Scottish option of total deregulation, the Shopping Hours Reform Council scheme and the Keep Sunday Special model. The options have established support in the country, in the retail trade and in Parliament. The House can examine them, contrast them and compare their likely effects before coming to a conclusion.
  We are working on that Bill now. The speed with which it will be completed depends very much on what prompt guidance and clarification the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Keep Sunday Special campaign can give us about their detailed intentions, as compared with their well-understood, overall objections, so that we can reflect them accurately in the drafting of the Government's Bill. I shall be disappointed if we cannot have our Bill ready in a few weeks so that if a legislative opportunity presents itself this Session, we can take it. That is what I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would like to do. But I have to tell my hon. Friends and the House that the overhang of business currently before the House is such that I do not hold out much prospect of introducing the Bill before the beginning of the new Session in the autumn.
  Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend wants to intervene. I am anxious not to be diverted on a range of questions. I will give way to my hon. Friend on this point, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not do so much more.
  Mr. Cormack: It is important that this point is clarified beyond any misunderstanding. Can we take it from what my hon. Friend has said that there is no realistic chance of the Government's Bill being on the statute book before next Christmas?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is extremely unlikely, but I never give up hope.
  Today we are debating not the Government's planned Bill, but the Bill which the hon. Member for Ogmore has presented to the House today. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, it is very much the Keep Sunday Special option. It is on that Bill and that option that I shall concentrate during the rest of my speech. I do not wish to range too widely. As I have just said, I shall not seek to

  647
  respond to the points made during the debate, much as I am tempted to do so, because I am aware that many right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to take part. I, for one, should like to hear all of them before we come to a conclusion at 2.30 pm.
  The overall objective of the Bill is to keep Sunday as a special day—at least as far as retailing is concerned—but to make fair and reasonable allowance for shopping activities that the hon. Gentleman regards as consistent with the specialness of Sunday by allowing smaller shops to remain open on Sunday to sell goods required for recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel.
  Large and medium-sized foodstores, DIY shops, carpet and furniture stores of any size will be shut. For some purposes listed in schedule 1 an outlet of any size may open to sell only petrol, or only medical and surgical appliances. Off licences, restaurants and take-aways may also open. That is a clear and very limited list, to which is added another category which may prove to be anything but clear and not nearly as limited as the hon. Member intends. That is any shop situated at a railway, bus or coach station or in the terminal buildings of a harbour, seaport or hoverport.
  I suspect that the hon. Member may be surprised at the vigorous retail development that he may unleash at such travel points if his Bill becomes law. The parade of shops at Victoria station may give him a restrained pretaste of what could be in store.
  Elsewhere only some shops of less than 1,500 sq ft may open on a Sunday. That is shops of, say, 50ft by 30ft or less. Anything larger will have to shut. That size limit is clear—although I think that there will have to be a more detailed definition to determine whether, for example, the Bill means selling area or includes store rooms.
  What is less clear is which small shops will be able to open under the categories set out in schedule 3. I take it that the hon. Member for Ogmore and his friends have sought to get away from the Shops Act 1950 list of goods which may be legally sold on Sundays and which has created so many anomalies and excited so much derision, and to restrict in future by the type of business that the shop does.
  We can all sympathise with that objective, but the hon. Gentleman has set himself a deceptively hard task of devising a formula that effectively permits the categories that he thinks should be free to open to do so, without creating massive loopholes through which every other small retailer can scramble. He has sought to do that by permitting to qualify for opening on Sunday only those small shops that have 80 per cent. of their annual turnover from products listed in one of the categories in schedule 3. I realise that that is to ensure that a store which, for example, sells mainly carpets but also stocks some confectionery and magazines cannot pass itself off as a newsagent.
  However, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman's intentions aright in his anxiety to prevent abuse, I fear, like the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson), that he will find he has shut many more small shops than he expects. To take the first category in his list, I suspect that many small shops that seek to trade as convenience stores will find that more than 20 per cent. of their turnover is in goods other than those in the very short
  648
  list in schedule 3. What about light bulbs, for example, or fuse wires to go with domestic cleaning material? I realise that any list will create anomalies. They cannot be avoided with any restrictive law. However, most successful small convenience shops, which effectively serve local community needs, generally cover a wider range of goods than he allows. Of course, they will not be able to restrict their range on Sundays, like such small shops which currently obey the 1950 Act, because the test will no longer be what they sell on Sundays but what proportion of their trade in the past year was in the permitted goods—80 per cent. is a high threshold.
  Again, I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman's Bill did not close a large number of newspaper shops that now legally open. For under his newsagent category, 80 per cent. of an eligible newsagent's turnover in the previous year must have been in newspapers, magazines, stationery, tobacco and confectionery. Many small shops, thinking themselves, and being thought of by their customers, as bona fide small newsagents, will find that more than 20 per cent. of their turnover had been in other products. They will nevertheless have to shut.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ogmore and his friends have done any formal study or research to determine what the impact will actually be. I am merely giving voice to my expectations, having read his Bill with great care. But the Government intend to publish alongside their own Bill a formal critique commissioned from London Economics as to the general effects of reform, so that before Members vote on the Government Bill, they can see what they are letting their constituents in for. I shall seek to ensure that we can throw some objective light on the questions that I have just asked.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I have worked with the Minister for several years and I have always found him amiable and helpful. The Government have made promises on the REST proposals of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. I hope that help will be forthcoming even though the Government have their own option of total deregulation.
  The Minister has made nit-picking points about our proposals. Only this week the Library produced a study for me of the number of amendments that the Government table on their own Bills immediately after they are presented on Second Reading. I shall not go into the figures. They are formidable. On the monstrous Bill on which we have had all-night debates, the Government tabled some 400 amendments. There is no doubt that my Bill is far more controversial than the Maastricht Bill. [Laughter.] But the Minister should have listened to my opening remarks. Of course, Keep Sunday Special is prepared to listen to all his arguments in Committee. The Sunday trading shops unit that he has just set up could have been set up six and a half years ago. The 42 paragraphs are being looked through and Keep Sunday Special's legal advisers have the answers to most of his questions.
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall come to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. Of course, we shall co-operate with Keep Sunday Special to ensure that the campaign's objectives are properly reflected in the Government Bill. I do not accept, however, that I am nitpicking, because cumulatively my arguments go to the heart of the Bill and what it will mean in practice. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's opening speech and I

  649
  hope that he will listen to me and read mine. It is supposed to be helpful to his campaign so that the legislation can be drafted in a form that meets its intentions and the House can vote on them, rather than voting on measures that they do not intend, which would happen with the present Bill.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, but I am giving way in ways that I said that I would not.
  Mr. Anderson: During the time that that exercise is carried out, until the Government Bill comes into operation some time in 1994, are the Government prepared to countenance continued law breaking?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the present law is crystal clear on one point. The enforcement of the law belongs to local authorities, which have a duty to consider a number of factors and the best way to enforce the law in their area. It is difficult for local authorities to enforce the law when this legislation is before the House and it is apparent that the Government intend to introduce legislation. At present, it is up to the local authorities to decide and until the law is changed that is where responsibility must finally lie.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall not give way again because I have done so too many times. I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak and that I should help the House to come to a sensible conclusion by making other matters clear.
  I shall take one more of the seven categories in schedule 3. Souvenir, postcard and fancy goods shops of the sort that cater for tourists may open, according to the Bill, if their turnover is at least 80 per cent. in the permitted range of goods and if they are situated in a seaside holiday area. That would mean that such shops would have to close in inland holiday areas such as Bath, Harrogate or London, which attracts more tourists than any other part of the country. In summer, it is hardly possible to move along the pavement in Westminster, so great is the press of foreign visitors. I wonder whether the hon. Member means to discriminate in that way.
  The 80 per cent. rule will also close a great many garden centres, as has been said this morning. Power tools, lawn mowers, garden furniture, paving stones and sheds will, in many cases, make up more than 20 per cent. of their turnover during the year. Their representative trade body believes that closure will be the result.
  Again, I wonder whether the hon. Member can tell the House what studies have been done. Can he enlighten the House as to the proportion of garden centres that he will be closing? It is an issue which the Government hope to be able to illuminate with some objective data when the Government Bill comes before the House, as we believe that it is essential for information of that type to be available if hon. Members are to come to an informed conclusion.
  Apart from the uncertainty of the effect, to which I have referred, there is a practical difficulty with the qualification tests. Shops would need to keep special records specifying turnover in particular goods for particular periods. Many do not keep such records at present. Shops with computer-operated tills would probably have no great
  650
  difficulty in doing so, but that means that the Bill discriminates against small traders, which the hon. Member rightly wishes to encourage.
  Local authorities will be obliged to collect turnover data and process it, because they will have a duty to enforce the Bill. That would be a considerable bureaucratic task and the cost of that bureaucracy would be passed on, through shopkeepers, to customers.
  I must mention another area of uncertainty. The Bill gives local authorities discretion over whether to permit registration for opening. That could close all shops, apart from the few listed in schedule 1 to the Bill. Local authorities would be able to decide whether to permit general convenience stores, newsagents, video hire shops, and shops at galleries, museums and zoos to open on Sundays. Some—no doubt most and perhaps all—would register those shops that met the basic criteria in the Bill, but others might take a more stringent attitude and could, as the Bill is drafted, be fully within their rights to refuse registration for reasons that have nothing to do with retailing, or for reasons that are outside the shopkeeper's control, such as litter. That could easily lead to variations in the application of the law within and between authorities. Similar competing businesses could find themselves subject to different decisions.
  Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way as I must make progress.
  Local discretion is a valid approach, but the way that the Bill is drafted could result in shopkeepers changing the thrust of their marketing to meet the turnover requirement, install complicated machinery to measure turnover in the way required by the Bill and even shift walls to fit into the space requirement, only to find that, having done all that, the local authority turns down their application for registration for entirely unconnected reasons.
  There is another effect of the Bill to which I should draw attention. It uses an entirely new definition of a shop. The perfectly valid and understandable aim is to ensure that estate agents, travel agents and perhaps some businesses offering financial services—such as insurance brokers, banks and building societies—should no longer be able to trade on Sundays. But, in doing that, the hon. Member has also brought within the ambit of the Bill a wide range of other businesses. Those include osteopaths, dentists and doctors, accountants and lawyers and could even take in breakdown services such as the Automobile Association. I very much doubt whether that is the hon. Member's intention, as many such businesses offer essential emergency services. But that is, I believe, the effect of the Bill as drafted.
  The hon. Member is rightly concerned that local authorities should neither be out of pocket nor make a profit from operating the registration scheme required in the Bill. The Bill therefore provides that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should set fee levels for each local authority separately, so that each recoups its costs but no more. To do that, it would be necessary to collect very detailed expenditure information from each local authority with a responsibility to enforce the provisions of the Bill, to process the data and predict what

  651
  the likely volume of business for each will be in the following year. That would constitute an expensive and unwieldy bureaucracy.
  The hon. Member intends to provide local authorities with penalties which have real teeth. Under the Bill, shopkeepers trading in defiance of its provisions could go to prison for up to a year. I am sure that many hon. Members will agree that the penalty is disproportionate. It is contrary to the widely held view that imprisonment should be restricted to violent and persistent crime where there is no alternative. It cannot be right that a shopkeeper should be liable to a stiffer term of imprisonment for opening his or her shop on Sunday than if he or she were to assault a police officer in the execution of his duty.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way. As it is, there are a number of other issues that I would have raised had I not already taken more time than I intended.
  I began by congratulating the hon. Member for Ogmore and I did so sincerely—I realise that, as much of my speech has been critical of his Bill, my congratulations may not have seemed sincere. The hon. Gentleman seeks to legislate on a notoriously difficult and complex subject. It is right for me to explore some of the problems inherent in his approach before the House comes to a decision.
  Earlier this week I was delighted to receive a letter from Dr. Schluter—to whom the hon. Gentleman paid tribute—confirming that the Keep Sunday Special campaign will work with officials at the Home Office to help us to give clear legislative effect to the intentions of the Keep Sunday Special campaign section of the Government Bill. I hope that, by highlighting some of the problems, I have assisted in that process. It will not serve the interests of the Keep Sunday Special campaign if its model is widely seen to be inoperable or flawed. It will not help the Government satisfactorily to resolve the general issue if they know that, should the House choose it, one of the models in their Bill will have to be heavily amended to make it work. Much more drafting attention and thought must be lavished upon the Bill if it is to be coherent legislation giving full effect to the hon. Gentleman's intention.
  I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to be flexible. However, the changes that are needed are more than can easily be managed in Committee on a private Member's Bill. As I have said, the best way to untie the Sunday trading knot is to examine and debate the competing solutions that will be on offer in the Government's forthcoming Bill. The hon. Member for Ogmore has been instrumental in bringing about a useful debate and for that I and the House are very much in his debt. I hope that he will agree that the best course is the one that I have suggested and that he will not press his Bill to a Second Reading so that it can rematerialise more perfectly drafted as part of the Government's options Bill.
  Mr. Ray Powell: The Minister suggests that we should not press the Bill into Committee. I intend to do so. A booklet published by the Library on Shops Acts and their history since 1667, when the first such Bill was introduced, shows that most were private Members' Bills. Perhaps the Minister will remember that before he rejects the Bill.
  Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate that the Shops Act is very much the product of private Members' efforts. Perhaps that is why we are in such difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I entirely understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to press his Bill to a Second Reading, but I hope that he will reflect on what I have said and not seek to do that. By following my suggestions he will not merely expedite the business of the House but will do a practical service for his own cause.
  12.41 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on his success in the ballot and on his persistence in trying to bring new regulations to the chaotic practice of Sunday trading. My hon. Friend teased me at the beginning of his speech. I told him in advance that I would not be able to support him in the Lobby. A private Members' Bill is subject to a free vote and in due course I shall explain the tradition of the Opposition Front Bench in the matter.
  I have great sympathy with the sentiment that Sunday is special. I like nothing better than to lie in bed on a Sunday morning feeling that I have no reason to get up and wishing that everyone else had the same choice. I would prefer that people were not rushing off in their cars and that there was still a sense that Sunday was a day of rest. However, I am in a minority.
  It is quite clear that the major changes in our society that have led to the commercialisation of Sunday have not been democratically decided. None the less, most people are positive in their acceptance of a changing way of life. The House should be in no doubt that Sunday trading debates, while focused on the regulation of shopping hours, reflect major changes already under way in society and have far-reaching implications for its future development.
  Sadly, there has been far too little effective democratic debate and control over the nature of urban development in the past 30 years. Much of the changed way of life that we experience today has been dictated purely by commercial considerations by big companies. In 1950, when the Shops Act came into force, there were just under 700 supermarkets of more than 2,500 sq ft. Today there are more than 700 of more than 25,000 sq ft each. In 1950 there were 145,000 independent grocers. Today there are just 35,000. Some 30 years ago there were no do-it-yourself shops, no shopping centres or garden centres, and no video shops. As hon. Members have said, there has been a massive growth in out-of-town sites, with all that that implies for town centres, traffic flows, pollution and private car use. Decisions on where and how we shop have largely been made for us by the retailers, but when we shop is still subject to some controls. We cannot allow purely commercial interests to dictate the pattern of change.
  Mr. Stern: I am very interested in what the hon. Lady says because many hon. Members who represent urban constituencies will be aware of the public anger that is caused by, for example, applications to develop new supermarkets. An application has been made for a new supermarket in my constituency. If the hon. Lady is saying, as I take it she is, that the Opposition intend to look at proposals for changes to the planning law, or to other areas of the law that affect these developments, may

  653
  I ask her to make those discussions, on a genuine cross-party basis, as open as possible, for they are ones in which both sides of the House will wish to join?
  Ms. Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not disagree with him.
  I referred to the purely commercial interests that have dictated the pattern of change. Many of those commercial interests have in recent times attempted to dictate the pattern of change by flouting the law. It would be wrong if their actions were to find easy acquiescence in the House. We have a duty when debating the Bill to reflect not just on how things are and how they have changed but on the consequences of further change.
  Those who have campaigned locally against the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and those who have signed petitions opposing the loss of Sunday trading at their local supermarkets are making a judgment about the current state of affairs. Today, only a minority of large shops in England and Wales open on Sundays. Those who work on Sundays and those who shop on Sundays may well be satisfied by the present arrangements, but their views cannot be interpreted as support for new laws to give all premises the right to open on Sundays. Although people may oppose the loss of a facility, which would occur under the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill, they may thoroughly approve of the fact that the majority of retail outlets still remain closed.
  I believe that any decision of Parliament on Sunday trading will have a profound effect on our quality of life. Whatever the change, there will be an impact on working practices, on social life and on local environments. It is for that reason that Opposition Front-Bench Members believe that the matter must be decided by Government legislation, to be decided by the whole House on a free vote. That is why I shall abstain today.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Ruddock: No, I do not have time to give way.
  I am outraged by the Minister's complacency in his acceptance that it will not be possible to bring legislation before the House this Session. We see it as our task to try to ensure that it does come before the House this Session and that the Government bring forward real choices, accurately representing the three or even four options that have been worked through by the pressure groups.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms. Ruddock: We also intend to continue to press for a free vote on every aspect of the proceedings that would be taken—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
  Ms. Ruddock: —in the House on a Government Bill. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend saying that Opposition Front-Bench Members oppose the Bill, not because it could easily be amended and not because there would be a free vote—hon. Members are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, if given the opportunity—but because the Government have not introduced a Bill outlining their alternatives and that even if we have to wait
  654
  until another Session for the introduction of such a Bill the view of Opposition Front-Bench Members is that nevertheless we should not take a decision today?
  Ms. Ruddock: We believe that the issue is so complex that the matters that need to be debated should be debated in Government time, when we could expect the participation of all Members of the House; but I repeat that we believe that the process must be undertaken on a free vote and that all stages of the proceedings should be conducted on that basis.
  Mr. David Nicholson rose—
  Ms. Ruddock: Let me refer now to some specific aspects of my hon. Friend's Bill. In spelling out some of the consequences of his proposals, many of my comments might seem—
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry, but I intend not to give way, or Back-Bench Members will accuse me of having taken their time.
  Let me now refer to some specific aspects of my hon. Friend's Bill. I want to spell out some of the consequences of the Bill, and in so doing I might appear to be critical, but that is inevitable when a measure reflects only one aspect of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on fitting his proposals so neatly into the REST acronym. There is good sense in legislating for the opening of a range of outlets which clearly facilitate leisure activities, allow for emergencies and enhance social gatherings. No doubt all hon. Members envisage my hon. Friend's immense difficulties in deciding what should be exempted from the general prohibition on Sunday trading and what should not.
  However, sadly, anomalies exist, particularly with regard to the list of goods and the 80 per cent. rule. Perhaps the greatest anomaly for the REST proposals is the exclusion of DIY centres. For many people DIY is a source of recreation, and there is clearly a proven consumer demand. Furthermore, the opening of DIY stores on Sundays offers a chance for families to shop and enjoy DIY together. I can readily understand my hon. Friend's difficulties in that respect. If a large DIY store is to open on an out-of-town site on Sundays, then why not the adjoining supermarket? I appreciate that that would appear to be the thin end of the wedge, but I have no doubt, either, that there will be considerable public anger if DIY stores that presently open on Sundays were to be closed. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted the need to examine that issue again in Committee.
  The Bill attempts to protect small shops—a laudable objective with which most of us would agree. But there are those who regard themselves as owning small shops, such as relatively small grocery stores, and they are probably so regarded by the public. They would be obliged to close because they had a square footage slightly in excess of 1,500. Again my hon. Friend is well advised to accept the need to re-examine those space distinctions in Committee.
  Although I felt it necessary to point out some of the difficulties, I acknowledge the extent to which my hon. Friend has obviously tried to balance different interests. We very much support and endorse his concern for those who work or might be pressed to work on Sundays. The

  655
  position of the retail work force is crucial to the debate, but in order to put my remarks into context I should like briefly to consider current working practices in Britain.
  The normal working day of nine to five is now a minority activity, involving 41 per cent. of men and a mere 26 per cent. of women. Both sexes now enter the work force later and leave earlier. Working patterns have been further radically transformed by the change in women's work. In 1950, only 26 per cent. of married women worked outside the home. Today the figure is 70 per cent. Also, 25 per cent. of the British work force now work part time, and 45 per cent. of working women are part-time workers.
  There are many implications. For some people it is a matter of survival in a recession, taking the only work that is available to them, but for others it is a matter of choice. Part-time work often means work of lesser status, poorer promotion prospects and lower pay. Whatever the cause, the consequences of changed working patterns are important to the debate and are reflected, too, in changed domestic patterns, not least opportunities and time for shopping as consumers or working as retail staff.
  In my experience, those who work on Sundays for companies such as Tesco with a recognised trade union do so voluntarily. They are paid double wages and they find the atmosphere in the shop more relaxed on Sundays. Many are young people without family responsibilities. But even women with families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) pointed out, admit to welcoming a few hours out of the house, leaving father to take charge of child care for a change.
  Statistics are difficult to come by and are subject to challenge by rival camps, but it is possible that as many as 500,000 retail workers now work on Sundays and that as many as 140,000 of them could lose that opportunity if the Bill became law.
  People today do not want a prescription for Sunday behaviour, but, clearly, they want choice. No retail workers should be forced to work on Sunday. We totally deplore the move by some companies to issue seven-day contracts, which give people no control over their working lives and which deprive them of the opportunity to earn a premium wage on a Sunday. Furthermore, a survey conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that more than half of the women respondents and a third of men would find it impossible or inconvenient to work on Sundays. That represents a powerful expression of public opinion which should be respected.
  A survey conducted by the university of Stirling identified the prime reason for people's willingness to work on Sundays—premium pay. Without that, those who work on Sundays today would be unwilling as the rest of us to do so. I warn those who are enthusiastic for liberalisation that they are unlikely to find any support on the Labour Benches unless the rights and potential rights of shop workers are protected.
  Mr. Ray Powell: It is important that we make the position clear. My hon. Friend said that those on our Front Bench have decided that they would prefer this matter to be dealt with by Government legislation, subject to a free vote. However, we have had no clear Government statement as to whether they are prepared to give a free vote on the question of employment rights and
  656
  employment protection. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will make it abundantly clear to the Government that such a Bill would not be acceptable in any shape or form to the Labour party unless there is a free vote on employment protection. That condition is important bearing in mind that the Government have already decided to dispose of what little is left of the wages councils.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend will also look up the wonderful speech that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in 1986 which led to the defeat of the Government Bill by 14 votes, with 72 Conservative Members voting against the Government. Perhaps my hon. Friend will then reflect and change her mind on the speech that she is making today.
  Ms. Ruddock: I am aware, as I have already said today and on other occasions, that there will be support for liberalisation only, should that be the will of the House. That is the important issue. Support for liberalisation could not come from the Labour Benches unless it guaranteed employment protection. We have made that absolutely clear at all times.
  I invite the Minister, if he would be so kind, to get to his feet now and tell us that if the Government offer the options to which he referred, and if they accurately reflect the views of the major pressure groups, in two out of three cases, they must and will contain provisions for employment protection. We suggest to the Government that they must conduct such proceedings only and properly on a free vote.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Lady has made a great impact in this place, but she is relatively new to it. Perhaps she does not remember that Governments almost never give free votes on legislation that they introduce. The only true opportunity for a free vote is on days such as today, on a private Member's Bill.
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary said that there will be a free vote; that is on the record. We have pressed for clarification, and we want a free vote on every stage of the proceedings. The Minister seems to be refusing to get to his feet, and I am sure that hon. Members will take note and decide accordingly.
  I was warning hon. Members who are enthusiastic about liberalisation of the unlikelihood of their receiving any support from my colleagues unless shop workers' rights, and potential shop workers' rights, are protected. I suspect that that will be anathema to the Minister whose colleagues have been so active in dismantling workers' rights and who, even now, in face of this debate, seek to remove the protective floor of shop workers' wages by abolishing the wages council.
  Mr. Couchman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Ruddock: I cannot because I should exceed my time.
  While more people may be willing to accept more flexible working patterns, they do not expect to be treated as robots. The debate on hours and patterns of work is of Europewide concern. The European Community draft working hours directive is another possible influence on the "keep Sunday special" debate. The directive establishes a 48-hour working week, four weeks' paid holiday and at least 35 consecutive hours off each week. Predictably, the directive is being strongly resisted by the Government, but

  657
  its significance for Sunday trading lies in the fact that it applies to full-time and part-time workers. There is a debate in continental Europe about whether the 35-hour rest period would cover Sundays.
  Clearly there are many aspects of the debate that need to be pursued and which lie outside the scope of my hon. Friend's Bill, for example, the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council reflected in today's speech by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and the proposals of the OPEN Group which appear to be something of a compromise between the positions adopted by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the SHRC.
  There is also much concern and confusion in some sectors, exemplified by representations made to me on behalf of the Trustee Savings bank of anti-competitive practice that might become embodied in reform.
  What cannot be in doubt is the long-overdue need to legislate. The Government have allowed themselves to become a laughing stock, with many of their closest political allies openly flouting the law. Sunday trading anomalies abound in the types of goods that can currently be sold legally in England and Wales and, most obviously, in the fact that over the border in Scotland any goods, with the exception of alcohol, may be legally sold on the Sabbath.
  Profound changes have occurred in society since the Shops Act 1950 was passed, and it seems likely that a consensus for change now exists in the House. That consensus supports a more liberal position than that adopted by my hon. Friend's Bill, but only a further and more comprehensive debate in Government time can determine that matter.
  In bringing us to this debate, my hon. Friend has provided an excellent opportunity for hon. Members to exercise their minds on this issue and for the public to be alerted to the complexity of reforming the law. I am particularly anxious that it is the public who will have been engaged as a result of our deliberations because a paradox must be resolved.
  I have no doubt that most people welcome the opportunity to shop on Sundays, but, at the same time, they still feel that it is and should be a slightly different and special day. In our modern and multicultural society, Sunday's religious significance has been diminished; but for most families, it is still the day when they are most likely to spend some time together at a meal or in some shared leisure activity. For many town dwellers it is a day when the roar of traffic is somewhat diluted, and it appears safer to walk in the streets.
  Although I do not believe that today is the day on which we can decide the weighty issue of Sunday trading, I seriously thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for enabling us to have what I believe will be the first of many important debates on the subject.
  1.4 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and the sponsors of the Bill. The attitude of the Front-Bench spokesmen both for the Government and for the Opposition is to be regretted. I say that if we want a free vote on Sunday trading, today is the day to have it. Today is the day for the House to let the Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides know exactly what its feeling is. As one who helped to defeat the Government on their previous proposal for
  658
  deregulation, I remind the Minister that the 14 Unionist Members of Parliament made up the majority at that time. I am glad that the House has learnt something from that experience and that we have the opportunity of the debate today.
  After God created man and woman he gave mankind two gifts—first, the institution of a day of rest and, secondly, the institution of marriage. Neither of those gifts are negative; they are positive. I could say that Adam knew that they were very positive. He got a most beautiful woman as his wife and he had no mother-in-law. I am sure that he must have been very happy. Of course, Eve could have balanced that out by saying that she had no mother-in-law either.
  Today I want to emphasise that man has a threefold relationship and each side needs to be fully catered for. He has a relationship to the world about him, a relationship to his fellows and a relationship to God. Except all three parts of man are fully catered for, he will not come to fulfilment or true, abiding happiness.
  We should cherish and safeguard the cessation of our usual employment on one day of the week and the turning of our minds to things that are spiritual and bring rest and relaxation. That is for the benefit of all mankind, whatever their religious views may be.
  This was said of a humble Back-Bench Member by the name of John Burns at the turn of the century:
  "He believed that the day of rest, commonly called Sunday, was the day which had done more than anything else to buttress and maintain that excellent institution called Home. Without Sunday the Home would cease to have that advantage which it had previously enjoyed, and no man could say that merely providing one day's rest in seven was as good as the universally accepted Sunday. In a word, the Sunday, as the day of rest, was from nearly every point of view a national treasure and an industrial advantage."
  I fully endorse that statement.
  A saying of Christ is often misquoted and misapplied with regard to Sunday observance. Christ said:
  "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."
  I shall illustrate the real meaning of that. When I drive on the road I drive on the left-hand side because the Highway Code says that I should. But if a child dashes out into the left-hand side of the road I immediately swerve to the right-hand side to avoid the child, because the Highway Code was made for man and not man for the Highway Code. Christ made it perfectly clear that there was to be a clear distinction on Sunday concerning the exemption of works of necessity and mercy. Those works of necessity and mercy can be done freely on Sundays.
  To get the best out of life physically, time is needed for relaxation. It is imperative for us all to relax physically, mentally and spiritually. Stress-related diseases are very common today. It is necessary for us all to have a period of unwinding. The frustration of tasks of constant repetition, the weary demands of an executive position and the strains of family worries mean that we all require a time of cessation from labour.
  God who gave us this ordinance know what was good for his creatures and we should rejoice in the opportunity of having rest. This commandment stands in scripture in the same category as the laws 'Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill". We should always remember this commandment's standing in Holy Writ.
  A famous Lord Chief Justice of the United Kingdom wrote four lines that are as applicable today as they were when he wrote them:

  659
  "A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content
  And health for the toils of tomorrow;
  But a Sabbath profaned, whate'er may be gained,
  Is a certain forerunner of sorrow."
  That Lord Chief Justice knew what he was saying many centuries ago.
  I welcome the main provisions of the Bill. It proposes a substantial increase in fines for illegal Sunday trading. The law and order Government should deal with the law breakers. I am amazed by those in my city of Belfast who say that they are catering for the general public by opening on Sunday, yet who say to their employees, "You must work on Sunday. If you work on Sunday, we shall give you 50 per cent. cash discounts on all you purchase." That is bribery and a threat and it should be stopped.
  If the Minister intends to wait another year before getting legislation on to the statute book, he must take measures to bring people in line with the law. The Government will put off legislation until people are agitating for shops to be kept open because so many of them are shopping on Sundays. A lobby is being created to help the Government to deregulate. That is the whole idea of putting off legislation time and again.
  I welcome the inclusion of worker protection in the Bill, but I hope that we can introduce protection for those who seek jobs. If a person seeking a job is told, "You cannot have a job unless you work on Sundays", he is immediately ineligible for that job. I welcome the fact that the precise definition of shops and retail businesses is spelt out in the Bill and the fact that exemption will be made on the basis of type of shop rather than on the basis of certain goods. That is a valuable step. In many cases, the definition of shops and places of business that should remain closed on Sunday is right.
  There are anomalies in all legislation and especially in this area. I am sure that those who oppose the Bill will latch on to and exploit every flaw that they can find. We had examples of that today from the hon. Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), from the Minister and, in some ways, from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock).
  There have been efforts to hatchet certain provisions in a way that is totally unacceptable to many hon. Members. The House should let the Bill have a fair wind. We should let it get into Committee and see what happens there. Who will lose by that? If the Minister is so eager to find out what Parliament thinks, he can help us to tell him today.
  I close by quoting Lord Macaulay when he introduced the Ten Hours Bill. He said:
  "We are not poorer, but richer, because we have, through many ages, rested from our labour one day in seven. That day is not lost. While industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory, a process is going on, quite as important to the wealth of nations as any process which is performed on more busy days. Man—the machine of machines—the machine compared with which all the contrivances of the Watts and Arkwrights are worthless—is repairing and winding up, so that he returns to his labours on Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirits and with renewed corporeal vigour."
  I suggest that we should have private Member's Bills on Mondays in future, instead of on Fridays.
  1.15 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: As the debate has progressed, I have become increasingly impressed by the wide range of support for the Bill. That is not accidental and it does not mean that hon. Members are mellowing. I do not remember ever being on the same side on any issue as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And that is not likely to happen again either.
  Mrs. Wise: Perhaps that is a relief to both of us.
  On this occasion, the support arises, not by accident, but because the arguments are so powerful. That is something that we should welcome. I welcome the fact that I could admire the words of the hon. Member for Lancaster.
  The arguments for keeping Sunday special are powerful. Some of us have particular aspects about which we are especially passionate.
  In that respect, I must refer to the sad and remarkable circumstances in which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) was able to quote a trade union leader advocating that members of this place, including Labour Members, should enter the Lobby and oppose a Bill whose two main principles are that as few people as possible should work on a Sunday and that those who do should receive double time and real protection. It is particularly remarkable that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen could quote that trade union leader in the light of the unanimous decision of the TUC last September that Sundays should remain a rest day and that there should continue to be legal restrictions on Sunday trading.
  I speak for shop workers, for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and for the vast majority of trade unionists in this country. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who called on the House to vote against the Bill because it called for double-time pay, wanted the House to listen to the words of John Edmonds. I look forward to a time when the hon. Member for Gillingham asks us to listen to a trade union leader again.
  As president of USDAW, I can inform the House that we have about 350,000 members, the vast majority of whom work in retailing. I can therefore claim to know something about the subject. One particular aspect irritates me, and that is the problem with DIY.
  It is no accident that the Bill does not include DIY stores. This is because of the nature of those stores. They sell a vast range of goods. If we include DIY stores in Sunday shopping legislation, how do we keep out the rest of the high street stores which sell articles such as curtains and lights? Once we allow DIY stores to trade, we enshrine unfair competition into law unless the provision is extended to department stores such as British Home Stores, to specialist shops and all the rest. I do not believe that a Bill should enshrine unfair competiton in law. That is why DIY stores are not included in the Bill. Garden centres are a different matter, and they are included in the Bill. We want garden centres to open. I want to be able to go to a garden centre; it is a day out.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mrs. Wise: No, I will not give way. I have not intervened at all because of time.

  661
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that his life was enriched by taking his family shopping on a Sunday. I suggest that he gives up a couple of his other jobs and uses that time to take his family shopping. Clause 4(3) covers garden centres properly. If it does not, we will correct it. For goodness sake: garden centres are not the issue; the issue is the Keep Sunday Special campaign, the high street shops and the big stores.
  We have been told that jobs are threatened by the Bill and that they will be created by Sunday trading; trade will happen on Sunday if it is legalised. It happens now, although it is illegal. Most people do not shop on Sundays. Trade is the key word. Trade will move; it will not increase. People spend what they can on the goods that they buy. I challenge any hon. Member to say that someone has come to his or her surgery and said, "I could not spend my weekly income because the shop was not open on Sunday." People come to my surgery and complain about their weekly income. They say that they cannot afford to buy the goods that they need. That is a different question altogether.
  If we want to get rid of the recession, there are political actions which should be taken. The Bill is not about creating jobs. A large retailer tried to tell me—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen was present at the time—that there is a Sunday pound which one can apparently spend only on a Sunday. I throw that in to show the level of briefing given to hon. Members by opponents of the Bill. I have never seen a Sunday pound; there is none in my pocket or purse.
  Trade will move. Some jobs will be created by Sunday trading, and people will be compensated for that increase in trade by losing their jobs during the week or having their hours compulsorily reduced. The effect of that will be a greater casualisation in retailing.
  What do customers want? They want well-paid staff who have a real stake in a job and an interest. They do not want one-day-only workers. They do not want temporary or casual workers who are pushed into jobs or driven to them. They want well-trained, regular staff who have confidence in the work that they do. The Bill will help to maintain that.
  Unregulated Sunday trading or widespread commonplace trading will lead to more casualisation. More casualisation will be to the dreadful disadvantage of trade unions, and John Edmonds should know that. Unregulated Sunday trading will lead to a worse service for customers. I object to both results. I favour the Bill.
  Mr. Graham: As a Scotsman, I have shopped in a do-it-yourself shop on a Sunday. On a Sunday a couple of weeks before Christmas I tried to buy some glue to stick a plastic strip in my bathroom. I stopped a young girl and asked her whether she could tell me the appropriate glue to stick plastic strip. She said, "I haven't got a clue". She worked only part time and did not have any qualifications.
  Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend has distinguished between casual, one-day only work and part-time work. My union organises part-time workers. They can be as regular and well trained as full-time workers. Casual workers cannot be regular and well trained by the nature of the matter. I shall explain to my hon. Friend later how he can ensure that he gets his DIY materials but not on a Sunday, even in Scotland.
  662
  My union organises shop workers in Scotland. Those workers are not happy about the situation in Scotland. They want protection. They want restriction. I would not have been surprised if our members in Scotland had gone to the rostrum at our annual delegate meeting and said, "We have to do it. Why should not people in England and Wales do it?" That has never happened. My union is united in its opposition to generalised Sunday trading in Scotland, England and Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, referred to a supermarket which trades on a Sunday and has a recognised trade union. Yes, it has. That union is my union. We represent our members when we say that the Opposition Front-Bench team should support the Bill today. I can tell my hon. Friend that some supermarkets and other traders who previously favoured keeping Sunday special have been driven into the opposite camp by unfair competition and the recession. That is no answer. My hon. Friend should listen to that recognised trade union and act on its advice. I am glad to say that a good many Front-Bench Opposition Members will vote in the Lobby for my hon. Friend's Bill. I am pleased about that.
  I conclude by urging that everyone who is interested in trade unionism, worker protection and family life, and in keeping Sunday special, maintaining the quality of our lives and saying that there is more to life than buying and selling—let us have one day which is as free of it as possible—should support my hon. Friend's Bill.
  1.25 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I take a particular interest in the Bill and the whole issue of Sunday trading because I have the honour of being the parliamentary adviser to the Horticultural Trades Association. That is, of course, declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The Horticultural Trades Association has among its members many thousands of people who operate garden centres both large and small. Under current legislation, certain of the items that they stock may be sold on a Sunday, although obvious anomalies exist. For example, one can buy a shrub but not the compost in which to plant it. One can buy a tree but not the stake that needs to be inserted at the time of planting.
  The garden centre industry has developed enormously during the past 20 years. Many centres are now leading local leisure attractions, selling items which do not necessarily fit into the narrow category of gardening goods. However, in practice most local authorities treat garden centres rather than merely the goods that they sell as exempt from current Sunday trading laws.
  The importance of Sunday trading for garden centres cannot be underestimated. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) express support for garden centres. The annual turnover of the industry was£800 million in 1991–92, of which 40 per cent. was earned on Sundays.
  Gardening is a leisure pursuit in which people tend to indulge on their free weekends. People certainly want to visit garden centres on Sundays. Equally importantly, people want to work in garden centres on Sundays. There is never any shortage of applicants for part-time weekend jobs, or volunteers from the full-time staff.
  When the Bill was first proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the garden centre industry had

  663
  some difficulty with parts of it. We therefore met the hon. Gentleman to discuss our anxieties. I should like to put on record my gratitude for the way in which he was prepared to accommodate a great many of the matters that bothered us. I regret that he is not in his seat to receive that tribute.
  I believe that when the hon. Gentleman drafted his Bill he had other sectors of retailing in mind and was anxious not to impinge on the widely acceptable activities of garden centres.
  However, I have a number of worries about the Bill as it is drafted. First, on registration, I worry that the need to demonstrate that at least 80 per cent. of a retailer's annual turnover is in permitted goods will lead to greater form-filling and bureaucracy, especially for smaller centres which may not analyse sales in such detail. Small businesses need less form-filling, not more.
  I am concerned about replacing existing anomalies with a new set. For example, it is proposed that establishments classed as farm shops will be allowed to stay open for longer than those classed as garden centres. Given that many goods, including plants, are common to both, that will give an unnatural competitive advantage to some outlets.
  Further anomalies arise because of the mix of products included on the list for garden retailers. Garden centre operators will have to demonstrate that at least 80 per cent. of their sales come from goods on that list, yet there are some obvious omissions. The list does not include seeds, bulbs, garden furniture, barbecues, gardening books or conservatories and sheds, but those products form a substantial proportion of turnover for many garden centres and their exclusion will prevent firms from reaching the 80 per cent. threshold.
  The employment protection aspects of the Bill are another concern. I am sure that the House will understand when I say that garden centres operate seven days a week, with the majority of trading taking place at the weekend. As I mentioned, in practice garden centres have no problems in recruiting people to work on Sundays, but allowing staff to opt out of working on the busiest day of the week would cause serious problems for the industry.
  The fact that those genuine and important concerns exist, despite the generous concessions made by the hon. Member for Ogmore, demonstrates how difficult it is to legislate on Sunday trading. If one simply constructs a new list, one replaces one set of anomalies with another. The law would be set like a snapshot of a moment in time, unable to develop as markets develop, suffering from the problem that affects encylopaedias, which are out of date the moment that they are printed.
  Having said that, there is no doubt that the Bill helps garden centres by preserving their position in the retail industry, which enables many of them to trade when other shops are prevented from doing so. For that reason, there is some merit in the Bill, especially given the sympathetic understanding demonstrated by the hon. Member for Ogmore towards representations from the industry. However, the Government have since published their proposals on Sunday trading, which must alter our view of the Bill. It is to the credit of the hon. Member for Ogmore that his persistence has contributed to the Government's move, but, paradoxically, the Bill has brought about its own prematurity.
  664
  It is only right that we should look to the Government to introduce legislation to deal with an issue that causes such strong feeling throughout the country. For that reason, I believe that we should not proceed with the Bill but should work on the Government's proposals. I hope that the Home Secretary will note some of the concerns that I have outlined and will be as accommodating as the hon. Member for Ogmore has been.
  1.33 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps you share my amusement and amazement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the proceedings of the House this week. Perhaps it is because the Ulster Unionists have been asking for guidance, a lead and partnership that both the Government and Opposition Front Benches seem to be moving towards a Government of national unity. They seem to be working for their own ends and not necessarily for the well-being of the country. Therefore I speak in support of the Bill, so that the mind of the House, which represents the nation, may be made plain.
  I understood the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) to say that she had seen the Government's proposal. However, I understood from the Minister that the Government were still working on it. Therefore, there is no reason for hon. Members to say that they will vote against today's Bill in light of the Government proposal, as they have not seen it. We have heard the suggestion that the Government may ask us to vote on three sets of proposals, but they have yet to introduce the Bill. We have a Bill before us which we can examine in Committee.
  Some of the arguments deployed against the Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) have been specious. One argument was that, in a short time, the Bill would be outdated. The same hon. Member who said that was a member of the Government who introduced the Bill establishing the community charge. That legislation has not lasted for even five years, so it is illogical to suggest that we should not accept the hon. Gentleman's Bill because the evolutionary processes will make it outdated.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) gave us an idyllic description of Sunday shopping as a family event. As he did so I was reminded of an article in one of the newspapers that described how a husband and wife in a supermarket had to chase their three boisterous children to try to get them under control. The husband said to his wife, "I told you that if we had more than two, we would be outnumbered and wouldn't be able to control them." Therefore, using illustrations of idyllic shopping on Sunday as an argument for not regulating Sunday trading does not stand up.
  Arguments have been made for deregulation. Last Monday evening at a retail association reception, a spokesman said that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had introduced 105 new regulations to take effect in retail shops. We cannot have it both ways—we cannot demand deregulation when it suits us and regulations when that suits us.
  In supporting the Bill, I remind those who have spoken lovingly of gardens of the opening comment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It all began in a garden and, because of disobedience, the people got out of the garden. We should consider whether the discontent and growing lawlessness in this country might have been aggravated by the fact that, for years, the House

  665
  and the Government have not ensured that the laws of the land are implemented. Our laws have been intact, but the Government have turned a blind eye, under the guise that they have to wait for European Court decisions. It was to the shame of the Government that they did not give an undertaking to local authorities that, had the European Court come to another decision, they would have bailed out the local authorities that were maintaining the law.
  Therefore, we should bear in mind the quotation:
  "A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content".
  Perhaps discontent arises because we no longer observe the Sabbath. Some people will suggest that the hon. Member for Antrim, North and I work on Sundays, so do not know what we are talking about. We do not work on Sundays, we worship on Sundays and say liturgies, which is a delight. We work for the rest of the week which allows us to worship on Sunday.
  I ask all hon. Members to think of the leadership that they are giving to the country. One cannot serve God and mammon. The big retailers and multiples ask us to serve mammon. Although there has been some decline in religion, it would be wise for us to call people back to God.
  1.39 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am one of the survivors of the 1986 debate on Sunday trading. Today's debate has been extremely lively, interesting and, at times, amusing and much good wit and humour have made it a delight. We have had some good speeches, not least that by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) who, without a shadow of a doubt, delivered her best-ever speech. She was rumbustious and positive and I liked what she said. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was also one of his best. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman and he raised issues with which I and many other hon. Members were in agreement.
  The House is divided on both sides and within parties and the only common ground is that the present law on Sunday trading must be changed. I am proud to be a Conservative Member, at times with a small c, because I believe that we should try to conserve the best of the customs, traditions of Britain and our heritage and I am loyal, I hope, to the traditional way of life.
  The form of Sunday that we presently enjoy evolved over many years. During that time we have seen many social changes and Sunday has changed with them. The debate is about how to manage that change with least detriment to society as a whole. There are two stark choices—nothing in between. We believe either in total deregulation or in some form of regulation to protect the quality of life about which I have spoken.
  I entirely agree with the many hon. Members who said that Sunday is the only commonly held day for family rest, recreation and worship which are essential in the busy, almost frantic lifestyle that so many of us live. There is a change of pace on Sunday which is conducive to refreshment of body and soul. If we throw that out, it will be detrimental to the people of our country.
  Hon. Members have rightly mentioned the role of people who will be required to work on Sundays against their will. I accept that many women wish to work on Sunday and enjoy that opportunity. For example, many lonely widows would want that opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) read to us a letter from one of his constituents. The
  666
  greatest and most valuable contribution that that lady can make to her family is her time so that children, father and mother can build up the relationship which in future will stand the children in good stead.
  I know that those views are unpopular in this day and age, but I adhere to them. The deterioration in family life over the past two, three or four decades is currently exemplified by the lawlessness in society, the violence everywhere and the indiscipline of young people and adults. Without cohesion when children are being brought up, discipline or self-discipline cannot be imposed later in their lives.
  As many hon. Members have said, Sunday, as the only commonly held day, is vital for such cohesion. The social changes consequent upon changing the trading patterns of Sunday may start slowly, but in due course we shall look back upon them and say, "Why did we allow this to happen in our name because it has changed once again the focus of family life to the detriment of community life and everything else?"
  We have also observed the distortion in the retail sector over a considerable period of time. There have been many changes, including the change away from the high street towards out-of-town shopping centres. There has also been change within the food sector, with supermarkets becoming fewer in number and bigger and having a greater and greater market share, for all sorts of reasons. That is not, overall, in the best interests of consumers. Once again, may I express my conservative belief in a viable independent retail sector and in smaller family-run businesses that provide a good service.
  We are all aware that the small corner shop has been hit by Sunday opening. We are also aware that families have a finite amount of money to spend. That finite amount is even more tightly drawn during a recession. Seven-day opening will result in costs and overheads rising. A further share of the market will be taken away from smaller retail outlets that may be unable to open or that may not wish to open on Sundays. That will eventually lead to consumers having less choice. There will be a reduction in retail outlets. There will certainly be fewer of the smaller and medium-sized outlets which need our interest and, to a certain extent, our protection.
  The solution of those who favour total deregulation is that shops should be allowed to open for six hours. I am the first to admit that this appears to be a simple solution, but we must not be fooled by it. What they really mean is total deregulation. They believe that if the House were to pass such a measure, it would be the first acceptable step towards winning the bigger apple of total deregulation that is fully supported by many of the big multiples. They have generously funded a nationwide campaign to convert Members of Parliament, opinion-makers outside the House and others. By having been allowed to break the law, they are now able to turn round and say, "Look, so many people want to shop and so many people want to be employed on Sundays."
  It is not good enough that the Government of the day, whom I support, have allowed that situation to develop. I deplore the way in which the big stores have flagrantly broken the letter of the law by opening on Sundays, to the detriment of their law-abiding competitors, which, in some cases, have been forced to join them in order to retain their share of the market and to prevent it from being further eroded. The simplicity of the six-hour solution must he seen through. It is a Trojan horse. No cast-iron guarantee

  667
  can be given by anybody that the six-hour solution is precisely right. The Minister cannot give such a guarantee; nor can those who support the six-hour option. Frankly, it is worthless. What we are talking about is either total deregulation or some form of regulation.
  There is much in our national life that is to be admired, the value of which is often not fully appreciated until too late. The traditional Sunday, which has evolved with social changes over the years, is one such example. Today we talk so often of the price of everything but rarely about its value. When the House makes its judgment later today, I hope that it will bear that point in mind and give a fair wind to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) so that these important issues can be fully debated in Committee and changes introduced, if the Committee so wishes. We shall then be able to resolve the difficulties that now face people over our Sunday trading legislation.
  1.49 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) for making one point very clear, which is that what is on offer is an option to choose this Bill, on which we have a free vote, or a Government Bill on total deregulation and no employee protection. The House will have noticed that, in his Keep Sunday Special contribution, the Minister emphasised the retailing aspects of the Bill. He did not refer to the other aspects of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. We had to rely on the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to tell us about the other aspects of keeping Sunday special, which are the religious aspects, the Christian ethic to which we subscribe, and the foundation of our society which has sustained us for so many years. The option is clear. We might wait for a year—it will certainly not happen this year or this parliamentary Session—for a Government Bill which will support total deregulation with no employee protection. That is what is on offer for the Opposition.
  I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for having to argue what she described as a principled abstention. Opposition Members do not believe in the concept of principled abstention. I sympathise with my hon. Friend because she had a difficult brief.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of procedure, there is no such vote as a principled abstention in the House of Commons. The idea that one can register an abstention in the way that was suggested has grown up from the European Parliament, which of course, is not a Parliament in the normal sense of the word.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for making that procedural point.
  This is the "last chance saloon". Those words were not used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) or by the hon. Member for Congleton, but they both said that this is our last opportunity to maintain and defend the traditional Sunday. That is what we shall vote on today.
  668
  The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was one of the most dramatic and exalting that we have heard. She referred to family values, employment protection and Sunday trading. Sparing the blushes of my own general secretary, Mr. John Edmonds, he has not understood that what is on offer for his 60,000 members is deregulation and minimum statutory provision. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that we should listen to Mr. John Edmonds, who has 60,000 members in the shops industry. Opposition Members wait to see how the hon. Gentleman votes on Third Reading of the Employment Bill, which abolishes wages councils. About 2 million women workers will be affected by that legislation.
  Hon. Members heard the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) talk about women working. We have heard much about women working and about part-time working. However, we do not hear that it takes five years for a part-time worker to get to an industrial tribunal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), has tabled a motion and written a succinct letter to all hon. Members about that matter. A Minister has said that there will be a free vote on employment protection when, in Committee, he is abolishing the wages councils. Are we so naive after 13 years of opposition, that that is the route which we agree to go down? That is not the route which we should adopt.
  I invite my colleagues to accept that the principles put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore are the only likely opportunity of bringing about the statutory change that we want.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore persistently said, this is a Second Reading debate. We are not in Committee, but the Minister fell for the trap set by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), because he talked about the detail of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West read from a letter sent out by Boots which contained a series of questions tabled by the company—it also answered them! The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West gave those answers to the House—I am sure that he had no intention of misleading the House, but that was the result.
  This is a Second Reading on a Bill of principle. The Bill will be considered in detail in Committee when substantial amendments can be drafted—that is the purpose of Committees. The Bill represents our "last chance saloon" and we must support my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that he wanted hon. Members to declare their interests and I should like to declare mine. I do a seven-day-a-week job. I work in London for four days and for three days, except on odd Fridays like today, I am in my constituency also working. The only opportunity I get to do my shopping is on Sunday afternoons in Safeway in Lichfield.
  The genie has been let out of the bottle and he cannot be put back. Sunday trading exists. Many people find it more convenient, as I do, to shop on Sunday than on other days, because that fits in with their lifestyle. If they did not shop, the stores would not be open.

  669
  Supporters of the Bill claim that it will settle the issue of Sunday trading. It will do no such thing, unless we define "settle" as meaning prohibit. It is generally agreed by hon. Members that four acid tests must be applied to all proposals for new legislation. They should be practicable, enforceable, acceptable and be able to command a majority in Parliament. The Bill fails each and every one of those tests.
  When one applies the test of practicality, one looks for legislation that is necessary, fair and easy to understand. The Bill is unnecessary because its provisions will be included in one of the three options of the Bill that the Government intend to introduce. The Bill is unfair because, by imposing a set of arbitrary criteria on Sunday trading, it will force a large proportion of the 140,000 shops that normally open on Sundays, and which meet a real public need, to close. Many of those shops are small businesses that depend upon Sunday opening to keep afloat.
  The Bill will have a severe effect on employment opportunities. It will deprive 120,000 workers of their Sunday jobs and cause many others to lose their premium payments for working on Sundays. Is that what the Labour party wants?
  The Bill is complicated because it introduces a new set of anomalies and exclusions that are illogical and unrelated to the pattern of consumer demand. For example, the Bill would allow video hire shops and newsagents to open, but not those newsagents selling books or recorded music. It would therefore still be possible to buy a pornographic magazine or a pornographic video on Sundays, but not to buy a bible. So much for family values.
  To enforce any Sunday trading legislation requires that the dividing line between legal and illegal trading should be clearly drawn, easily understood and straightforward to police. The perceived unfairness of the Bill would lead to widespread breaches of its main provisions. Local authorities would be faced with a task well beyond their resources and the Bill would achieve nothing.
  What about acceptability? No doubt the Bill will commend itself to the vociferous minority who want to impose their views on the rest of us as to how we should spend our Sundays. The vast majority of ordinary people, however, are voting with their feet. Hon. Members will be aware of the MORI Poll which was conducted last September, before the Christmas rush, and which revealed that 67 per cent. of the public favoured liberalisation of the Sunday trading laws while only 12 per cent. said that they were against. A poll carried out last month in my constituency by the Lichfield Post showed that 84 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted shops to open on Sundays. The Bill would prevent that in the run-up to Christmas and all year round.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: No, I shall not give way because other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall try to limit my speech to five or six minutes.
  The Bill would prevent shops from opening in the run-up to Christmas and all year round. Hon. Members should go to a shop, go to a garden centre, go to a DIY store or a supermarket on Sundays to see for themselves what demand there is.
  670
  There is no Sunday trading law in Scotland or Ireland and many shops choose to stay closed. That is a commercial decision, but it is interesting that more people there worship regularly in church on Sunday than in England and Wales where there is legislation. Sunday is still special there.
  Times have changed. We should not forget that more than 20 per cent. of the population work on Sundays and do not work regular hours. However, I sympathise with firms such as the John Lewis Partnership which has resolutely kept its department stores and Waitrose supermarkets closed on Sundays. Its integrity—as it sees it—has cost it more than £1 million a week in lost business. The partnership has remained closed because it believes that opening on Sunday flouts the law. Whether or not that is the case, I urge the Minister to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the necessity of passing legislation as quickly as possible. I do not want stores such as the John Lewis Partnership to be in the same position this Christmas as last Christmas.
  Of course, existing shop workers must have their rights protected, but major trade unions such as the GMB support Sunday trading. I remind hon. Members that Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers is a minority trade union—fewer than 8 per cent. of shop workers are members. The days of old-time religion are, thankfully, not gone, but in 1993, the nanny state should not tell shops when or when not to open. Such edicts belong to the days of old-time socialism—may it rest in peace.
  2.2 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The description of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) of his seven-day working and the burdens of shopping on Sunday would carry more weight if he were arguing that we should meet in the House on Sundays in order to free him to do his shopping during the week.
  I declare with pride my interest as a Co-operative and Labour Member of Parliament and a member of the parliamentary committee of the Co-operative Union. The Co-operative movement's powerful and enthusiastic support for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) reflects the interest of responsible employers for the community and employees as well as their own business interests.
  I pay tribute to the many businesses and co-operatives which are included in the massive business support for the Bill. That must be put on the record. In the past few days we have had correspondence from the British Hardware Federation; Iceland has played its part; and we received an excellent letter from the John Lewis Partnership showing that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals will lead rapidly to complete deregulation. A long list of businesses support my hon. Friend's Bill.
  Any flaws in the Bill can be dealt with in Committee—arguing about the flaws does not come well from any hon. Member, because there is a chance to amend it, but it especially does not come well from the Minister. By their failure to act, successive Ministers have placed inordinate pressures on law-abiding firms. Sunday law-breaking is theft, and Ministers have condoned it. That is not good enough.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Michael: What we have heard today is a further abrogation of responsibility. The Minister said that we shall have to wait another year or so before we have Government legislation. That is a cop-out. The Minister should offer the help of his Department and the facilities of Parliamentary draftsmen to my hon. Friend to give the Bill a fair wind and make it as effective as possible.
  Most people want Sunday to be a special day. Flexible hours of work mean that there are plenty of opportunities for people to shop on other days. However, two questions remain. First, where is one to draw the line? Like the SHRC, the Minister gives a series of quibbles which draws the thinnest of veils over the real intention of a total free-for-all which, in fairness to him, the Home Secretary has declared to be his personal choice.
  The other consideration is how we ensure fair play not only for the community but for employers and employees. I remind hon. Members again of the words of Winston Churchill in setting up the wages councils. Without regulation, he said,
  "the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."
  Churchill went on to warn that without legislation things would get out of hand and said:
  "there is no reason why it should not continue in a sort of squalid welter for a period which compared with our brief lives is indefinite." —[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 11, c. 388.]
  We face the same sort of choice today.
  I ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind the fact that in the near future the last vestiges of the wages councils will come to an end. I ask them to look at what deregulation in practice, which has come about because of Government inactivity, has brought us already. If the Shopping Hours Reform Council and others tempted by that siren voice are serious in saying that they recognise the importance of employee protection, they must say unequivocally that the issue must be resolved before any of the Government's options are put before the House.
  I sympathise with women who now work one day only at premium rates, but they would totally lose that freedom even more quickly if a defeat for the Bill signalled the onset of a free-for-all. That would be not freedom or liberalisation, but a new form of slavery.
  This week I received a letter from my constituent Eddie McCarthy, chairman of the Cardiff branch of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. He wrote:
  "Some facts emerged from the first branch meeting since Christmas. Firms like James Howells and Woolworths did not pay double time for Sunday work, just single time and time off in lieu, at management's convenience, not the workers'. Howells recently forced all staff to sign an agreement stating they would be willing to work all bank holidays. Woollies are making all new starters sign agreeing to work for single time on Sundays and bank holidays. Anybody showing reluctance to sign is simply not offered a job. Another shop sacked three part-time ladies who refused to work until II pm—they were given two hours' notice of extended opening hours—and a pregnant girl was fired by one firm for refusing to work on Sunday. Of course, none of them had employment protection."
  Those are the difficulties that we face already and that is why Eddie McCarthy wrote on behalf of his workers—he said that he could cite many more instances—to thank me for supporting the Bill and giving the same praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) for doing the same.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) waxed eloquent about freedom. She
  672
  should reflect on the need to protect the freedom of employers and employees which was referred to by Winston Churchill. I regret that, although the right hon. Lady claimed objectivity when she was a Home Office Minister, the freedom of the Back Benches has revealed her as a member of what should be described not as the "Aye" lobby but the "I" lobby.
  I am surprised that one or two unions have failed to understand that a free-for-all means exploitation. My union, the GMB, which has a fine record of social responsibility, has expressed views which I hope will be reconsidered.
  A consensus that can protect the special nature of Sunday and extend freedom and responsibility is attainable. The Government have had their chance. Successive Home Secretaries have failed to take it. Today we have our free vote and we, as Members of Parliament acting as individuals—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has acted as an individual in introducing the Bill—need to take the law into our hands. Let us take courage on behalf of decent retailers and those who work in the industry and on behalf of families and communities throughout the country. Let us give every support to the Bill; let us give it a Second Reading.
  2.8 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Those who, like myself, have sat through virtually the whole debate—I sadly missed 10 minutes of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)—will agree on one point, which is that it has been in the high tradition of Friday debates in the House. It has been a spirited and at times a witty debate. Hon. Members have spoken with passion and eloquence, and differing views have been held by hon. Members of all parties. When hon. Members have sought to come to conclusions, they have done so on the merits of the case as they see them. I have always felt that some of the best debates take place on Fridays.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), whom I am delighted to call my hon. Friend on this occasion, has done the House and the country a signal service in introducing the Bill. I am glad to be one of the sponsors of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and my fellow sponsors have done me the honour of asking me to reply to some of the criticisms of the Bill made during the debate.
  I first make my own position plain. I am an unrepentant supporter of the Bill in its broad, general principles, because I do not believe in a high street Sunday. I do not want to see Saturday replicated on Sunday. There is something very special about Sunday. I do not speak from the point of view of one who goes to church from time to time. Whether Sunday is used to wash the car, to play with the children or to have an extended lunch—it is often the only day of the week when families sit down together to have a meal—or for any other purpose, it is a special day in most people's calendar. It is important that we should try to keep that special day.
  In a good and eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to wanting to conserve the best of Britian, She made the point that she was using the word with a small "c". I believe that our British Sunday has a special character which is worth safeguarding. I also agree with my hon. Friend the

  673
  Member for Congleton that one of the root causes of the problems in our society today—goodness knows, there are plenty of them—has been the progressive disintegration of the family unit over the past 30 or 40 years. Wherever we sit in the House, we look at that disintegration of the family unit with real regret.
  As I do not want to go in for hyperbole, I do not suggest that by rejecting the Bill the House will drive a final nail into the coffin of the family—of course it will not—but it will be assisting in the process of disintegration, for the reasons I have mentioned. Sunday is still a special day for most families and it is the one occasion on which many of our constituents get together as families and share their thoughts and expectations, and enjoy themselves together.
  There is another reason why I strongly support the Bill. I believe that one of the best things in Britain is the small shop. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know how important the village shop is. It is very important in my own village to local community life. If we close the village shop, we take part of the heart out of the community. The same can be said of the corner shop in many urban areas.
  Anything that militates against the continuance of small businesses—this is the one party political point that I shall allow myself in responding to the debate—is profoundly inimical to the beliefs of our party. It is wrong for us to do anything that damages the small business and the specialised business. It is a joy to go into a shop where people know what they are selling and care about it. We have often been called a nation of shopkeepers. Shopkeepers should care about what they are keeping. It is difficult to have that care and concern in the enormous, frenetic activity of a huge superstore, whatever it sells. From that personal standpoint, I am delighted to give my support to the Bill.
  As I have said, the hon. Member for Ogmore and others have asked me to respond to some of the criticisms. Those criticisms fall into two categories. First, there are those from colleagues such as my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who are unashamedly libertarian. They believe that there should be no restrictions. I believe that they are mistaken. That philosophy sits ill with our own. However, I respect them for that belief.
  I particularly respect my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire because, if I may say so without sounding unkind, he was the most brazen about it. He did not try to pick holes in the Bill. He was not concerned about faults in the Bill. He simply thought that it was wrong to regulate and he was bold enough to say so.
  Mr. Lord: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I am a sponsor of the Bill. Is it not important that the House must decide on whether we want to preserve our Sunday through regulation? It may be complicated and troublesome to put the legislation together, but the alternative is deregulation under one guise or another. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was honest about that.
  Mr. Cormack: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) has been able to make those entirely appropriate remarks because he has been in the Chamber throughout the debate.
  674
  Other of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Gillingham, also strongly opposed the Bill. I do not blame them for attacking the Bill, but none of their criticisms could not be met with constructive amendments. Their root-and-branch opposition is, of course, a different matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, confessed—and here I quote his words—that he was frequently a screw loose on a Sunday. If he wishes, he can table an amendment on DIY stores, secure in the knowledge that at least some of the Bill's sponsors would respond positively to such an amendment.
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Mr. Stern rose—
  Mr. Cormack: I cannot continue to give way because I must try to respond to the points that have been raised.
  Mr. Stern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do now withdraw.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hear the hon. Gentleman. Is he clear that that will not prevent the House from reaching a decision today? Is he quite sure that he sees strangers?
  Mr. Stern: I am.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is, That strangers do withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Therefore, I call Mr. Cormack.
  Mr. Cormack: I should like now to move on to the criticisms that were levelled by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. He sought to give us a detailed critique of the Bill. However, in response to an intervention, he honestly said that there was no chance of having a Government Bill before next Session. He acknowledged that there is virtually no chance of a Bill reaching the statute book before Christmas.
  By the admission of my hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill is, broadly speaking, one of the three options that the Government will offer to the House at a later date. Therefore, why does not my hon. Friend accept the invitation offered from a number of quarters and provide the services of the Home Office draftsmen and experts and sit down with the Bill's promoter to consider the matter? Perhaps we could consider having a Special Standing Committee. If my hon. Friend the Minister were prepared to do that, it would be possible to iron out the anomalies, about which he quite understandably complained, and deal with them in good time and certainly well before Christmas.
  A common thread of criticism in the debate has been a widespread sense of annoyance, and even anger, about the way in which the law has been flouted by some of the larger stores. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who spoke from the Opposition Front-Bench, made an extraordinary speech because she placed her faith in the Government. From some points of view, that might be rather touching and appealing to hon. Members on this side of the House. In a debate on a Bill introduced by one of her colleagues, and a Whip to boot—I bet that she will have some very late nights in future—for an Opposition spokeswoman to say that she placed her faith in the Government without receiving any of the assurances that

  675
  she sought is extraordinary. Why can she not, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, take part in discussions to iron out the anomalies and introduce some mutually agreed amendments?
  The other common threads that have run through the debate fall into three broad categories. The first is those who are concerned that the restrictions on size are inhibiting. That may well be the case. The hon. Member for Ogmore made the reasonable point that the figure could be the subject of amendment, and so it can. My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that a Government Bill would get it right. As he has been reminded, it is not always the case that because legislation comes galloping out of the Government stable, it is pristine and perfect in all regards. I will not mention certain recent legislation which was perhaps less than perfect to emphaise the point. The issue of size can be dealt with.
  It is clearly the intention of the hon. Member for Ogmore and his fellow sponsors of the Bill that garden centres should be allowed to continue to open on Sunday. It has been said that one is closer to God in a garden than anywhere else, so perhaps it is appropriate that garden centres should be open on Sundays. That is certainly our intention, and we wish to meet any valid objections by suitable amendment. In an eloquent persuasive speech, the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said that DIY centres may present greater problems. I suggest to her that they are not insuperable problems. Once again, that matter can form the basis of an amendment to the Bill.
  I simply remind all hon. Members in the Chamber, some of whom have not had the benefit of hearing the debate today, that, although only a relatively small number of Members will be on the Committee, all Members can take part in a debate on Report. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench can make another contribution by giving extra time for the Report stage if necessary so that the matter is got right in every aspect. In so doing, they will save Government time in the long run in legislation which will not be necessary next year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton obliquely referred to Oscar Wilde without directly quoting him. When she referred to people who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing, she struck an important note. There is great value in our British Sunday and in small shops in the United Kingdom. There is considerable merit and value in the Bill, and I urge all hon. Members to give it a Second Reading; it deserves it. I believe that it can be improved in Committee.
  We have a unique opportunity to get the law in order before next Christmas. It can do no hon. Member whatever his or her views, any good to connive, however unwillingly, at large organisations breaking the law. We know now beyond any peradventure that we cannot hide behind European cloaks. We know that our law is the law. It must be either enforced or amended. Here is a special opportunity to amend it sensibly so that we can set in order the law on Sunday trading for the next generation.
  In her excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said that she opposed the Bill. One of the reasons that she gave was that it would not put things right for ever. What legislation ever did? None. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, but the Bill would certainly tidy things
  676
  up effectively when suitably amended and take us well into the next century. Few of us will be in the House by the time the law needs looking at again. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, with her well-known reputation for generosity of spirit and breadth of mind, will come into the Lobby with us in a few minutes.
  Mr. Don Dixon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 27.

  Division No. 120]

  [2.25 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Denham, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Dixon, Don

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dowd, Jim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Allen, Graham

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alton, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Amess, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Enright, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Barron, Kevin

  Evennett, David

  Battle, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Forman, Nigel

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Foulkes, George

  Benton, Joe

  Gale, Roger

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gapes, Mike

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Garrett, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Boateng, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Body, Sir Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Graham, Thomas

  Burden, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hanson, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hardy, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  677

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Luff, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCrea, Rev William

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Sims, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Madden, Max

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tracey, Richard

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Tredinnick, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Trimble, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mudie, George

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Murphy, Paul

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Olner, William

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Winnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wise, Audrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Michael Lord and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Page, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Betts, Clive

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Soley, Clive

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Tyler, Paul

  Horam, John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Knox, David

  Mr. Michael Stern and

  Legg, Barry

  Mr. John Marshall.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 41.

  Division No. 121]

  [2.36 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ainger, Nick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  678

  Allen, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Alton, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Amess, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barron, Kevin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Hain, Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hall, Mike

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hannam, Sir John

  Beggs, Roy

  Hanson, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Hardy, Peter

  Bell, Stuart

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Heppell, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hoey, Kate

  Benton, Joe

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Booth, Hartley

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Illsley, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Ingram, Adam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Burden, Richard

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Burns, Simon

  Janner, Greville

  Byers, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cann, Jamie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cash, William

  Keen, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Clapham, Michael

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Clelland, David

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Coffey, Ann

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cox, Tom

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cryer, Bob

  Luff, Peter

  Cummings, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davidson, Ian

  McFall, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Madden, Max

  Dixon, Don

  Maginnis, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mahon, Alice

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marek, Dr John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  Enright, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Michael, Alun

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Evennett, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Fatchett, Derek

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mudie, George

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Garrett, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gerrard, Neil

  Olner, William

  Godsiff, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  679

  Pawsey, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spellar, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Streeter, Gary

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Trimble, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Michael Lord.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Legg, Barry

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Lidington, David

  Ashby, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Page, Richard

  Betts, Clive

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Dowd, Jim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Sims, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Soley, Clive

  Faber, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tyler, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harvey, Nick

  Wilshire, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Wolfson, Mark

  Hendry, Charles

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mr. John Marshall and

  Knox, David

  Mr. Michael Stern.

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  NOISE AND STATUTORY NUISANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.

  SHOPS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was impossible, through no fault of yours, to hear which Bill you were calling. I thought I heard you call the fourth Bill on the Order Paper. I never heard you call the third Bill. I should be grateful if we could at least hear what you say so that if there are objections we know what is going on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We are now on the third Bill. I shall put it again. The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  HEDGEROWS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it acceptable that those who object do not identify themselves? The hon. Member who last objected to the Second Reading of the Hedgerows Bill was the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Can the name of the hon. Member who objects to a Bill be recorded?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for some while. He must be alert and see who says "Object." I certainly do not identify who it is.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  WATER CHARGES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.

  TRANSACTIONS WITH TAX HAVENS (SANCTIONS) BILL
  Ordered for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

  COAL MINES (CLOSURE REVIEW) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.

  PLAIN LANGUAGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.

  UNADOPTED ROADS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  ADOPTION OF ROADS (COMPULSORY PROCEDURES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), is objecting, but his objections are so pathetic and feeble that I wonder whether they are serious.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  FUEL COST CREDITS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  HOSPITAL SECURITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February

  ENERGY (FAIR COMPETITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.

  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 January.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), objected to my Homicide (Defence of Provocation) Bill, but there is a very strong case for the Government to review all the cases of women in prison at the moment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that there can be no debate at present.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it has nothing to do with Bills, you will be happy to hear.
  A report in today's Yorkshire Post states that a National Audit Office report on the costs of the nuclear industry is being kept secret until a later date. The implication is that it will be a date after the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has been able to complete its report on the energy review. Indeed, the implication is that the National Audit Office report is being suppressed until after the House will have had a chance to debate the energy White Paper and the subject in general.
  I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly that report is germane to both other reports. Clearly the report was compiled by a public authority on a subject that will

  683
  be coming before the House. Will you rule, either now or later, on whether there is anything that hon. Members can do to get that report into the open in time for it to play a part in the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should write to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  2.52 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not have pleasure in drawing the attention of the House to the subject of calculations for SSAs, which are better known as standard spending assessments, because to most people in local government they are a curse, most Members of the House of Commons find them difficult to grasp and to members of the public they are an invisible weapon.
  Under the Government, and indeed under Governments of all complexions, there has been a natural desire to limit the public expenditure of local authorities. Of course, we do not like to see wrong and inefficient expenditure. But, in the past 10 years, we have seen a progression of measures that have put local authorities into a more or less helpless position and even now are a danger to the citizens whom they represent. I honestly believe that we are reaching a stage in the next financial year when Her Majesty's Government, particularly those who inhabit the Treasury, are not aware of the effects of formulae for SSAs.
  I know that when the era of block grants came to an end and we had clawbacks, grant-related expenditure—GRE—and all the rest of it, some enlightened members of the Government did what they could to ameliorate what were clearly anti-social and sometimes semi-workable or unworkable measures. I believe that, in the past 12 years, 13 measures on local government finance have passed through the House—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—most of which have not worked.
  The Treasury's objective, reinforced by macroeconomic theory about the proportion of expenditure in the country that is public expenditure as distinct from private expenditure, is to push local government expenditure down. That has not worked. Time after time, various ways round various arrangements have been found. The public, of all political parties, have objected to the manacles placed on local government.
  With the system of SSAs, coupled with the capping on expenditure, a new cage has been placed round local authorities or, rather, round the public that they represent. We are now in a new era of grave injustice, particularly for inner-city areas—I note that one of my hon. Friends who also represents London is present.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: No, my hon. Friend is thinking of my wife, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
  Mr. Spearing: I apologise.
  The local authorities will be blamed for something for which they are not responsible and which appears incredible to the public.
  Newham is the second most deprived borough in the country according to most statistics—Hackney beats it by a short head. I ask the Minister to refute my assertion that we are being defrauded—I use that word advisedly—of £20 million worth of services, many of them crucial. That is equivalent to about £120 per adult member of the borough. Any local authority officer knows that that extra amount, per head, would provide a tremendous amount of flexibility. We do not enjoy that now.

  685
  How has this come about? I challenge the Minister to deny the arithmetic, even if he gives me some philosophical explanation of the new arrangements. The Government say that the SSA is based on what they think is the standard level of service that the councils should provide. I do not know whether that standard is what we would accept. The Government then calculate roughly how much those services would cost, multiply that by various types of formulae and, Bob's your uncle, that is the SSA.
  The assessment of services is carried out by dividing the key ones into five broad categories. The first is education, which accounts for half the given expenditure. In fact, education expenditure is divided into subgroups covering primary and secondary education. One also used to cover further education, but there is not much of that now. The other four categories relate to social services, highways, other services and capital charges.
  Despite recent changes, educational costs can be broadly assessed on the number of teachers, pupils and buildings and so can all the rest. The figures are totted up. The only thing that the Government do not appear to tot up is the capital charge, which is known and reasonably predictable within a certain range, just as a mortgage payment is for a householder. It is the first charge upon a borough or a district council that must sustain borrowings. I must emphasise that those borrowings, for the most part, have been permitted by the Government.
  The Minister is aware of a number of letters that I have received—I shall not quote them because time is short—in which Ministers say that not all capital borrowing has been permitted by the Government. Nevertheless, a great proportion of it has, at some time or other, been given the go-ahead by the Government. In other words, the Government have said that that capital expenditure is necessary—that is a very important moral point.
  In Newham, next year's total SSA is supposed to be about £255 million—these figures are provisional and I know that the Minister will tell me that, but it gives me some hope for the future—of which education accounts for £120 million, social services £43 million and other services, such as administration and everything else that the borough must do, £66 million. Capital charges account for £18 million.
  However, the real capital charge that Newham must pay, mostly for expenditure that the Government have agreed is necessary, is about £30 million, give or take £1 million as I am dealing in rounded figures. We have a shortfall in payment of capital charges of between £11 million and £12 million.
  The only way in which that sum can be obtained is by withdrawing funds from other sections of expenditure for which an SSA has already been calculated. They may not be big enough for what is required—we may think that other SSAs are not sufficient—but they must be further reduced.
  The Minister has agreed that education accounts for half the cost. If there is a shortfall of roughly £10 million in capital charge deficiency—I am being very conservative—education will have to be cut by £5 million beneath the SSA which even a not very beneficent Government have agreed is necessary. That means additional cuts in education above even what the Government think is necessary.
  I believe that Birmingham is in a similar position to Newham. We are blamed for not doing very well and the Government say that we are not spending what they have
  686
  given us. However, they omit to say that they have not given us what we require under the SSA for capital charge. That has a secondary effect which is even more drastic than people realise.
  Much of public expenditure in local authorities is statutory. Various Acts of Parliament lay down what a council must do and if it does not do it, it can be taken to court. However, many of the services that are most prized, especially in areas such as that which I represent—Plaistow, Custom House, East Ham, West Ham, Stratford and the whole of the borough—involve discretionary money. I add that everything that I am saying has the backing of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). The borough council may pay that discretionary money if it wishes to or if it has it.
  I use the specific example of nursery schooling. Irrespective of party, politicians get into terrible trouble if nursery education does not expand and still more trouble if it has to be cut. What about discretionary grants for the over-16s for further education or extras for old people's centres, for a little more transport, for a little more time from home helps and respite care for relatives who do so much for the ill and the sick? The relatively small sums involved, when spread around the community, provide a good deal of social easement which would not otherwise exist. That goes first, because such services are the only ones that can be cut if one has already cut to the bone.
  What is the basis of not providing a standard level of service of capital debt—here I use "service" in another way—that is comparable to the standard service provided for consumer services? The Minister will probably say that a borough should sell some assets and should not be so much in debt, but what happens if there are no assets to sell or if the assets that might be sold are those that provide social services for the area? That is an impossible position, but matters are even worse than I have outlined.
  Having to find £10 million out of all the services in the borough to make up for the deficiency in capital payment leads to another problem—homelessness. It might be easier for the Government to do something about this problem because it affects fewer boroughs than the capital deficiency which, I suspect, affects many. In fact, I know that it does. That problem exists in London because of the many evictions or repossessions which occur for many different reasons.
  Newham has had to budget for about £10 million for next year and the figure is rising. That is not the borough council's fault, yet notionally the money has to come from the SSA for other services, which is based on a formula calculated for the whole country. I have yet to hear that it contains any specific element for expenditure on homelessness. As the Minister knows, despite its name, that expenditure does not come under the housing account, which is separate from the financial matters that I am discussing and, quite properly, is ring-fenced.
  To find that £10 million next year we shall have to make more reductions even from the mingy amounts that the Government provide. I am still being conservative—with a small "c"—when I say that there will be a deficiency of roughly £10 million on capital and £10 million for homelessness, so we reach a figure of about £20 million. I do not think that the Minister will be able to refute that figure.
  If we are to find that money, terrible things will have to happen in the community. Long-serving public servants,

  687
  who have given a lifetime of skill and have more skill still to give, will be made redundant compulsorily or voluntarily. They will no longer be working for the local authority and for the people, who greatly value their services. They will go on the dole, perhaps with some redundancy money, too, and twiddle their thumbs at home, when they could be providing services for needy people in the borough.
  Nursery education will have to be cut, because it is not a statutory requirement. In Newham we have a well-based drugs unit, dealing with prevention among young people, which has had some great successes. As we all know, in the future we shall face much greater challenges on that front. But the expenditure is discretionary, so the borough is considering the unit's future. We should not have to do that.
  What about education? The Minister may not know, as it does not involve his Department, but the Department for Education has cut section 11 grants for additional teachers for children for whom English is a second language. Newham, and Tower Hamlets next door, are full of such children—and we are having to cut the number of their teachers.
  Other elements are involved, but I shall not deal with those today. I shall concentrate on two factors. The first is the capital element, which is £10 million short, and the second is the fact that the charges for homelessness are improperly put into a classification in which no provision has been made for them. It would be better to take that element out of the SSA altogether and provide a grant to cover the cost—given, of course, a reasonable degree of efficiency which could be monitored.
  I shall not deal with too many other areas of the country, but what has been experienced in our borough provides a clue to what is happening elsewhere. I see from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities returns that Barnet is suffering £40 million in cuts this year and its education department says that it may be unable to provide schooling for all. Birmingham faces cuts of £35 million and 2,000 jobs are being lost. Incidentally, Birmingham's SSA for capital charges of roughly £100 million was about £50 million. So it is in a similar position.
  Enfield has a £21 million gap and is cutting £10.5 million from education. I believe that Sutton has had an efficient Conservative administration—[Interruption.] Yes, we have expertise on both sides of the House this afternoon. Sutton has cuts of £8.5 million and is discussing the possible closure of day centres for the elderly. Think of that.
  This is supposed to be a country at ease with itself, yet the Treasury and the Department of the Environment are scattering disease and social tension with their stupid formulae which take no account of reality. I may be asking for more money, but I suggest to the Minister that—bearing in mind the unemployment and the redundancies among skilled people who are only too anxious to help others—the amount of social damage and the stupidity in relation to the total amount of public expenditure are something which history will find it hard to understand.
  I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, he should make some adjustment on the capital servicing to bring it more or less into line with the proportion of capital expenditure that has been permitted by the Government.
  688
  I go no further than that. Secondly, there should be a separate system for the homeless. Without that, can there be justice? Without justice, can there be peace?
  3.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): In congratulating the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Shearing) on obtaining this debate, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the calculation of standard spending assessments, or SSAs as we hereinafter agree to call them. The assessments, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, play a key role in the system of local government and they are often misunderstood. I hope, therefore, that this debate will help to contribute to a wider understanding of SSAs within the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins me in regretting that some of the hon. Members who were present a few minutes ago are not with us now. They will no doubt read the debate in Hansard in due course.
  The SSA for any authority represents the Government's assessment of the level of revenue spending by that authority that should enable it to provide services to a common standard. This common standard is that which is consistent with the Government's view of the appropriate level of revenue expenditure for all local authorities combined, bearing in mind the position of the economy.
  The SSA has two main functions. First, it helps to determine the amount of revenue support grant received by each authority. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I go into a little detail on the background. I know that he is more than aware of it. In effect, the grant is distributed in such a way that, if all authorities were to spend at the level of their SSA, the level of local tax could be broadly the same in all areas of the country. This applies not only to the community charge, but to the council tax in 1993–94.
  Secondly, SSAs are used as a benchmark for comparison within the capping framework when forming a view about whether the level of an authority's budget or the proposed increase in that budget is reasonable or excessive.
  There can be no doubt, therefore, that SSAs are extremely important. As such, they must be calculated on a basis that is seen to be fair. I would not want anybody, for example, to imagine that SSAs are dreamed up by a few Ministers on the basis of arbitrary factors designed to favour certain authorities and to penalise others. Nothing could be further from the truth and I should like to spend a few minutes explaining the basis of the calculations.
  Although, as the hon. Gentleman said, SSAs were actually introduced for the first time in 1990–91, they are the end result of a long period of evolution. They are an improvement on their predecessors, which were known as grant-related expenditure assessments, especially in respect of their reduced complexity. They do, however, build on the large body of detailed research evidence that underpinned the earlier assessments. They also share with them the characteristic of having been extensively discussed, over a number of years, with the local authority associations.
  SSAs aim to take account of the main characteristics of an authority that will affect its spending requirement. This is a daunting task covering expenditure in 1993–94 of some £37 billion by more than 400 local authorities. There are,

  689
  of course, constraints on the extent to which this objective can be achieved at any one time. It is, for example, a fundamental principle of SSAs that they are based on sound data sources that are available on a consistent basis for all authorities. Many factors are taken into account in the SSA formula. These fall into three main categories.
  First, there are demographic factors, such as what proportion of the population are children or elderly. Those are crucial determinants of the need to spend on education and on personal social services.
  Secondly, there are the socio-economic characteristics of the population. Research has shown that, for some services, the need to spend can vary with the number of people falling into certain disadvantaged categories, such as the numbers in single-parent families or receiving income support. These indicators are reflected in SSA calculations. More than one fifth of the education SSA element, for example, is distributed by reference to an indicator of this kind, representing additional educational needs. Thirdly, there are adjustment factors to allow for higher employment costs in London and the south-east.
  Such detailed adjustments—there are many more—can have very marked effects on the calculation and are evidence of the thoroughness of our approach. They show our determination that SSAs should be as fair as possible within the constraints imposed by data.
  The authority represented by the hon. Member for Newham, South is certainly a major beneficiary of many of the factors used. It is undeniable that under the proposals announced on 26 November by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, Newham's SSA, expressed in terms of pounds per head of population, will be one of the highest in the country. I suspect that that will remain the case when the provisional figures are finalised. For example, in the case of personal social services, Newham's provisional SSA is nearly twice the national average and some 20 per cent. higher than the average figure for London authorities. In the case of education, Newham's SSA is over 60 per cent. above the national average, and over 70 per cent. above the average for shire counties.
  Newham has also fared well from some of the specific changes that we have introduced for 1993–94, such as, for example, the incorporation of population estimates based on the 1991 census. The result is that, after adjustments for major changes of function, Newham's provisional SSA for 1993–94 represents an increase of nearly 5 per cent. in comparison with 1992–93. This compares with an average increase of less than 3 per cent. for England and for London authorities as a whole.
  I draw attention to those figures not to argue that Newham's SSA is too high, although I am sure that there are some hon. Members representing shire areas who might take that view. I think that they show the extent to which the SSA formula reflects genuine differences in authorities' spending needs by means of the factors that it includes.
  Many criticisms are made of SSAs, but I think that those who make the criticisms should consider what the alternatives are before they shout too loudly. The most simple and obvious alternative to the current system might be one that simply apportioned all SSAs in proportion to the total population. Such a system would work very much against the interests of Newham and would, I am sure, not be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman. It is up to those who criticise to propose alternative schemes rather than simply to attack the current system, which represents a very fair
  690
  attempt to distribute money in line with need. To clarify that point, I absolve the hon. Gentleman from taking that line in his speech this afternoon.
  In general terms, the proposed SSAs for 1993–94 are the result of a careful examination of a number of difficult issues. We have had to take into account the various pressures on local authorities, as well as a number of changes in local authority functions, most important of which is the loss of most of their responsibilities for further education. We have also had regard to the potential for value-for-money savings. In our view, the settlement that we have proposed should allow authorities to maintain services, provided that they exercise good stewardship and adhere to the pay policy announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his autumn statement.
  Having said all that, I am not so complacent as to believe that SSAs are perfect or, indeed, that perfection is achievable in such a complex field under which the ground is ever-shifting. That is why we engage in continuous discussions with the local authority associations. It is also one of the reasons why the announcements made by my right hon. and learned Friend consisted of proposals for 1993–94—the accompanying figures were provisional SSAs.
  We have just completed a period of extensive formal consultation, during which we met delegations from many authorities. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities met a delegation led by the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) just before Christmas, giving them the opportunity to raise with him personally several of the points that have been concerning them.
  We have also received written representations from many other authorities on all aspects of the settlement. We have been giving very careful consideration to all the points that have been made to us and will be announcing shortly our proposals for the final settlement.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South raised several specific issues and, in the time available, I shall endeavour to deal with them. If I fail to do that, I shall of course write to him in respect of any residual points.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the general question of capital finance. In fairness to him, he returned to a subject in respect of which he has previously communicated with the Department. Assumed debt, based on capital allocations in the 1980s, is used in the calculation of capital financing SSAs, rather than actual debt, for several reasons. A big problem with using actual debt is that the level of actual debt is affected by past decisions taken by different authorities about the use of capital resources. For example, it would not be right if those authorities that have used capital receipts to keep down the level of their debts were to lose the benefits of that prudence through a reduction in their SSAs.
  Another point is that debt charges incurred in respect of trading services are not taken into account because the cost of such borrowing should be covered by trading revenue. The hon. Member for Newham, South repeatedly said why he believed that Newham would benefit from reverting to a system of actuality. I will undertake to reconsider the points that he made. There is a sound underlying reason why using notional rather than actual debt is preferred in this case.
  The hon. Member referred to homelessness. He suggested that SSAs take no account of growing levels of

  691
  homelessness. The Government are well aware of the problem of homelessness. They have taken that into account, together with many other factors, in setting the total standard spending for 1993–94.
  As far as the SSA for individual authorities is concerned, we have considered the possibility of a separate indicator for homelessness. Unfortunately, there is no consistent and reliable statistic count of homelessness that covers all local authorities. The statutory count of homeless people who are provided accommodation by housing authorities can vary according to local policy and is volatile from year to year. That is one matter which we shall be examining in the light of the 1991 census. However, the district level of the services SSA already includes an indicator of social conditions that reflects factors that are likely to be associated with above average levels of homelessness. In particular, Newham has a per capita SSA for that element which is more than twice the national average.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to projected cuts and effects on jobs. Perhaps the safest thing for me to say at this stage is that it is too early to know what the effects of
  692
  the settlement will be on jobs because authorities have not yet set their budgets. Experience of previous settlements suggests that initial estimates of job reductions proved to be much too high, and some of the figures being bandied about at present are absurd.
  As I said earlier, the process of trying to improve and update SSAs is never ending. The coming year will be particularly busy in terms of SSA development because we expect to take on board the full range of indicators from the 1991 census. That will represent a challenge as well as an opportunity. It will require a full review of many of our key indicators, such as the additional education needs indicator to which I have already referred.
  All the factors that go to make up the SSA for each authority are publicly available. It is open to any hon. Member to make alternative proposals, and I undertake to consider them all carefully. Ultimately, the Government's prime concern is in ensuring that those authorities that face inevitably higher demands from their resources are properly compensated through the revenue support grant. We will continue to strive towards that aim.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 693, what are the criteria on which

  Police strength1—Wales—1979 to 1992

  Year As at December

  Dyfed-Powys Numbers of officers

  Gwent Numbers of officers

  North Wales Numbers of officers

  South Wales Numbers of officers

  1979

  918

  958

  1,271

  3,025

  1980

  929

  973

  1,290

  3,068

  1981

  925

  963

  1,288

  3,082

  1982

  930

  969

  1,303

  3,096

  1983

  924

  962

  1,275

  3,082

  1984

  922

  957

  1,281

  3,106

  1985

  924

  971

  1,251

  3,064

  1986

  929

  973

  1,268

  3,099

  1987

  929

  977

  1,307

  3,120

  1988

  927

  989

  1,304

  3,114

  1989

  934

  1,000

  1,332

  3,118

  1990

  936

  1,001

  1,339

  3,123

  1991

  944

  995

  1,343

  3,142

  1992 (October)

  966

  1,008

  1,369

  3,182

  1 Police strength varies from year to year according to wastage and recruitment patterns.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include the recent proposals of high street retailers in his consultations on, the reform of Sunday trading laws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is referring to the proposals for reform which have been drawn up by Marks and Spencer plc and other leading high street retailers. I met representatives of the traders on 3 November 1992 to discuss the proposals. At this stage we have no plans to include the model as one of the options to be put before the House.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from high street retailers on the reform of Sunday trading legislation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 20 October 1992, we have received 83 written representations from retailers on this issue.

  Police Force (Civilian Employees)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilians have been employed by each police authority in Wales for each year since 1979.
  420
  the performance of the chief executive of the prison service agency will be assessed for eligibility for the performance bonus.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For the period up to 31 March 1993 the performance of the director general will be assessed wholly on a qualitative basis. Thereafter, when the agency comes into being, his performance will be assessed on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative measures, the nature and balance of which are still to be settled.

  Uniformed Police Officers
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed police officers were employed by each police authority in Wales for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is out in the table:

  Strength of Civilians in Wales 1979 to 1992

  Year as at 31 December

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1979

  194

  206

  319

  866

  1980

  194

  213

  320

  855

  1981

  195

  214

  325

  855

  1982

  198

  216

  328

  888

  1983

  204

  228

  351

  892

  1984

  208

  233

  373

  899

  1985

  210

  232

  401

  905

  1986

  198

  236

  382

  956

  1987

  209

  241

  385

  1,009

  1988

  215

  252

  388

  1,015

  1989

  234

  250

  423

  1,082

  1990

  243

  290

  439

  1,111

  1991

  250

  304

  444

  1,079

  19921

  268

  318

  459

  1,076

  1 Until October.

  Unlicensed Drivers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people over the age of 17 years have been caught driving without having passed a recognised driving test within each police authority area during each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The following table sets out the number of prosecutions for offences of "driving without licence or
  421
  causing or permitting to drive without licence" and "provisional licence holders not accompanied by qualified person" committed by persons 17 years old and above in

  Number of prosecutions for offences committed by persons aged 17 years and over

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Driving without licence or causing or permitting to drive without licence or provisional licence holder not accompanied by qualified person

  Police force

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  3,896

  4,471

  4,485

  4,749

  6,040

  Bedfordshire

  1,933

  2,056

  1,842

  2,110

  1,834

  Cambridgeshire

  1,492

  1,476

  1,536

  1,795

  1,621

  Cheshire

  2,086

  2,113

  2,116

  2,402

  2,381

  Cleveland

  1,795

  1,828

  1,854

  1,950

  2,319

  Cumbria

  1,555

  1,634

  1,328

  1,290

  1,815

  Derbyshire

  2,683

  2,523

  2,525

  2,700

  2,189

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,647

  3,571

  3,582

  3,742

  4,292

  Dorset

  1,514

  1,644

  1,928

  1,993

  2,092

  Durham

  1,886

  1,784

  1,839

  2,272

  2,116

  Essex

  3,165

  3,370

  3,506

  3,153

  3,539

  Gloucestershire

  1,665

  1,886

  1,641

  1,639

  2,001

  Greater Manchester

  7,842

  8,936

  9,256

  10,242

  11,306

  Hampshire

  3,870

  4,471

  4,573

  4,158

  4,241

  Hertfordshire

  1,653

  1,659

  1,884

  2,111

  2,382

  Humberside

  1,765

  2,160

  2,185

  2,154

  2,080

  Kent

  3,248

  3,576

  3,998

  3,577

  3,125

  Lancashire

  4,588

  4,834

  5,413

  5,059

  5,067

  Leicestershire

  2,956

  3,210

  3,030

  3,209

  4,236

  Lincolnshire

  1,274

  1,383

  1,547

  1,663

  1,184

  London, City

  383

  535

  536

  461

  486

  Merseyside

  4,742

  4,940

  5,985

  6,437

  7,939

  Metropolitan

  11,129

  11,592

  10,614

  8,653

  19,605

  Norfolk

  1,296

  1,184

  1,279

  1,151

  1,094

  Northamptonshire

  1,401

  1,661

  1,913

  2,058

  2,483

  Northumbria

  4,139

  4,075

  4,385

  6,232

  8,050

  North Yorkshire

  1,184

  1,323

  1,381

  1,424

  1,772

  Nottinghamshire

  2,914

  2,704

  2,882

  3,210

  3,245

  South Yorkshire

  4,802

  4,343

  4,126

  3,856

  3,943

  Staffordshire

  2,327

  2,530

  3,053

  3,193

  3,164

  Suffolk

  1,218

  1,236

  1,361

  1,335

  1,464

  Surrey

  1,446

  1,605

  1,800

  1,777

  2,087

  Sussex

  3,356

  4,496

  4,868

  4,913

  4,984

  Thames Valley

  3,702

  4,340

  4,376

  5,658

  5,867

  Warwickshire

  1,126

  1,290

  1,652

  1,483

  1,352

  West Mercia

  2,730

  2,870

  3,155

  3,465

  3,327

  West Midlands

  9,080

  10,704

  11,034

  11,192

  12,539

  West Yorkshire

  6,151

  5,829

  5,831

  7,036

  6,831

  Wiltshire

  894

  1,004

  1,149

  1,314

  1,577

  Dyfed Powys

  845

  820

  1,041

  1,058

  1,317

  Gwent

  1,829

  1,747

  1,606

  1,581

  1,493

  North Wales

  1,910

  2,058

  2,397

  2,396

  2,521

  South Wales

  5,899

  7,174

  6,749

  7,002

  6,812

  Total

  129,016

  138,645

  143,241

  148,853

  169,812

  Ainsty Lodge, Wetherby
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many convictions for(a) burglary, (b) assault, (c) offences against property, (d) taking vehicles without the owner's consent, (e) driving without a licence and (f) dangerous driving have been recorded in each of the last five years against residents of Ainsty Lodge, Wetherby;

  (2) in respect of how many offences residents of Ainsty Lodge, Wetherby have been (a) charged and (b) convicted in each of the last five years;

  (3) what proportion of crimes suspected to have been committed in England by juveniles in each of the last five years are suspected to have been committed by persons in the care of local authorities;
  422
  each police force area in England and Wales for each of the years 1987 to 1991. Similar information for earlier years is not readily available.

  (4) how many offences residents of Ainsty Lodge in Leeds have committed while on bail in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected.

  Criminal Justice System (Costs)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason it was decided to provide each member of every justices' bench in England and Wales with a copy of the relevant volume of his Department's analysis of the costs of the criminal justice system, 1992; and what were the costs of this exercise including the cost of multi-colour printing.

  Mr. Jack
  Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires the Home Secretary to publish information annually to assist those engaged in the administration of criminal justice to become aware of the financial
  423
  implications of their decisions. It was decided to provide magistrates with individual volumes to ensure that they had personal access to this important information.

  The total cost of printing, producing and distributing the volumes was £124,290, or £2.54 per copy.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by county, in England and Wales the number of confirmed cases of BSE for the month of December 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is available in the Library of the House.

  Farmers (Medicines)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines are used by his Ministry when determining whether a vet can sell medicine to a farmer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Medicines Act 1968 and its subordinate legislation sets the legal framework for the sale of and supply of medicines. This provides for a veterinary surgeon to prescribe medicines for use on animals under his or her care. Within those requirements, decisions on whether to sell medicines to farmers are a matter for the judgment of the individual veterinary surgeon.

  BST Products
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Medicines Commission concerning BST products.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Medicines Commission has advised me that the BST products manufactured by the companies, Lilly Industries Ltd. and Monsanto SA/NV, meet the medicines licensing criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. I have told the companies that the United Kingdom position in forthcoming Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products discussions will reflect this advice. However, no product licences under the Medicines Act may be issued so long as the licensing moratorium agreed by the European Community's Council of Ministers remains in force.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress to establish new environmentally sensitive areas; and what management commitments and financial remuneration he is proposing.

  Mr. Gummer
  Pursuant to the answer given on 2 December 1992 at columns 224–25, I am today laying before both Houses of Parliament the six designation orders providing for the introduction of six new environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) in England. These new ESAs are:

  Avon Valley;

  Exmoor;

  424

  Lake District;

  North Kent Marshes;

  South Wessex Downs; and

  South West Peak.

  Information packs giving details of the areas covered, scheme conditions and payment rates are being placed in the Libraries.

  I am delighted to be able to introduce these new ESAs which will add some 426,000 hectares to the 387,000 hectares currently within ESAs in England. The new areas contain some of our most beautiful countryside and important wildlife areas. I am confident that like the existing schemes, they will play a significant part in the conservation and enhancement of landscapes, special habitats and features of historic interest.

  Details of the new schemes are being sent to farmers in each area and applications to join them should be lodged with the Ministry's regional service centres before 31 March.

  I will shortly be issuing for consultation our proposals for the introduction of a further six new ESAs which we plan to launch next winter. I will also be announcing the conclusions of my review of the existing schemes in the Breckland, Clun, North Peak, Suffolk river valleys and the Test valley.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in Wales have developed small-scale incinerators and waste disposal units to deal with fallen stock in each year since 1990; and what financial assistance was granted by his Department for such schemes in each year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not provide financial assistance for the provision of incinerators and waste disposal units. No information as to the numbers of such facilities is held centrally.

EDUCATION

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline the maximum numbers of pupils per classroom laid down by his Department in accordance with best practice policy in(a) infant schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools, in England and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not issue guidance on the maximum number of pupils per classroom. The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 prescribe the overall minimum teaching areas to be provided for maintained and grant-maintained schools in England and Wales. These areas are based on the total number of registered pupils at the school and their age range. The apportionment of teaching space within the overall area available is a matter for local determination.

  National Union of Students
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he proposes to make to the status of the National Union of Students; and if he will make a statement.
  425
  Mr. Boswell
  In the light of the Department's consultations on student unionism, my right hon. Friend is considering proposals for reform, which he plans to announce in the near future.

  Schools Capacity
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline the criteria by which his Department currently calculates the total pupil capacity in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Our recent survey of the capacity of primary and secondary schools was calculated on the basis of two different measures: for primary schools capacity was calculated(a) using the more open enrolment (MOE) formula set out in annex D of the Department's circular 6/91, and (b) by multiplying the standard admission number of the school by the number of year groups. For secondary schools the capacity was calculated (a) by using the more open enrolement (MOE) formula set out in annex A of the Department's circular 11/88, and (b) (for pupils aged under 16) by multiplying the standard number by the number of year groups. Both circulars are available in the Library.

  Careers Officers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many university and polytechnic careers officers there were in(a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and how many there are today.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on careers officers in the former polytechnics is not held centrally. The table shows numbers of careers and appointments officers employed by institutions within the Universities Funding Council sector.

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  19801

  252

  13

  265

  1985

  230

  1

  231

  19892

  217

  29

  246

  1 The first year for which this information was collected.

  2 The latest year for which this information is available.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give for each grant-maintained school the number of permanent pupil exclusions in the academic year 1991–92 and for each previous year back to and including the final academic year in which the school was local authority maintained.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 5 November 1992 at col.345.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about future levels of recruitment to teacher training courses.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is pleased to note the buoyant level of recruitment to initial teacher training courses in 1991 and 1992. He is however concerned that if 426
  the present pattern of recruitment continues it is likely to lead to an over-supply of teachers trained for primary schools, whereas secondary schools may face teacher shortages as pupil numbers rise during the 1990s. In advising the Higher Education Funding Council for England of intake targets for initial teacher training for the period 1993–1996 the Department has therefore proposed that they should fund a reducing number of places for primary school training and increasing numbers for secondary education. He has also asked the council to consider how it might help to tilt the balance of recruitment to primary school training towards applicants holding science, technology and mathematics qualifications, while containing overall numbers.

  A copy of the official letter to the council dated 7 January has been placed in the Library of the House. I understand that the Welsh Office has written in similar terms to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following contracts have been awarded to KPMG Management Consultants by the Department of Social Security during the 1992–93 financial year:Development of the Contributions Agency's Customer Education Project—(6 January 1992 to 30 June 1992).
  Review of the Contributions Agency Performance Appraisal System—(21 April 1992 to 30 September 1992).
  Development of the Contributions Agency's Customer Education Pilot Projects—(15 October 1992 to July 1993).
  Promotion to Grade 5 Job Analysis Project—(25 November 1991 to 31 May 1992).

  Service Delivery Market Testing Project in the Information Technology Services Agency—(21 January 1993 to 21 April 1993).
  Market Testing Project in the Information Technology Services Agency
  Methodologies Evaluation in the Information Technology Services Agency—(1 April 1992 to 31 July 1992).
  Market Testing Project in the Information Technology Services Agency—(6 January 1993 to 30 September 1993).

  War Pensions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities which operate(a) a total disregard, (b) a partial disregard and (c) no disregard, other than the statutory minimum of war pensions for housing and community charge benefit.
  427
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested, as reported by local authorities in the financial year 1990–91, is in the following tables.

  Local authorities operating a total disregard scheme for both war disablement and war widows' pensions

  Aberconwy

  Aberdeen1

  Allerdale

  Amber Valley3

  Angus1

  Annandale1

  Arfon

  Argyll-Bute1

  Arun

  Ashfield

  Ashford

  Badenoch1

  Banff and Buchan1

  Basingstoke

  Bassetlaw

  Bearsden and Milngavie1

  Berwickshire1

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Blaenau Gwent

  Borders2

  Boston

  Bracknell

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Brent

  Brentwood

  Brighton

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Caithness1

  Calderdale

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Carrick

  Castle Point

  Central2

  Ceredigion

  Charnwood

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Cherwell

  Chesterfield

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  Clackmannan1

  Clydebank1

  Clydesdale1

  Colwyn

  Congleton

  Copeland

  Cotswold

  Coventry

  Craven

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Cumbernauld (D.C.)1

  Cumbernauld (Kils.)1

  Cumnock and Doon1

  Cunninghame1

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Delyn

  Dumbarton1

  Dumfries and Galloway2

  Dundee1

  Dunfermline1

  Ealing

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset (Wimb.)

  East Hertfordshire

  East Kilbride1

  East Kilbride (D.C.)1

  Eastleigh

  East Lothian1

  Eastwood1

  East Yorkshire

  Eden

  Edinburgh1

  Ellesmere Port

  Elmbridge

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Erewash

  Ettrick and Lauderdale1

  Falkirk1

  Fife2

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean

  Gedling

  Gillingham

  Glanford

  Glasgow1

  Glenrothes1

  Gloucester

  Glyndwr

  Gordon1

  Gosport

  Grampian2

  Great Yarmouth

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hamilton1

  Hammersmith

  Harborough

  Harlow

  Harrow3

  Hartlepool

  Hereford

  Hertsmere

  Highland2

  Hinchley and Bosworth

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Hove

  Huntingdon

  Hyndburn

  Inverclyde1

  Inverness1

  Ipswich

  Irvine (D.C.)1

  Isle of Scilly

  Islington

  Islwyn

  Kennet

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kilmarnock1

  Kincardine and Deeside1

  Kingswood

  Kirklees

  Kyle and Carrick1

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Langbaurgh

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham3

  Lichfield

  Liverpool

  Livingston (D.C.)1

  Llanelli

  Lochaber1

  Lothian2

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  428

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Mansfield

  Medina

  Melton

  Mendip

  Merton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Midlothian1

  Mid Suffolk

  Mid Sussex

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  Monklands1

  Montgomery

  Moray1

  Motherwell1

  Nairn1

  Neath

  Newark

  Newbury

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Nithsdale1

  Northampton

  Northavon

  North Bedfordshire

  North Cornwall

  North East Derby

  North East Fife1

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Shropshire3

  North Tyneside

  North Warwickshire

  North West Leicestershire

  North Wiltshire

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton

  Ogwr

  Orkney

  Perth and Kinross1

  Peterborough

  Purbeck

  Radnor

  Redbridge

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Renfrew1

  Rhuddlan

  Richmondshire

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Rochester on Medway

  Rochford

  Ross and Cromarty1

  Rossendale3

  Rother

  Roxburgh1

  Rugby

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Rutland

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Scottish Homes1

  Scunthorpe

  Sedgefield

  Sefton

  Selby

  Sevenoaks

  Shetland

  Skye and Lochalsh1

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Bedfordshire

  South Bucks

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Derbyshire

  Southend on Sea

  South Holland

  South Kesteven4

  South Lakeland

  South Northants

  South Oxfordshire

  South Ribble

  South Shropshire

  South Staffordshire

  South Tyneside

  Southwark

  South Wight

  Spelthorne

  Staffs. Moorlands

  St. Albans

  Stewartry1

  St. Helens

  Stirling1

  Stockport

  Stoke on Trent

  Stratford on Avon

  Strathkelvin1

  Stroud

  Suffolk Coastal

  Sutherland1

  Sutton

  Swale

  Tameside

  Tamworth

  Tandridge

  Tayside2

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Tewesbury

  Thanet

  The Wrekin

  Three Rivers

  Tower Hamlets

  Trafford

  Tweeddale1

  Vale of White Horse

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Wansbeck

  Wansdyke

  Watford

  Waverley

  Wellingborough4

  Western Isles

  West Lothian1

  Westminster

  West Oxfordshire

  West Wiltshire

  Wigtown1

  Winchester

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Woodspring

  Worthing

  Wycombe

  Local authorities operating a total disregard scheme for war disablement pensions only

  Bath

  Blaby

  Blackburn5

  Bolton

  Bromley

  Bury

  Cambridge

  Corby

  Doncaster

  Dudley5

  429

  East Staffordshire

  Exeter

  Grimsby

  Hambleton

  Havering

  Middlesbrough

  Newport

  Oldham

  Ribble Valley5

  Southampton5

  South Somerset5

  Stevenage

  Stockton on Tees

  Torbay

  Torfaen

  Tunbridge Wells

  Vale Royal5

  York

  Local authorities operating a total disregard scheme for war widows' pensions only

  Castle Morpeth

  Chester

  Kirkaldy1 6

  Monmouth6

  Thurrock6

  Local authorities operating a partial disregard scheme for war pensions

  Adur

  Aylesbury Vale

  Barking8

  Barnet

  Beverley

  Bournemouth

  Breckland

  Bromsgrove

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Chichester

  Chorley

  Crawley

  Darlington7

  Derby7

  Derbyshire Dales

  Dover

  East Hampshire

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Hastings10

  Havant

  Holderness

  Kingston upon Thames

  Knowsley

  Lincoln

  Lliw Valley

  Malvern Hills

  Meirrionnydd

  New Forest

  North Dorset

  Penwith9

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Preseli

  Preston

  Reading

  Rochdale

  Rhondda

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  South Norfolk

  South Pembrokeshire

  Swansea

  Teignbridge

  Thamesdown7

  Tonbridge and Malling7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Wealden

  West Norfolk

  Wigan

  Worcester

  Local authorities not operating a local scheme for war disablement and war widows' pensions

  Alnwick

  Alyn and Deeside

  Babergh

  Barnsley

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Basildon

  Basildon (D.C.)1

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Bexley

  Blythe Valley

  Bolsover

  Boothferry

  Brecknock

  Bridgnorth

  Bristol

  Broadland

  Cannock Chase

  Caradon

  Carmarthen

  Chester-le-Street

  City of London

  Cleethorpes

  Colchester

  Corby New Town1

  Croydon

  Cynon Valley

  Derwentside

  Dinefwr

  Durham

  Dwfor

  Easington

  Eastbourne

  East Lindsey

  East Northampton

  Enfield

  Fylde

  Gateshead

  Gravesham

  Greenwich

  Haringey

  Harrogate

  Hart

  High Peak

  Hillingdon

  Kerrier

  Kettering

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Leeds

  Leominster

  Manchester

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Mid Devon

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Newham

  North Devon

  North Norfolk

  Norwich

  Oadby and Wigston

  430

  Oswestry

  Oxford

  Pendle

  Plymouth

  Port Talbot

  Restormel

  Rhymney Valley

  Rotherham

  Runnymede

  Rural Wales1

  Ryedale

  Sedgemoor

  Sheffield

  Shepway

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  South Hams

  South Herefordshire

  Stafford

  St. Edmundsbury

  Strathclyde2

  Sunderland

  Surrey Heath

  Taff-Ely

  Taunton Deane

  Teesdale

  Telford1

  Torridge

  Tynedale

  Uttlesford

  Warrington

  Warrington (D.C.)1

  Warwick

  Waveney

  Wear Valley

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Devon

  West Dorset

  West Lancashire

  West Lindsey

  West Somerset

  Weymouth and Portland

  Woking

  Wrexham Maelor

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  Wyre Forrest

  Ynys Môn

  1 Denotes those authorities responsible for Housing Benefit only.

  2 Denotes those authorities responsible for Community Charge Benefit only.

  3 Denotes those authorities responsible for both benefits but who operate a scheme for Housing Benefit only.

  4 Denotes those authorities responsible for both benefits but who operate a scheme for Community Charge Benefit only.

  5 Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to fully disregard war disablement pension and part of war widows' pension.

  6 Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to fully disregard war widows' pension and part of war disablement pension.

  7 Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to partially disregard war disablement pension only.

  8 Denotes an authority which operates a scheme to partially disregard war pensions for Housing Benefit only.

  9 Denotes an authority which operates a scheme to fully disregard war pensions for Housing Benefit rent rebates and partially disregard war pensions for Community Charge Benefit.

  10 Denotes an authority which operates a scheme to fully disregard war pensions for Community Charge Benefit and partially disregard war pensions in Housing Benefit.

  Migrants, Greater London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) by borough, (b) by district health authority and (c) by country of origin, the number of migrants from Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan currently resident in Greater London and claiming any type of social security benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that details of the country of origin of benefit recipients are not recorded routinely and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Matters concerning district health authorities are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unsuccessful claims were made for invalid care allowances in the past 12 months, and if he will publish a breakdown of refusals according to(a)

  431
  non-receipt of the appropriate benefits by the cared for person, (b) claimant earning ore than the weekly ICA earnings limit, (c) claimant caring for less than 35 hours a week, (d) claimant over 65 years of age and (e) claimant in receipt of an overlapping benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  In the 12 months to 31 December 1992 there were 20,840 unsuccessful claims to invalid care allowance.

  The breakdown of refusals requested is in the table.

  Category

  Number

  (a)

  11,339

  (b)

  1,388

  (c)

  56

  (d)

  1,972

  (e)

  2,569

  The balance of refusals were for reasons other than those mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the application by Mr. Keith Pownall of 20 August 1992 on behalf of his wife Valerie Pownall for invalid care allowance and the higher rate of attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalid care allowance and attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 21 January 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Mr. Keith Pownall's applications for Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) and for higher rate Attendance Allowance (AA) made on behalf of his wife Mrs. Valerie Pownall.
  I can confirm that decisions were made on 17 August 1992 on Mr. Pownall's ICA claim and on 19 January 1993 on his wife's AA claim. Mr. and Mrs. Pownall have been notified of both decisions. I have replied to you separately and in greater detail about the case.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged 16 and 17 years in Birmingham not in employment, not on a youth training scheme and not in full-time education are receiving benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 21 January 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for
  432
  Social Security asking how many people aged 16 and 17 years in Birmingham not in employment, not on a YT scheme and not in full time-education are receiving benefit.
  The complete range of information you requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have, however, detailed below the number of successful applications as a result of the hardship provisions, and these are outlined below. It should be noted that a direction to pay in these cases normally lasts for an eight week period, therefore, some of the applications successful in November may no longer be currently receiving benefit.

  District

  November 1992

  December 1992

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  13

  12

  Birmingham North West

  19

  10

  Birmingham Heartlands

  16

  16

  Birmingham South East

  9

  12

  Birmingham South West

  31

  19

  Totals

  88

  69

  The number of successful applications do not equate to the number of customers as some customers may have made more than one application. The above information has been supplied by the Severe Hardship Claims Unit.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are on income support within the Seaham and Peterlee agency areas; and what were the comparable numbers each year since 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Cummings, dated 20 January 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many people are on Income Support within the Seaham and Peterlee agency areas; and what were the comparable numbers each year since 1988.
  The complete range of information you requested is not available. This is because statistics of a local nature are destroyed at regular intervals in accordance with standing instructions. I have listed below the latest available data which shows the number of recipients at a given point in time rather than for a given period.

  Date

  Seaham

  Peterlee

  November 1989

  3,040

  6,782

  November 1990

  3,300

  7,111

  November 1991

  3,143

  7,348

  November 1992

  3,518

  8,003

  This information has been obtained from the Income Support Management Information System.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. Copies of this letter will be placed in the library.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the effects of advance corporation tax on British overseas investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations about advance corporation tax. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the issue in his last Budget statement.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the United Kingdom contributed to the European tobacco-growing industry in the last financial year.

  Sir John Cope
  Member states" contributions go to fund the EC budget as a whole; no breakdown can be given of contributions to individual sections of the budget.

  Written Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the advisory cost limit for answering written parliamentary questions in each year since 1980; what was the percentage increase in(a) constant and (b) actual terms in each year; when he next plans to uprate the limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table is as follows:

  Advisory cost limit for answering written parliamentary questions

  Year

  Percentage increase since preceding change

  £

  (a) At constant prices1 Per cent.

  (b) Actual Per cent.

  19802

  50

  —

  —

  1981

  50

  —

  —

  1982

  200

  53·0

  300·0

  1983

  200

  —

  —

  Tax on excise products in November 1992 based on exchange rate on 1 October 19921

  Beer

  Wine

  Spirits

  Cigarettes

  Member state

  VAT rate per cent.

  Duty per pint £

  VAT rate per cent.

  Duty per 75cl bottle £

  VAT rate per cent.

  Duty per 70cl bottle £

  VAT rate per cent.

  Duty MPPC packet of 20 £

  Total tax on MPPC £

  MPPC price £

  Belgium

  19·5

  0·08

  19·5

  0·22

  19·5

  3·50

  12·0

  1·23

  1·43

  1·85

  Denmark

  25·0

  0·19

  25·0

  0·51

  25·0

  10·77

  25·0

  1·88

  2·46

  2·88

  France

  18·6

  0·01

  18·6

  0·02

  18·6

  2·62

  22·0

  0·84

  1·11

  1·48

  Germany

  14·0

  0·03

  14·0

  nil

  14·0

  2·89

  14·0

  1·15

  1·39

  1·92

  Greece

  18·0

  0·05

  18·0

  nil

  18·0

  1·22

  18·0

  0·28

  0·38

  0·63

  Ireland

  21·0

  0·52

  21·0

  1·63

  21·0

  5·98

  21·0

  1·42

  1·85

  2·45

  Italy

  19·0

  0·09

  9·0

  nil

  19·0

  1·20

  19·0

  0·63

  0·81

  1·13

  Luxembourg

  15·0

  0·02

  6·0

  0·09

  15·0

  2·09

  15·0

  0·85

  1·03

  1·40

  Netherlands

  17·5

  0·09

  17·5

  0·22

  17·5

  3·20

  17·5

  0·80

  1·02

  1·47

  Portugal

  16·0

  0·06

  5·0

  nil

  16·0

  1·53

  16·0

  0·73

  0·88

  1·12

  Spain

  15·0

  0·02

  15·0

  nil

  15·0

  1·17

  15·0

  0·20

  0·25

  0·40

  United Kingdom

  17·5

  0·24

  17·5

  0·94

  17·5

  5·55

  17·5

  1·35

  1·70

  2·27

  1 The date used as reference point for exchange rates in European community Directives.

  434

  Year

  Percentage increase since preceding change

  £

  (a) At constant prices1 Per cent.

  (b) Actual Per cent.

  1984

  200

  —

  —

  1985

  200

  —

  —

  1986

  200

  —

  —

  1987

  200

  —

  —

  1988

  250

  20·0

  25·0

  1989

  250

  —

  —

  1990

  250

  —

  —

  1991

  250

  —

  —

  1992

  400

  45·0

  60·0

  1 Indexed by GDP deflator.

  2 Unchanged since 1965.

  The advisory cost limit was last increased on 14 January 1992 at column 546 and this followed a major review of costs in 1991.

  The current level of £400 was fixed as a multiple of eight times the average marginal cost so that only cases of exceptionally high cost might be affected and to avoid the need for frequent small increases.

  The limit may be increased from time to time in future when costs or policy suggest the need for a change.

  VAT and Excise Duty
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the combined level of VAT and excise duty on beer, wine, spirits and cigarettes in each member state of the European Community.

  Sir John Cope
  The following table sets out details of the VAT rate and duty rate applied by each member state to typical excise products in November 1992. The combined level of VAT and excise duty can be calculated only with reference to the retail price. Information is available on the retail price of the most popular price category of cigarettes in the different member states and this has been used to calculate the total tax on cigarettes. It is not possible to arrive at an equivalent price for the main types of alcoholic drinks however, since neither average prices for most popular price category prices are available.

  Personal Wealth
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the most recent estimates of personal wealth per capita in each region and nation within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1990, the most recent year available, the average marketable wealth as defined in section 11 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1992, for the United Kingdom adult population, was £38,100 per head. I regret that more disaggregated figures are not available.

  Treasury Running Costs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure under sub-head Al of the vote for class XVIII, vote 1, HM Treasury running costs, for 1991–92.

  Mr. Nelson
  The main elements of expenditure under subhead Al of class XVIII vote 1 for 1991–92 is as follows:

  £

  Pay and related expenditure

  32,669,000

  Accommodation

  12,116,000

  Other

  8,792,000

  53,577,000

  EC Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Lamont
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of the European Community in Brussels on 18 January.

  The Council discussed the economic situation in the Community and national measures to promote recovery in its biannual multilateral surveillance exercise. Ministers agreed that, with the EC economy now in recession, member states should step up their efforts to promote growth and reduce unemployment and that they should strengthen the co-ordination of their economic policies. Wage restraint and healthier public finances with an increased emphasis on investment would help to create the conditions for lower interest rates across Europe. These principles are all consistent with measures I announced in my autumn statement.

  The Commission will be contacting member states to discuss their economic plans in order to offer a general picture of the action member states are taking at the next meeting of ECOFIN.

  The Council was given a brief presentation by the Commission and the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of their plans to follow up the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council by establishing the new European investment fund and EIB lending facility. All member states stressed the need to bring both new facilities into operation as soon as possible.

  The Council adopted a proposal for a balance of payments loan for Italy of 8 billion ecu (approximately
  436
  £6·3 billion). This loan will be paid in four tranches conditional upon Italy's meeting its targets for reducing its budget deficit.

  The Council also made a statement welcoming the decision of the new Irish Government to maintain the existing parities of the Irish punt within the ERM.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged between 16 and 18 years in the Walsall travel-to-work area are unemployed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In October 1992 there were 973 unemployed claimants aged between 16 and 18 years in the Walsall travel-to-work area.

  Changes to the benefit regulations in September 1988 coincided with the extension of a guaranteed YTS, now YT, place to all those aged under 18 not in full-time education or employment, which meant that those who declined an offer of a YTS place were no longer entitled to benefit. However, there are still a small number of under 18–year-olds entitled to benefit due to special circumstances, such as severe hardship or by virtue of their being orphans.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people now registered as unemployed in the Greater London area have been out of work for periods of up to three months, six months, nine months, one year, two years and three years or longer.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is contained in the following table and can also be obtained from the NOM IS database system in the Library.

  Duration of unemployment in the Greater London region (October 1992)

  Duration of unemployment

  Number of claimant unemployed

  Up to 3 months

  126,008

  Up to 6 months

  197,933

  Up to 9 months

  255,145

  Up to 1 year

  292,619

  Up to 2 years

  390,604

  Up to 3 years

  421,186

  Over 3 years

  26,445

  Note: Claimant unemployment figures by duration are available on a quarterly basis for the months of January, April, July and October and are not adjusted for seasonal influences.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women were registered as unemployed in the Tooting constituency on 11 January.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 12 November 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 4,893 male and 1,898 female unemployed claimants in the Tooting parliamentary constituency. These figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the registered job vacancies at employment centres in the Tooting constituency on 11 January.
  437
  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 6 November 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 76 unfilled vacancies at jobcentres covering Tooting parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in part-time work in the United Kingdom, and as a percentage of the working population, in 1979, 1985 and at the most recent available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information is as follows:

  Part-time workforce in employment in Great Britain seasonally adjusted

  Part-time work force in employment (000"s)

  Part-time workforce in employment as percentage of the work force Per cent.

  June 1978

  4,632

  18

  September 1985

  5,526

  20

  September 1992

  6,633

  24

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women under the age of 21 years were registered as unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth on 12 January.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unemployment figures by age are available only on a quarterly basis and are based on particular age bands. In January 1992, the latest available date, there were 561 male and 301 female unemployed claimants aged under 20 years in the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men of 65 years and (b) women of the age of 60 years in full-time employment in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Results from the spring—March to May—1992 labour force survey show that in the United Kingdom 23,000 men aged 65 years and 40,000 women aged 60 years were in full-time employment.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his Department's plans for the future of TVEI and its future funding.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The technical and vocational education initiative is a 10–year programme, running from 1987 to 1997, in which education authorities participate for up to seven years. The Department is working closely with authorities on the development of their plans for assimilating the lessons of TVEI as they leave the programme. The impetus of the initiative will be further carried forward through the implementation of the national curriculum, the introduction of general national vocational qualifications and the impact of training and enterprise councils on education.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many health and safety inspectors are currently employed in permanent duties in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of inspectors permanently employed by the Health and Safety Executive based in Scotland at 1 January 1993 was 156.

  Note:Figure given is for full time equivalent staff.

  Trainees
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of trainees on employment training, including those on employment action for each month since the beginning of the programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the following tables.

  Table 1 Employment Training — in Training— September 1988—March 1990

  Great Britain

  1988

  September1

  48,000

  October1

  67,000

  November1

  92,000

  December1

  108,000

  1989

  January1

  131,000

  February1

  158,000

  March1

  176,000

  April

  185,000

  May

  189,000

  June

  194,000

  July

  203,000

  August

  204,000

  September

  208,000

  October

  209,000

  November

  212,000

  December

  208,000

  1990

  January

  207,000

  February

  209,000

  March

  210,000

  1 Excluding trainees transferred from Community Programme who continued to receive CP wages.

  Source: ET Telephone Census.

  Table 2 Employment training—in training April 1990 to December 1992

  Great Britain

  1990

  April

  210,000

  May

  208,000

  June

  199,000

  July

  191,000

  August

  185,000

  September

  184,000

  October

  190,000

  November

  194,000

  December

  199,000

  1991

  January

  197,000

  February

  203,000

  March

  197,000

  439

  Great Britain

  April

  171,000

  May

  157,000

  June

  146,000

  July

  137,000

  August

  131,000

  September

  128,000

  October

  134,000

  November

  139,000

  December

  142,000

  1992

  January

  139,000

  February

  146,000

  March

  149,000

  April

  140,000

  May

  130,000

  June

  127,000

  July

  120,000

  August

  113,000

  September

  113,000

  October

  122,000

  November

  129,000

  December

  129,000

  Source: Employment Service.

  Table 3 Employment Action October 1991 to December 1992

  Great Britain

  1991

  October

  210

  November

  2,324

  December

  4,710

  1992

  January

  5,797

  February

  10,609

  March

  14,444

  April

  17,576

  May

  19,772

  June

  21,446

  July

  23,296

  August

  24,602

  September

  25,787

  October

  28,116

  November

  29,703

  December

  30,614

  Source: Employment Service.

  Workplace Safety
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to implement the requirements of European Council directive 92–57 of 24 June 1992 concerning safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile work sites; what requirements are laid down for regulatory action; and what further parliamentary action may be necessary.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Commission has already published a consultative document on proposed new Construction (Design and Management) Regulations and an approved code of practice to implement the main requirements of the temporary or mobile construction sites directive. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. A further consultative document will be issued later this year to implement the technical requirements of annex IV of the directive. These documents effectively set out the requirements for regulatory action.
  440
  Both sets of implementing regulations proposed by the HSC would be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and laid before the House and in the usual way subject to negative resolution. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be responsible for implementation of the fire safety aspects of the directive.

  Employment Action
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the money allocated for employment action for 1991–92 was spent; and what is the estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1991–92 32 per cent. of the money allocated for employment action was spent. Current Departmental forecasts estimate that 85 per cent. of the 1992–93 provision will be spent and it is planned to reduce the cash limit accordingly in the spring supplementary estimate due to be published at the end of January 1993.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much it will cost to refurbish the Health and Safety Executive head office at Baynards House; what the cost would be of relocating staff to(a) east London, (b) Bootle or (c) any other new location away from London which has been considered; and if she will make it her policy that the refurbished building should meet the highest possible health and safety standards.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive is considering relocating its London head office in 1994, when the leases on its existing London headquarters buildings expire. A study of the scope for relocation out of London was carried out in 1988. This concluded that those headquarters functions based in London need to remain there. Various London options are now under consideration. Information on each of these and their costs is commercially sensitive and therefore confidential. Any building chosen will have to meet fully the standards of current health and safety legislation.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the terms of reference of the study team on market testing in relation to the functions of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive; if she wilt list the members of the study team and their remuneration in each case; whether any members of the study team have outside interests inconsistent with this role; and what will be the total cost of the study.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Health and Safety Commission to consider the feasibility of applying market testing to those areas of the Health and Safety Executive's activities not covered by their existing market testing programme, but not including advice and assistance to the Commission.

  A study is being undertaken by the director general of the Health and Safety Executive. The other members of the study team were a consultant from Touche Ross and an assistant secretary from HSE. The director general and the assistant secretary are remunerated at civil service rates. I regard the consultant's remuneration as commercial in confidence.

  I am confident that there are no conflicts of interest involved. I cannot give the total cost because at this stage the eventual extent of the study is uncertain.

  Mr. A. J. Linehan
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the question from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish of 9 December 1992,Official Report, column 730, whether the role of Mr. A. J. Linehan has now been clarified; and whether it conforms to civil service guidelines.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  An application has been received under the normal civil service rules and is being considered. It is not the practice to give information about the outcome of individual cases.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific proposals she has for stimulating job creation in rural areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government work primarily through the Rural Development Commission to promote enterprise, economic diversity and employment in rural areas in England. Acting through the employment service and training and enterprise councils, my Department has a range of facilities and programmes available to people in rural areas, to help equip them for work and increase their skills.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of qualified social workers(a) in employment and (b) unemployed, for the last three years for which figures are available;

  Foreign nationals: in employment by whether working full/part time, and ILO unemployed by whether claiming benefit: United Kingdom, spring 1992 (not seasonally adjusted).

  Thousands

  In employment

  ILO unemployed1

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total2

  Claiming benefit

  Not claiming benefit

  Total3

  EC Nationals

  322

  95

  418

  29

  19

  51

  Commonwealth nationals

  240

  60

  304

  30

  26

  55

  Non-Commonwealth nationals

  161

  41

  203

  23

  15

  38

  1 Unemployed based on the internationally agreed ILO definition. Such respondents are also classified in the LFS according to whether or not they reported receiving unemployment related benefits. Note these estimates are not available from the Employment Department's monthly claimant count.

  2 Includes a small number of persons in employment who did not state whether their employment was full or part time.

  3 Includes a small number of ILO unemployed persons who did not state in the survey whether or not they were claiming benefit.

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Young People, Birmingham
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people aged 16 and 17 years in Birmingham are(a) on a youth training scheme, (b) in full-time education and (c) in employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of 20.6 per cent. of people aged 16 and 17 years are currently on a YT scheme in Birmingham. 54.1 per cent. are in full-time education and 24.8 per cent. are in employment.
  442
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The labour force survey provides estimates by occupation according to the standard occupational classification in which social workers are grouped with probation officers. The numbers in employment in this group in spring 1991, spring 1992 and summer 1992 were estimated respectively to be 96,000, 125,000 and 125,000, not seasonally adjusted.

  Estimates at these periods for the numbers previously employed in this group who were unemployed, according to the International Labour Organisation definition, are all below 10,000. No comparable information for this occupational group is available for earlier years.

  Foreign Workers
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has on the numbers of(a) non-United Kingdom EC nationals, (b) non-EC nationals from commonwealth countries and (c) non-EC nationals from non-commonwealth countries which are
  (i) currently working in the United Kingdom part-time,(ii) currently working in the United Kingdom full-time,(iii) currently unemployed and not claiming benefit and(iv) currently registered as unemployed and claiming benefit.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available estimates for the United Kingdom are given in the following table.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of qualified psychiatric nurses,(a) in employment and (b) unemployed for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that estimates of numbers of people in this specific occupation are not available.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what efforts are currently made by her Department to inform disabled people of their rights under section 9 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.
  443
  Mr. McLoughlin
  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. Fogden to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 22 January 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 to her about the information provided to disabled people about section 9 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.
  Under section 9 of the 1994 Act an employer (with twenty or more employees) has a duty to employ a quota (3%) of registered disabled people. It is not an offence to be below Quota but in such circumstances employers must obtain a permit before engaging someone who is not registered as disabled. In addition under section 9 of the Act, an employer (with twenty or more employees) may not discharge a registered disabled person without reasonable cause if immediately after the dismissal, the employer does not employ a Quota (3%) of registered disabled people. Registration as a disabled person is voluntary.
  Disabled jobseekers may be made aware of the registration provisions of the Act and their consequent rights in the course of interviews with my people or through the leaflet 'Advice on Joining the Disabled Persons Register' which is available in all my Jobcentres. I enclose a copy of the leaflet for your information.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Oflicial Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Working Conditions
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what discussions she has had with representatives of EC member states and the European Commission on the proposed Council directive on the application of the laws of the member states relating to certain employment relationships with regard to working conditions; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions she has had with representatives of the EC member states and the European Commission on the proposed Council directive relating to certain employment contracts and employment relationships involving distortions of competition; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been no discussions on this draft directive since January 1991.

  Post-graduate Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been invested in post-graduate training in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Graduates (Unemployment)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment among graduates in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Results from the labour force survey show that, for graduates of working age in Great Britain, unemployment rates on the internationally agreed ILO definition, were as follows:
  444

  Spring of each year

  ILO unemployment rate per cent.

  1984

  4·1

  1985

  3·8

  1986

  4·1

  1987

  3·6

  1988

  2·9

  1989

  2·3

  1990

  2·2

  1991

  3·4

  1992

  4·0

  Note: Consistent estimates are not available for years prior to 1984.

  Employment Definitions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current definitions of(a) part-time employee and (b) temporary worker used by his Department; what changes have been made in this definition since 1979; and what plans she has to change this definition.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The most widely used employment definitions occur in the context of the Department's statistical surveys.

  The employer-based surveys classify part-time employees as those who normally work thirty hours a week or less. These surveys do not distinguish between temporary workers and other categories of employee.

  The household-based labour force survey has two methods by which part-time employees can be defined. The usual way is by whether or not the respondents consider themselves to be in part-time employment. The alternative classifies as part-time those working 30 hours or less per week. For the purposes of this survey, temporary workers are those who have an understanding with their employer that their jobs are of fixed duration or that their employment will cease when another condition —for example, the return of an employee who has been temporarily replaced—is met.

  The definitions have not changed since 1979 and there are no plans to alter them.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those referred to employment training by the Department of Employment did not arrive; and what percentage of those who start a scheme completed their training in (i) Wales, (ii) the valleys programme area and (iii) the United Kingdom, for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information about the percentage of those referred to employment training by the Employment Department who did not arrive is not available in the form requested. The total number of people who took part in and subsequently completed employment training for Great Britain, Wales and the valleys initiative area is shown in the following table. The table also shows the percentage of those people referred by the employment service who actually started on employment training for Wales and Great Britain in the year ended March 1992. Some people referred will have withdrawn their application, for example because they have taken up a job; others will have been advised to seek
  445
  alternative help after assessment. These people will have arrived but not started. Information on the referral to start ratio for the Valleys Programme area is not readily available in the form requested and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Employment training Great Britain, Wales and Valleys Initiative Area April 1991 to March 1992 leavers who completed agreed training

  Per cent.

  Great Britain

  55

  Wales

  55

  Valleys initiative area

  47

  Percentage of those referred by the employment service to ET who actually started April 1991 to March 1992

  Per cent.

  Great Britain

  32

  Wales

  38

WALES

  Old People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the activities arranged in Wales to date by his Department to mark the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has commissioned and supported Age Concern Wales to arrange a programme of events to mark the Year, which was formally launched on 11 January. A steering group has been set up to act as the focal point for discussion of ideas, consideration of proposals for events and activities and recommendation of projects and priorities for Wales during the Year. Further information is available from Age Concern Wales.

  Consultant Mineralogist
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now take steps to appoint a consultant mineralogist for Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no present intention to make such an appointment.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning the number and estimated cost of bids made by Welsh local authorities for European regional development fund support for projects during 1993–94; and what provision he has made for supplementary credit approval for them.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The invitation to bid for European regional development fund support under the Welsh structural funds programmes for the calendar years 1992 and 1993 attracted a total of 1,200 outline applications from all potential sponsors, including local authorities, with an estimated grant potential of some £290 million. These bids represented a considerable overbid against the 446
  total resources of some £120 million available to the Welsh programmes, and the monitoring committees charged with implementing the programmes are undertaking a selection process to identify those projects which should be supported from the funds available.

  I will be making the necessary provisions to enable SCAs to be issued to match in full that element of an authority's expenditure from 1 April 1993 which is reimbursed by European regional development fund grants.

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his current estimates for(a) the number of mental handicap nurses in Wales who will retrain in 1993–94 as general or psychiatric nurses and (b) the level of resources allocated by his Department to assist in this process.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The employing health authority or trust has responsibility for ensuring that any such retraining needs are met. No specific central funding is available for this purpose.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to require schools in Wales to publish information on the teaching of environmental education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no plans to require schools to publish such information. The Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales published "Environmental Education in the Schools of Wales 1992" on 11 January. I understand that local education authorities have been sent sufficient copies to distribute to all schools.

  Local Government
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies he has undertaken to establish the cost-effectiveness of a unitary system of local government in Wales; and if he will publish as much information as he has.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I commissioned Touche Ross Management Consultants to produce a report on the financial implications of a move to a system of unitary authorities. The report was published in March 1992 and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what investigation he has undertaken to establish the transitional costs of the reorganisation of Welsh local government; and what plans he has to publish his findings.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have commissioned Touche Ross Management Consultants to undertake a study of the transitional costs of Welsh local government reorganisation.

  I plan to publish the report and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Hearing-impaired Children
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement upon the future development of specialist educational provisions for hearing-impaired children under the unitary authorities in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Special education, including provision for children with hearing impairment, will continue to be treated as a matter of high priority tinder the new structure of local government. Local education authorities will retain responsibility for identifying and assessing children with special educational needs and making and maintaining statutory statements, as necessary, and for arranging the special educational provision specified. It is anticipated that it will be open to authorities to join together to share specialised services, such as those for hearing-impaired children, if they wish.

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has, for each health authority in Wales for 1993–94, for the number of(a) mental handicap nurses staying in their current roles, (b) mental handicap nurses transferring to general or psychiatric nursing and (c) mental handicap nurses leaving the profession.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for identifying future needs for mental handicap nurses within the NHS rests with employing authorities and trusts. This should be done through the workforce planning system in conjunction with the county joint planning teams set up under the auspices of the mental handicap strategy.

  KPMG management consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG management consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has awarded the following contracts to KPMG management consultants over the past 12 months.Financial and risk appraisal on applications for NHS Trust status.
  Review of new production and process Research and Development in Wales.
  Assessment of the future of the in-house computer bureau. Evaluation of the agent authority (roads) accounts database.

  National Garden Festival
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures to show the outturn at(a) 1988–89 prices, (b) 1991–92 prices and (c) cash prices for the urban programme in the valleys programme area, excluding expenditure on National Garden Festival, for each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Urban programme outturn expenditure (in £ million) in the valleys programme area, excluding the National Garden Festival, since 1988–89 at(a) 1988–89 prices, (b) 1991–92 prices and (c) cash prices is:
  448

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1988–89

  11·44

  14·07

  11·44

  1989–90

  12·57

  15·47

  13·40

  1990–91

  12·47

  15·34

  14·35

  1991–92

  11·12

  13·68

  13·68

  1992–93

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Accident Treatment Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to launch a review of accident treatment service in the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None at present, though health authorities are assessing these services as they develop their local strategies for health.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to issue new guidelines to Welsh health authorities concerning the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance will be issued as soon as practicable following consideration of legal advice on this issue.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ring-fence all funding for special needs education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Resources to local authorities are not hypothecated to particular services. It is for authorities themselves to decide how much to direct to education, including special education, in the light of local priorities and circumstances. Specific grant is available to local education authorities under the grants for education support and training programme (GEST) for the training of teachers of children with sensory impairments and severe learning difficulties and other support for children with special needs. Special purpose grant for development is available to fund grant maintained schools for all activities supported at LEA level by the GEST programme.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of children aged under five years attending maintained nursery schools or classes in each Welsh county in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The percentage of children attending maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in each local education authority is shown in the table.
  449

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1979–80

  23

  23

  26

  25

  39

  17

  26

  51

  1980–81

  26

  24

  29

  22

  38

  20

  27

  52

  1981–82

  27

  26

  29

  21

  43

  20

  30

  54

  1982–83

  33

  27

  31

  24

  42

  17

  30

  53

  1983–84

  36

  25

  32

  21

  39

  20

  28

  53

  1984–85

  36

  25

  32

  18

  40

  23

  26

  49

  1985–86

  36

  26

  32

  16

  39

  18

  29

  48

  1986–87

  42

  26

  34

  27

  45

  32

  30

  55

  1987–88

  42

  26

  35

  23

  45

  28

  30

  57

  1988–89

  44

  28

  36

  18

  43

  32

  30

  56

  1989–90

  43

  27

  36

  22

  44

  29

  30

  55

  1990–91

  45

  27

  37

  16

  43

  26

  30

  53

  1991–92

  46

  28

  35

  15

  40

  23

  30

  60

  Archive Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has regarding the future funding and organisation of the archive service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My plans for the archives service will be set out in the White Paper which I shall be publishing shortly.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the future and status of the archive service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of such representations; copies of these, together with representations on other matters, are in the Library of the House. I am giving careful consideration to the points put to me.

  Welsh Language Bill
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra finance the Government expect to give to Welsh local authorities to implement the provisions outlined in the Welsh Language Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The financial implications of the Welsh Language Bill will be taken into account in determining the local government revenue settlement in future years.

  Criggion Quarry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the future of Criggion quarry on Breidden hill, Montgomeryshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Oil Pollution, Cardigan Bay
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of oil pollution off Cardigan bay have been reported in each year since 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures relating specifically to Cardigan bay are not held centrally. Since 1980, details of all reported oil spills around the United Kingdom 450
  coastline have been provided, on a regional basis, in the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea (ACOPS). Copies of the reports are held in the Library of the House.

  Printing Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 1992,Official Report, columns 323–24, on how many occasions since 1988 disciplinary action has been taken against civil servants responsible for his departmental printing expenditure; in which financial year; and on how many occasions and on what dates such disciplinary action has involved (a) suspension on full pay, (b) suspension without pay, (c) summary dismissal and (d) criminal charges.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There has been one such case of disciplinary action. The officer was suspended on full pay on 6 March 1992, without pay on 11 March 1992 and dismissed on 30 April 1992. Criminal charges are a matter for the police.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 1992,Official Report, columns 323–24, for what proportion of Welsh Office policy printing work inclusive of typesetting and graphic design the Central Office of Information is now responsible; and if he will make a statement on the changes in the relationship between HMSO, the Central Office of Information and the Welsh Office introduced since March 1992 in the responsibility for placing contracts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Approximately two thirds.

  In 1991 the Welsh Office, in reorganising its systems for handling paid publicity and in the interests of value for money, transferred much of this work to the Central Office of Information; in 1992 it transferred the rest.

  The Central Office of Information's relationship with HMSO is a matter for them. The relationship between the Welsh Office and HMSO is subject to similar value for money considerations as its paid publicity handling, and since 1991 it has been the same as that between the Welsh Office and any other contractor.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 1992,Official Report, columns 323–24, what estimate he has made of the proportion and amount of his Department's total annual contract expenditure on printing, publicity and stationery placed with firms outside Wales in each full financial year since 1988, and for the first half of 1992–93.
  451
  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 1992,Official Report, columns 323–24, for what proportion of his Department's general stationery and miscellaneous printing contract work, inclusive of typesetting and graphic design, the Central Office of Information is currently responsible; and if he will make a statement on the changes in the responsibility for Welsh Office printing contracts between his Department, HMSO and the Central Office of Information in the last 12 months.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Central Office of Information is not responsible for the Department's general stationery and miscellaneous printing contract work including typesetting and graphic design. There have been no changes in the relationship between the Department, HMSO and the Central Office of Information regarding printing contracts in the last 12 months.

  Since September 1991 the Department's printing contracts have been awarded entirely on the basis of competitive tendering.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nitrous Oxide
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the total amount of nitrous oxide emitted from(a) coal-fired power stations and (b) gas-fired power stations, in the latest available year.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1991, the latest year for which the information is available, emissions of oxides of nitrogen from coal-fired power stations in England and Wales totalled 620 kilotonnes. Similar figures for gas-fired power stations are not available.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has for the amount of derelict land in England; and what studies he has made into the cost of reclaiming it.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 1988 survey of derelict land in England recorded 40,500 hectares of derelict land as at 1 April 1988.

  Ove Arup consultants are currently researching the cost effectiveness of a sample of hard end use derelict land grant schemes for the Department.

  The cost effectiveness of derelict land grant schemes intended for environmental/recreational end uses has already been studied and is reported in the 1989 HMSO publication "Cost Effective Management of Reclaimed Derelict Sites".

  Ecolabelling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are being made in the United Kingdom for the launch in June of the EC-wide ecolabel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission recently announced that the Community ecolabelling scheme 452
  would be formally launched in June. The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board is responsible for administering and promoting the scheme nationally and I have therefore asked the board to reply to the hon. Member direct with more information on the arrangements they will be making for the launch.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are intended to be employed by the urban regeneration agency; and what is its budget for the first three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It will be for the agency to assess the staff resources it requires to deliver its work programme. The agency's budget will incorporate the existing resources of the three programmes it is taking over, including the additional resources for English Estates' work in the coalfields which were announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 19 October. We anticipate that these elements will total to £268 million in 1993–94, rising to about £300 million in 1995–96. These figures depend in part upon the level of receipts raised from the sale of assets.

  Children (Temporary Accommodation)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the numbers of children currently living in temporary accommodation, broken down by age and accommodation type.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which is the base forecast used in the preparation of the tables option I and option II on pages 19 to 20 respectively of his Department's report "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales-Revision of MPG6 Policy Issues Paper".

  Mr. Baldry
  Option 1 in the policy issues paper is derived from the views expressed about future demand by the regional aggregates working parties (RAWPs) in their regional commentaries which were published in 1992. The RAWPs took into account the long term projections of primary aggregates demand produced in 1991 by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. Option II reflects the Government view that between 6,500 million tonnes and 7,000 million tonnes of aggregates may be needed between 1992 and 2011 and was informed by the long term projections of demand for primary aggregates prepared by ECOTEC last year.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the statistical basis for the statement on page 20 of his Department's report "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales-Revision of MPG6 Policy Issues Paper" that option II envisages that land won resources in England and Wales identified in the regional commentaries are reduced by an overall level of 20 per cent. during the period of the guidelines.

  Mr. Baldry
  The option was prepared on the basis of a judgment about the level of supply from land won sources
  453
  of primary aggregates that would be consistent with meeting the Government's objectives for a sustainable aggregates policy.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts have been made by his Department to date to enforce section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The offence in section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 of treating, keeping or disposing of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health was brought into force on 1 April 1992.

  Enforcement of this section is a matter for others, principally waste regulation authorities.

  Combe Down Mines
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect of the forthcoming EC landfill directive on the remedial works in the Combe Down mines, Bath.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest draft of the EC directive on the landfill of waste is currently being substantially revised by the European Commission to take account of amendments considered by the European Parliament at its October plenary session. The proposal will be subject to detailed consideration by the Council of Ministers once it is given priority by a member state holding the presidency. The directive is unlikely to be adopted for a considerable time and it is too early to anticipate what impact its provisions will have on the proposals for remedial works in the Combe Down mines, Bath.

  Interim Development Orders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas of the United Kingdom still subject to interim development orders granted before 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Interim Development Order mineral permissions were granted between July 1943 and I July 1948 and preserved by successive planning acts. In relation to the area they cover in England and Wales I refer the hon. Member to my replies on 16 December to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to give local planning authorities the power to revoke interim development grants without having to pay compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government took steps in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to deal with interim development order permissions. These can be updated by the imposition of modern environmental conditions which do not attract compensation provided they are consistent with the guidance in MPG9. I have no plans for further measures to deal with such permissions. My Department has recently completed a wide ranging consultation 454
  exercise on options for dealing with the problems of old mineral permissions generally and I hope to consult on detailed proposals for change later this year.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications and correspondence his Department has received since November 1992 on the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  David Maclean
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: Since November 1992 my Department has received approximately 55,000 items of correspondence concerning the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional criteria for standard spending assessments are being considered; and what consultation he will introduce to improve the standard spending assessment system.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Standard spending assessments (SSAs) already include a wide range of indicators which are updated and refined every year in the light of new data and evidence. In preparation for the 1994–95 settlement, a number of indicators and formulae will be looked at again in the light of the full results from the 1991 census. These include the indicator for additional educational needs and the all ages social index. We will also be considering the possibility of introducing measures of sparsity and density based on census enumeration districts, and of including a factor to represent day visitors. All of this analysis will be fully discussed with local authority representatives. We consider that the present arrangements provide the opportunity for full and widespread consultation and there are no plans for change.

TRANSPORT

  Route Guidance Systems
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department proposes to utilise route guidance systems for drivers on the motorway and trunk road systems in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Part II of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 provides enabling powers under which commercial operators may seek licences for such systems.

  Travel Information
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is currently undertaken by his Department to enable improved dissemination of information between the motorway and non-motorway network management authorities to travel information centres and the media's travel information service.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The computerised national lane closure bulletin, which is distributed fortnightly to motoring organisations and the media, provides accurate and timely information about planned lane closures on the strategic network of motorways and other trunk roads.
  455
  This system and the information it contains will be developed further as demands for information are identified. Under the EC collaborative programme (DRIVE), the Department is sponsoring research into driver information technology.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department, including agencies, awarded the following commissions to KPMG Management Consultants:Trial of project management software for Road Programme Directorate.
  Assistance in formulating the Department's data communications needs.
  Development of an implementation Strategy for Pavement Management.
  Development of an information Strategy for the Vehicle Inspectorate.
  Options study for locating data on trunk roads network. Advice on DVOIT privatisation.

  Year

  Car and Motorcycle

  Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses

  Applications Received

  Tests Conducted

  Pass Rate per cent.

  Applications Received

  Tests Conducted

  Pass Rate per cent.

  1982–83

  1,783,700

  1,966,909

  48

  42,256

  42,991

  55

  1983–84

  1,905,035

  1,867,244

  49

  43,714

  42,674

  55

  1984–85

  1,944,019

  1,723,232

  49

  47,985

  47,109

  56

  1985–86

  2,026,972

  1,910,103

  49

  53,841

  53,195

  55

  1986–87

  2,091,450

  2,015,386

  49

  67,402

  65,725

  53

  1987–88

  2,017,759

  2,036,465

  51

  78,756

  76,461

  54

  1988–89

  1,956,238

  2,050,064

  52

  92,695

  88,704

  53

  1989–90

  1,953,386

  2,030,473

  53

  106,147

  99,183

  51

  1990–91

  1,984,355

  1,975,879

  53

  95,526

  96,514

  51

  1991–92

  1,862,382

  1,886,146

  53

  80,039

  71,704

  51

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total amount of revenue generated from driving test charges in the United Kingdom during each of the last 10 years.

  Financial year

  Heavy goods vehicles and buses (£000)

  Cars and motorcycles (£000)

  Total (£000)

  1982–83

  1,912

  24,846

  26,758

  1983–84

  Not available

  Not available

  130,332

  1984–85

  2,945

  28,972

  31,917

  1985–86

  3,314

  29,365

  32,679

  1986–87

  Not available

  Not available

  135,857

  1987–88

  3,294

  31,801

  35,095

  1988–89

  3,900

  34,269

  38,169

  1989–90

  4,638

  38,306

  42,944

  1990–91

  4,684

  38,450

  43,134

  1991–92

  3,596

  39,805

  43,401

  1The financial information on tests was not separately analysed for 1983–84 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many applications have been made for driving tests in each police authority area in Wales in each of the last 10 years;

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance is currently provided by his Department to help those with reading and/or writing difficulties to complete the written part of the driving test.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Current driving tests do not include a written examination. I shall shortly be considering a broad range of options for testing drivers' knowledge, including the possibility of a written theoretical test, in the light of responses to a consultation paper issued recently by the Driving Standards Agency on the implementation of the second EC driving licence directive. If a written test were to be introduced, the requirements of those with reading or writing difficulties would be taken into account.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) applications and (b) actual driving tests were taken in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and if he will indicate the proportion of successfully completed driving tests in each instance.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of applications received, tests conducted, and the proportion successfully completed for car, motorcycle, heavy goods vehicle and bus tests in Great Britain for the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The total revenue generated from driving test fees in Great Britain during each of the last 10 years is shown in the following table.

  (2) how many people took driving tests in each police authority area in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and how many tests were successfully completed in each instance, in numbers and as a proportion.
  457
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Statistics for driving tests are not collected by police authority area and it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested.

  Section 56 Grants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the date, amount awarded and brief descriptions of each project where application for a section 56 grant under the Transport Act 1968 has been successful; if he will list each unsuccessful application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1985, when such grants became available for large new public transport infrastructure projects, the following grants have been awarded.

  Project

  Date approved

  Grant £ million

  Merseyrail safety work

  March 1989

  0·3

  Manchester Metrolink light rail scheme

  October 1989

  53·0

  South Yorkshire Supertram light rail scheme

  December 1990

  165·0

  Ivanhoe Line heavy rail restoration scheme

  January 1992

  15·0

  1 Provisional figure.

  In addition grant of £0.75m was approved in October 1991 for development work on the plans for Midland Metro Line One, a proposed light rail scheme.

  Five unsuccessful applications have been made: Merseyside centralised signalling system, Manchester to Blackpool electrification, trolleybuses in West Yorkshire, Halifax bus station, and the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Newcastle airport. Credit approvals were however provided for three of these projects.

  We are prepared to grant-aid worthwhile schemes subject to the availability of resources.

  Railways (Severe Weather Damage)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial assistance will be available to British Rail to help with the cost of repairing damage to Scottish railway lines caused by the recent severe weather.

  Mr. Freeman
  The cost will qualify for support through the public service obligation grant.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often ships carrying radioactive waste will be passing Cardigan bay and the west Wales coast in 1993; how many ships are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have no information to suggest that there have been any such shipments in 1993 to date or that there will be any during the remainder of this year.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current regulations regarding tankers carrying radioactive waste off Cardigan bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Radioactive waste must be carried in accordance with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement new safety regulations for oil tankers travelling off Cardigan bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has no plans to implement new and further safety regulations for oil tankers travelling off Cardigan bay. However these matters are within the terms of reference of the Lord Donaldson inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend to the House on 11 January. In the meantime, we are exploring the possibility of introducing interim measures for tanker operations around the United Kingdom.

  A5 Bypass
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when in 1993 the public inquiry into the A5 bypass of Dunstable will begin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: The need for a public inquiry will depend on the weight and nature of objections to the draft orders which we are aiming to publish this autumn. Any inquiry would be held during 1994.

  Motoring Offences (Unadopted Roads)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the(a) motoring offences which apply on unadopted highways and (b) motoring offences which apply only on adopted highways;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the law to ensure that all drink driving legislation applies in circumstances where the road is unadopted.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: The definition of "road" used in the Road Traffic Act 1988, in relation to England and Wales, includes any highway and any other road to which the public has access. Road traffic offences, including the drink-drive offences, therefore apply on all highways, whether adopted or not, and on certain other roads. The drink-drive offences and the offences involving dangerous or careless driving also extend to public places other than roads.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway there are in the United Kingdom and what percentage is illuminated by overhead lights.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: There are 1,996 miles of motorway in the United Kingdom of which 1,692 miles are in England. Approximately 30 per cent. of the length of motorway in England is lit.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Thai Boxing
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations he has received to ban Thai boxing; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.
  459
  Mr. Brooke
  I have not received any representations from sporting or other authorities to ban Thai boxing. The Sports Council has however met representatives of various Thai boxing and kick boxing bodies to discuss possible recognition of the activity. They are currently awaiting a unified response from these bodies before considering the issue further. At present, Thai boxing and kick boxing are not recognised by the Sports Council for purposes of grant aid or other services.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what opportunities were given by his Department or the GAH group of consultants to(a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) foreign Governments to express their willingness to have the information supplied to him published; and what number of each category indicated such willingness;

  (2) how many invitations his Department or the GAH group issued to (a) individuals, (h) private companies and (c) foreign Governments requesting information towards his Department's report on the national lottery which were declined; and what was the reason given in each case;

  (3) if he will publish a table showing the total number of (a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) foreign Governments supplying information to the GAH report which he has contacted requesting permission to publish (i) those parts of the report which do not contain commercially sensitive information and (ii) the report in full; on what dates, and by which method, each request was made; and what further action he intends to take with remaining numbers in each category to pursue permission to publish (1) those parts of the report which do not contain commercially sensitive information and (2) the report in full;

  (4) how many (a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) foreign Governments were consulted by the GAH group of consultants or his Department in compiling his Department's report on the national lottery; and how many in each category requested to him in advance of supplying information that their evidence be treated as commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: The GAH group consulted publicly available documents and reports from lotteries throughout the world, and sought supplementary information by means of a questionnaire, after promising that both the approach and the answers would remain confidential, and that the ensuing report would not be published. Twenty-seven state lotteries responded to the confidential questionnaire. In one instance the assurance of confidentiality was not considered sufficient for the lottery operator to venture any information at all. Much of the information provided is commercially confidential to the operators concerned.

  I have not contacted the respondents to re-open the original assurance of confidentiality. Unanimous consent would be necessary for the report to be published, and in many cases the respondents have made it clear from the start that they would under no circumstances allow the information they provided to be made public.

DEFENCt

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 749, to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), whether the details of the sale of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia will be included in the UN register of arms sales; and if the entries in the register will be available for inspection in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  A sale of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia would be included in the UN register of conventional arms transfers. The British contribution to the register will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel at(a) RAF Valley and (b) RAF Chivenor were accommodated in rented private sector property in December 1992; and what was the total cost to his Department of that accommodation in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of RAF personnel accommodated in rented private sector property at RAF Valley and RAF Chivenor and the total costs of that accommodation to the Department were as follows:

  (a) RAF Valley

  (i) December 1991—Nil.

  (ii) December 1992–26 airmen and 10 officers, at a cost of £7,425.

  A modernisation programme of officers' married quarters at RAF Valley will be completed in August 1993, after which there will be no need for officers to be in rented private sector property.

  (b) RAF Chivenor

  (i) December 1991–6 Officers, at a cost of £2,650.

  (ii) December 1992–40 airmen and I 1 officers, at a cost of £20,959.

  Provision of married quarters to accommodate the above numbers at RAF Chivenor is currently being investigated.

  Flight Training
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days were lost due to poor weather conditions in each year since 1987 at(a) RAF Valley, (b) RAF Chivenor, (c) RAF Brawdy and (d) Pembrey weapons range.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The percentage of training time lost when weather conditions were unfit for flying training at RAF Valley, RAF Brawdy and RAF Chivenor during these periods is as follows:

  RAF Valley per cent.

  RAF Brawdy per cent.

  RAF Chivenor per cent.

  1987

  26·5

  12·7

  8·7

  1988

  20·8

  8·8

  5·6

  1989

  16·5

  8·9

  4·1

  1990

  16·8

  7·1

  6·9

  1991

  24·0

  10·0

  6·9

  461
  Similar information for RAF Pembrey Sands is recorded as per cent. of range time lost due to weather conditions, as follows:

  per cent.

  1987

  20

  1988

  16

  1989

  11

  1990

  11

  1991

  16

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's internal audit committee completed its review of the ending of flight training at Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No audit into the ending of flight training at RAF Brawdy has been undertaken. The station was, however, visited as part of a wider audit of the management controls governing the closure of Ministry of Defence establishments, and this work is expected to be completed in the spring.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF pilots based at RAF Valley for advanced weapon training have had to carry out part of that training at RAF St. Evel in 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  United States Naval Facility
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the annual costs to his Department of the support and servicing of the United States naval facility at Brawdy in(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 and the estimated costs for (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Until the end of flying training at Brawdy in August 1992 support for the United States naval facility at RAF Brawdy was included in the overall running costs of the station. Figures for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The cost for 1993–94 is estimated to be £4.6 million. It is not yet possible to provide an estimate for 1994–95.

  Allowances
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the levels of allowances paid to military personnel serving in(a) Germany, (b) former Yugoslavia and (c) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The allowances paid to military personnel depend not only on their location but on their rank, job and personal circumstances, including whether they are married or not. It is our general policy that normal rules on allowances apply wherever personnel are serving. These rules include the payment of local overseas allowance to personnel deployed outside the United Kingdom to cover, where appropriate, the additional costs associated with living in the country concerned. Troops deployed from Germany to the former Yugoslavia continue to receive a significant element of the LOA, 70 per cent. for married personnel and 40 per cent. for single personnel, in recognition of their continuing financial 462
  commitments in Germany. In recognition of the conditions under which they are serving we have introduced a special welfare package which includes free two-way aerogrammes and an allowance towards the cost of telephone calls for all troops based in the former Yugoslavia. Personnel deployed to Northern Ireland also receive a number of special allowances, for example, in respect of meals and telephone calls.

  Exercise Long Summer
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 630–31, if he will give details of the outsize load required to be moved for Exercise Long Summer in 1992, and the type of civil aircraft chartered for this purpose.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The payload consisted of two Chinook helicopters, associated equipment and spares. The task was carried out by an Antonov aircraft chartered through Heavylift Cargo Airlines Ltd.

  Air Charter Budget
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 630–31, if he will set out the total sum allocated in Supply Estimates in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, and to be allocated in 1993–94 to the air charter budget, and the arrangements for its central management.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total sums allocated to air charter in supply estimates were as follows:

  £ Million

  1990–91

  13·415

  1991–92

  13·212

  1992–93

  16·096

  The figure for 1993–94 has yet to be agreed. Operations and finance for air charter are centrally managed by a group captain, the deputy director of movements (RAF), based in London. Contracts are placed competitively by contracts staff based in Glasgow.

  Exercise Medman
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 630–31, if he will set out the nature of Exercise Medman in 1990, 1991 and 1992, and the reasons for its change in prioritisation within the Air Charter budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Exercise Medman is an all-arms battlegroup exercise, using live ammunition, held at the British Army training unit, Suffield, Canada. The units due to take part in the exercises in 1990 and 1991 were those most likely to be subsequently deployed in support of operations in the Gulf. It was considered essential that the forces in question train in Canada and, as the RAF air transport force was already fully committed, central funding for air charter was provided.

  "Capture of Rudolf Hess"
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the oral answer by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 3 June 1992,
  463
  Official Report, column 823, if he will release for public perusal the files bearing the title "Capture of Rudolf Hess" between May and July 1941 ref.no. WO 199/3288A and B.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Both files are already available for perusal at the Public Record Office. File WO 199/3288A was released to the public domain in 1977 and WO 199/3288B in January 1992.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the operating costs of providing Sea King search and rescue helicopter coverage at RAF Boulmer and RAF Leconfield for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what are the estimated costs for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Tankers
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring has been carried out by his Department of tanker traffic passing through the Minches; what results are available from that monitoring; what resources and facilities are utilised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence agreed in 1991 that MOD support vessels operating in the area would report to the Stornoway coastguard on an opportunity basis sightings of laden tankers transitting the Minches. Records have not been kept of any reports made under this arrangement.

  Rayo Rocket System
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about sales of the Rayo rocket system developed by Royal Ordnance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have received a number of representations on this matter. Royal Ordnance's participation in the RAYO project continues to be subject to very careful scrutiny under the normal export licensing disciplines.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what defence research agency establishment the Rayo multiple launch rocket system has been tested.

  Mr. Aitken
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality we do not release details of tests by manufacturers at MOD ranges.

  Gulf Trust Fund
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his broad estimate as to the numbers of potential beneficiaries, including widows and dependent children, who might be eligible to apply for help from the Gulf trust fund.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Those who are entitled to be beneficiaries of the Gulf trust fund are defined in the trust deed as members of Her Majesty's armed forces involved in military and other operations relating to or in connection with the Gulf conflict, the civilian personnel attached to or accompanying such members of Her 464
  Majesty's armed forces and their respective dependants. On this basis the number of potential beneficiaries from those who served in theatre alone is some 43,500 service and civilian personnel as well as their dependants. Those who have already received assistance from the fund may require further financial help and stress and trauma-related cases may not emerge for a number of years.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will review his policy with regard to the provision of pensions for all widows of service men, where their marriage took place after service in the forces;

  (2) what consideration has been given to the provision of pensions for all widows of service men who fought in the second world war but married after leaving service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Pension entitlements for service men and their widows are determined according to the terms applicable to the date on which service ends and, where appropriate, on the duration of that service.

  The terms of the armed forces pension scheme include provision for a pension to be awarded to the eligible widow of a service man who marries after leaving service provided that some part of his service was given on or after 6 April 1978 and that he qualified for retired pay or pension.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Amnesty International
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy regarding consultation with Amnesty International; how many times he has met representatives of the organisation in the past 12 months; what action he has taken following those representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Consultations with Amnesty International are valued by us. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met representatives of Amnesty in September 1992; in addition I addressed representatives of non-governmental organisations (including Amnesty) on 18 January, and Amnesty had a general discussion with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20 January. I attended that meeting. Information received from Amnesty complements Government monitoring of human rights abuse, and therefore contributes to the formulation of policy.

  Turkey
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights implications of the killing of journalists in Turkey since 1991.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Turkish Government are well aware of our concern about human rights in Turkey. We welcome Prime Minister Demirel's recognition of a Kurdish identity and his Government's intention to make human rights improvements a priority. Prime Minister Demirel has pledged to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of journalists in south east Turkey.

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent assessment of the economic and political situation in Vietnam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The new constitution adopted on 15 April 1992 retained the primacy of the Communist party of Vietnam, but modified the Government structure to make it more accountable to the National Assembly, elections for which were held on 19 July 1992. Since 1986, Vietnam has pursued a programme of economic restructuring, aimed at moving to a free-market system. The IMF consider this an exemplary effort at economic reform.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people, in total, have appealed against repatriation from Hong Kong to Vietnam; and how many of these appeals have been successful.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 31 December 1992, 30,971 appeals had been heard by the Refugee Status review board. Of these 1,855 were successful.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring has taken place to date of those Vietnamese boat people who have been repatriated from Hong Kong to Vietnam to ensure that they do not face persecution on being returned to Vietnam; if such monitoring is continuing; and what the results of the monitoring reveal.

  Mr. Goodland
  Monitoring has been and will continue to be carried out by the staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the British embassy in Hanoi and non-governmental organisations working in Vietnam.

  There has been no evidence of ill-treatment by the Vietnamese authorities in more than 31,000 cases, including returns from first asylum countries in the region other than Hong Kong.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Vietnam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The development of our relations with Vietnam has been given greater impetus by progress towards a political settlement in Cambodia and a solution of the problem of Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong. Our aid programme to Vietnam was resumed in 1990. Bilateral trade is increasing rapidly and the United Kingdom is now the fifth largest foreign investor in Vietnam. The Vietnamese Foreign Minister paid a successful visit to the United Kingdom in June 1992, and Sir George Young, Lord Caithness and I all visited Vietnam last year. We are also at the forefront of efforts to expand relations between the EC and Vietnam, and to normalise Vietnam's relations with the international financial institutions.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people have, in total to date, been repatriated from Hong Kong to Vietnam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 31 December 1992, 26,753 Vietnamese migrants had been repatriated.
  466
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people currently remain in Hong Kong awaiting repatriation to Vietnam.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 31 December 1992, 22,118 Vietnamese migrants had been found not to be refugees and were awaiting repatriation. A further 20,599 were awaiting refugee status determination.

  Iran
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding Iran's military build-up and the removal by the Iranian Government of non-Iranians from Abu Musa island in the Gulf.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We accept the right of countries to acquire the means to defend themselves, but are concerned that Iran's arms procurement should not pose a threat to regional stability. Iranian actions on Abu Musa in the course of last year were a cause for concern in terms of regional stability. We and our European Community partners have urged Iran and the United Arab Emirates to work for a peaceful resolution of their differences.

  Denmark
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the provisions of international law governing the extent to which the International Court of Justice may adjudicate on the intergovernmental decision taken in Edinburgh concerning Denmark.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The provisions of international law governing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to adjudicate on questions arising on international agreements, such as the decision concerning Denmark agreed at the Edinburgh European Council, are set out in the statute of the International Court of Justice, annexed to the UN charter and in particular chapter II.

  Mr. Mansoor Hussain Qureshi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 January concerning Mansoor Hussain Qureshi—Ref: K051037—Official Report, column 157, when Mr. Qureshi was refused entry clearance to join his wife in the United Kingdom; what representations have been received at the British post in Karachi by Mr. Qureshi's representatives; what is the average time taken by the post in Karachi in preparing explanatory statements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Qureshi was refused entry clearance to join his wife on 15 April 1992.

  The Deputy High Commission in Karachi received representations from Chans and Co., immigration consultants, in February 1992; from Bradford law centre on 19 November 1992 and 14 January 1993; and from Ruth Budney and Co, in December 1992.

  The average time taken by the deputy high commission in Karachi in preparing explanatory statements is, 12 weeks from receipt of the completed appeal forms.

  As the hon. Member may know, it has only recently come to light that Mr. Qureshi's appeal forms never

  467
  reached the post in Karachi. However, now that they have received proof of posting from Bradford law centre, they have agreed to act as if the appeal had been submitted in time.

  Laws of War
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the additional protocols to the Geneva convention on the laws of war have been signed and ratified by Her Majesty's Government; which have been signed but not ratified; which have not been signed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [pursuant to the reply 15 December 1992 c. 87]: The date given was incorrect. The United Kingdom signed both additional protocols on 12 December 1977. It has not yet ratified them.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to register with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, pursuant to article 102 of the United Nations charter, the decision of the head of state and Government meeting within the European Council held at Edinburgh on 12 December 1992 concerning certain problems raised by Denmark.

  Mr. Garet-Jones
  [pursuant to his reply 13 January 1993 c. 758]: The decision is registrable with the United Nations secretariat and will be registered. But the question does not arise until the entry into force of the decision on Denmark, which by virtue of section E is linked to that of the Maastricht treaty itself.

HEALTH

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 412, what was the percentage increase in the cost of publishing the British National Formulary in 1991–92 compared with 1990–91; and what the figure was in real terms using (a) the price index for NHS medicines and (b) the retail prices index.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no prices index for national health service medicines. The remaining information requested is in the table.

  1990–91 Expenditure £

  1991–92 Expenditure £

  Percentage increase

  Percentage increase deflated by the RPI

  1,191,169

  1,296,320

  8·83

  4·64

  Note: The Retail Prices Index ( RPI) for the 12 months to March 1992 is 4 per cent.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 412, what was the percentage increase in the cost of servicing the prescribing research
  468
  centre at Leeds university in 1991–92 compared with 1990–91; and what the figure was in real terms using (a) the prices index for national health service medicines and (b) the retail prices index.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no prices index for national health service medicines. The remaining information requested is in the table.

  1990–91 expenditure £

  1991–92 expenditure £

  Increase Per cent.

  Increase deflated by the RPI Per cent.

  328,550

  377,984

  15·05

  10·62

  Note: The retail prices index (RPI) for the 12 months to March 1992 is 4 per cent.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 412, what was the percentage increase in the cost of the medicines resources centre in 1991–92 compared with the previous year; and what the figure was in real terms using (a) the prices index for national health service medicines and (b) the retail prices index.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no prices index for national health service medicines. The remaining information requested is in the table.

  1990–91 expenditure £

  1991–92 expenditure £

  Increase Per cent.

  Increase deflated by the RPI Per cent.

  250,000

  275,000

  10·00

  5·77

  Note: The retail prices index (RPI) for the 12 months to March 1992 is 4 per cent.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 412, what was the percentage increase in the cost of supporting the publication and distribution of Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin in 1991–92 compared with the previous year in cash and in real terms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is in the table.

  1990–91 expenditure £

  1991–92 expenditure £

  Per cent. increase

  Real terms per cent. increase

  750,863

  827,305

  10·18

  5·94

  Notes:

  1. The expenditure figure for 1990–91 includes an amount for the Adverse Drugs Reactions Bulletin which was discontinued in June 1990.

  2. The real terms figure takes into account the RPI figure for the 12 months to March 1992 which is 4 per cent.

  Small Rural Hospitals
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out by, or under the auspices of her Department into the medical value and community role of small hospitals in rural areas.
  469
  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of government funding will be provided for medical research into epilepsy in 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health Departments' recent research expenditure in this field amounts to some £70,000 on a number of projects, of which a small part is to be spent during 1993.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1991–92 the MRC spent £381,000 on research into epilepsy. The MRC is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals for research in competition with other applications. Any change in the level of spending during subsequent years will depend on the nature of applications received.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is planning to maintain the current level of NHS dental services in Cornwall; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of the family health services authority (FHSA) to ensure that local services remain accessible. FHSAs may apply for permission to employ salaried dentists if they consider it necessary to maintain services locally. Approval has recently been given to the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly FHSA to employ two salaried dentists, who will work from a mobile clinic serving a number of areas in the locality. Anyone who needs help in obtaining national health service dental treatment should contact the FHSA.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment were undertaken in Cornwall in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Courses of Dental Treatment in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Family Health Services Authority

  Year

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  1987–88

  229,290

  97,290

  326,580

  1988–89

  241,450

  98,220

  339,670

  1989–90

  238,716

  101,631

  340,347

  1990–91

  237,047

  82,423

  319,470

  1991–92

  262,771

  26,810

  289,581

  Note:

  The data for each year are not fully comparable. Changes introduced by the new contract for general dental practitioners on 1 October 1990, mean that most treatment for under 18s is given under capitation arrangements and is therefore no longer separately identified.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received about the provision of national health service dental treatment in Cornwall; and if she will make a statement.
  470
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since July last year we have received 18 letters from hon. Members about national health service dental treatment in Cornwall and a number from members of the public.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the amount paid to dental practitioners in Cornwall in each of the past five years at constant prices together with the planned level of remuneration for the next three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Gross payments to general dental practitioners (GDPs) in contract with Cornwall and Isle of Scilly family health services authority

  Financial Year

  Cash1 £ million

  At 1991–92 prices2 £ million

  1987–88

  6·778

  8·946

  1988–89

  7·822

  9·623

  1989–90

  8·432

  9·734

  1990–91

  9·608

  10·272

  1991–92

  12·051

  12·051

  Notes:

  1Based on the total of treatment and registration fees (including charges paid by patients) authorised for payment to GDPs, but excluding additional earnings such as seniority payments, vocational training allowances, and the direct reimbursement of business rates. Data for 1987–88 to 1990–91 are taken from Financial Information System returns and those for 1991–92 are taken from payments scheduled by the Dental Practice Board.

  2Adjustment using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Levels of GDP remuneration are forecast at national level. For 1992–93, we expect that the average GDP in Great Britain will have a gross income of about £88,000. The levels of gross remuneration for GDPs for 1993–94 and 1994–95 have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis on which payments for courses of dental treatment, materials and laboratory fees are calculated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Dentists' remuneration for national health service work is set in a process of several stages. The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) recommends a target average net income (TANI) which it considers dentists should earn from providing NHS general dental services, and the Government decide to accept or amend the recommendation and sets the TANI.

  The dental rates study group (DRSG) then forecasts the level of dentists' expenses (including materials and laboratory costs) for the coming year and adds this figure to the TANI to produce target average gross income (TAGI). TAGI is modified, if necessary, to take account of under or over.payments of net income arising from an earlier year to produce the sum due to the average dentist. Finally, the DRSG forecasts the amount of NHS work that dentists will undertake in the coming year and sets the scale of individual payments and fees, taking account of the report of its laboratory and materials joint working party, that will, given the forecast amount of work, deliver the TAGI sum due to the average dentist.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary'of State for Health how many dental practices in Cornwall have(a) restricted the number of new NHS patients they will take on or (b) opted out of NHS dental treatment in the last 12 month period for which figures are available.
  471
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the number of dental practices restricting the numbers of new national health service patients is not available centrally. Dentists are independent contractors and, as such, are free to accept or refuse patients for NHS treatment. They may also practise privately, wholly or in part, if they wish. Since July 1992, one dentist out of a total of 1451 dentists as at 30 June 1992 in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly FHSA, has asked for their name to be removed from the dental list.
  1Includes dentists who may also have a contract with another FHSA in addition to Cornwall and Isles of Scilly FHSA.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of children registered with general dental practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for family health services authorities, working with district health authorities, to take action to encourage children to be registered with a dentist. The dental contract, introduced in 1990, encourages raised awareness and a more preventative approach to dentistry. As at November 1992, there were 7·3 million children in England registered with a General Dental Practitioner—two thirds of all children in England.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nursing mothers received dental treatment in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the average cost per patient;

  (2) how many pregnant women received dental treatment in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the average cost per patient.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of courses of dental treatment for nursing mothers in England in 1991–92 was 666,816, with an average cost per course of treatment of £46.01. The number of courses of dental treatment for pregnant women in 1991–92 was 453,467, with an average cost per course of treatment was £33·78.

  Figures for 1990–91 are not available.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per adult patient for each course of dental treatment in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average cost per adult patient for each course of national health service treatment in 1990–91 was £35·58 and in 1991–92 it was £36·11.

  Brockhall Hospital
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps were taken to set aside the terms of the lease of land at Brockhall hospital in East Lancashire which stipulated that the land and everything on it would revert to the freeholder in the event of Brockhall hospital being closed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Secretary of State has no power to override the restrictive covenant attached to the leasehold interest in this land which comprises residential property, attached to Brockhall hospital. Following counsel's opinion, the regional health authority has reached a negotiated settlement with the freeholder giving security of tenure to the tenants and the health authority a full share in any redevelopment.

  Hospital Freehold
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) those hospitals in England where the freehold title lies other than with the NHS and (b) those hospitals that will revert to the freeholder when they are no longer used for health purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. National health service property is managed by NHS trusts, or by health authorities on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  Migrants (Mental Health)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held by his Department concerning the incidence of mental health problems amongst migrants, particularly refugees and asylum seekers from the Horn of Africa, who are settled in Greater London.

  Mr. Yeo
  District health authorities are responsible for assessing the mental health needs of their populations, including immigrants, and for providing necessary services. The Department does not, therefore, routinely collect statistics or other information on the incidence of mental disorders among immigrant populations.

  Departmental officials are in discussion with the Somali counselling project about its work among the Somalian community.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated by her Department to date in publicising the Children Act 1989 and the relevant guidance notes amongst organisations of and for disabled people.

  Mr. Yeo
  Expenditure on publicising the Children Act 1989 and associated guides was:

  £

  1989–90

  3,863

  1990–91

  86,007

  1991–92

  806,271

  1992–93

  185,756

  1 Estimated.

  Information on publicity material that may have been sent to or requested by disabled people or organisations for the disabled is not available centrally.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that more resources are allocated for mobile units for the screening of breast and cervical cancer; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The bulk of cervical screening is performed in general practitioner surgeries or community and family planning clinics. Special facilities are therefore not necessary.

  Between 1987 and 1990, the Government provided £70 million in the United Kingdom (£55 million in England) to set up and run the breast screening programme including

  473
  the purchase of equipment. Current funding to meet the costs of the breast screening programme is built into health authority allocations and they should implement their breast screening programmes within the overall money allocated to them. It is for health authorities to determine whether additional resources should be made available for screening services in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has regarding the prevalence of the practice of screening women prior to abortion for chlamydia.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about levels of chlamydia screening is not available centrally. The decision whether or not to offer such screening prior to abortion is one for the doctor concerned.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases of abortion, in the last year for which figures are available, it was necessary to provide blood transfusions to the mother.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Care Beds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities have no continuing care beds.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information collected by the Department on numbers of geriatric beds does not separately identify those used for continuing care. Health authorities are responsible for purchasing services to meet the needs of frail elderly patients, including continuing care for those who require it.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities are providing incontinence services for people in residential care homes on the same basis as people living in their own homes; and whether a charge is made.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Elderly People (Housing Transfers)
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities have transferred or propose to transfer all or some of their elderly persons homes to a housing trust or association; how many homes are involved out of the total number in each local authority; and to which housing trusts or associations the homes have been or are proposed to be transferred.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Voluntary Organisations (Assistance)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 will be made available through 474
  Liverpool health authority in 1993–94 to agencies dealing with psychiatric patients, mentally ill patients and mental handicap patients;

  (2) if she will list the Liverpool agencies which under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 were funded in 1992–93; how much each received; how many patients they care for; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Grants made by the Department under the section 64 general scheme are almost entirely to assist with the central administrative costs of, or to support a national project run by, a national voluntary organisation.

  Health authorities also have powers to make grants under section 64. Information on such grants is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Liverpool health authority for details.

  Dentures
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of dentures supplied in the most recent year for which figures are available; what were the comparable figures in each of the previous 10 years; and what figures she has for upper and lower dentures.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Synthetic dentures

  Year

  Upper

  Lower

  Total

  Metal dentures total

  1981

  998,390

  730,000

  1,728,390

  113,740

  1982

  1,052,330

  780,280

  1,832,610

  136,550

  1983

  1,038,180

  769,860

  1,808,040

  143,230

  1984

  1,028,130

  756,960

  1,785,090

  154,330

  1985

  1,058,050

  789,300

  1,847,350

  172,040

  1986–87

  1,007,900

  742,170

  1,750,070

  200,210

  1987–88

  1,010,130

  736,670

  1,746,800

  199,400

  1988–89

  1,037,700

  760,560

  1,798,260

  206,830

  1989–90

  883,680

  625,890

  1,509,570

  193,700

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1,457,648

  195,814

  1991–92

  —

  —

  1,536,286

  199,958

  Notes:

  Data for 1981 to 1985 are given in calendar years. Data for 1986–87 to 1991–92 are given in financial years.

  Separate figures for upper and lower synthetic dentures are not available for 1990–91 and 1991–92. Separate figures for upper and lower metal dentures are not available for any of the years quoted.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and suggestions her Department has given to those managing community care in local authorities as to how best to appraise the effectiveness and efficiency of the services they provide.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities and their senior social services are responsible for monitoring the services they provide. This has been strengthened with the introduction of arms-length inspection units and statutory complaints procedures both of which can contribute to quality control. They also draw on the advice, guidance and help offered by the Department. In particular, the social services inspectorate makes available its inspection reports to the authorities concerned and offers guidance on good practice. The Audit Commission has an important role in assessing the cost effectiveness of local authority provision and in drawing the attention of individual authorities to their responsibilities that need to be managed more
  475
  effectively. Also, the local authority performance indicator package issued by the Audit Commission on 15 December 1992 should ensure that the public will increasingly be able to judge the effectiveness and efficiency of a wide range of local authority services.

  NHS Drugs
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost to the national health service of prescribed but unused drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the introduction of a triple prescription form as a means of preventing wastage of prescribed drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This matter is still under consideration.

  DHA Mergers
  Mr. David Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many applications for amalgamation she has received from district health authorities; and if she will list them.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has received 14 applications from regional health authorities to merge the following district health authorities:

  Hull and East Yorkshire district health authorities

  Grimsby and Scunthorpe district health authorities

  Calderdale, Dewsbury and Huddersfield district health authorities

  Pontefract and Wakefield district health authorities

  West Suffolk and East Suffolk district health authorities

  North East Essex, Mid Essex and West Essex district health authorities

  Bloomsbury and Islington and Hampstead district health authorities

  Southend, Basildon and Thurrock and Brentwood (part of Barking, Havering and Brentwood) district health authorities

  Enfield and Haringey district health authorities

  Lewisham and North Southwark, Camberwell and West Lambeth district health authorities

  Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings district health authorities

  Aylesbury Vale, Wycombe and Milton Keynes district health authorities

  Kingston and Esher and Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton health authorities

  North East Warwickshire and South Warwickshire health authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to reply to the letter sent to her on 27 August 1992 by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, about the killing of Lee and Nicholas Evans.

  Mr. Sackville
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 12 October 1992.

  Patients (Transport)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the criteria on which calls received by the London ambulance service are transferred to the patients transport service, after 8 pm Monday to Friday and at weekends; how many calls were transferred; how many calls were taken up by patient transport services; how many calls were of an urgent and non-urgent nature over the past three months; and over what period such statistics are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Only in exceptional circumstances should calls for emergency ambulances be passed to the patient transport service. There are no records held centrally of when this may have occurred in the London ambulance service. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. James Harris, chairman of the London ambulance service, for details.

  Electromagnetic Radiation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken by Her Department into the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the uptake of calcium ions by human cells.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: No such studies have been undertaken by the Department, nor any other body so far as we are aware. Studies in the United States involving animal cells have raised the possibility of an effect of electromagnetic radiation on the uptake of calcium ions. However, subsequent work undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board does not suggest an adverse effect. This work has recently been submitted for publication.

  Premature Births
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born prematurely in the United Kingdom in the last two years; and how many of these(a) contracted advanced retinopathy, (b) received treatment for advanced retinopathy in the United Kingdom, (c) received treatment for advanced retinopathy outside the United Kingdom and (d) responded to such treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: This information is not available in the form requested.

  Babies who are very premature are prone to a condition known as retinopathy of prematurity, the most severe cases tending to occur in babies weighing less than 1,500 g or of 31 weeks gestation or less. In 1990 in England and Wales, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 4,827 babies of less than 1,500 g who survived the first year of life. The number affected by retinopathy of prematurity is not known, though research studies which have been carried out suggest that more than half of those weighing less than 1,500 g experience some form of retinopathy. In most cases of retinopathy of prematurity, the condition improves without recourse to treatment.

  Details of the number of low birthweight babies receiving treatment for severe retinopathy either in this country or overseas are not collected centrally; nor is information collected centrally on the outcome of such treatment.
  477
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to sponsor or conduct research into the cause and treatment of advanced retinopathy in premature babies.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The British Association of Perinatal Medicine and the College of Ophthalmologists have produced joint professional guidelines on the care of retinopathy of prematurity. The Department is currently discussing with the professional bodies concerned what further research studies are required to find out the extent to which this knowledge is being applied in practice.

SCOTLAND

  Renfrewshire (Lords-Lieutenant)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) names, (b) occupations and (c) places of residence of (i) the vice lord-lieutenant and (ii) the deputy lords-lieutenant of the county of Renfrewshire; if he plans to make any further nominations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January]: Vice lord-lieutenants and deputy lieutenants are appointed by the lord-lieutenant, subject to Her Majesty's approbation. Current information about their occupations is not held centrally. The names and places of residence of the deputy lieutenants for Renfrewshire are as follows:—

  RENFREWSHIRE
  Vice Lord-Lieutenant

  Colonel Sir Houston Shaw Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall Bt MC: Inverkip

  Deputy Lieutenants

  Commander Henry C. Abram VRD OStJ: Kilmacolm

  Lt Col A Leonard Aitkenhead MBE TD: Giffnock

  Brigadier John Brown OBE MM TD: Newton Mearns

  G W N H Clark Esq: Inverkip

  Sir Ian Denholm CBE: Lochwinnoch

  Alan R. Devereux Esq CBE: Giffnock

  The Right Hon. The Lord Goold CA: Clarkston

  Captain William H Hunter CBE: Kilmalcolm

  Captain David A Kerr MC TD: Greenock

  Mrs. Helen M. Laird OBE PhD: Blanefield

  Sir William J Lithgow Bt of Ormsary: Langbank

  Wing Commander C Hector MacLean AE: Kilmacolm

  Sir Robert A Maclean KBE LLD: Bridge of Weir

  The Right Hon. The Lord Maclay: Kilmacolm

  George G MacMillan of MacMillan and Knap: Langbank

  James R Minto Esq OBE PhD: Kilbarchan

  Group Captain George C Pinkerton OBE DFC AE: Houston

  Major John G. Stewart TD: Houston

  Sir Eric G Yarrow Bt MBE: Kilmacolm

  Sir Simpson Stevenson LLD: Gourock

  European Forests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution Her Majesty's Government made to the fourth annual report on Europe's forests by the European Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 20 January 19931: The 1992 report on forest condition in Europe, which was produced jointly by the Commission of the European Communities and the United Nations economic commission for Europe, was based on the results of forest health
  478
  surveys carried out in 1991 by the forest services of 33 European countries. In Britain, the survey was carried out by the Forestry Commission which submitted the results to the compilers of the report.

  Hill Livestock
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many producers are entitled to hill livestock compensation allowances in Scotland; and what proportion of those are located in(a) severely disadvantaged and (b) disadvantaged areas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 19931: My Department's information relates to the number of producers receiving hill livestock compensatory allowances. Under the 1992 scheme 17,706 producers have received HLCAs of whom 16,927 are situated in severely disadvantaged areas and 779 in the disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the discrepancy between the low farm gate prices available to Scottish hill livestock producers and the high retail prices paid by consumers in the shops.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement setting out the reasons for reducing levels of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what assistance he will give the Scottish hill livestock farmers to make up the reduction in income they will sustain as a result.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 19931: We took the decision to reduce HLCA sheep rates after a careful examination of the economic circumstances of farmers in the hills and uplands. This showed that the incomes of specialist sheep producers had risen substantially over the last two years. The reduction in HLCAs will be substantially more than offset by increases in the 1992 sheep annual premium.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many employees were engaged by Scottish hill livestock farming businesses over each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of the total labour force engaged in hill livestock farming in Scotland lost their jobs over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The number of employees engaged by Scottish hill livestock businesses in each of the last five years is set out in the following table. Information is collected only on levels of employment.

  Year

  Number of Employees

  Percentage Change

  1988

  6,880

  —

  1989

  6,874

  -0·1

  1990

  6,978

  +1·5

  1991

  6,830

  -2·1

  1992

  6,704

  -1·8

  Notes:

  Employees include family and hired workers, full-time and part-time workers and casual/seasonal workers. Farmers and

  479
  spouses are excluded.

  2. All figures relate to main holdings classified as Less Favoured Areas (LFA) mainly sheep, LFA mainly cattle or LFA cattle and sheep from Scottish June 1992 census data.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of state-financed social payments, subsidies and other schemes to provide a supplement to income, within the common agricultural policy available to hill farmers in other EC member states.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the net farm income figures for Scottish hill livestock farming businesses over the past five years for which figures are available at constant prices shown as a percentage of average full time manual earnings for the same period.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information on net farm incomes of hill livestock farm businesses and average full-time manual earnings, in money and real terms, over the last five years is set out in the following table. Net farm income is not a measure of the direct cash earnings that farmers receive and hence is not comparable with average manual earnings.

  Net farm income All hill livestock farms1 (£ per farm)

  Average full-time manual earnings (male) (£ per male worker)

  Money terms

  Deflated by RPI2

  Money terms

  Deflated by RPI2

  1987–88

  8,685

  8,685

  9,344

  9,344

  1988–89

  11,029

  10,514

  10,135

  9,662

  1989–90

  8,865

  7,838

  10,915

  9,651

  1990–91

  8,583

  6,933

  12,048

  9,732

  31991–92

  8,207

  6,265

  13,057

  9,967

  1 Average of net farm income for less favoured area (LFA) mainly sheep, LFA mainly cattle and LFA cattle and sheep farms.

  21987–88=100.

  Source: The Scottish Abstract of Statistics.

  Scotland

  Within LFA boundary

  Within LFA boundary as a percentage of Scotland per cent.

  Land (hectares)

  5,296,038

  4,612,270

  87

  Occupiers

  20,724

  15,562

  75

  Source: June Agricultural Census 1992. (Occupiers of main holdings only).

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people have been charged by Scottish police forces for failing to report and stop at the scene of a road traffic accident, in each of the last five years; and if he will give a regional breakdown of these figures;

  (2) how many people have been prosecuted for failing to report and stop at the scene of a road traffic accident, in each of the last five years; and if he will give a regional breakdown of these figures.
  480
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number and proportion of farmers in Scotland who receive hill livestock compensatory allowance payments.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Under the 1992 HLCA scheme a total of 17,706 producers received payments. That represents 85 per cent. of occupiers of main holdings in Scotland from the June 1992 agricultural census.

  Livestock Producers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the level of average net farm income available to Scottish livestock producers in 1993 and 1994.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: We will shortly be announcing net farm income figures for 1992–93. The level of net farm incomes in 1993 and 1994 cannot be predicted since it will depend on a number of factors, including market returns in those years.

  Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what hectarage of land in Scotland is in(a) less-favoured areas, (b) severly disadvantaged areas and (c) disadvantaged areas; what proportion of land in Scotland each figure represents; and how many farmers are involved.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information on agricultural land within the less favoured area is in the following table. The agricultural census collects information on occupiers of main holdings rather than on farmers. Information is not collected separately for severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas because of the small number of main holdings in the latter category.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested. Table (i) gives the total number of offences under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and corresponding earlier legislation, which were cleared up by Scottish police forces. Table (ii) gives the number of offences under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and corresponding earlier legislation, which were proceeded against. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 includes both failing to stop or report a road traffic accident and also failing to provide proof of insurance.
  481

  Failing to stop or report a road traffic accident,or give information or insurance documents, by region, Scotland 1987 to 1991

  (i) Number of offences cleared-up

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Borders

  207

  213

  195

  174

  144

  Central

  290

  346

  334

  334

  295

  Dumfries and Galloway

  359

  417

  496

  403

  471

  Fife

  625

  501

  524

  605

  476

  Grampian

  1,388

  1,277

  1,270

  1,313

  1,286

  Highland

  370

  340

  305

  310

  380

  Lothian

  1,879

  1,850

  1,578

  1,718

  2,058

  Strathclyde

  3,035

  2,932

  2,865

  2,831

  2,794

  Tayside

  709

  595

  666

  688

  584

  Orkney

  26

  37

  26

  37

  18

  Shetland

  40

  32

  43

  33

  34

  Western Isles

  32

  27

  40

  25

  50

  SCOTLAND

  8,960

  8,567

  8,342

  8,471

  8,590

  (ii) Offences proceeded against by court location

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Borders

  84

  82

  101

  99

  81

  Central

  241

  251

  244

  238

  229

  Dumfries and Galloway

  191

  265

  346

  354

  266

  Fife

  234

  199

  185

  198

  202

  Grampian

  686

  977

  777

  896

  977

  Highland

  233

  193

  165

  193

  216

  Lothian

  1,476

  1,255

  1,075

  1,206

  1,097

  Strathclyde

  1,418

  1,581

  1,389

  1,406

  1,380

  Tayside

  571

  528

  563

  509

  461

  Orkney

  38

  22

  18

  31

  13

  Shetland

  57

  20

  14

  14

  26

  Western Isles

  25

  18

  23

  38

  36

  High Court

  5

  4

  2

  7

  4

  Proceedings discharged before court appearance

  75

  66

  59

  41

  3

  SCOTLAND

  5,334

  5,461

  4,961

  5,230

  4,991

  Scottish Homes (Rents)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what would the average Scottish Homes rent have been if rents had increased only by the rate of inflation in every year since the establishment of Scottish Homes; and what is average rent of Scottish Homes for 1992–93;

  (2) what is the amount in cash and real terms by which Scottish Homes has raised its average rents since its establishment;

  Scottish Homes Rents

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Annual rent rise

  Year

  Average rent increase1

  Inflation rate based on RPI percentage

  Cash

  Constant prices3

  Average rent from 1989–90 increased by inflation rate at column 3

  Percentage of tenants on housing benefit

  1989–90

  £20·65

  (29·7)

  7·8

  1·63

  1·88

  20·65

  54·86

  1990–91

  £23·35

  (14·0)

  9·6

  2·70

  2·89

  22·26

  57·98

  1991–92

  £26·51

  (14·5)

  4·8

  3·16

  3·16

  24·40

  60·09

  1992–93

  £29·14

  (9·0)

  n/a

  2·63

  2·52

  25·57

  62·86

  1993–94

  £31·76

  (9·0)

  n/a

  2·62

  2·45

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Different rent rises apply to different properties—average percentage increase does not necessarily apply to the average weekly rent.

  2 Percentage increase over previous year.

  3 Calculated by applying GDP deflator using 1991–92 as base year.

  482
  (3) what percentage of Scottish Homes tenants received housing benefit in each year since the establishment of Scottish Homes;

  (4) what is the percentage amount by which Scottish Homes has raised rents in each year since its establishment; and what was the rate of inflation in each of those years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The information is set out in the table.

  Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds in mental hospitals were(a) closed and (b) negotiated to close in 1992 in each health board area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: From a total of 17,631 mental health beds in Scotland, 1,336 were closed in 1992. Some of these will have been replaced by contracts with private or voluntary sector providers, but precise information is not held centrally. Health boards are constantly reviewing their assessment of need, consequently separate figures for negotiated closures are not available.

  Mental health beds closed in 1992

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  16

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  —

  Borders Health Board

  8

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  17

  Fife Health Board

  170

  Forth Valley Health Board

  120

  Grampian Health Board

  109

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  487

  Highland Health Board

  45

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  95

  Lothian Health Board

  102

  Tayside Health Board

  167

  Orkney Health Board

  —

  Shetland Health Board

  —

  Western Isles Health Board

  —

  Total

  1,336

  Table 1: Approved expenditure under urban programme1

  Residential

  Non-residential

  Year

  Total £

  Capital £

  Current £

  Total £

  Capital £

  Current £

  Alcohol misuse

  1987–88

  23,616

  —

  23,616

  376,960

  —

  376,960

  1988–89

  25,482

  —

  25,482

  314,385

  1,350

  313,035

  1989–90

  52,188

  12,456

  39,732

  309,221

  62,885

  246,336

  1990–91

  24,351

  —

  24,351

  234,774

  12,402

  222,372

  1991–92

  62,905

  3,999

  58,906

  270,090

  19,071

  251,019

  1992–93

  202,933

  37,831

  165,102

  409,990

  11,193

  398,797

  Drugs

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  172,950

  7,500

  165,450

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  164,860

  12,950

  151,910

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  468,813

  42,929

  425,884

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  1,133,051

  136,584

  996,467

  1991–92

  17,635

  17,635

  —

  1,484,137

  38,218

  1,445,919

  1992–93

  106,605

  106,605

  —

  1,583,118

  59,417

  1,523,701

  1Grant amounting to 75 per cent. of approved Urban programme Expenditure is paid to sponsoring local authorities.

  Table 2:Grants awarded under Section 10 of the Social work (Scotland) Act 1968

  Residential

  Non-Residential

  Year

  Total £

  Residential Capital £

  Current £

  Total £

  Capital £

  Current £

  Alcohol Misuse

  1987–88

  57,309

  —

  57,309

  39,921

  4,789

  35,133

  1988–89

  4,100

  —

  4,100

  76,473

  —

  76,473

  1989–90

  17,271

  17,271

  —

  75,254

  14,426

  60,828

  1990–91

  153,349

  150,000

  3,349

  49,003

  10,625

  38,378

  1991–92

  97,132

  —

  97,132

  56,157

  —

  57,157

  1992–93

  101,562

  —

  101,562

  76,000

  8,000

  68,000

  Drugs

  1987–88

  105,746

  —

  105,746

  3,759

  —

  3,759

  1988–89

  48,603

  —

  48,603

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  2,485

  —

  2,485

  3,000

  3,000

  —

  Alcohol and Drug Abuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the total grant available from his Department(a) in total, (b) in revenue and (c) in capital towards the provision of (1) residential facilities and (2) non-residential facilities for (i) people with alcohol problems and (ii) people with drug problems in 1992–93 and 1993–94;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the total grant paid by his Department (a) in total, (b) in revenue and (c) in capital towards the provision of (1) residential facilities and (2) non-residential facilities for (i) people with alcohol problems and (ii) people with drug problems in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: Funding is provided directly and indirectly by the Scottish Office for alcohol and drug misuse projects in a number of ways. Many projects are funded by health boards either from their general allocations or the funds, totalling £2·4 million in 1992–93, specifically allocated for drug misuse. Other projects are funded by local authorities. Details of funding from all sources could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information, as set out in the tables, is available on funding by the Scottish Office for residential and non-residential facilities provided by voluntary sector organisations under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and under the urban programme for the years 1987–88 to 1992–93. Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.
  485

  Residential

  Non-Residential

  Year

  Total £

  Capital £

  Current £

  Total £

  Capital £

  Current £

  1990–91

  200,000

  200,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetlands (Oil Pollution)
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has finalised the arrangements for the bridging fund to assist local businesses in Shetland affected by the recent incident involving the MV 'Braer'.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his answer, of 21 January 1993, c. 411–12.]: The bridging fund scheme is a new service for which parliamentary approval will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the local environmental services and housing, Scotland vote—class XV, vote 6. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in access to employment, training, education, leisure, transport, public buildings and shops; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to introduce generalised anti-discrimination legislation because we foresee problems in both approach and implementation. However, as I have made clear in the past, we are continuing to work to eliminate unjustified discrimination against people on the ground of their disability. We believe that this is best achieved by education and persuasion backed up by targeted legislation to address specific problems.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by Departments in implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; what plans he has to implement the outstanding sections; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Most of the major provisions of the Act have now been implemented, bringing substantial benefits to disabled people and their carers. The requirements of the non-implemented sections of the Act are now, to a very large extent, reflected in the Department of Health's new and wide-ranging reforms of community care, which demonstrate our commitment to high quality care responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and carers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will review the need to implement these sections in the light of several years' experience of the community care arrangements.

  Scottish Constitution
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 790, if he will list those individuals and organisations that he has consulted when taking stock of the governance of Scotland since April 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 11 January 1993 at column 552.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty's Government held with the Governments of(a) Egypt and (b) Syria on the efficacy of military intervention in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Since the invasion of Kuwait we have had frequent discussions with the Egyptians and Syrians on the situation in Iraq. We have discussed the allies' latest military action in Iraq with Egyptian and Syrian officials.

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 of each of the official country residences owned by the Government broken down into(a) housekeeping, (b) catering/hospitality, (c) maintenance and (d) other costs; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: Chequers, Dorneywood and Chevening are not owned by the Government.

  Chequers is administered as an independent trust, which receives an annual grant from public funds towards the maintenance of Chequers. In the three years concerned the grant has been:

  £

  1990–91

  238,000

  1991–92

  244,000

  1992–93

  260,000

  The Government also contribute to the costs of household staff at Chequers, but this information is not separately identifiable.

  The maintenance and staff expenses of Chevening house are met by the Chevening trust. The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for housekeeping, catering/hospitality and other costs in the three years concerned has been:

  £

  1990–91

  4,374

  1991–92

  7,984

  1992–93

  9,451

  487
  In addition, other Government Departments use Chevening from time to time for meetings or seminars, for which they pay separately.

  Dorneywood is administered by a trust fund. Its upkeep does not involve any cost to the Treasury.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of people directly employed in the tobacco industry in Northern Ireland at the latest date; and what proportion of manufacturing jobs this represents in the province.

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Holiday Accommodation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the Association of British Travel Agents to discuss dangerous holiday accommodation abroad.

  Mr. Leigh
  I see no need for such a meeting. The Association of British Travel Agents already offers comprehensive advice to its members regarding the maintenance of high standards of safety in holiday accommodation.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with United Kingdom tour operators about the safety of foreign accommodation offered to package holidaymakers.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have had no such discussions. There is already comprehensive guidance for tour operators in this area.

  Chambers of Commerce
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce regarding the proposed setting up of core chambers of commerce; what time scale he is proposing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has consulted extensively with representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce (ABCC) regarding its proposals to set up core chambers of commerce.

  The Government support the objectives of the ABCC as set out in its development strategy. Chambers provide a valuable focus for information and support for business. However, coverage is currently patchy and there is considerable untapped potential for chambers to achieve economies of scale. I believe that the establishment of core chambers, and their closer co-operation with other business support organisations to develop one-stop shop business advice centres in each area, will lead to a major improvement in the quality of the support provided to companies.
  488
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he has agreed with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce for financial contributions from his departmental funds towards the cost of development executives; and for what length of time such contributions will be available.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government support the objectives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce (ABCC) to set up a coherent network of chambers, as set out in their development strategy. In each case for which funding is required, the President of the Board of Trade will expect to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with realising this strategy.

  Subject to this condition, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has agreed with the ABCC that he is prepared to fund half the cost of a development officer in each of the core chambers for up two years. The chambers have to fund the remaining 50 per cent. of the cost, and the whole of any continuing cost after the initial two-year appointment.

  Trading Standards Service
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has to alter the basis of funding the trading standards service;

  (2) if he will institute an inquiry into the extent to which the trading standards service is fulfilling the functions for which it was set up;

  (3) if he will make a statement on increasing central co-ordination of the trading standards service;

  Mr. Leigh
  I keep the funding and performance of the trading standards service under review and, together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for the Environment, have given, and will continue to give, careful consideration to the service in the context of the review of local government. There are at present no proposals for action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. However, if he has any concerns about the service, the noble Baroness Denton of Wakefield, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, will be pleased to consider them.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to publish a charter for the trading standards service.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  I keep the funding and performance of the trading standards service under review and, together with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for the Environment, have given, and will continue to give, careful consideration to the service in the context of the review of local government. There are at present no proposals for action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. However, if he has any concerns about the service, the Noble Baroness Denton of Wakefield, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, will be pleased to consider them.

  Supergun Launcher Systems
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the peaceful uses of supergun launcher systems in delivering satellites into earth orbit.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is aware of work being performed in the United States of America, which is aimed
  489
  at demonstrating that small payloads can be put into Earth orbit using a supergun launcher and of European patent applications of a similar nature. However, my Department has not made a detailed study of the viability of these proposals. Any assessment in this field would be carried out in conjunction with our partners within the European Space Agency.

  Patent Law
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts he is making to bring about greater harmonisation of international patent law.

  Mr. Leigh
  There is already considerable harmonisation of substantive patent law in Europe. In a wider arena, my officials have been very active in the negotiations for an international treaty on patent law harmonisation which have taken place under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and will take a committed part in the diplomatic conference to be held in July this year in order to reach agreement on the treaty. They have also taken an active part in discussions at Community level on a directive to harmonise the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

  Post Office
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his review of the future organisation and structure of the Post Office will be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The review will be completed in due course. We will then be in a position to make a statement to the House.

  Price Marking Order 1991
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to amend the 1991 Price Marking Order, implemented under European Community directive 88/314/EEC.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is currently discussing the way forward with interested parties.

  Girobank
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he was consulted about Girobank's recent withdrawal of a small firms export credit support scheme: whether this, or similar matters, was set out as a service obligation in the sale of Girobank; and what those service obligations now are.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not consulted about Girobank's provision of export credit schemes, nor would he expect to be. The sale agreement between the Post Office and the Alliance and Leicester Building Society in respect of Girobank did not specify the future of particular Girobank services. Subject only to regulation under the Banking Act 1987, the provision of services by Girobank, as any other bank, is a matter for its commercial judgment.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance his Department gives to manufacturing industry.
  490
  Mr. Leigh
  My Department runs or supports a wide range of schemes and services providing assistance to manufacturing businesses. The majority of these involve direct financial assistance.

  Together the full range of services provide a comprehensive package for business, including help with the provision of expert advice in key management areas such as quality or manufacturing systems; help towards the cost of consultancy to assist businesses plan their use of advanced manufacturing technology; grant support to develop innovative ideas; help with exporting; and special financial assistance for businesses in assisted areas and urban programme areas.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is available from his Department to help companies with fewer than 100 employees.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department operates the following measures of support for small and medium-sized firms:

  the Enterprise Initiative Consultancy Scheme;

  the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme;

  the Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology;

  Support for Products Under Research;

  Regional Enterprise Grants (Investment);

  Regional Enterprise Grants (Innovation);

  Export Marketing Research Scheme;

  Your Business Success;

  Graduate Enterprise;

  The criteria for determining the eligibility of a company to take advantage of each of these forms of assistance varies from scheme to scheme.

  My Department also provides funding for development work which aims to benefit small firms and produces a wide range of publications aimed at small businesses.

  During 1993 my Department will start support for up to 15 pilot schemes which will provide businesses with a single point of access to information and advice.

  From April 1993 my Department will take over responsibility from the Employment Department for funding training and enterprise councils (TECs) to provide a wide range of business support services to help small businesses.

  In addition, small businesses can, of course, take advantage of other business support programmes provided for firms of all sizes.

  Leg Irons
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current policy on the manufacture of leg irons in the United Kingdom and the export of such products; if any prosecutions are pending for such practices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have no plans relating to the manufacture of leg irons: they are not used by the police and prison services in the United Kingdom, and my Department, which tightened export controls in this area last year, will not issue a licence for their export under the Export of Goods (Control) Order. I am not aware of any breach of the order in respect of leg irons nor of any prosecution involving their export.

  Sovereign Debt
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if doubtful sovereign debt held by the Export Credits Guarantee Department is provisioned in accordance with guidelines established by the Bank of England.

  Mr. Needham
  I can confirm that the provisions for unrecovered claims in respect of political risk in ECGD's trading accounts are assessed using the Bank of England provisioning matrix. ECGD's 1991–92 trading accounts are due to be laid before the House on 28 January.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide details regarding levels of sovereign debt held by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department's 1991–92 annual report, which is due to be laid before the House on 28 January, provides a detailed breakdown of its sovereign debt.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide details regarding sovereign debt held by the Export Credits Guarantee Department offered for sale in the secondary debt market.

  Mr. Needham
  The agreement amongst Paris club group of creditors currently allows the Export Credits Guarantee Department to consider sales of sovereign debt in the following markets:

  Benin

  Bolivia

  Cameroon

  Congo

  Cote D'Ivoire

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Ethiopia

  Guinea Republic

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Mali

  Morocco

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Peru

  Phillipines

  Poland

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Uganda

  Zambia

  Rescheduled Debt
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide details on the proportion of rescheduled official bilateral debt that may be sold on the secondary debt market by the Export Credits Guarantee Department under the auspices of the Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Needham
  The agreement amongst Paris club group of creditors allows for either US $10 million or 10 per cent. of a creditors exposure, whichever is the greater, to be sold or swapped for local investment.

  EC Regulations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the terms of reference for the scrutiny into the way in which EC regulations impact upon business.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The terms of reference are as follows:

  To investigate the formulation, implementation and enforcement of EC law with the aim of securing legislation which is necessary and proportionate and;

  —minimises the burdens on British business and sustains its international competitiveness; and

  mdash;is least intrusive in the lives of British citizens.

  Specific areas to be addressed will include:

  —whether the burden for business is kept to the minimum necessary to comply with EC requirements;

  —the difficulties in interpreting EC law;

  —the timing and content of implementing legislation;

  —whether the views of business are properly taken into account;

  —whether the views of United Kingdom enforcement agencies are taken into account;

  —whether Ministers are kept fully aware of implementation and enforcement issues; and

  —the proportionally of enforcement practice.

  These issues will be examined in the context of at least the following case studies:

  —Meat hygiene (as implemented by the 1990 Food Safety Act)

  —Health and Safety (Framework and Subordinate directives)

  —Personal Protective Equipment directive.

  The scrutiny will recommend improvements procedures to be followed in negotiating EC law, in implementing EC legislation in United Kingdom law, and in enforcing the United Kingdom law.

  The scrutiny will report to Ministers within the 90 working days which are allowed under efficiency scrutiny guidelines.

  I will be the supervising Minister for the scrutiny. The scrutiny team will be advised by a steering group which will include private sector members.

  Electricity Generators
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the recent report by OFFER on electricity purchasing with respect to the treatment of(a) the actual costs of generating and (b) the position of coal-fired generators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The contents of OFFER's report will be taken into account in the Government's coal review along with other evidence and submissions.

  Coal Review
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to publish the consultants' reports commissioned as part of the coal review.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I announced on 20 November that I had appointed consultants to report as part of the coal review. John T. Boyds was to examine the viability of each of the 21 pits proposed for closure last October, and not subject to the statutory consultation process being undertaken by British Coal; Ernst & Young was to investigate the competitiveness of British Coal as an organisation; Caminus Energy Ltd. was to investigate the markets for coal; and PIMS Associates Ltd. was to examine British
  493
  Coal's costs and productivity in comparison with international benchmarks. Caminus and Boyds have, in addition, jointly produced a summary of their reports.

  I sent copies of all these reports and the summary to the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee yesterday, and am arranging for them to be published today. I have placed a copy of my letter together with copies of the reports and the summary in the Library.

  Computer Games (Epilepsy)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations he has had with toys and games retailers and manufacturers concerning the dangers of photo-sensitive epilepsy induced by computer games;

  (2) what representations he has received in relation to the dangers of photo-sensitive epilepsy in children induced by use of computer games;

  (3) what proposals he has to introduce a compulsory health warning on the dangers of photo-sensitive epilepsy on the packaging of computer games.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 January 1993]: My Department is aware of recent cases of children reported to have suffered epileptic seizures while playing with computer games. We are holding urgent discussions with industry representatives and others to ascertain what information and advice should be made available to consumers and how best this might be achieved.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on one-stop shops for business and technology information dissemination; what proposals he has to grant aid such one-stop shops; and what arrangements he will make to monitor and evaluate their progress;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the local dissemination of business and technology information; and when he expects to announce pilot projects to further such local dissemination.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement in the House on 3 December 1992 announcing the publication of a prospectus seeking competitive bids for the establishment of up to 15 pilot one-stop shops in England.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has responsibility for Welsh matters, is separately considering the business enterprise and support arrangements in Wales.

  One-stop shop bids will be submitted to DTI by 29 January 1993 and I will be announcing the pilot areas in mid-March 1993.

  DTI will provide grant aid as a contribution towards meeting the additional costs of establishing pilot shops for a period of up to three financial years.

  The progress of the pilots will be closely monitored and will be the subject of a detailed evaluation. If the initial pilots are as successful as I expect, a further round of bids will take place in 1993–94 and a national network of one-stop shops will be established as quickly as possible.

  Staff Documents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures his Department has to alert staff to the existence of documents which affect their work but are not circulated for security reasons.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: My Department distributes such documents to the appropriate officials, who are alerted by telephone in urgent cases.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many persons of all grades, scientific and non-scientific, worked in marine pollution-related activities at Warren Spring laboratory in 1979, 1985, 1990, 1991 and 1992; and if he will give conveniently available figures on the public expenditure on such work during those years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number of persons

  Total cost of work (£ thousands)

  £ Thousand

  1979–80

  12

  385

  1985–86

  17

  830

  1990–91

  13

  1,075

  1991–92

  8

  670

  11992–93

  8

  770

  1 Forecast

  Royal Family
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, following the planned privatisation of Parcelforce, members of the royal family will continue to receive free use of its services.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 15 July of his intention to privatise Parcelforce, the arrangements for parcels services for the royal family is one of the many issues which will be studied carefully.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total annual cost of free postage provided(a) to Her Majesty the Queen and (b) to each other individual member of the royal family so entitled.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The provision of free postage services to members of the royal family is primarily to enable the royal household to deal with mail from the public, congratulatory messages to mark diamond weddings and one hundredth birthdays, and to maintain communications when Her Majesty the Queen is out of London.

  The Post Office has no statistics on the annual cost of these services which are provided, to a varying extent, to Her Majesty the Queen and 15 other members of the royal family.

  Microwave Frequency Transmissions
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what publicly funded research has been carried out regarding the biological effects of microwave
  495
  frequency transmissions; if he will fund a study into the type of equipment being installed on or near high-rise residential blocks in Wolverhampton; and if he will publish the results of any such research;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of biological penetration from personal communication network range frequencies on all life-forms which have come into close proximity with such equipment; and if he will publish his conclusions.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has responsibility for advising United Kingdom Government Departments on standards of protection for exposure to non-ionising radiation. Recent reports from that body indicate that, at the lower frequencies associated with these installations, there is no firm epidemiological evidence of the existence of a carcinogenic hazard. My Department is currently helping to fund a joint research study, managed by the NRPB, into the possible effects of exposure to mobile telephone transmissions.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision he has made to ensure that free postal and parcel services for literature and tapes for the visually impaired are retained following the sale of Parcelforce.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: Both Royal Mail and Parcelforce provide certain free postal and parcel services for the visually impaired. Such provision will continue in the future although the details of how this will be done have yet to be settled.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the criteria to be employed by Boyds in assessing the viability of the 10 pits listed for immediate closure; and if he will list the criteria employed by Boyds in respect of the other 21 pits listed for closure.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: Boyds is required to consider for each of the 10 pits whether the criteria for closure announced on 19 October (currently loss-making and no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future) are met. Its conclusions will be based on an inspection of each of the 10 pits and evaluation in respect of each mine of:

  (i) financial information for the current financial year;

  496

  (ii)available coal reserve base;

  (iii) near-term capital requirements;

  (iv) estimated future operating costs;

  (v) estimated future income.

  A copy of the full terms of reference of the Boyds' study of the 10 pits is available in the Library of the House.

  In respect of the 21 pits, I refer to the reply my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, gave to my hon. Friend for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 20 November at column 433.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was(a) the total sum of money paid out in legal aid and (b) the sum paid out in respect of each category of offence for each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Net expediture on all forms of legal aid in the last five years was as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  434

  1988–89

  475

  1989–90

  564

  1990–91

  682

  1991–92

  906

  In respect of each category of offence, figures are available only for the proportion of expenditure accounted for by each category in higher court cases (i.e. those in the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal) for the past four years. This has been set out in the tables:

  Payments made to solicitors

  1988–89 per cent.

  1989–90 per cent.

  1990–91 per cent.

  1991–92 per cent.

  Violence against the person

  21·58

  22·09

  20·48

  21·75

  Sexual offences

  6·46

  6·84

  7·05

  7·16

  Burglary

  13·64

  12·37

  11·77

  12·39

  Robbery

  5·46

  5·18

  5·62

  5·40

  Theft and handling

  22·18

  22·17

  21·45

  20·43

  Fraud and forgery

  4·57

  4·14

  5·93

  6·81

  Criminal damage

  2·32

  1·93

  1·79

  2·00

  Indictable motoring offences

  2·58

  1·68

  1·48

  1·65

  Appeals etc

  4·70

  4·40

  4·47

  4·85

  Other offences

  16·51

  19·20

  19·96

  17·56

  497

  Payments made to barristers

  1988–89 per cent·

  1989–90 per cent·

  1990–91 per cent·

  1991–92 per cent·

  Violence against the person

  21·64

  20·99

  19·40

  20·94

  Sexual offences

  6·22

  6·32

  6·42

  6·87

  Burglary

  8·81

  7·64

  7·12

  8·26

  Robbery

  5·51

  5·62

  5·74

  6·14

  Theft and handling

  20·41

  20·34

  18·60

  17·78

  Fraud and forgery

  7·90

  8·56

  11·35

  12·02

  Criminal damage

  1·82

  1·25

  1·68

  1·34

  Indictable motoring offences

  1·69

  0·93

  0·88

  1·04

  Appeals etc·

  1·74

  2·19

  2·11

  2·73

  Other offences

  24·26

  26·16

  26·70

  22·88

  The total net expenditure on legal aid in the higher criminal courts for the past four years was as follows:
  498

  £ million

  1988–89

  118

  1989–90

  134

  1990–91

  157

  1991–92

  186