Sitting of 29 November 1993

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

Northern Ireland
2.35 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is to be an important statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after Question Time. I do not know why the papers relevant to that statement are embargoed until after the Secretary of State gets to his feet. The effect is that hon. Members will not have the documentation available. Surely the House should be entitled to the documentation upon which the Secretary of State will expand. I have been informed by the Library and by the Vote Office that they cannot give any of the documents out until 3.30, at which time hon. Members will be in the Chamber listening to what is being said.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is normal procedure. It is of course at the discretion of the Minister concerned whether he allows the documentation to be released before he makes a statement or when he rises. In most cases, the documents are released when the Minister rises. There is nothing untoward about today's statement in that respect.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Rolling Stock
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how soon the train leasing companies created as a result of the passage of the Railways Act 1993 will be in a position to order the construction of new railway rolling stock.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The new companies will assume responsibility for the provision of rolling stock from April 1994.
    They will be able to order new stock proyided they can make a sufficiently attractive investment case.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that if no work is done by the leasing companies to prepare for giving orders early next year, some of the important manufacturing companies in Britain will have unacceptable, and possibly fatal, delays in their order books? The Minister gave a press conference in my constituency a couple of months ago, at which he looked forward to a time when rail rolling
    768
    stock manufacturers could look ahead over 10 years, see what sort of work was available, and decide how they could gear up for it.
    What will the Government do to create those conditions in railway rolling stock manufacturing, and stop making companies go from hand to mouth and from one order to another? Will not the industry go from crisis to crisis if the Government approach continues?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that orders totalling £400 million have been received for new rolling stock in the past few weeks, made up of £250 million for the Jubilee line and £150 million for Networkers. That is an excellent start.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must move from a situation of companies going from order by order to one in which they can look forward 10 years. The best way to achieve that is to put the rolling stock companies and the train operating companies into the private sector. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) does not share his mirth. It is important that those decisions are taken by the private sector, not the public sector.
    Mr. Gale: May I thank my hon. Friend for the considerable encouragement and support that he has given to the case of providing new rolling stock for the Kent coast line? May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team on securing the order for that line? Will he continue to give every possible encouragement to other private companies to produce the kind of rolling stock on the coastal services that we used to expect, and hope to expect again?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a British Rail decision, but the House should be aware that the rolling stock supply industry has been delivering stock not wholly free from defects. If there is to be an improvement in the frequency and quantity of orders, the rolling stock industry must play an important role. The Kent link Networkers are already 12 months late, the class 323 Regional Railways electric trains are 18 months late, and the class 158 Regional Railways diesels were two years late. That is not good enough, and an improvement by the railways supply industry will help to instill confidence into the private sector.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister not realise the extent of the crisis in the private sector railway manufacturing industry, where tens of thousands of jobs are now at risk because of the blight on investment created by the run-up to privatisation?
    Mr. Riddick: More scaremongering.
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may say, "More scaremongering," but he should go to speak to the private sector Railway Industry Association to find out what it thinks of the Government's performance, rather than mouthing nonsense from behind the Minister.
    Could the Minister tell us why, while every airline in the world uses leasing to acquire new planes and every European railway uses leasing to acquire new railway stock, we are still talking about a single leasing contract being authorised by the Government, while the west coast

    769
    main line is starved of investment and, all over the country, local authorities want to be involved in new rolling stock deals?
    Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, before we have anything of the new leasing companies, there will be a more positive approach to leasing to acquire new rolling stock, thereby saving jobs? There is no need for the fragmentation of the railways or privatisation to get leasing schemes going and investment in railway rolling stock.
    Mr. Freeman: We should have orders for new rolling stock to serve the passengers, not to protect jobs. The jobs will be protected automatically if two conditions are met—first, that the railways can prove that they need rolling stock on a particular line—one does not order it simply to keep the production line going, as I am sure that the hon. Member for York will agree—and, secondly, the order can be classified as an operating lease. There is no need for British Rail to wait until 1 April 1994 to place another order. If both the major manufacturers step forward and make an attractive offer to British Rail between now and then, I am sure that such an offer will be well received and carefully considered.
    Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, once small lines such as the Tarka line, part of which goes through my constituency in Devon, are privatised, when there is a need for new rolling stock, those franchisees will not be precluded from providing the rolling stock and, contrary to the scare tactics of the Liberal Democrats of the south-west, those small lines will continue to be run and to be well stocked?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure her that the Tarka line, like many other small branch lines, has an excellent future. I am not aware of any proposals for closure. She is right. We look to the private sector— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) seems to find that funny. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear it, I will repeat the answer. That branch line and other branch lines are not under threat. Members of the Labour party and Liberal Democrats put about those scare stories unnecessarily.

    London to Midlands Rail Link
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from industry and commerce in the west midlands in respect of infrastructure and investment requirements on the London to midlands rail links.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I have received a number of representations about upgrading rail links to the midlands. We announced in July the appointment of advisers to work on a joint venture to renew the west coast main line infrastructure.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the importance of that line to west midlands manufacturing and to all the constituencies there, including yours, Madam Speaker? Does he also understand that the signalling belongs to the last century, trains regularly have to slow down to 20 mph, it is faster to get from London to York than it is to get from London to Wolverhampton, and that it is a disgrace that even the public and private sectors,
    770
    meeting in Birmingham today, which want to put forward joint schemes, see the opportunities diminishing as the Government stick to their dogmatic policies?
    The line needs upgrading, and if the Secretary of State wants to win any support for himself, to show firm support for manufacturing, and to prove that not all the infrastructure goes to the south-east, he must come forward quickly, rather than shovelling the matter off to one list of consultants after another.
    Mr. MacGregor: The infrastructure is not all going to the south-east. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he knows of the £550 million of investment that has been made in the east coast main line. I recognise the need to get on with improving the infrastructure of the west coast main line and I recognise that it will be a massive undertaking, costing on infrastructure alone probably up to £600 million. The priority is the older part of the line south of Crewe. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the appointment of advisers to investigate the possibility of a joint venture between the public and private sectors is not a postponement of consideration of the matter. We have been getting on with it very quickly and we are making good progress. He will recognise, however, that, given the need to keep the line running, it is probably a 10-year project.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is acute anxiety in the west midlands not only about the main line, but about ancillary lines because the local service is a disgrace? Will he give me a real and realistic time scale within which my constituents will have a service that compares with the east coast line?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the £6 billion of investment that British Rail has made in the past five years. There has certainly been no shortage of investment; the question has been priorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we have been getting on with the study by the financial advisers and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. The extent to which we are successful in making the west coast main line infrastructure programme a joint venture involving private finance will determine whether we shall be able to release more of the available resources for other parts of the BR infrastructure.
    Mr. Dobson: When will the Minister recognise the deplorable and declining standard of service on the line from London to the west midlands and on to the north-west and Scotland, which connects Britain's major industrial centres and most centres of population? Aside from all the waffle about joint projects, further inquiries and guest studies, when will work start on the ground to provide the service that the people of the west midlands, the north-west and Scotland want and deserve?
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that, first, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the £6 billion of investment that has been made in the past five years. British Rail has been conducting some study work on the infrastructure requirements and all the detailed assessments that must be made before final decisions can be taken about the west coast main line. I assure the hon. Gentleman, who does not seem interested in the answer, given the way in which he is looking around, that there is no question of waffle. We are getting on rather rapidly, with the prospects of a joint venture study—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems

    771
    to think that guffaws are a substitute for serious thinking. We shall then get on with the further technical work that will have to be done on this major infrastructure project, bearing in mind that it is a busy line and that trains will have to pass over it all the time. I assure him that we are getting on with it rapidly.

    M12
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to hold a public inquiry on the building of the M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): It is too early to say when we would hold a public inquiry. We would expect to consult the public about this route next spring.
    Mr. Burns: May I make a suggestion to my hon. Friend that would help to save public spending and to get rid of this unloved, unwanted and unasked for road? No doubt he will be aware that nobody in the area—Members of Parliament, local authorities, local residents—wants this road, which would be an environmental disaster. If he wants to become a much-loved local hero, he will kill this proposal here and now. If he does so, he will be feted in every village and town between the M25 and Chelmsford from here until eternity.
    Mr. Key: What a wonderful invitation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advice. I might even hold him to it one day.

    Transatlantic Air Routes
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.
    Mr. MacGregor: My aim is to work closely with the United States Government to meet the objective of agreement on liberalisation of UK-US air services by April next year. The refusal of the US Government to grant British Airways for a reasonable period the code-sharing rights to which it is entitled is a step backwards.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not shameful that our close friend and ally, the United States, should adopt such an outrageous posture in this matter? Working closely with the United States is clearly not sufficient to protect British airlines' interests because my right hon. Friend is, I presume, doing that already. What action does he propose to take, and when does he propose to take it, to hold the Americans to their international obligations?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assume that my hon. and learned Friend is rightly referring to the US Government's decision to grant British Airways its code-sharing rights for only 60 days. That has nothing to do with the liberalisation talks that we are undertaking this year with the US Government. It is entirely to do with a breach of the "United States existing international obligations. We believe that it is breaching those in allowing British Airways only 60 days for its new code-sharing rights. That is wrong and we therefore have no option but to prepare for retaliatory action against US services that were introduced as a result of the Heathrow deal, from which BA's rights come. On 17 November, we accordingly warned the US Government that we proposed to limit United Airlines services to
    772
    Washington and American Airlines services to Chicago from 12 January—the date on which BA's code-share approval expires—unless the approval was renewed by the United States in the meantime. I am sorry to have had to take that action, but I believe that we had no option, given the United States decision.
    Mr. Olner: I shall fully support whatever action the Secretary of State takes on transatlantic routes, especially those into Birmingham airport which are so badly needed for the west midlands.
    In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answers, may I advise him to put some money into the west coast main line, because it will soon be quicker to fly from Birmingham to America than to travel on the west coast line from Birmingham to Heathrow?
    Mr. MacGregor: That simply cannot be right. However, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a positive reply. In our liberalisation talks, the position of regional airports is very much in our minds and we seek to increase the number of flights to regional airports. On investment in Birmingham airport, the hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to see the consideration that Birmingham airport is now giving to seeking private sector finance for its expansion.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a robust stand is taken to protect the interests of principal British carriers, such as British Airways and Virgin, on transatlantic routes and to ensure that they have sufficient gateways into the US? Will he also ensure that, to reciprocate, we are more willing to accept US carriers wishing to come to under-utilised British airports such as Stansted? Was it not sad that Trans World Airlines was refused an air service agreement into Stansted?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hoped that we could reach an interim agreement, while the main bilateral liberalisation talks were going on, to agree the TWA flights to Stansted in the summer. I put proposals to that end to my American counterpart and obtained some reciprocal benefits for the United Kingdom. I am sorry that, on that occasion, he could not agree and that he wanted to wait for the wider liberalisation talks. But I assure my hon. Friend that his point about flights to airports that still have capacity is very much in our minds.

    Air Quality, West Yorkshire
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the dates, times and locations of any surveys carried out in West Yorkshire to monitor the air quality along the routes of the Al and other motorways in West Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: Four surveys have been carried out since October 1992. Twenty-four hour surveys were carried out on the Al at Aberford and on the M62 at Thorpe in October and November 1992 respectively. There were 10-hour monitoring surveys in August this year on the Al and M62 in Ferrybridge. The levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead measured at all locations were well below the designated values defined by the EC or World Health Organisation.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the M62, which runs through my constituency, is one of the busiest motorways in the north of England? Although monitoring exercises have been carried out to measure the lead in the air, does he accept that people who live near motorways, particularly those near schools, are worried about the sulphur, nitrogen and other pollutants that are emitted? Should not measurements be taken more frequently so that people can at least be assured that the Government are doing something to ensure that there is no danger to people's health, particularly children's health, along motorways and where motorways are planned?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure is the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who, by virtue of his office, cannot ask that question. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking careful steps to monitor air quality and that when the draft orders are laid before the House next summer, they will include an environmental statement. That will include air quality monitoring and assessment details.
    Mr. Waller: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the internal combustion engine tends to emit most pollution, particularly carbon monoxide, when vehicles are either stationary or slow-moving? That being the case, does he agree that, whatever the arguments for or against any scheme bypassing a settlement, it is unlikely that air quality will be one of the arguments underpinning opposition to such a scheme?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing more polluting than a traffic jam. On the whole, when traffic is moving freely, the dangerous emissions are minimised. That is something we take seriously when we are considering our road programme, whether it is widening a motorway or improving, or indeed bypassing, a particular village or community.

    Road Construction
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made as to the number of miles of new roads that will be constructed in the UK in the years 1993 to 2000 inclusive.
    Mr. MacGregor: In 1993–94, we plan to start construction of some 130 miles, the vast majority of which is improvement to existing roads, including widening, and to bypasses, which are environmentally desirable and much in demand. For future years, the amount of road construction that we can do will depend on the availability of funds and the progress of schemes through statutory procedures.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures. In sustaining that level of road building programme to meet the exponential rise of car ownership, has he considered what monetary instruments he might use to redress the balance of the use of the motor car in favour of other forms of transport?
    Mr. MacGregor: One of the points that I wish to make clearly, as my hon. Friend talks about the rise of car ownership, is that we are not talking about vast new green field roads or roads over green field sites. Fifteen out of the
    774
    130 miles about which I have talked this year are concentrated on green field areas; the rest is widening and so on.
    As to my hon. Friend's question about pricing, I imagine that what he had in mind was the consultation paper that I announced earlier this year about the possibility of motorway charging. I am currently considering all the many responses that we have had to the Green Paper from more than 230 organisations. We had a very constructive response, and I hope to make an announcement as soon as the paper is completed.
    Mr. Harvey: In the light of the National Audit Office report about the spiralling costs of motorway widening, does the Secretary of State accept that the costs have got out of control? Given that public opposition to motorway schemes is widespread and growing, is he aware that all eyes will be on tomorrow's Budget, particularly on the ordinary roads programme and the public transport spending side of it, and if those areas, like others, are suffering constraint, would it not be quite wrong to continue pressing the case for super-freeways?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not going to comment in advance of anything that may or may not be said tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is also widespread concern from most motorists, but significantly from industry, at the congestion costs that arise when motorways are not able to take the flow of traffic. The congestion costs to British industry can be very serious. We have to have a real mind to the competitiveness of British industry, to which improved motorways can make a substantial contribution.
    However much we devote public expenditure to rail investment, there will still be an ever-increasing demand for freight on the road, because so many of the journeys are comparatively short or are not made in accordance with the rail infrastructure. There will continue to have to be a substantial road programme if our economy is to remain competitive.
    The NAO report looked at only 10 schemes, introduced since 1989. We are looking at that report, but if the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will see that the Department is taking a lot of action along the lines suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. Dykes: I welcome the Government's acknowledgement that the era of massive road building is over, because it is too expensive and it merely adds to congestion. Will my right hon. Friend confirm yet again, however, that over the next 10 years—as we win successive general elections—it will be Government policy to enhance the role of the railways, in whatever form, to ensure that, in this densely populated country, we focus just as much on rail travel?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will hear when I answer a later question, we devote substantial resources to public transport, especially considering the amount of traffic that it takes. In effect, we are skewing departmental expenditure plans significantly in favour of public transport.
    My hon. Friend should recognise, however, that the railways are simply not suitable for large elements of freight transport, so it is necessary to ensure that we have thoroughly up-to-date motorways. My hon. Friend will note that we are concentrating pretty well all the road

    775
    programme on the improvement of motorways and principal roads and not building new ones. We are also concentrating on bypasses, for which there is a great demand.
    Ms Walley: Is the Secretary of State not shifting his position in that he does not believe in the roads policy any more? Is it not time we had a real debate in this place on the National Audit Office report, and time there was a much greater shift towards public transport and away from a roads policy which is already £6 billion out of control?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not agree at all, and I am not shifting my ground. I make it clear again that we still need significant investment in our road programme if we are to have the road network that we shall need in the 21st century. Large numbers of our fellow citizens are buying cars in increasing numbers and have the wherewithal to use them more and more—and they will want to do so. They, too, will demand such a network—quite apart from the problems of congestion for industry.
    I have also made it clear that we are investing substantially in public transport, which represents nearly 40 per cent. of our total spending. Only about 10 per cent. of traffic goes by public transport, so we are clearly and disproportionately weighting our expenditure in favour of public transport and have been doing so for some time.
    Dr. Spink: When will my right hon. Friend report on the lower Thames crossing? Has Canvey Island been identified as one of the sites for that crossing?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not in a position to say. It is too early to give my hon. Friend the kind of information that he requires.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he takes to monitor the effect on services of bus deregulation.
    Mr. Freeman: The effects of bus deregulation outside London have been fully monitored through a programme of research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, which has published a number of reports on the situation nationally and locally.
    Mr. Davies: What has caused the Minister to change his mind about London? If deregulation will not work for London, why should Greater Manchester suffer, especially when unrealistic bids by private operators can work only if services are cut, workers sacked and fares raised?
    Mr. Freeman: I am pleased that Greater Manchester passenger transport authority has got on with splitting the bus company and selling the resulting two companies. The hon. Gentleman refers to an unrealistic bid by one company for Greater Manchester Buses (North). I do not believe that it is unrealistic. It is for the Greater Manchester PTA to make the decision and I hope that it will make it quickly. I wish the two companies, once split and sold, the very best.
    London is wholly different from Manchester, Glasgow or Liverpool. The number of buses, the ridership and the intensity of use in London are very different. Next year, we are going to get on with privatising London's buses and providing a better service.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the fact that the Government intend to provide a better service on London buses for Londoners. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that service is already a great deal better than it was 10 years ago? Will he assure the House that, in the improved and deregulated market that he describes pensioners' and disabled people's travel passes will always be safe?
    Mr. Freeman: There is no intention to change either the operation of the travelcard or the concessionary fares scheme.
    Mr. Raynsford: Why does the Minister not come clean and admit that the real reason for his Department abandoning bus deregulation in London is that he knew it would result in traffic chaos in central London and a collapse of services in outer suburban areas, the consequence of which would have been electoral annihilation for the Government? Why does the Minister not take pride on this one occasion in having done something sensible and allowed common sense to prevail over unnecessary dogma? Deregulation was not right for London and should be abandoned as a policy.
    Mr. Freeman: Obviously the common sense approach in London is what we shall follow, which is net cost tendering and privatisation of all London bus subsidiaries next year.
    Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the effects of bus deregulation has been to create companies which offer a range of transport services? In my constituency, the private bus company Southern Vectis is preparing a franchise bid for the loss-making coastal line. This will increase the frequency of railway services on that line from one per hour to one every 10 minutes. Does that not demonstrate that deregulation and privatisation will lead to an improvement in services, contrary to the allegations from the Opposition Front Bench that it will lead to a closure of unprofitable railway lines?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Since 1989, bus mileage has increased by about 20 per cent. and operating costs per mile have fallen by about 40 per cent. [Interruption.] Do the Opposition disagree with that? Those are the facts. A deregulated and privatised industry will, I hope, bid for rail franchises and bring about a new dimension and improvement in railway services.

    Asthma
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the incidence of asthma in residents living in areas of high traffic volume.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I have received a number of representations, both from individuals and from organisations, about ihe incidence of asthma and high traffic levels.
    Ms Coffey: Is the Minister aware that 39 per cent. of the population are at risk from respiratory diseases and that the treatment of asthma, now the most common disease, cost the national health service an estimated £344.4 million in 1988? Many studies have shown an association between asthma and residence in areas of high traffic volume. Will

    777
    the Minister initiate a proper national survey of the relationship between asthma and traffic volume so that any future transport policy will take into account the health of the nation as well as the pressure from the road transport lobby?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady seems unaware that the Department of Health has an independent expert committee on the medical effects of air pollutants. The committee has looked at this issue and a sub-group is specifically looking at the relationship between traffic and asthma. Had the hon. Lady considered that, she would be aware that, while there is no doubt that asthmatics need to use their inhalors more when nitrogen dioxide levels are high, there is as yet no evidence from studies carried out in this country and America which relates traffic emissions to the cause of asthma or to its onset. It is too early to say what conclusions we can draw; we will have to wait for the working party to report.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will the Government be more vigorous about building the Stockport north-south bypass? Would that not be a useful way of tackling the problem to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) refers?
    Mr. Norris: I agree with my hon. Friend's general observation that in all this great talk about every road being somehow inherently evil it should be remembered that when bypasses are in place some tens of thousands of people who previously suffered from traffic volumes, noise and emissions are provided with welcome relief.
    Mr. Grocott: Would it not be better for all of us if the Government made serious attempts to transfer traffic from road to rail? The Minister should talk to his friends at the Ministry of Defence. In the past 12 years, the Ministry of Defence has closed down half the rail links from MOD depots to the main rail network, thereby—as a matter of deliberate Government policy—transferring freight from rail to road. One of the links that was closed was at the central ordnance depot Donnington in my constituency. Is that not one example of where one Government Department has not a clue what another Department is doing?
    Mr. Norris: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, a disproportionate amount of the Department's overall budget is already spent on public transport. In London, for example, some £3 is spent on public transport for every £1 spent on roads. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the announcement that my right hon. Friend made earlier this year, he would know that the Government have considerably enhanced the provision of freight facilities grant to allow the transfer of traffic from road to rail, to effect precisely the kind of change to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of his Department's annual budget is currently spent on roads and what proportion on public transport.
    Mr. MacGregor: About 55 per cent. of my Department's expenditure is spent on roads; the bulk of the remainder is devoted to public transport. Given that 90 per
    778
    cent. of passenger and inland freight traffic is by road, this indicates the priority that Ministers give to public transport.
    Mr. David Martin: I recognise the importance of public expenditure on public transport. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, of the horrendous problems caused by the traffic jams and delays on the A3 between London and Portsmout at present affecting Hindhead, which is the last bottleneck in a road that has seen many improvements under the present Government? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all that he can to advance the cause of a bypass around Hindhead so that we can complete the excellent work being done on the A3?
    Mr. MacGregor: I recognise the importance of a bypass at Hindhead to my hon. Friend's constituents in Portsmouth. Route and environmental issues have caused the delays to date, since the first public consultation in 1987 which led to the rejection of the first preferred route.
    The detailed design is now being undertaken on a new preferred route, following an announcement earlier this year. That will lead to the publication of draft orders, expected in 1995. Meanwhile, a number of surveys are being carried out, including traffic and topographical surveys, and a ground investigation is due to start in the new year. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friend that we are getting on with it.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that much of the money that is shown by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report to have been squandered by his Department on the road programme would have been better invested in London Underground? Ministers in their chauffeur-driven cars may not appreciate it, but people who travel on the tube every day know that the system is falling apart—that lifts and escalators are not working, signals are overloaded and tunnels are swilling with water—because the Government have failed to invest the necessary funds to make the tube system safe and sound. When will the Secretary of State change his priorities and ensure that the people of London get the decent tube service that they desperately need?
    Mr. MacGregor: Investment in the existing underground network is higher than it was at any time in the 1970s and 1980s, including the period of the Labour Government. Moreover, the Central line is benefiting from a £750 million modernisation scheme. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends will note that Opposition Members dismiss that £750 million and laugh at it, but it is a significant amount of taxpayers' money. The scheme is due to be completed in 1995 and includes provision for an upgrading of power supplies.
    I believe that London Underground has traced last night's fault to power cables at Lots road power station. They have been repaired and we must hope that the service will be able to resume as soon as London Underground is satisfied that the trains can run properly. I have every confidence in Sir Wilfrid Newton and his management and staff, who have worked around the clock to identify the problem and get the Central line operational again. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should recognise just how much money is being given to London Underground by the taxpayer.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Bail
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Attorney-General what criteria are used by the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to object to bail.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account the considerations and exceptions to bail set out in the Bail Act 1976 and any other relevant information available to it, including material from the police, the probation service, and other sources.
    Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he share with the House the feeling that the interests and concerns of victims should take priority over those of the perpetrators of crime? Can he assure the House that in making decisions about bail he will take full account of the interests of victims?
    The Solicitor-General: I can reassure my hon. Friend. The Crown Prosecution Service already gives very high priority to the interests of victims. At present, the police inform the CPS if there is a risk that the victim will suffer further offences or be intimidated by the defendant. If so, the CPS objects to bail on the grounds set out in the Bail Act 1976. We intend to go further, however. On 9 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced proposals under which the police and CPS will, as a matter of course, gather information from the victim concerning his or her view on the granting of bail, and the information will be put before the court as a matter of regularity. That is a step forward.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not have the guts to tell the House and the country that decisions about bail depend partly on the strand of society from which a person comes? Those double standards apply right into court, as was the case with Roger Levitt, who not only benefited from the provisions of the Bail Act but got off with a few hours of community service following a £20 million fraud while poll tax defaulters are chucked into gaol for six months on principle. The Government are riddled with double standards.
    The Solicitor-General: The question whether Mr. Levitt should be granted bail was exclusively a matter for the court, and the question of what sentence should be imposed was a matter exclusively for Mr. Justice Laws, who passed sentence. Those were not matters for the Serious Fraud Office, and not matters for the prosecution at all. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the charge on which Mr. Levitt was tried was a single charge. The Crown wanted him to be tried on a number of charges and argued strongly for the inclusion in the indictment of a number of charges. After the indictment had been reduced to a single charge, the Crown argued strongly for the inclusion in the trial of a wide range of evidence, but the judge ruled against the Crown on that.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that often when offenders are given bail, rehabilitation or parole—or any of the other measures which release them into the atmosphere, as it were—they offend or abscond time and again? If there is a shadow or a grain of doubt,
    780
    should not such people be kept under lock and key where they cannot burgle our homes or break into our motor vehicles?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are abreast of his thinking. The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which will come into operation in January, gives the prosecution a right to appeal to the Crown court against the granting of bail in most important cases in the magistrates court. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced further proposals under which alleged offenders who reoffend on bail will not have the benefit of the presumption of bail. He also proposes that persons charged with murder, manslaughter or rape who have already been convicted of one of those offences will be refused bail. This House and the other place will have an opportunity to decide their attitude to those proposals quite soon.

    Dropped Cases
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases forwarded by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service were not proceeded with in 1990, 1991, 1992 and the first half of 1993.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lye11): Of the 1.5 million or more cases forwarded by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service each year, the total numbers not proceeded with in each of the years 1990–1993 were, to the nearest thousand, 227,000, 262,000, 281,000, and for the first six months of 1993, 143,000. These figures include for each respective year 79,000, 93,000, 88,000 and 52,000 cases, the substantial proportion of which could not proceed because the defendant had either died or could not be traced.
    Mr. Ainger: Can the Minister explain why, in the past five years when crime has increased by 50 per cent., magistrates courts have dealt with 40,000 fewer cases, Crown courts have dealt with 8,000 fewer cases and the number of cases that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to discontinue has increased by 80 per cent? Does the Minister agree with the First Division Association survey of all Crown prosecutors that 86 per cent. have no confidence in the senior management of the Crown Prosecution Service?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks two quite separate questions, although there is some linkage. First, the number of cases coming to court has been reduced as a result of diversionary measures and, in particular, by an increase in cautioning which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced, is likely to be restricted. Secondly, one of the reasons for low morale, in so far as there is low morale in the Crown Prosecution Service, is that it is constantly being wrongly blamed for discontinuing cases which it has discontinued for thoroughly sensible reasons. If such cases are brought to the hon. Gentleman or to other hon. Members, I invite them to ask for chapter and verse and to provide that to me, because in the huge majority of the cases that I have looked into extremely carefully there were thoroughly sensible reasons for the decisions.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: If the Crown Prosecution Service thinks that it is not appropriate to proceed in one in six cases in which the police think that it is appropriate, is it

    781
    not time to reconsider the 51 per cent. chance of conviction rule before the CPS brings its charges and also to reconsider the Crown Prosecution Service procedure of trying to accept pleas to lesser offences in the magistrates courts so that many cases do not go to trial before juries? What kind of deterrence is there in a system in which some of the people who are caught have no reason to think that they will be brought to trial?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend has great knowledge of the criminal justice system and will wish to take to heart what I have just told the House. It is much better to look at individual cases in detail to find out whether there was a solid reason for whatever course was taken. I have done that, and in a very high proportion of the cases that I have examined there was a thoroughly sensible reason for the decision. To look just at bare statistics and draw the wrong conclusion would be a mistake.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    European Community
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom overseas aid is now provided through the European Community.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): In 1992–93, 21.3 per cent. of total aid.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. While we should not gloat too much at the European Community's expense, does my hon. Friend agree that our bilateral aid programmes are regarded throughout the world as among the most effective and that they compare most favourably in terms of efficiency and effectiveness with those of the European Community? Will my hon. Friend reassure us that, as far as possible, the United Kingdom percentage of our aid programme will be maintained?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly confirm that our aid programme is widely respected for the way in which it is implemented. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that we shall always work hard with our European Community partners to improve even further the effectiveness of European Community aid. The Horizon 2000 document which was adopted in November 1992 by the European Community helps towards that end.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that, in view of their appalling record on bilateral aid, the Government are right not to gloat over the figures? For the next three years, our aid programme will be frozen at £1.9 million, which is a cut in real terms. Although the House recognises the appalling need in many parts of eastern Europe, does the Minister accept that the Government's response should not be at the expense of other developing nations, particularly those in Africa?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position and congratulate him on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that we can both look forward to many interesting exchanges.
    782
    I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. The British aid programme planning total for this financial year is £2,267 million. In the past six years, the programme has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms.

    Aid Budget
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his budget for overseas aid in 1993–94.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The planning figure for external assistance for 1993–94 is £2,267 million.
    Mr. Riddick: Is that not an enormous sum of money? Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain is one of the most generous donors of overseas aid in the world and has a record of which he and the Government can be proud? When calculating future levels of overseas aid, would it be sensible to take into consideration Britain's net annual contribution to the European Community of £2.5 billion, most of which goes to the poorer countries in southern Europe such as Portugal, Greece and Spain? Many of us feel that that money would be more appropriately spent in continents such as Asia and Africa.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree that the British aid programme is both large and effective. However, assistance within the Community for structural funds is not part of our aid programme. It is true that our aid programme goes very wide and includes substantial humanitarian aid and an enormous amount of help for debt relief. It should also not be forgotten that there is significant and substantial private sector investment in developing countries.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister be careful not to misrepresent the Government's position on overseas aid? The reality is that every year we are falling further behind the 0.7 per cent. GNP target. The substantial increase in our budget relates to the European Community total—which is fixed and in which we have no say—whereas our percentage bilateral contribution has gone down.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot anticipate tomorrow's Budget statement, but when will the Government honour their obligation to meet the target of giving 0.7 per cent. of our gross national product to the rest of the world, whose problems are growing and not diminishing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Obviously, I cannot anticipate tomorrow's Budget statement—or, indeed, any future Budget statement.
    Mr. Wells: Is not the budget for 1993–94 an increase on our previous expenditure, and are not the Government to be congratulated on constantly increasing the aid budget, despite financial difficulties elsewhere in the economy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is true that the planning total for 1993–94 is an increase in real terms on the previous year.

    World Bank
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to increase the accountability of the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The United Kingdom executive director of the World bank is appointed by and accountable to Her Majesty's Government. There is no reason to change that arrangement.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware that the World bank, through its structural adjustment programmes, in effect determines the political and economic policies of many developing countries to which we donate bilateral aid? Is it acceptable that this House has no information about how the United Kingdom executive director votes, what policies he puts forward, whether we support particular structural adjustment loans or which projects we support? Surely an organisation that receives hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money every year should give the House information on our voting record.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on these matters and follows them closely—as I know, having answered some 10 written parliamentary questions from him last week. As he knows, the World bank operates in circumstances in which a degree of confidentiality must be respected because it operates by consensus. The difficulty is always in striking a balance between the need for disclosure and that for confidentiality. However, the World bank is now disclosing much more. Projects under
    784
    consideration, policy documents, operational guidelines, technical papers and environmental assessments are all made available now to the right people.

    Azerbaijan
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government intend to give to the refugees in Azerbaijan.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are providing £1.6 million of relief in Azerbaijan this winter.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend knows that about 650,000 refugees are in Azerbaijan and that many more are in Armenia, Georgia and the surrounding region. As winter sets in, will my hon. Friend carefully consider providing more aid there, where the situation is every bit as bad as in Bosnia—albeit much less covered by the media?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right to say that the region does not receive so much media coverage as Bosnia. However, he must concede that the assistance that we are giving this winter is substantial. British non-governmental organisations are beginning to establish operations in Azerbaijan, and we will certainly consider sympathetically any requests for humanitarian assistance that they may put forward.

Northern Ireland
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I will make a statement about messages between the IRA leadership and the Government.
There has for some years been a means of communication by which messages could be conveyed indirectly between the Government and the IRA leadership. Clearly, such a chain could only function if its secrecy was respected on both sides.
At the end of February this year, a message was received from the IRA leadership. It said:
"The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion for the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet Secretary of State's public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked".
That message came from Martin McGuinness. I have placed in the Library and in the Vote Office all consequent messages that Her Majesty's Government received and dispatched.
The Government had a duty to respond to that message. I will read to the House the substantive response that, after an intermediate exchange, we despatched on 19 March. The text published yesterday was no more than instructions as to how this was to be transmitted. The message was in these terms:
"1. The importance of what has been said, the wish to take it seriously, and the influence of events on the ground, have been acknowledged. All of those involved share a responsibility to work to end the conflict. No one has a monopoly of suffering. There is a need for a healing process.
2. It is essential that there should be no deception on either side, and also that no deception should, through any misunderstanding, be seen where it is not intended. It is also essential that both sides have a clear and realistic understanding of what it is possible to achieve, so that neither side can in the future claim that it has been tricked.
3. The position of the British Government on dealing with those who espouse violence is clearly understood. This is why the envisaged sequence of events is important. We note that what is being sought at this stage is advice, and that any dialogue would follow an unannounced halt to violent activity. We confirm that if violence had genuinely been brought to an end, whether or not that fact had been announced, then dialogue could take place.
4. It must be understood, though, that once a halt to activity became public, the British Government would have to acknowledge and defend its entry into dialogue. It would do so by pointing out that its agreement to exploratory dialogue about the possibility of an inclusive process had been given because—and only because—it had received a private assurance that organised violence had been brought to an end.
5. The British Government has made clear that:
— no political objective which is advocated by constitutional means alone could properly be excluded from discussion in the talks process;
— the commitment to return as much responsibility as possible to local politicians should be seen within a wider framework of stable relationships to be worked out with all concerned;
— new political arrangements would be designed to ensure that no legitimate group was excluded from eligibility to share in the exercise of this responsibility;
— in the event of a genuine and established ending of violence, the whole range of responses to it would inevitably be looked at afresh.
6. The British Government has no desire to inhibit or impede legitimate constitutional expression of any political opinion, or any input to the political process, and wants to see included in this process all main parties which have sufficiently shown they
786
genuinely do not espouse violence. It has no blueprint. It wants an agreed accommodation, not an imposed settlement, arrived at through an inclusive process in which the parties are free agents.
7. The British Government does not have, and will not adopt, any prior objective of 'ending of partition'. The British Government cannot enter a talks process, or expect others to do so, with the purpose of achieving a predetermined outcome, whether the 'ending of partition' or anything else. It has accepted that the eventual outcome of such a process could be a united Ireland, but only on the basis of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
"Should this be the eventual outcome of a peaceful democratic process, the British Government would bring forward legislation to implement the will of the people here. But unless the people of Northern Ireland come to express such a view, the British Government will continue to uphold the union, seeking to ensure the good governance of Northern Ireland, in the interests of all its people, within the totality of relationships in these islands.
8. Evidence on the ground that any group had ceased violent activity would induce resulting reduction of security force activity. Were violence to end, the British Government's overall response in terms of security force activity on the ground would still have to take account of the overall threat. The threat posed by Republican and Loyalist groups which remained active would have to continue to be countered.
9. It is important to establish whether this provides a basis for the way forward. We are ready to answer specific questions or to give further explanation."
It is clear that that message was consistent with our declared policy: namely, that if such people wanted to enter into talks or negotiations with the Government they first had genuinely to end violence—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear]—not just temporarily, but for good. If they did, and showed sufficiently that they meant it, we would not want, for our part, to continue to exclude them from political talks. That remains our policy.
The IRA sent a reply on 10 May which did not constitute the unequivocal assurance of a genuine end to violence on which we had insisted. Clearly, a temporary ceasefire would not do.
Substantive contact was resumed on 2 November. The IRA sent the following message:
"This problem cannot be solved by the Reynolds Spring situation, although they're part of it. You appear to have rejected the Hume Adams situation though they too are part of it.
Every day all the main players are looking for singular solutions. It can't be solved singularly. We offered the 10 May. You've rejected it. Now we can't even have dialogue to work out how a total end to all violence can come about. We believe that the country could be at the point of no return. In plain language please tell us through the link as a matter of urgency when you will open dialogue in the event of a total end to hostilities. We believe that if all the documents involved are put on the table—including your 9 paragrapher and our 10th May that we have the basis of an understanding."
Our reply was despatched on 5 November:
"1. Your message of 2 November is taken as being of the greatest importance and significance. The answer to the specific question you raise is given in paragraph 4 below.
2. We hold to what was said jointly and in public by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Brussels on 29 October. A copy of the Statement is annexed. There can be no departure from what is said there and in particular its statement that there could be no secret agreements or understandings between Governments and organisations supporting violence as a price for its cessation and its call on them to renounce for good the use of, or support for, violence. There can also be no departure from the constitutional guarantee that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the consent of a majority of its people.
3. It is the public and consistent position of the British Government that any dialogue could only follow a permanent end to violent activity.
4. You ask about the sequence of events in the event of a total end to hostilities. If, as you have offered, you were to give us an unequivocal assurance that violence has indeed been brought to

787
a permanent end, and that accordingly Sinn Fein is now committed to political progress by peaceful and democratic means alone, we will make clear publicly our commitment to enter exploratory dialogue with you. Our public statement will make clear that, provided your private assurance is promptly confirmed publicly after our public statement and that events on the ground are fully consistent with this, a first meeting for exploratory dialogue will take place within a week of Parliament's return in January.
5. Exploratory dialogue will have the following purposes:

(i) to explore the basis upon which Sinn Fein would come to be admitted to an inclusive political talks process to which the British Government is committed but without anticipating the negotiations within that process;

(ii) to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able over a period to play the same part as the current constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland;

(iii) to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.

6. The attached Annex summarises the sequence of events and provides answers to the procedural questions concerning exploratory dialogue which have been raised.
7. If, in advance of our public statement, any public statement is made on your behalf which appears to us inconsistent with this basis for proceeding it would not be possible for us then to proceed.
8. If we receive the necessary assurance, which you have offered, that violence has been brought to an end, we shall assume that you are assenting to the basis for proceeding explained in this note and its attachment."
Hon. Members will appreciate from what I have read out, and from the other messages when they have had time to study them, that our main objective has been to reinforce and spell out in private our publicly stated positions.
It is for the IRA and its supporters to explain why they have failed to deliver the promised ending of violence. They should do so at once. Murder in Northern Ireland is no more tolerable than murder anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the terrorists who must answer for the deaths, destruction and misery of the past 25 years. It lies therefore with the IRA, and with it alone, to end their inhuman crimes. It is for them and those who support and justify them to explain why they have wickedly failed to do that.
I promise the House and the people of Northern Ireland that, for our part, we shall not cease our efforts to bring violence to a permanent end. As my right hon Friend told the House on 18 November:
"if we do not succeed on this occasion, we must … keep exploring again and again that opportunity for peace."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 28.]
Peace, properly attained, is a prize worth risks.
If a genuine end to violence is promised, the way would still be open for Sinn Fein to enter the political arena after a sufficient interval to demonstrate that they mean it. Our message of 5 November spelt that out again. The key to peace is in the hands of the IRA.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House is grateful for his explanation of events over the past few months, and welcomes the opportunity to study carefully his statement and the accompanying documents which are now available in the Vote Office?
Any sensible British Government must not, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, be afraid to take risks for peace. Risks are necessary if the peace process is to be brought to a successful conclusion. We hope that the Government's recent mishandling of these matters will not deter them from believing that risk-taking is essential if progress is to be achieved. It is, in our view, essential to explore the
788
sincerity of the claims of the Republican movement that it wishes to be brought into the political process and to contribute to an end to the violence. This the Secretary of State has sought to do.
We know that the Government have said that all parties must make concessions if the peace process and the ambition of a constitutional settlement are to be accomplished. The Government have rightly said that concessions must be forthcoming from the Government of the Republic and from the Republican movement. The Government must also recognise that they too must make concessions if those ambitions are to be realised.
Moreover, the Government must call upon the Ulster Unionists to play their part in achieving peace and settled democratic government in these islands. That requires the Government to address two fundamental issues which the Ulster Unionists have refused consistently to address. First, we need an institutionalised Irish dimension in he government of Northern Ireland which the nationalists in Ireland could feel addresses their aspirations, just as article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement rightly recognises and protects the constitutional status of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, we need institutions of government which allow both communities to share power and responsibility in Northern Ireland. Any new agreement between the British and Irish Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland must meet the aspirations of northern nationalists for institutions of Government with which they feel they can identify and which connect them with the Republic of Ireland.
If the Government intend to demonstrate their sincerity and show that they are prepared to take risks for peace, we expect to hear from the Government about concrete proposals which will satisfy the aspirations, needs and interests of both communities. I will remind the Secretary of State of the words of the Prime Minister:
"No party and no organisation can exercise a veto on progress."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 28.]
Provided that the Government hold firmly to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the need for an Irish dimension and institutions which share power and responsibility in Northern Ireland, they should not be inhibited in the search for peace and a settlement which would be acceptable to all the peoples of these islands.
The Opposition trust that it has been thinking of that nature which has motivated the Government's interactions with the Republicans, and that is why we seek to make no party advantage today. The pursuit of peace is more important than anything else. We understand that 3 December is a date which remains open for both Governments to meet, if they wish. We hope that such a summit can take place.
We believe that the Prime Minister is right to say that the best opportunity for peace exists now. That opportunity must be grasped. We trust that the Government's courage will not now be dissipated, despite the criticism which they are likely to encounter later this afternoon. The pursuit of peace is more important than anything else.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial words in welcoming the statement. It is with the IRA, and with it alone, that the key to peace lies. It is for the IRA to decide whether it brings to an end violence that should never have been begun.

789
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in the observations which followed his opening remarks. They seem to me to be related not so much to a statement about messages between the IRA and the Government, as to the agenda for those constitutional political talks which took place last year between the four main constitutional parties and the two Governments, and which have resumed under a different format under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be discussing together, over the next few days, the date for the next summit meeting. I cannot conclude without observing that I shall base my reaction to the hon. Gentleman's denial of any desire to take party advantage on the fact that no such advantage offers itself to him.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that, if Mr. Adams feels that he ought to have a spokesman in the House, he need look no further than the Opposition spokesman. It remains for those who sit beside and behind that hon. Gentleman to decide whether he speaks for them.
When the Secretary of State came to the Northern Ireland Office, did he consider dismantling the links with the various paramilitary bodies, which links have existed since 1973 under successsive Governments and 10 Secretaries of State? Were those links necessary to distribute what are called the bomb warning recognised code words, on a weekly or monthly basis? Finally, were those links used a year ago to convey the existence of the 51-point contingency plan—described by the former security Minister, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) this morning—to deal with an extended ceasefire over last Christmas?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question relates to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. Perhaps that occasionally gets him into some difficulty—[Interruption.] No doubt the hon. Gentleman speaks for his party as well, but I would not wish to follow further the right hon. Gentleman's point. As to the second and third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is no in each case.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Why has the Secretary of State not taken up the point that has aggravated and exacerbated the situation in Northern Ireland? It is not a matter of whether there is a channel conveying messages to the provisional IRA or whether the Government have had contacts in the past, or have in the present, but that those statements have been denied by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has rubbished any suggestion of such talks. He has rubbished anyone who dared, at a press conference, to put questions on that to him. When we met him and the Prime Minister in the past week, he rubbished the suggestion again and said that there was no such thing. The people of Northern Ireland today demand that the Secretary of State explains why he issued falsehoods himself, got officials to issue falsehoods and got Downing street to back up those falsehoods.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is being as restrained as he can be at this moment. However, falsehoods mean one thing to the Chair—lies. I would be obliged if he could rephrase what he is saying.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question that everyone in Northern Ireland is asking. Even if the message that he got in February, and to which he responded, said that the conflict was over, surely he would have known after one exchange that the conflict was not over. What has happened? Those talks were going on, but we had Warrington. The talks were going on while the bombing was going on in this city. Even when the bombing took place in the Shankill road, the lines were still open. Surely the Secretary of State cannot think that, after his behaviour, he can have any trust with the Northern Ireland people. If he wants a settlement, the only honourable thing that he can do is resign.
Sir Patrick Mayhew rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I really must seek a withdrawal from the hon. Gentleman of the word "falsehood". I am sure that he has tried to couch his words very carefully this afternoon, but I ask him to reflect for a moment while I am speaking so that he may withdraw and allow proper order in our exchanges and our questions. Dr. Paisley, I am sure that you will oblige.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Because of the seriousness of the situation, I cannot oblige you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would reflect. It is very important to me and to the House that he is able to question the Secretary of State. I do not want to have to use the powers that are given to me by Standing Order at this time. I would ask him to reflect in all sincerity. I want him to be in the House to hear the exchanges. I ask him, as a long-standing Member of the House, senior statesman and parliamentarian, to oblige the House and the Chair by withdrawing the word "falsehood". I should be most obliged if he would do so.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to stay in the House, but there are far too many issues in Northern Ireland that weigh on me at this time. The people of Northern Ireland would say to me, "Why did not you stand by what you said outside the House?", and I stand by what I said. It was a falsehood: it was worse, it was a lie.
Madam Speaker: In accordance with the power given me by Standing Order No. 42, I order the hon. Member to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. [Interruption.] I am not naming him; I am using the Standing Order that is open to me, which is No. 42 and which requires the hon. Gentleman to withdraw from the precincts of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There is no point of order at this stage. I am dealing with a Standing Order.
Dr. Paisley, I should be obliged if you would see that the order that I have just given you is carried out. Dr. Paisley, I require you to leave the precincts of the House for the remainder of the day's sitting. In that case, I name Dr. Ian Paisley.
Motion made, and Question put,
That Rev. Ian Paisley be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Newton.]
The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 25.

Division No. 5]

[3.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dykes, Hugh

Aitken, Jonathan

Eagle, Ms Angela

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Eggar, Tim

Alton, David

Etherington, Bill

Ancram, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Armstrong, Hilary

Evennett, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Faber, David

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fabricant, Michael

Ashby, David

Fatchett, Derek

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Faulds, Andrew

Atkins, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Forth, Eric

Baldry, Tony

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Barron, Kevin

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bates, Michael

French, Douglas

Batiste, Spencer

Fyfe, Maria

Bayley, Hugh

Gale, Roger

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gallie, Phil

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gardiner, Sir George

Blair, Tony

Garnier, Edward

Booth, Hartley

Gillen, Cheryl

Boswell, Tim

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Bowden, Andrew

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowis, John

Grocott, Bruce

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Grylls, Sir Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Gunnell, John

Brazier, Julian

Hague, William

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hanley, Jeremy

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hannam, Sir John

Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Hawksley, Warren

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Heald, Oliver

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Carrington, Matthew

Hendry, Charles

Churchill, Mr

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

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

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Congdon, David

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Conway, Derek

Hoyle, Doug

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Corbett, Robin

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Patrick

Hutton, John

Couchman, James

Ingram, Adam

Cummings, John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Darling, Alistair

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Day, Stephen

Key, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Khabra, Piara S.

Dickens, Geoffrey

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dixon, Don

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dorrell, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dover, Den

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Duncan, Alan

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

792

Knox, Sir David

Robathan, Andrew

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Leigh, Edward

Rogers, Allan

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lidington, David

Sackville, Tom

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Llwyd, Elfyn

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lord, Michael

Sheerman, Barry

Luff, Peter

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lynne, Ms Liz

Shersby, Michael

Macdonald, Calum

Short, Clare

McGrady, Eddie

Sims, Roger

MacKay, Andrew

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

Maclean, David

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

Maclennan, Robert

Snape, Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Spencer, Sir Derek

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Madel, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spink, Dr Robert

Major, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

Mallon, Seamus

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Malone, Gerald

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stern, Michael

Mates, Michael

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Meale, Alan

Sykes, John

Merchant, Piers

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Michael, Alun

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Milligan, Stephen

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Tracey, Richard

Moate, Sir Roger

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trend, Michael

Mowlam, Marjorie

Twinn, Dr Ian

Murphy, Paul

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waller, Gary

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walley, Joan

Nicholls, Patrick

Watts, John

Norris, Steve

Wells, Bowen

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Whittingdale, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Widdecombe, Ann

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Ottaway, Richard

Wigley, Dafydd

Patnick, Irvine

Wilkinson, John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Willetts, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Winnick, David

Pickles, Eric

Wood, Timothy

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Worthington, Tony

Randall, Stuart

Yeo, Tim

Raynsford, Nick

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rendel, David

Richards, Rod

Tellers for the Ayes:

Riddick, Graham

Mr. David Lightbown and

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Madden, Max

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Maginnis, Ken

Benton, Joe

Mahon, Alice

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Marek, Dr John

Clapham, Michael

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cohen, Harry

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Corbyn, Jeremy

Paisley, Rev Ian

Cryer, Bob

Parry, Robert

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Gerrard, Neil

Skinner, Dennis

Livingstone, Ken

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

793

Trimble, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Mr. Peter Robinson and

Wicks, Malcolm

Rev. William McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Speaker: In compliance with the order that the House has just made, I have to direct the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to withdraw.
The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the Secretary of State accept from our party that he was right to enter into these deliberations? Had he not done so, it would have been a dereliction of duty on his part.
At this important and sensitive time, the controversy surrounding these deliberations should not be allowed to hide the real challenge that faces us all: the challenge of creating peace in the island of Ireland—a peace that will affect all sections of the community, and a peace that will last.
Will the Secretary of State also note that I fully support his statement that the Government hold to the views expressed by the two Prime Ministers in Brussels? Will he further accept that it is not enough just to hold to those views, and that the two Prime Ministers must honour them and act upon them, recognising that time is of the essence? If they do not, the day and the opportunity may be lost, and that will mean more lives lost in the north of Ireland.
I ask the Secretary of State with all the power at my command to impress on the Prime Minister the fact that, unless he takes this opportunity and moves with the Irish Government to solve this problem and create peace now, there will be a backlash in the north of Ireland. It will not be a physical backlash; it will be a backlash of despair that will engulf us all for many years to come.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Naturally I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said at the outset. He asked that there be no diversion from the search for peace. I can readily assure him on behalf of the Government that there will be no diversion from their continuing efforts to secure a permanent ending to the violence. In my experience the people of Northern Ireland do not ask for peace at any price—it has to be peace properly attained.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is committed, as are the Government, to doing everything proper to bring an end to terrorism. The exchanges that I have described show that to be the case. We will not negotiate with terrorists in advance of a demonstrated cessation of violence. If it is clear that violence has been brought to an end, then a party such as Sinn Fein would no longer be subject to a continued exclusion from the political process—once it had shown that it was for real that it no longer espoused or justified the cause of violence. I repeat: it is for the terrorists alone to decide whether and when they will bring violence to an end.
Mr. David Alton: The Secretary of State has made a detailed and thorough statement to the House. Many hon. Members will congratulate the Government on their courage in having initiated this process. It requires great courage, and any Government would be open to the charge of being damned if they. did and damned if they didn't. It is not surprising that the Government find themselves in that position today.
794
The Government should not be deflected from the task of finding a fair and lasting settlement. Will the Secretary of State reaffirm his commitment to placing the Government's plan before all the parties in Northern Ireland should the present process stall? The Government should not see themselves as spectators or umpires but should continue the process on which they have embarked, which requires imagination and courage, and which the whole House should welcome.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I gently correct him? He implied that this exchange, which began with the message in February of this year, was initiated by the Government. That was not the case.
I reaffirm the Government's commitment to carrying forward the process of political talks embarked upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I was fortunate enough to take over in April of last year, when, because of his infinite patience and perceptiveness, all the procedural matters had been cleared out of the way. We want to see that process continue.
The process has been resumed since September of this year, with the considerable assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I reiterate that, at an appropriate stage, we will put forward our own proposals about what is most likely to secure an overall agreement, which is an essential prerequisite to any lasting accommodation.
Sir James Kilfedder: There is undoubtedly grave concern in Northern Ireland, and it would be wrong for the House to be blind to that concern. I regard the Prime Minister as a man of integrity, who is genuinely seeking peace and political progress in Ulster, as is the Secretary of State. Will they give an assurance that, despite these contacts, there will be no let-up in the battle against the terrorists; that there will be no amnesty for terrorists who have been convicted; and that terrorists who have committed offences will be pursued by the police?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. There will be no let-up in the campaign to bring an end to the violence that should never have begun, should never have continued and should not be perpetrated now. The security forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary with the Army in support, are securing substantial successes, not all of which can be made public, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. That effort will continue, without the slightest rebate by reason of any other approaches that may be made to the Government.
It is necessary that no opportunity should be lost to secure a proper means by which this campaign of violence can be brought to an end. There will be no amnesty. There are no political prisoners in the United Kingdom. Those who are inmates of the prisons in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales are there because they have been convicted of criminal offences. That is why everyone must remember that there will be no let-up whatever in the Government's efforts, by all lawful means open to them, to bring the campaign of violence to an end.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, after the Hume-Adams talks—which were widely welcomed—the Mayhew-McGuinness exchanges

795
will be seen as very important and comparable in character? Is he also aware that the desire for peace is widespread in Britain as well? Are not the British people entitled to hear for themselves what comes from Sinn Fein, rather than relying on what the Secretary of State chooses to tell us through the publication of limited documents in his possession?
The Secretary of State will know that I wrote to the Prime Minister about this matter last night. Is it not time for a lifting of the exclusion order placed on Gerry Adams, so that all Members of Parliament may hear what he has been saying, and for a lifting of the Sinn Fein ban? Given its enormous importance, this is not a matter that can be left to private, secret discussions and exchanges; it concerns the whole country, and the whole country is entitled to know all the arguments used in the pursuit of peace, which must be the objective of all.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the exclusion order is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I can only express my personal view: I do not think that the country would have understood if the opportunity to make an exclusion order against Mr. Adams had been left unused recently, when it became relevant.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is not the first such approach from such sources? Is he aware that it was his absolute duty to pursue those sources to establish whether it was possible to bring an end to the appalling violence from which the whole of the United Kingdom has suffered—as, indeed, has the whole island of Ireland? Is he also aware that his statement—which makes it clear that there can be no negotiations with people who perpetrate violence—is absolutely right? It might have been in the better interests of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to read the papers before making his allegations.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he was absolutely right to seek, in every way that he could, to preserve the confidentiality of such approaches? The House need only reflect on the problems that are now following from the premature disclosure of perfectly proper approaches, and the problems that may be caused—not least, I suggest, to certain Republican leaders in Belfast.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We had no doubt that it was our duty to respond in the way we did, remembering always that actions, not words, would be the ultimate test.
As the documents make clear, we have at no stage offered to negotiate in advance of a permanent ending of violence. That must be right. I am not conscious of having given any reply to the press—during the daily doorsteppings that are the lot of a Minister in Northern Ireland—that was not justified and justifiable by the facts.
It has always been known perfectly clearly that the British Government have never authorised anyone to enter into talks or negotiations on their behalf. There is only one context in which there is public interest in talking and having contact with Sinn Fein or the IRA: the context of public anxiety that the Government might do a deal with them before they had given up violence. That is the anxiety that has been expressed, and it has always been addressed in every answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.
796
Confidentiality is, of course, of vital importance. I very much agree with the latter remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King): I believe that all who have been responsible for breaking the confidentiality of this channel of communication—whose value was rightly emphasised a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—will have a lot to answer for.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of Warrington and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) and I bow to no one in our desire to pursue the quest for peace? Does he also accept, however, that there was a feeling of outrage and revulsion in Warrington at the fact that talks with Sinn Fein actually took place two days—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Not talks."] Contacts, then; I do not mind. Let me say to hon. Members who are shouting that this is too serious a matter for the people of Warrington for me to engage in a discussion of whether they were talks or contacts. Let us call them contacts.
There were contacts on 22 March—two days after the bombing in Warrington as a result of which two small boys died and 56 people were injured, and while one of the boys was still fighting for his life. Can the Secretary of State tell me how that squares with the statement that the conflict was over and, in view of the Warrington incident, why that meeting went ahead?
May I emphasise to the Secretary of State that those of us who want peace and want an end to the killings and the violence also want to know just what is going on and would like from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister more honesty, less hypocrisy and more frankness with the House?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I readily appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for the feelings of his constituents in Warrington. He will know that we met in his constituency at the launching of the Warrington project a month or two ago. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a sense of outrage that there should have been any contact with Sinn Fein after the Warrington bombing. I think that the House will attach much importance to the fact, which I have already made clear, that the response was sent by the British Government before then. It was delivered, through the channel of communication that I have mentioned, afterwards.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Parry, the father of one of the two boys who were murdered on that occasion, has spoken movingly about his own feelings towards the policy that the Government have followed. I respectfully endorse what Mr. Parry has publicly said.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked how Warrington and subsequent outrages square with the assertion that the conflict is at an end. Plainly, they do not. Such outrages are totally inexcusable. When the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to read the bundle, he will see that the Government have repeatedly said in response to the IRA leadership that it is conduct, behaviour and events on the ground that will determine whether any credence can be placed on what that leadership has suggested.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the widespread feeling that in this business he has acted entirely correctly and wholly honourably, and has very great support? Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that the search for peace will never slide into the search for appeasement, and that

797
the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains absolute so long as that is the democratically expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: On the last point, I readily and warmly give that assertion to my hon. Friend who takes so close an interest in these matters. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Blackpool speech in October, the Government will always stand behind the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That could not be more clearly expressed and could scarcely have been more frequently expressed than it has been this autumn.
My hon. Friend asks whether I will make sure that the search for peace does not degenerate into appeasement. Yes—quite unequivocally—is the answer to that. It is made abundantly clear in the bundle of documents that there is no suggestion of any price, inducement or bargain being offered to these people to do what it is their common duty to humanity to achieve here and now.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware of the real question that needs to be answered, not only here but outside? The Government have involved themselves in a peace initiative which most people want, and from listening to some views in the House, it seems that more people want that initiative to continue than was the case several weeks ago. We should all be pleased about that, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that, in this democracy, everybody has been taught to believe Ministers when they say at the Dispatch Box and outside on behalf of Parliament and the Government that they are doing one thing. But behind the people's back they are doing another, and that raises the question of honour and resignation. I did not hear the Secretary of State mention the word "apology" in connection with this mess. There was no reference at all to anyone's stomach turning.
The question that he has to answer—it will hang round his head for a long time—is whether anybody can again trust the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. The problem that they have to face rather than the question of the peace initiative is whether they will ever be believed again. The Secretary of State should do the honourable thing and resign.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is no question of resigning by reason of any of the efforts that I or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made to secure by proper means peace in Northern Ireland. I am aware of the Opposition point. I repeat that the Government's policy is perfectly clear and has always been expressed as the fact that nobody has been authorised and nobody will be authorised to enter into talks or discussions with people who are responsible for violence or who justify the use of violence.
That has been made perfectly clear in all my responses. I have looked through all the transcripts that are available to me. It was well expressed in "The Week in Politics" on 24 October on which I was interviewed by Mr. Jim Dougal. Referring to the disgraceful Shankill episode, Mr. Dougal asked:
"What does this do to the attitude of the Government to a party like Sinn Fein?
I replied:
798
"The attitude of the Government to a party like Sinn Fein is quite clear and it does nothing to it whatsoever. We will not discuss for political purposes with a party that brings a bomb and a bullet to the aid of its political viewpoint."
After further material, I said:
"To do that would be to undermine those who practise constitutional politics and it would be to feed the appetites of those who get their way by bombs."
It is perfectly clear from everything that I have said that that is the British Government's position, and nothing has taken place that conflicts with that policy.
Rev. William McCrea: The Secretary of State will bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about the backlash of despair. Unfortunately, there is already a backlash of despair in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said that the Government entered into these negotiations in February. [Interruption.] They were in the context that channels of communication were open. Responses were given in February because of a contact from Sinn Fein that the conflict was over.
Even if one accepts that the Government had to respond to that—and that is a matter for another occasion—the Warrington bomb came after that. Did that not convince the Government that the conflict was not over? Then the London bomb came. Did the Government need more convincing that the conflict was not over? Then there was the Shankill bomb. Did the Government need more convincing that this contact from Sinn Fein and the IRA was rubbish? How many more bombs must go off before the Government accept that Sinn Fein and the IRA have been playing them along?
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said—and he said that the fight against terrorism would continue unabated. The question that needs to be answered is, how can that stand side by side with the fact that one of the leading terrorists in Northern Ireland is Martin McGuinness? Two programmes were put out on the airwaves, but Martin McGuinness was never questioned. He was never arrested. Why not? How could he be questioned or arrested when he was that channel of communication?
I appreciate that the issue is delicate. The House may play around with words, and some may agree on whether it is a matter of talks, authorisation for talks or negotiations. However, this House was not under any illusion on any occasion on which the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box—no contacts had been made.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him and the House that we are not in debate; we are questioning a statement by the Secretary of State. Will the hon. Gentleman now put his question so that I have the opportunity to call as many as possible of the other hon. Members who have been standing?
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have already had to deal with one hon. Member who breached the order of the House. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that someone was a terrorist, but he has not been convicted of that. The hon. Gentleman used the privileges of the House to condemn somebody—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully to every word that is uttered in these exchanges. The hon.

799
Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is not out of order, other than for the fact that I hope that he will now ask his questions so that the Secretary of State can respond.
Rev. William McCrea: No matter how we play with words, there were contacts with the IRA behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland. They were not told about them. Sinn Fein knew about them, the British Government knew about them, Dublin says it knew about them and America says it knew about them—but the people of Northern Ireland, whose lives are at stake, did not know about them. There is a deficit of belief between the people of Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State. How will the right hon. and learned Gentleman correct that?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's comments bit by bit. His first remark was that the Government had entered into negotiations. I do not know where he has been this afternoon, but he could not have heard the central point of what I said to the House—that there have been no negotiations, none have been offered and there will be none unless and until the IRA gives up violence and Sinn Fein gives up justifying it.
The hon. Gentleman said that the question whether it was right for the Government to reply to the initial message was for another occasion. It is not—it is for this occasion. It is very much a technique of those from his Benches who criticise the Government to make assertions outside the House that they are not prepared to make here. They have said that it was disgraceful that we replied to that message, and that is a matter for this occasion. I say to the House—and to the hon. Gentleman in particular—that it would have been culpable in the extreme if we had not replied.
The hon. Gentleman then asked why Martin McGuinness had not been arrested. I must tell him—as a Northern Ireland Member, he should know this perfectly well—that the prosecuting authorities are independent of Government— [Interruption.] His hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) laughs. I shall have something to say about him in a moment. He may laugh, but as I know very well, it is a fact that the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland are independent. People cannot be brought to trial unless there are people willing to take the risks inherent in Northern Ireland of giving evidence in court.
Next, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said that the people of Northern Ireland were not told about the messages that I have described, and then said that that had put me in a position where there could be no trust. I do not believe that for one minute. The Government have said consistently, and I have repeated many times, that nobody has been authorised to undertake talks or negotiations on behalf of the Government. I made it absolutely clear that was always in the context of political negotiations. That is what people such as the hon. Gentleman rightly mind about—whether some price or inducement is being offered for an ending of violence. That would be profoundly wrong. None has ever been offered, and none will be offered.
I invite the hon. Gentleman, in the light of his public remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to consider what contribution he has made to stability and confidence. What contribution has he made by apparently handing covertly to a journalist—as we understand the hon. Gentleman did—the document that I mentioned? The
800
hon. Gentleman might care to say where he got it and how he got it. Rather than tell my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he met him, "I have this document. It is a worrying document. What do you say about it?", we understand that the hon. Gentleman slid it to a journalist. Why did he do that?
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Taking account of the folly of anyone believing that the word of the Provisional IRA can ever be taken at face value, and that any evasion and equivocation by members of the Government Front Bench only presents republican terrorists with a propaganda victory, can the House take some comfort from the fact that right hon. and hon. Members would not have any official confirmation of the rumours that have been circulating since May or June if the IRA's political demands had not been rejected by the Government? May we continue to rely on assurances by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that the democratic process will never be subverted in favour of terrorist demands?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has an unmatched record of resistance to terrorist demands and to the threats and violence that terrorists offer so many people in Northern Ireland. I give him the assurance that he seeks, without equivocation.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that political demands made by the IRA and by Sinn Fein on the Government in advance of any ending of violence were rejected out of hand. Contrary to all the rumours now being sedulously put about on behalf of Sinn Fein, that has been the case. That is why there came to be considerable interest in what talks, contacts or whatever had been taking place. That, and that alone, was the context. That is the context in which I have answered all the questions put to me.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Despite a few of the things said in the House, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people in the House and outside it congratulate him on, and do not criticise him for, his efforts in pursuing a proper peace in Northern Ireland? Will he proceed undaunted, notwithstanding recent events? In doing so, will he realise that those who oppose him and who make life difficult for the Government in this regard will increasingly be perceived to be opposing peace as well?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and take heart from his remarks. I know that he is speaking not only for those on the Government Benches but for those on the Labour Benches and throughout the House. I believe that the House is absolutely at one, that there must be no surrender to terrorist demands, and equally that there must be no relenting in all proper searches for ways to bring violence to an end.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while in 25 years there has not been the slightest indication that the British people or the House would surrender to terrorism, there is an overwhelming wish on the mainland, no less in Northern Ireland, for any steps that could lead to a negotiated settlement? The father of one of the children killed at Warrington bravely said that steps leading to peace should be taken, if that could possibly be done, and that concessions must be made by all—by the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland.

801
While one acknowledges some of the problems that have undoubtedly arisen during the past few days, can the Secretary of State tell the House today that no steps will be taken to stop the summit that is to take place in Dublin between the British and Irish Prime Ministers?
Is there not a strong argument now for every possible step to be taken by both Governments, to see whether there is a possibility of an honourable agreement in Northern Ireland, recognising that Northern Ireland would remain a part of the United Kingdom but also—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said—that the legitimate aspirations of the nationalist community must be pursued, as the majority recognises, by peaceful means?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman always takes a courageous line in matters connected with Northern Ireland affairs. As to his first point, I acknowledge that there is an overpowering demand among the everyday people of Northern Ireland for an end to violence. However, they do not want peace at any price.
Recently, I attended a service for the association that represents disabled police officers, and I attended a memorial service for those who lost their lives in the prison service. The mothers, widows and other relations of those who have suffered hideous injuries or death say, "We want peace, but we do not want it at any price." It is terribly important to remember that, and it is never out of the Government's mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked that no steps be taken to frustrate the Dublin summit. I told the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be discussing over the next few days the date of the summit. On "The Frost Programme" recently, the Taoiseach said—I speak from memory rather than quoting his words exactly—that any solution emanating from one side alone could have no chance of success.
That certainly represents the British Government's view. We are at one in wanting violence to come to an end, but it must come to an end before there can be any negotiations or exploratory talks as to how parties may enter the constitutional talks process—from which they exclude themselves by perpetrating or justifying violence at present.
Mr. Michael Mates: While those who have no responsibility in these matters can indulge in the semantic differences between communications, talks and negotiations, is it not the case that those who have that responsibility must deal with human life and limb, and with the wanton destruction of property? When this froth of mostly artificial rage has died down, will not the IRA leadership be left exposed for its utter cynicism in saying that it could stop the killing, but asking for some way of doing that while saving face?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the IRA leadership that there is no way that it can save face for its actions over the years? As long as my right hon. and learned Friend pursues with vigour and honour the path that he has chosen to try to bring the IRA to a peaceful means of discussing solutions, he will have the backing of every right-thinking person in this country and of most right hon. and hon. Members.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Cynicism is seen as a very strong suit of the IRA and of Sinn Fein, and especially of those who express regret for the entirely foreseeable and intended consequences of the violence that they perpetrate. That is extremely hard to bear for the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland. Of course duties are placed upon those who have responsibility for every life in Northern Ireland, and they must face up to them. Others do not have the disciplines that responsibility imposes.
Yesterday, I watched my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on "The Frost Programme", in which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also participated. My hon. Friend asked the hon. Member for Belfast, East—whose face was on the screen, transmitted from Northern Ireland—what the Government should have done in the face of the message. Should they have done nothing, or should they have responded? Answer came there none from the hon. Member for Belfast, East. But those with responsibility for lives in Northern Ireland must make up their minds—and they must take proper risks.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Can the Secretary of State confirm that those contacts did not just start with this particular round but, in the words of Lord Gowrie, contacts with the IRA were instrumental in bringing the hunger strike to a close, and certainly contacts were still continuing between Sinn Fein and officials at the Northern Ireland Office in 1983 when the Greater London council delegation met Gerry Adams for the first time?
Does the Secretary of State agree that part of his problem with the public and media response to this news is not that talks or contacts have been taking place, but that successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, and the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, have roundly condemned anyone who went openly, and in front of the public, and discussed with the leadership of Sinn Fein? They were condemned for doing openly what the Government have been doing behind the backs of the British people and the people of Northern Ireland.
Does the Secretary of State also agree that most people outside the House will not be terribly concerned, because this is more of a parliamentary point. People outside the House will be amazed, however, given the terms that Martin McGuinness used in his contacts with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and they will ask, "Why did not the British Government have more imagination in seizing the opportunity? Where is the imagination in their response that is shown by people like Rabin or de Klerk?" Why is imagination so lacking on the Conservative Benches? Is it because the Conservatives rely on the votes of the Ulster Unionists?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that what the hon. Gentleman would describe as imagination, most of the people of our country would describe as appeasement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—feeding those who, in a democracy, know that they cannot attain their political objectives by the ballot box and therefore bring bombs and bullets to the conference table, to the discussions, to fortify their case. That is what I think that the hon. Gentleman would have described as an imaginative response, but I and, I think, most people in our country would describe it as a disgraceful response.

803
I believe that the Government have made an entirely proper, and certainly understood, distinction—that once one has shown oneself qualified to become a constitutional political party, one may take one's place in the political arena. As long as one shows oneself not to be able to accept the disciplines of democratic and constitutional politics, one excludes oneself.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that he took part in BBC "Breakfast Time" on 16 November and that during that programme he made three denials? First, he denied that there were contacts through emissaries between the Government and the Provisional IRA or Sinn Fein. He also denied that there were talks between the Government and the IRA, and he denied that there were negotiations between the Government and the IRA. Do not the papers that the Secretary of State has selected to put in the Library today indicate that such contacts did take place? If there were no talks, why was his emissary sent off to do the job with speaking notes?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that he needs more than the confidence of his colleagues in the House to do his job and to do it well; that he needs the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and that he does not have it any more?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have heard the hon. Gentleman proclaiming that for some time. I walk about as much as I can in the streets of Northern Ireland to talk to people, and I seem to get a reasonable and—I am very grateful for it—friendly reception. The hon. Gentleman speaks of BBC "Breakfast Time." It is certainly true that I took part in BBC breakfast television on 16 November. I was asked this question:
"Let's look further at what Gerry Adams was saying last night."
As I have already said, and I think the House has recognised, Gerry Adams has been putting it about that we have been negotiating. The question continued:
"Has there been contact between people who could be regarded as emissaries or representatives of the Government?"
I said:
"No, there hasn't. There has been no negotiating with Sinn Fein; no official, as I see is alleged"
has been
"talking to Sinn Fein on behalf of the British Government. We have always made it perfectly clear that there is going to be no negotiating with anybody who perpetrates or justifies the use of violence. That's been our public policy, and it is our private policy and we have stuck to it."
The question was asked:
"You choose your words, I am sure, very carefully. You say no negotiating, but perhaps there have been exploratory talks at some level?"
I replied:
"There has been no talking whatsoever about what is to be a price, if there is to be any price for the giving up of violence or anything of that sort, which is what is alleged, nothing of that kind at all. We have always said that there is to be no bargaining whatsoever with people who espouse, who perpetrate violence, and that's absolutely the case. Nobody on the part of the British Government has done that or anything like it."
I stand by that. I made it perfectly clear what I was replying to, and I stand by that answer. I do not make any apology to the hon. Gentleman or to the House for, as the questioner put it, choosing my words carefully. Of course I was not going to volunteer that there was a channel of communication, which was one whose value has been maintained for, as has been clear, many years—20 years.
804
Supposing the time were to come when the IRA were to say, however belatedly, that the conflict was over and that they needed advice only as to how it was to be tied up, am I to have supposed that the public would have been better served if there had been no such channel—if there had been no means by which the IRA could send a message? If that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I do not think that the House is with him. This stuff about "Of course there have been talks—how could there be a speaking note otherwise?" is a lot of rubbish.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I ask the Secretary of State to take comfort from the fact that the people of Northern Ireland—at least in my constituency, which he knows is roughly half and half Unionist and Nationalist and which genuinely reflects the ordinary people of Northern Ireland—want him to continue the peace process. They do not want him to be deflected by the rituals of the House or the deliberate diversions of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) but to concentrate on the core issue of pursuit of peace.
Alongside that, in parallel to it, are the inter-party talks. I ask the Secretary of State to accelerate those, so that they may run in parallel with the peace initiative. Perhaps at those talks he can advise and, one hopes, convince the members of the Unionist parties that there is nothing—nothing at all—to fear in peace. That would create a new dimension for us all.
I ask the Secretary of State to convey to his right hon. colleague the Prime Minister the fact that a lot rests on his shoulders and that, although the Secretary of State terminated his statement with the words
"The key to peace is in the hands of the IRA",
it is a combination lock and the Prime Minister holds the other key to that process.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know how closely in touch he is with the opinions of his constituents because I visited his constituency with him not long ago. Of course there is a desire for peace and I will not repeat what I have said about that and the qualification that the people of Northern Ireland place upon it.
There is no need to urge me or my right hon. Friend to press on with the political talks. Those are very important and much progress is being made, albeit in a different format from last year. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the Unionist parties played a valuable part in that process, as he did himself and as did his party, and that much progress was made towards contingent agreement.
I therefore think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has heard what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, needs no encouragement in the direction that the hon. Gentleman urged. However, in our search for peace, it is no good looking for a solution to the problems that emanates only from one quarter. It must again be brought to the attention of the House that both Governments, at the end of the Brussels summit on 29 October, said that there could be no question of the Government's accepting and endorsing the report of the Hume-Adams dialogue that had been given to the Taoiseach, although not to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: At the beginning of today, some people in the media were making much of an apparent difference of evidence between the Provisional

805
IRA and the Government. Having seen the evidence and heard the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, people here and outside—in Northern Ireland, in the Republic and in Great Britain—will think that he is to be trusted and supported, and that what he has done is right.
Can I go further and say to those who are not here—the torturers and murderers, and those who make women into widows and children into orphans—that they still have the responsibility, which they appeared show in February, that they realise that the past 20 years and the 3,000 lives have not got anywhere near their aims, and they will not get near their aims? The sooner they bring an end to violence, get into talks and become constitutional parties, the better it will be for everyone.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The message that my hon. Friend has given to those outside, especially those who use or justify terrorism, is an important one. It comes with great authority because of his record of service in Northern Ireland and continuing interest thereafter. I am grateful for what he said at the beginning of his question. I have watched with admiration his contributions to various programmes, and I am extremely grateful for his support.
Mr. William Ross: In his statement, the Secretary of State used the terms "Sinn Fein" and "IRA" as though they were interchangeable and simply different faces of the same creature. If that is so, is he treating all the papers that he published today as coming from and being directed at the same organisation? Can he give an assurance that all the papers and contacts, with the reports of the messengers, have been published? Since the roots of this lie further back than February, will he publish all the papers from at least 1990 until the present time?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not propose to accede to the hon. Gentleman's last request. I agree that there is a distinction to be made between Sinn Fein and the IRA. Sinn Fein is a political party. In many instances, members of Sinn Fein are spokespeople for the IRA. But the two organisations are not the same, although there is a substantial overlap.
The bundle of documents that I have published include the messages that we received—they were mostly orally transmitted, as is clear from the beginning—from Martin McGuinness and others. We think it right to characterise that as messages coming from the leadership of the IRA, and replies consequential of the first message in February have been sent through the chain of communication to the same people.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will not be surprised, nor wish to have been told, that private indirect communication links have existed for some time? Does he agree that, if eventually we are to get formal negotiations started on the conditions laid down by the Government, the violence should have come to an end? It is almost inconceivable for those negotiations to open without some preliminary discussions of that sort earlier.
Finally, will he tell the House what he meant when he said at the beginning of his statement that the links have existed for some time? Is it true that the links have existed for many years, and if so, how many?
Mr. Molyneaux: About 20 years.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) saays, the links have existed for some 20 years, and they have shown their value. I recognise what my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said about the great value of the opportunity to pass communications in each direction if we are ever to reach a stage at which negotiations can take place.
I believe that that was rightly expressed in the leading article in The Sunday Times yesterday, which said that the time for negotiations has not yet arrived. That time can arrive only when an end of violence has genuinely occurred, but before that, there must be a means by which the two sides can pass messages one to the other, and do it in secret.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Secretary of State accept that, following the exchanges that have occurred this afternoon and the publication of documents yesterday, the majority of my constituents in Birmingham will basically say, "Thank God someone was searching for peace"? Searching for peace does not mean that one is soft on terrorism. That has clearly come across this afternoon, and I say thank God for that too.
A couple of weeks ago in my constituency, two local councillors from Northern Ireland told me that the people of Northern Ireland are afraid that the House of Commons is not interested—every time there is a debate or questions asked about Northern Ireland, the benches are green. The exchanges and the attendance this afternoon will signal to the people of Northern Ireland that the House of Commons, while it is not the place to negotiate, wants not peace at any price but peace that is honourably sought by all parties.
If we can still, in the words of one of the leaders in the newspaper this morning, hear the sound of silence of the Armalites for the foreseeable future, will the prospective exploratory meeting that was promised in the November exchange to start the week after we return in January still take place?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall deal with the last part first. I am not interested in ceasefires, with their implicit threat of a resumption, unless something is yielded in the meantime. There must be an assertion that violence is at an end, and that must be made perfectly clear.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for people in Northern Ireland to believe that the House of Commons is concerned about them. Today, I entirely recognise that it is abundantly clear for all to see the concern that exists. Perhaps I will be forgiven if I go back to what I said towards the end of my statement. I quote:
"Murder in Northern Ireland is no more tolerable that murder anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the terrorists who must answer for the deaths, destruction and misery over the past 25 years."
We must never allow ourselves to become inured to what might sometimes be suspected—that there is a tolerable level of murder and violence. There is no acceptable level of violence. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the message that goes forth from the House today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I see those hon. Members who are standing and I have a note of their names. I ask now for

807
brisk questions and brisk answers so that I can call all those hon. Members who are currently standing.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I endorse what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body, I must say that, far from apologising, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister should be not proud—that is the wrong word—but glad that this has now been revealed through one circumstance or another, because this is the way forward, and the opportunity is great.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend—I entirely accept that he is speaking theoretically at this stage—indicate possibly and putatively what might be the scenario leading to the next stage of possible peace talks developing?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Speaking briskly, that must depend on how the IRA behaves. We have made clear what is an absolute requirement by way of precondition. It is for the IRA to say and show whether that will happen. As to the rest of the question, I believe that what we have said in the bundle of documents provides an answer.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The way forward in Northern Ireland is to ensure that there is trust in our Government within the community, irrespective of which party forms that Government in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State dismisses too lightly the reality that there is little trust in the Government in Northern Ireland at present.
When people heard him say on that BBC television programme on 16 November that there were no contacts, and then we saw the revelations this weekend, people lost trust and confidence. Younger people then move towards the loyalist paramilitaries. That trend is becoming more dangerous, and should not be ignored by this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State urge the Government to try to restore greater confidence among the majority Unionist community by reaching policy decisions which will gain their support? Secondly, are the Government in contact, through intermediaries or otherwise, with the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association or the Ulster Freedom Fighters?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the breakfast programme. I have read the question that I was asked, and the reply that I gave. I am not going to describe the character of the chain of communication, but I am entirely satisfied that what I said was accurate. I believe that I am entirely justified in saying that.
Naturally, I recognise the importance of trust, but that trust would not have taken a turn for the better if it were known that I had quite unnecessarily volunteered the existence of a chain of communication. That chain, at that time, was being used for a process which offered the possibility—it is not for me to say whether it was a probability—of ending the violence which has lasted for 25 years. I would have wantonly destroyed that chain by destroying its secrecy.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of trust. As for contact with the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the situation is precisely as I have described it. There will be
808
no negotiations with them, and there is no similar chain or channel of communication with them, as has been the case for so long with the leadership of the IRA.
Mr. Roger Knapman: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his statement, for which I greatly admire him? Is it not immensely sad that he should be criticised most strongly by those who potentially have the most to gain?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Briskly, I am grateful. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Why should hon. Members and the public be denied the full information on the peace debate while the Government are secretly negotiating with Sinn Fein? At the same time, the Government are condemning those people such as myself who wanted to urge on the peace process by entering into negotiations with that very body. Is it not time, since the process is now in the open, that the absurd restrictions in which actors mimic the voices of the representatives of Sinn Fein should be removed? Is that a card which the Secretary of State is holding in his negotiations?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have watched the hon. Gentleman pointing his finger at Conservative Members for all the time that we have been in the House together. That does not make more sensible a question that is based upon a false premise, which is that we have been negotiating with Sinn Fein. That is absolutely wrong.
The hon. Gentleman's point about whether the broadcasting restrictions should remain is a separate matter, and that is for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to decide. I will point to out to the hon. Gentleman that much tougher restrictions have been in place in the Republic for longer.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will feel that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have acted with honour and responsibility in the matter? Furthermore, is it not the case that they were quite right to respond as they did to the remarkable message from the IRA of last February? No blame can be attached to them for the fact that they were less than frank with the House in pursuing the initiatives for peace, with which we wish them well.
Given the Government's prompt and fulsome response earlier this year and more recently, is it not clear that the burden of responsibility for the continuation of carnage on both sides of the water rests squarely with the provisional IRA? The IRA could have peace tomorrow if it was to set aside the Armalite and put away the bomb. Is that not the next step on the agenda?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend, of course, is absolutely right, and that is the crucially important point. We are in a democracy, and those people know perfectly well that they cannot get their way by the democratic process. Therefore, they bring bombs and bullets to give force to their argument. They must never be appeased, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful to him for what he has said.
I take issue gently with his assertion that we have been less than frank to the House. We have not volunteered—it would have been wanton to do so—the existence of a secret chain of communication that has a value which is

809
recognised by all hon. Members. That chain would have been destroyed had we volunteered that it was in existence and that it was being used currently for the purposes which the House now knows about.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The Secretary of State will be aware of the warm reception which he received earlier this year in my constituency. I must say with some regret that many of those people who welcomed him warmly have a deep sense of betrayal and bitterness with regard to the recent disclosures.
Has the Secretary of State, on reflection, been too economical with the truth with regard to the contacts with the IRA and with Sinn Fein? What assurance can he give which would enable me to encourage my constituents to welcome him warmly should he visit us again? Will the Secretary of State restate the conditions under which the meeting that is scheduled for January might go ahead?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the welcome that I received when I went to his constituency. I am glad that some of the welcome was for me. I thought that it was more for the Prime Minister, who was also present. I look forward to visiting his constituency again.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had been economical with the truth. The House will know that he means that I have been dishonest with the people in Northern Ireland. I have not, and it would be better if the hon. Gentleman said so.
Mr. Skinner: He would have been thrown out if he had.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree that certain restraints are imposed upon the clarity of the utterances which adhere to Ulster Members. I accept that.
I have already said why I reject that charge. In the light of Madam Speaker's ruling, I am not going to take time to say it all again. Time has elapsed and the offer, which was made in circumstances which were perfectly clear and which were dependent upon a declaration that violence was at an end, no longer stands, because that declaration has not come. If it were to come, the matter would be reopened.
Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his endeavours in maintaining contact? I agree totally that, had he not done so, it would have been a great dereliction of his duties.
Does he agree that, while the IRA says it wishes to end conflict, those fine words are not matched by fine deeds? Murderous events have happened ever since. Therefore, will he continue with his endeavours to combat terrorism, with all the methods at his command? In whatever develops, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that 65 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland voted for the Union with Great Britain in the previous general election?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend takes such an interest in Northern Ireland matters, and is such a frequent visitor, that she speaks with particular knowledge. She could perhaps slightly increase the strength of her case. I believe that 67 per cent. voted for one of the three parties which support the maintenance of the Union as an act of policy.
Sir James Kilfedder: There are four parties.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. There are in fact four parties. I am getting into deeper and deeper water.
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority. The fine words, as she put it, of the IRA and the leadership of the IRA have not been matched, and perfectly inexcusable outrages have occurred. That is why I assure my hon. Friend that the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, with the full support of the Government, will bear down as hard as is possible by all lawful means upon those who resort to violence.
Mr. David Trimble: It would have been preferable if the documents had been available to us at an earlier stage so that we could have studied them. However, I have already noticed two points. The document setting out the Government message of 17 July says:
"consideration was being given at the highest level to a far-reaching response."
What was that response, and was it delivered?
Secondly, there is reference to "unauthorised contacts" with Sinn Fein/IRA, in addition to authorised contact. I understand from the briefings given by the Northern Ireland Office to the press that that unauthorised contact included members of MI6, or the Secret Intelligence Service, during 1991 and 1992. Is that the same as the contact that Mr. McGuinness claims that he had with what he called a British Foreign Office official in the spring of 1990?
When did the unauthorised activity by the secret intelligence service begin, when did it end, what measures have been taken to bring the SIS under control, and what disciplinary action has been taken with regard to the officers who engaged in that unauthorised activity?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not prepared to say more than I said at a press conference in Northern Ireland yesterday, which is that it has come to our notice that there were probably two instances over the past three or so years where unauthorised contact was made by somebody in an official position.
Mr. Peter Robinson: It was authorised.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: It was unauthorised by the British Government. Nothing derived from that contact in each instance that affected any message subsequently sent in the manner that I have described to the House by the British Government to the leadership of the IRA. I am not prepared to say any more than that.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, a reply to the message of 10 May was not, in the event, sent, for the reasons that are set out in the document of 17 July.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be conscious of the deep desire in all parts of the House that his stewardship should be crowned with the success of a just and lasting peace that is not an accommodation of terrorism and that is fully in line with the principles of constitutional democratic government.
In the pursuit of that objective, for which most reasonable people will give him a wide degree of latitude and discretion, can he bear in mind the fact that, time and time again since 1969, successive Secretaries of State have realised that seeking to reduce the alienation of the violent

811
minority which constitutes the IRA/Sinn Fein should never be sought at the expense of alienating the Loyalist majority in the Province?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend eloquently expresses the hopes of all of us, but it is no good addressing the problem in a way that results in the transferring of violence from one end of the political spectrum to the other. That is what would happen in certain circumstances.
I readily acknowledge the need to reassure those who constitute the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland—those who wish to see the Union within the United Kingdom maintained—that the Government will continue always to stand behind the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental reassurance they need, and it is one that has been given as authoritatively as possible. It is meant by the Government and every Minister.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has refused to publish the exchanges between the Government and the Provisional movement in the period before 22 February 1993? In particular, will he give further consideration to whether he should publish the text of any message sent by the British Government immediately before that date?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can assure the House that the message received in February, which begins the published body of messages, was not one that had been prompted by us or heralded. It would not be right to publish, to however far back I was asked to publish, all the records of the messages sent back and forth by that means of communication. It would not be in the public interest to do so. It might very well encroach upon intelligence matters that, as will be widely understood, should not be published. I shall give further consideration to the matter, but I do not hold out any expectation, or offer any commitment, that I would think it right to do so.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The House has always had a high regard for the integrity and judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend, and that has been clearly reflected this afternoon. Does he agree that the IRA is a criminal organisation, and one involved in the very worst form of crime—murder—and it should be dealt with only on that basis?
Does he also agree that, while it is legitimate to use the democratic process to campaign for a united Ireland, it would be a devastating day for democracy if the idea ever
812
arose that a group that owed its power not to the ballot box but to the bullet could influence the future shape of political and constitutional arrangements?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right, and that is at the basis of the defence that is necessary for democracy. It is always expensive to defend democracy, but the country has had some experience of that, and knows that the price is always worth paying. The Provisional ERA resorts to criminal methods and therefore can be characterised as a criminal organisation, and it must never be enabled to influence constitutional development by resorting to violence. In thanks for the kind words with which my hon. Friend began, I bow towards him.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is pleased to know that I appear to be the last Back Bencher rising to ask him a question in this marathon. Does he accept that it now appears, regrettably, that the whole business, from the first message in February from McGuinness to the statement made this morning by Adams, has been nothing more than a political ploy? There has never been any hope of the IRA giving up violence.
Does he accept that what happened arose entirely from Sinn Fein's desire to make political capital? Does he therefore agree that the extraordinary reaction—the hypercritical and naive reaction—of almost all the press, many politicians and some hon. Members today, criticising the Government, has played into the hands of the IRA, has given Sinn Fein its political capital and is giving comfort to those evil terrorists who are the enemies of the House, the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It may prove to be the case that nothing will come, and that nothing ever would have come, from the message that we received in February. That was not an assumption that was open to us, in duty, to make. There was always hope that it would, but so far that hope has been dashed. It may be that it was nothing more than a political ploy. All must hope that that was not the case. It was not open to us to treat it on that basis.
The concluding part of my hon. Friend's question related to the way in which the Government's response has been addressed. Yesterday, at a press conference in Northern Ireland, I mildly observed that, from the tone of some of the questions addressed to me, it might be thought that it was not the IRA but the Government who had bombed the Shankill.

Points of Order
5.29 pm
Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice about the responsibility of Ministers to the House for their actions. How can I ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland takes responsibility for what, in recent days, has been, by any account, a serious scandal reaching right into his office? Today's momentous statement arose directly from a leak to a newspaper yesterday, and it was right and proper that the House should have heard that statement and had the chance to question it, but revelations in Scottish newspapers at the weekend about the existence of certain documents and the statements of the former chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board are in many ways comparable in their seriousness.
It is four weeks since the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board, the largest health authority—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman make his point of order to me, please?
Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the department that covers the Greater Glasgow health board. It is four weeks since the dismissal of the general manager, but we have not heard a word from the Secretary of State on the matter. It is three weeks since the Scottish Office re-employed the gentleman concerned, yet we have heard nothing. The revelations at the weekend, which as I said are comparable to those that led to the statement today, point directly to the complicity of Scottish Office Ministers in the termination of the employment of the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board.
Surely hon. Members have a right to hear the Minister who is in charge of that department, who holds high office. There should not be a lengthy period of silence, with no opportunity for hon. Members to learn what events led to these accusations being made.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House; nor have I been told that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. The hon. Gentleman might seek the information that he requires from the Table Office. If he comes to see me, I might be able to help him on procedural matters, but I should have thought that he, as a long-standing Member of the House, would be aware of how to proceed with such matters in the House.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 that would allow mergers and takeovers between large ITV companies. Those changes
814
would raise serious issues and would transform the face of ITV. Hon. Members were not given an opportunity to express their views, because the Secretary of State did not make a statement.
I gather that the House will not debate the amending order before the new year. Despite that, Carlton Communications and Central Television announced today, in advance of Parliament discussing and determining the matter, that they will go ahead with their merger. The immortal words of the Carlton spokesman were that they did not feel that there was any need to hang around, because the vote will go through anyway. That is preposterous and unacceptable to the House. I should be grateful if you, Madam Speaker, would express your concern about the matter and tell us what you can do to protect and safeguard the rights of the House.
Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is aware that an affirmative resolution is required to change the present legal position on mergers between television franchise holders. Talks being held outside do not, of course, affect the rights of the House, and whether a breach of the law has occurred is a matter for the courts. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the matter in due course.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The proposed merger between Carlton and Central Television directly affects every hon. Member who represents a midlands constituency. Central Television is a midlands-owned company, with midlands-owned production facilities. Carlton is a London publishing company; it is not a producer.
Inevitably, genuine fears are being expressed by many people in the midlands that there will be an increase in the job losses that have already occurred among skilled production staff and that there will be no prospect of the midlands being a centre of television excellence because of the inevitable drift to the south, which is the purpose of the break-up of the industry. The consequence of the Secretary of State for National Heritage not having made a statement is that there will be a dribble of different proposed mergers and takeovers between now and Christmas and beyond, with no prospect of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
This matter affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and the many constituents whom we represent, and before the break-up of the regional television structure, which has served Britain well, there should be proper scrutiny of the proposal.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should raise these matters at business questions. He is seeking a statement in the House and answers from the Secretary of State, not an answer from me. I have dealt with the original point of order. He must now pursue the matter at business questions.

Orders of the Day

  Sunday Trading Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I ask hon. Members, in the circumstances, to exercise restraint in their speeches. I have allowed an important statement to run so that each hon. Member who wished to ask a question could do so. I now seek hon. Members' co-operation by keeping speeches short so that each hon. Member may be called.
  5.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  May I begin by expressing the hope that a day that has so far seen a good measure of agreement across the Floor of the House will continue in that vein—at least for today's stage of the Bill?
  The Bill seeks to reform the law governing Sunday trading in England and Wales. This is a matter that touches directly right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents. It arouses passionate interest in the House and beyond. We can look forward to many interesting debates on the Bill as it makes its way through the House.
  The Bill is, in many respects, unique. It contains three options for reform—regulation, deregulation and partial deregulation, as proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. It is the essence of the Government's position in presenting the Bill that we shall argue neither for nor against any of the options for reform, although I make no secret of the fact that, as an individual Member of Parliament, I favour deregulation. As a result, I hope to be somewhat briefer in introducing the Bill than is usual.
  The origin of the Government's policy lies with the report of the committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Act 1950, the Auld committee. As is well known, that committee came to the view that no system of regulation would be fair, simple and readily enforceable and the House endorsed the report's findings by a vote of 305 to 185. A Shops Bill was introduced in 1985 to give effect to that report's findings, but it failed to commend itself to the House, despite the fact that it had successfully completed its passage through the other place.
  The Government then attempted to find consensus on the way forward—a search that proved ultimately fruitless. There was passionate support for options for reform but there were passionate antagonisms to each of the options, and there was little common ground.
  When Parliament rejected the Government's Shops Bill in 1986, it set itself and the Government a rare problem. Few, if any, hon. Members believed that the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act made sense. Most hon. Members, if not all, wanted the muddle over Sunday trading to be resolved, but there was no obvious agreement about what should replace those provisions.
  This Bill was devised to unravel that riddle. It does so in a unique way. It presents Parliament with a choice between the leading options for reform. Each option has been drafted by parliamentary counsel. Each reflects the
  816
  policy aims of the campaigning group that supports it. Parliament can compare and contrast the options and, on a free vote, choose between them.
  There is no doubt that reform is needed. Changes in retailing and leisure activities have put pressure on the Shops Act regime. As a result, the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act are well past their sell-by date. Under the Act, milk and cream, including clotted cream, may be sold on Sundays but not dried milk or tinned cream unless it is tinned clotted cream. Fish and chips may be sold at a takeaway outlet other than a fish and chip shop, but fish and chip shops may sell takeaway food other than fish and chips. If Peter Piper was still in the habit of picking a peck of pickled peppers, he could not pick them from a shop on Sunday, although he could pick a peck of fresh peppers if he wanted to.
  It is time that that muddle was sorted out. I have written to all hon. Members describing in detail the options for reform. My letter also contains information about general handling matters. The question for the House today is whether it agrees in principle that any one of the three options in the Bill should replace the existing provision on Sunday trading in the 1950 Act. It is not being asked to choose today between the three options for reform.
  If the Bill secures a Second Reading, the House will be invited immediately to agree the motion on the Order Paper in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Lord President committing clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 4 to a Committee of the whole House. If agreed, that will have the effect, among other things, that clause 1 will be considered on the Floor of the House, ensuring that all hon. Members will be involved in the choice between the options.
  So how is that choice to be made? Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to bring into effect by order any one of the three options for reform. Deregulation would be achieved through repeals to the 1950 Act contained in clause 1. The substance of the other two options is contained in schedules 1 and 2.
  Clearly, there will be a full debate in Committee of the whole House on the options' merits. To choose among the options, the Committee will vote on a series of amendments to clause 1, which will remove from clause 1 references to two of the three options for reform. So if any group of amendments secures a majority, clause 1 will be amended to refer to one option only. That option will then be the choice of the House.
  The amendments would also remove the order-making power so that the chosen option and the rest of the Bill will ultimately be brought into force in the normal way, riot through the affirmative resolution procedure.
  It is not a question of which option gets the biggest vote. It is conceivable that only one option will be voted on if that were to secure a majority. Voting against earlier options is the only way in which hon. Members can seek to ensure that they can vote on their favourite option if it comes later in the order. Hon. Members cannot fudge the issue by abstaining in a vote without risking that their preferred option may fail by default.
  When the Committee of the whole House has completed consideration of clause 1, the Standing Committee will consider in detail the chosen option and other provisions of the Bill in the normal way. It will also remove those schedules that are no longer introduced by clause 1. Schedule 4, which deals with employment rights, will also be taken in Committee of the whole House.

  817
  The Government will give their supporters a free vote, both in choosing between the options and in dealing with the amendments to the opening provisions of whichever option wins. The Government have made available officials and counsel to the campaigning groups so that their policy aims can be best translated into draft clauses. But the Government neither endorse those policies nor intend to defend those models from attacks by opponents. It is for Parliament to test the options thoroughly. Within reason, the Government will provide time for this important debate to be properly undertaken, but they will not take sides in the debate.
  Mr. George Foulkes: We all look forward to the opportunity of a free vote on this issue. However, from what the Secretary of State has just said, the order in which the vote on the options is taken is important. How will that be decided, and what does he recommend in relation to the order in which the vote is taken?
  Mr. Howard: That is entirely a matter for the Chair. It would not be appropriate for me to make recommendations on such a matter.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House whether his comments about the Government taking a neutral position throughout the conduct of the debate mean that they will do so throughout the whole debate or just the debate on the three clauses? Will they take a neutral position on all the issues from now until the Bill's accession, or will they wheel in the payroll vote or whip their people on other parts of the Bill?
  Mr. Howard: It has never been the Government's position that there will be a free vote on every aspect of the Bill, as I shall now make clear. I should be astonished if that occasioned the hon. Gentleman the slightest surprise.
  On the contents of the Bill, clause 1 introduces the three options for reform: deregulation; regulation, proposed jointly by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform; and partial deregulation, supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Schedule 1 contains the regulatory model and schedule 2 contains partial deregulation. In brief, deregulation allows any shop to trade on Sundays, as in Scotland; regulation would require most shops to close other than on the four Sundays before Christmas, with exceptions for some types of shops; and partial deregulation would allow all small shops to trade at any hour on Sundàys but restrict larger shops to six hours' trading.
  Schedule 3 will be needed if either of the options short of deregulation wins Parliament's approval. It continues the special exemption for Jewish traders to trade on Sundays and also provides local authorities with enforcement powers. The rest of the Bill, other than schedule 4, contains technical and consequential provisions.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal scandal of the present legislation is the fact that it has been impossible to enforce it evenly and properly? Will he kindly explain how schedule 3 will deal with the problem of enforcement if the House opts for something other than total deregulation?
  Mr. Howard: The provisions made for enforcement in schedule 3 are set out clearly, and my hon. Friend may be better qualified than many hon. Members to follow the detail of those provisions. To the extent that any of the three options chosen will be an improvement on the existing legislation, it will facilitate the problem of enforcement. But the greater the number of anomalies and the greater the number of questions that fall to be decided by the courts, the more difficult enforcement will inevitably be.
  The Government's aims are straightforward: we want Parliament to choose one of those options and we want that option to reach the statute book. We want the option to work in practice and to command the respect throughout the country which the current regime sadly lacks.
  The debate in Committee of the whole House will enable the broad options to be argued for and against, and the Standing Committee will no doubt fine tune whichever option for reform is chosen.
  Although, as Home Secretary, I share the Government's view that it is better that the matter be resolved once and for all than that any one option should triumph, as an individual Member I shall vote for deregulation.
  Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary will recall that last week there was criticism from within his Department of the Churches, which were described as being strangely silent about moral and ethical questions facing the country. He will also recall that this morning, in The Times, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi and the Moderator of the Free Churches gave a moral and ethical lead in arguing, very vocally, that Sundays should remain a special day. Will the Home Secretary reflect on how important it is to family life that the traditional value of people spending Sunday together will be lost if there is total deregulation, which he favours?
  Mr. Howard: I treat, as I expect all hon. Members would, the observations of those religious leaders with the greatest respect. But on that matter, I did not find them wholly persuasive. There are many different ways in which family life can be strengthened. There are many ways in which families wish to spend Sundays together. Many families would prefer to spend Sundays shopping together than in pursuit of other activities.
  I do not want to dwell on my reasons for supporting deregulation. However, it is noteworthy that Scotland, and some other countries, does not regulate Sunday trading. It would be difficult to argue that that has had any discernible impact on the character of Sunday in Scotland. Family life and church life seem to be as robust north of the border as they are anywhere else in Great Britain.
  I believe that the law should intervene only where it serves a justifiable purpose in doing so—where failure to intervene would create a serious mischief. I believe that people should be able to spend Sunday as they wish. Many people want to shop on Sunday. Whether shops should open should be a matter for the conscience of individual shopkeepers and shoppers and not for the courts and criminal law.
  I shall turn now to a point that was raised earlier. There is a distinction between the issue of which shops can open on Sundays, which cuts across party lines, and employee

  819
  rights. There will be a free vote on the choice between the options, but the Government have a clear employment policy and we shall defend that policy vigorously.
  Clause 2 and schedule 4 to the Bill provide additional rights for shopworkers. If the House agrees, they will be considered by Committee of the whole House. The rights will apply whichever of the options for reform is chosen by Parliament.
  When the Act comes into force, existing shopworkers will have the right not to be dismissed or suffer detriment through refusing to work on Sunday, and can surrender those rights only by agreeing in writing to work on Sunday. That reflects the fact that existing shopworkers are in a special position. They may have taken employment knowing that they could not be obliged to work on Sunday because, for the most part, the 1950 Act prohibited shops from opening.
  I made clear when I published a draft Bill in July that the Government saw no case for making statutory provision for premium or double payment for Sunday shop work. We shall resist vigorously any attempt to introduce into schedule 4 a provision requiring premium or double pay. Such a provision would destroy jobs. Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs, which represents many small traders, has said that such a provision would
  "bring death to hundreds of independent grocers and convenience stores."
  It is absurd to attempt to establish a common benchmark in an industry where there are 240,000 different retail businesses varying from large multiples with turnovers of £500 million to single outlet retailers.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. John Hutton rose—
  Mr. Howard: I have given way to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) once, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. My question relates to the impact and range of clause 2 and schedule 4 with which the Home Secretary is dealing. Is it a correct interpretation of the clause and the schedule that existing employees and prospective employees will enjoy a measure of employment protection, but that that employment protection will not be extended to job applicants—those who are seeking employment—and who may be confronted with an employer who says, "You will get employment with me only if you are prepared to work on a Sunday"?
  Is that not a loophole in the clause and the schedule with which the Home Secretary should be concerned? If it is right to protect existing and future employees, is it not right also to protect job seekers in the same way?
  Mr. Howard: We take the view that it is perfectly reasonable for employers to inquire at the time that employment is offered whether the employee or prospective employee is prepared to work on Sunday. It is possible, as the hon. Gentleman recognises and conceded in his question, for such employees subsequently to give notice that they did not wish to work on Sundays.
  Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly suggested that the Government will resist an attempt to put premium pay on the face of the Bill, but he will be aware that the major
  820
  groups that are presently trading on Sunday, which include Asda, Argyll, Tesco, Sainsbury, Boots and Kingfisher, all pay premium pay to their employees on Sundays. Does he agree that that will set the trend for the rest of the market should they open on Sundays?
  Mr. Howard: I think that that will have an important influence on rates of pay. My hon. Friend is quite right in his assertion.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what he has just said, which was that an applicant, once he becomes an employee, could give notice that he did not wish to work on Sundays? Would not a contract have been signed? How will that work?
  Mr. Howard: The Bill's provisions, in being statutory provisions, would override any contract and would make it possible for any future employees to give three months' notice that they were not prepared to work on Sundays.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must press on, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, because I hope that he will clarify a number of issues.
  The Home Secretary has quite rightly been concerned with the number of people employed, and who are capable of being employed, by small businesses and small shops if there were a statutory duty to pay double or triple time. Is he not aware that many of us have had practical objections by small businesses and shopkeepers in our areas that the advantages now pursued by supermarkets and hypermarkets will put them at further disadvantage if deregulation of the two major sorts goes ahead? Is that not equally an important matter for the threat to their employees and their businesses?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman raises a different point. If he thinks about it, the implication of his point is an admission on his part that many people wish to shop in large stores on Sundays but do not have the opportunity to do so. That is the implication that is at the heart of the question that he has put to me. We think, or I think—I am expressing my personal view and not that of the Government—that if people wish to shop in large stores on Sundays, for the reasons that I gave earlier, people should have that opportunity.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Howard: No; I must press on.
  We believe, too, that a provision enabling all shopworkers to have a right to withdraw from a contractual obligation to work on Sundays is by and large unnecessary. We have received many representations on that matter during the summer. It is quite clear that many hon. Members are concerned that shopworkers may face changes in life that require them to reconsider their agreement to work on Sundays. That is why we have included the provision to which I have just referred, the additional right in schedule 4 to enable any shopworker to opt out of Sunday shop work on giving three months' notice to that effect.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?
  Mr. Howard: This must be the last time.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, as it is a very important point.
  If the House agrees to total deregulation, that will mean that we will get universal opening in Scotland, which we do not have at the moment, contrary to what was said earlier. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because it does not exist south of the border. There are multiples that do not open in Scotland because they do not open south of the border.
  Surely the protection in the Bill, whether it be premium payments—and we can argue about that—or, importantly, the right to refuse to work on Sundays, should apply also to Scotland. Will it be possible to amend the Bill in Committee to enable that section to apply to Scotland?
  Mr. Howard: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question totally defeats me, but the answer to his question is no. I will not be the ultimate arbiter of whether an amendment is in order or not, but it is my understanding that it will not be possible to introduce an amendment of that kind to the Bill.
  The Bill provides all the materials necessary for Parliament to design a Sunday trading regime to replace the existing muddle. The Government have forgone their privilege of presenting a single-option Bill to serve the wider interest of presenting a Bill that will resolve the Sunday trading issue once and for all.
  I also recognise the hard work that the campaigning groups have done and the constructive spirit with which they have engaged in discussions with my officials so that the options in the Bill properly reflect their aims. The Bill owes a great debt to those groups.
  This Bill provides Parliament with a unique opportunity to solve a problem that has dogged it for 40 years. Thirty Bills have failed to resolve the Sunday trading tangle. I believe that this Bill could resolve it once and for all. It is up to all hon. Members to ensure that it resolves the issue by choosing one of the options for reform in the Bill which will work and be accepted by the country.
  If Parliament fails to make a choice between the options and does not resolve the issue, the country will find that failure difficult to comprehend or to forgive. We shall all have to bear responsibility for that failure. It is in the hope and belief that we shall live up to the responsibilities that are placed upon us that I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: There is, at least, unanimity in the House on one point—the Shops Act 1950 is out of date and must be changed. The question is: what should the nature of the change be? Doubtless, strongly conflicting views will be expressed by hon. Members, and whatever option is chosen will then itself be the subject of amendment and debate.
  I intend to offer my personal view of the options later, but I want to concentrate on employment protection. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has said that schedule 4, dealing with employment protection, will be taken on the Floor of the House so that the whole House can debate the issue, attributing to it the significance that it deserves. We would have preferred a free vote on this and on all aspects of the legislation, however.
  822
  It is correct to say that the 1950 Act requires change, partly because of the well-known anomalies and partly because the patterns of life and of working life have changed. The vast majority of women of working age work. Fewer women stay in the home full time. The range of products sold by shops has increased dramatically and, similarly, patterns of employment among shop workers have changed.
  For the past few years at least, several of the smaller shops and smaller supermarkets have been open on a Sunday. Nevertheless, there has been a strong feeling in the country against turning Sunday into just any other day—and there has been an acknowledgement that, if customers are to enjoy greater freedom to shop, that freedom should not be exercised at the expense of the conditions of employment of shopworkers.
  Until now, although there has been consensus on the need for change, there has been no consensus on what form that change should take. Partly because of that and partly for commercial reasons, for the past 18 months the law has been broken by default. Whatever view we take, it is plainly urgent to legislate because it is not right that laws, whether popular or not, should be changed merely by direct action by those to whom they apply.
  According to some estimates, as much as 38 per cent. of shop capacity is already open on a Sunday and, according to the latest MORI polls, about 11 million people over the age of 15 have shopped on each of the past four Sundays—not to mention large numbers of people who shop in the DIYs and supermarkets that are illegally trading. Tens of thousands of people are employed in those shops. Indeed, a greater percentage of shopping capacity is open in England on a Sunday than is open in Scotland, even though the restrictions do not apply in the latter area.
  Let us be clear about the matter of disagreement. No significant group is asking for limits on Sunday trading anywhere near as restrictive as those in the 1950 Act. The only question is to what extent the law should be liberalised, and on what conditions.
  I offer three guiding principles that should inform our debate. First, although it will be and should be for each hon. Member to decide how to vote, I feel personally that it is sensible that our decisions should reflect mainstream public opinion—as far as it can be calculated.
  Secondly, the reason why the 1950 Act fell into disrepute was that it sought to make distinctions which were out of date or which could not be logically justified. Whatever distinctions we make, it is important that the legislation be rational, not arbitrary, and capable of enforcement.
  Thirdly, we should fully protect the rights of those who work on Sundays in order that we may shop then. For me and for many of my colleagues, employee protection must go hand in hand with the freedom to shop. The two issues are not distinct; such rights are an inalienable part of a better shopping regime. I mentioned that we should take account of public opinion, so I should point out that the view of the public—whatever their ideas about the options—as expressed in poll after poll is that the two issues are inextricably linked.
  I understand, of course, that there is always the problem of enforcing in practice rights to protection given in theory. Ultimately, the only cast-iron way to ensure that there is no abuse of employment protection for Sunday workers is to ban Sunday working altogether, but that is not sought by anyone. We are, therefore, left inevitably with the task of

  823
  how to legislate for employee protection, while recognising the limits of what legislation can do. It is precisely for those reasons that large numbers of shopworkers want to and do belong to a trade union. That right must be given to every employee to exercise as a matter of free will.
  I should like to give my view of the options before returning to employee protection. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others who have worked so hard to put these options together. Whatever our disagreements about the options chosen, I believe that my hon. Friend has signally left his mark on the legislation—particularly on the provisions for the protection of shopworkers against exploitation. Such measures and changes as have been included in the legislation, which has changed greatly since its early drafts, are in no small way due to the work of my hon. Friend, of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and of others.
  I agree with many of the motivating ideas behind Keep Sunday Special. I certainly believe that Sunday should be a special day. In fact, many people already work on a Sunday, yet for most people Sunday is a day that is special and apart from any other. In the end, however, my view is that the Keep Sunday Special proposals—although not the sentiments behind them—do not offer us a workable solution. I have arrived at that view with reluctance, but I have concluded that the KSS proposals do not conform to the principles that I have set out: in particular, the distinctions that they make are not capable of legal enforcement.
  Mr. Alton: Why not?
  Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I will readily give way to him. Each of us makes our own judgment on the proposals before us—
  Mr. Michael Lord: Just to be clear about this: is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's carefully thought out proposals, carefully drafted and introduced as a sensible legal option, are not
  Mr. Blair: Yes, I am saying that. I do not believe that they are capable of rational, legal enforcement. I do not say that the drafting is wrong; the distinctions that they seek to make are wrong. For example, it is difficult to argue that video shops, but not record or book shops, should be allowed to open on a Sunday or that people can buy car radios from motor accessory shops but cannot buy anything from antique or handicraft shops. It is not logical to be able to buy a power drill but not a suit of clothing. Such distinctions are difficult to make and, in any case, under the KSS proposals the four Sundays before Christmas will enjoy complete deregulation. Such is the problem of trying to marry up the public's desire to shop with the desire to keep Sunday special. My view—I do not seek to impose it on anyone—is that the balance in these proposals is not right.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the Committee that considered the Shops (Amendment) Bill, which was before the House last year, his hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) extensively put forward the Keep Sunday Special proposals, with the support of hon. Members from both sides of the House. The arguments were aired there, and the majority of the members of the Standing
  824
  Committee agreed that they were considered, well thought out, practical and enforceable. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the Hansard transcript of those Committee sittings before categorically stating that those proposals, which have been put before the House, cannot be implemented.
  Mr. Blair: I have studied the Hansard transcript. In the end, it is a matter of whether one is persuaded. I am not.The danger is that we may replace one set of distinctions that have brought the law into disrepute with another. That is my view; I have given it, and it is for other hon. Members to air their views.
  Whatever view one takes of the options, it is important to remember that the options will be discussed and subject to amendment, so it may be that some of the problems will be lessened or cured. Each one of us will have to choose an option, but my option is not that one.
  Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson—who attends the Committee stages of many Bills—and surely he is aware that the Government, having proposed a Bill, will sometimes amend it in Committee to the point where it becomes unrecognisable as the Bill that was debated in the House on Second Reading.
  My hon. Friend readily admitted that any option offered to the House at this stage could be amended in Committee, and for him to discount any particular option on the basis on which it has been presented is totally wrong and misguided.
  Mr. Blair: That is precisely the point that I was making—the options are open to amendment. I am simply expressing my view of the options as they are now.
  Mr. Foulkes: I enjoy these free voting arrangements. Will my hon. Friend maintain his support for the option if he does not get his way on workers' protection?
  Mr. Blair: I have said that workers' protection is essential. I believe that we will succeed on workers' protection, and I will come to that point in a moment.
  There are further considerations to bear in mind. There will inevitably be an impact on the local environment if there is complete deregulation and the large shops have all-day opening. The Auld committee—when it dismissed the problem that there would be an impact on the local environment if all shops were open all day—said that it believed that there was an inevitable trend to move shops out of town. That has not happened to the degree that the committee anticipated. Many very large superstores remain in the centre of towns, and the impact that the proposals will have on the local environment is another matter that we should take into account.
  I believe that public have two objectives, which can be summarised as gaining greater freedom to shop and preserving something of the special nature of Sunday as a day of rest and worship. Those two objectives can sometimes come into conflict, and for that reason some limitations on the opening hours of the larger shops would accord with that public sentiment.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about employees' rights, but consumers' rights are long-term as well as short-term. The top four main supermarket food retailers—which are behind total deregulation and the Shopping Hours Reform Council—control 61 per cent. of

  825
  retailing. Is my hon. Friend not worried that we will get into a situation where the consumer is totally dominated by a small number of companies?
  Mr. Blair: I accept that a degree of concentration has occurred, but one cannot ascribe that to Sunday opening. Over a period, many consumers have got into the practice of doing one day of shopping, and they use the supermarket chains to do that. Of course, that can have an impact on small shops, but it a practice that has developed quite apart from Sunday opening.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that small shopkeepers have already been penalised because large retailers are opening? Does he agree that that will cause much more hardship for small shopkeepers in the future?
  Mr. Blair: It is a question of balance. People who use large stores do so because that is where they do their entire shopping. They use small shops for something different. If we restrict and shut down the large shops, those who now work in those shops will not get the opportunity to work. It is a balance both ways.
  A report was issued by Mr. Deakin and Mr. Wilkinson of the Small Business Research Centre at Cambridge. They found that the majority of those who did not work on a Sunday did not want to do so. They made it clear that most of those who did work, did so for the pay it provided and that there will be many people who want to work on a Sunday and many who will not.
  Mr. Deakin and Mr. Wilkinson paid particular attention to the dangers of deregulating without granting employee protection to future as well as existing employees. They showed that some 20 per cent. of current shopworkers had been working for less than two years and 60 per cent. had been working for less than five years. It is vital that we include future employees as well as existing ones in employment protection; otherwise, those refusing to work on a Sunday will simply find themselves replaced by those who are obliged to work. We also have to look carefully at the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) made about those applying for work.
  I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will confirm that schedule 4 will not only protect people from being dismissed for refusing to work on a Sunday but prevent them from suffering any detriment at all in their employment, including to their promotional prospects. The position of employees should be entirely neutral whether or not they wish to work on a Sunday.
  We want to see premium rates for Sunday working. The Wages Councils Act 1979 used to specify double time for Sunday working. When the Auld committee looked at the problem some 10 years ago, it advocated deregulation on the basis that employment protection would exist, and on no other basis. Premium pay is supported not only by the partial deregulation option but by the Keep Sunday Special option and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform proposals. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have advocated either the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals or the Keep Sunday Special campaign and RSAR proposals join us in ensuring that employees get the protection that they need in order not to suffer as a result of the introduction of any form of deregulation.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that if provision for premium payment is not included in the final Bill, many of those who work on Sundays now will be unwilling to work on Sundays? Many of those who work on Sundays do so only because of the premium payments that they can earn. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be difficult to staff shops that wish to stay open on Sundays, except by force?
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is right. The retention of the premium pay element is particularly important—in everyone's interest. As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) pointed out earlier, many employers are committed to that.
  There are elements of agreement between the two sides. It is agreed that certain significant small shops should open on Sundays, that some larger shops should open and that all shops should open for at least four out of the 52 Sundays in the year. There is wide agreement about the need to protect employees. The remaining difference concerns the range and nature of opening hours. That difference covers an important and wide spectrum, but it covers a spectrum: the argument is no longer conducted according to absolutes. No one is arguing for no Sunday opening; not even the Government now argue for no regulation, at least of employees' conditions.
  We are searching for a way through the impasse—a method that works, that is capable of being enforced with sense and respect for the law and that treats employees fairly, a method that seeks to balance the public's twin objectives of greater freedom to shop and of keeping Sunday special. We believe that that is possible. The Bill should be given a Second Reading; after that, let us draw up a workable framework for the future on the Floor of the House, where such matters should be decided.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I reinforce Madam Speaker's plea for short speeches? Otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I warmly welcome the Government's initiative, and their imaginative action in introducing a Bill to enable us to reach a final decision on an issue that has eluded Parliament and the population for decades. Now, it seems to be within shouting distance of determination. I believe that our debates on the Bill can settle the legislative aspect, although they will not necessarily decide the real issue of Sunday trading.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the tremendous amount of helpful work that he has done for all who have sought to integrate their schemes in the overall package of the Bill. He has produced genuinely viable options. One of the really successful aspects of the Bill is the fact that every hon. Member can be confident that whatever option he chooses in the Lobbies will be viable and workable.
  In an opinion given to the John Lewis Partnership, Anthony Scrivener, the eminent Queen's counsel, stated:
  "There can be no objection to a statute on the grounds that it is elaborate or complicated if it in fact achieves its purpose. In my view there is no reason at all for rejecting this option"—
  that is, the Keep Sunday Special/RSAR option—

  827
  "on the grounds of interpretation difficulties or difficulties in enforcement."
  I emphasise that opinion for the benefit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr Blair).
  Mr Scrivener continued:
  "Some of the perceived problems are misconceived: others are simply overstated."
  He went on to say:
  "Local Authorities, the courts, lawyers and even retailers are well used to having to deal with questions of the application of legislation to their activities and the legislation involves a consideration of definitions. Anyone familiar with food law or consumer law generally is well aware of such problems—they are commonplace. I cannot see any greater problems arising under this Bill than in numerous other existing Statutes which have proved to be effective. Ascertaining the meaning of such terms is common place."
  I think that the hon. Member for Sedgefield has underestimated the viability of the Bill as now presented—with the help of the Home Office—in respect of the KSS/RSAR option.
  Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have considerable experience of long hours of debate on Bills, including Criminal Justice Bills. Does he agree that if the criterion for the Sunday Trading Bill were applied to Criminal Justice Bills we would never have passed any? Admittedly, we would all have been relieved of a great burden, but we would never have tackled any of the difficult problems of law and order in our society.
  Mr Alison: I agree that any legislation involving any sort of discrimination—for instance, sex discrimination or immigration legislation—will require complex definitions, which nevertheless are in principle perfectly viable and which in most cases have produced effective legislation. I believe that, with the help of the Home Office team, we have now secured a regulatory option that is fully viable.
  I must point out to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that in one sense the Government have slightly overstated the Bill—although, as I have said, I welcome it in principle. They argue that three options exist, but no one is so naive as to believe that. There are two options before us: the regulatory option associated with the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the RSAR, and the full deregulatory option contained in clause 1 of the Bill. Surely no one believes that the two hours per week which separate full deregulation from the option presented by the Shopping Hours Reform Council represent anything more than a fig leaf.
  If I have a criticism to make of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, it relates to his use of the term "compromise scheme" to describe the proposals of the SHRC in a letter that he sent to all hon. Members on 19 November. The use of that phrase to define the council's two-hours option is almost disingenuous. It is like a judge passing sentence in court telling the defendant: "I have two options—to set you free, fully and unconditionally, or to sentence you to life imprisonment; I am going to compromise and sentence you to two hours community service." That is not a compromise. It is almost indistinguishable from total liberation and it is an abuse of language to describe it as a compromise.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
  Mr Alison: I am happy to give way to my old Committee sparring partner.
  Mr Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his own proposals represent a compromise option? For instance, he says that the shops specified in that option should be closed because Sunday is a special day. He would argue that it is special because of the nature of people's lives, but also for religious reasons. Yet he then suggests the compromise that the four Sundays running up to Christmas should not fall into that category. Is that not the ultimate compromise?
  Mr Alison: I cannot imagine why, but my hon. Friend has suddenly brought religion into the argument. I have certainly not deployed that argument in my speech, and I do not consider compromise relevant to the context of a Bill which distinguishes full deregulation from the very full regulatory scheme that the KSSC and RSAR are trying to introduce. Anything in between could be called a compromise if it were in any meaningful sense a regulatory scheme, but the Shopping Hours Reform Council scheme really is not a compromise and it is an abuse of language to imagine that it is.
  Mr. James Paice: I must challenge my right hon. Friend's assertion that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals do not constitute a sensible compromise between the other two options. My right hon. Friend ridicules the proposal on the basis of two hours per week—assuming, it would seem, that the shops which will be allowed to open for six hours on Sunday would otherwise be open for eight. Does he accept that, under the Keep Sunday Special proposal, a small food shop—a corner shop or whatever—could open from 6 am until midnight while the big shops would be restricted to six hours? That strikes me as significantly different from complete deregulation, which would allow the big shops to open for those same hours—from 6 am until midnight.
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend must bear in mind the fact that, both under the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals and under the Keep Sunday Special/RS AR proposals, the small category of small shops to which he referred will be free to open as often as they like and for as long as they like, so in that respect the two schemes are on all fours. The difference lies in the provision for large shops. Under the KSS proposals, large shops will not be able to open except on the four Sundays before Christmas, whereas under the SHRC's liberalising deregulatory proposal they will be able to open, with only a two-hour limitation in respect of normal eight-hour opening hours. Moreover, as soon as the regulatory framework is abandoned, those opening hours will almost certainly expand to the full eight hours.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield argued that it was necessary and desirable to keep Sunday special—even though he would not embrace or advocate the full KSS scheme. He talked about premium pay. He wants a scheme whereby Sunday can be kept special to some extent, with an associated framework of premium pay for those who have to work on Sunday. I ask him to reflect on the necessary argument that the less Sunday is kept special and the more shops open on Sundays, the more impossible it becomes to argue rationally for premium pay.
  If we have the full deregulatory framework or the full SHRC framework, with six hours leading in a short space of time to full eight-hour opening, the time will rapidly come when insurance companies, travel agencies, building

  829
  societies, banks, small property and house agencies—any kind of business with a high street presence or deployment—will follow suit. All such business are perfectly free to open now and if the high street is busy on Sunday because all the shops are open, they will open, too.
  Why should there not be a progressive development with all forms of employment operating on Sundays? The whole idea of Sunday being a special day will long since have been abandoned in favour of normal retail activity. Why should that not spread to all other forms of employment?
  I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will accept that if that happens the case for premium Sunday pay entirely disappears. Sunday will become a day like any other day. Employers do not pay premium pay on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday because some people take their day off on that day. Why should Sunday be a special day? Why should nurses or those in the emergency services get premium pay on a Sunday if it is no longer a special day but a day on which all businesses are open, as will almost certainly be the case once there is a complete free-for-all on the retail side?
  I warn the hon. Member for Sedgefield of what is likely to happen by drawing his attention to the phenomenon of Good Friday opening. We have some interesting statistics. In 1976, when the first of a series of analyses and monitoring operations were carried out, 80 per cent. of all retail premises closed on Good Friday—only 20 per cent. of shops opened on Good Friday. By 1986, 10 years later, 40 per cent. of all retail shops opened on Good Friday. Another three years on, in 1989, 60 per cent. of all retail outlets opened on Good Friday. In 1993, 100 per cent. of shops opened on Good Friday.
  If we are completely to liberalise all retail trading on Sundays—that applies to the full deregulatory framework as well as to the limited fig leaf of two hours for the major stores—why should the trend not spread to all other forms of employment, in much the same way as Good Friday opening has spread?
  Mr. Fabricant: It has not happened in Scotland.
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend says that it has not happened in Scotland. I will come to that point in a moment. I ask the hon. Member for Sedgefield to bear in mind that as the trend develops and the Good Friday pattern is followed, the argument for premium pay on Sunday will disappear. There can be premium pay only if Sunday is a special day, and Sunday will be a special day only if there is a framework of strict limitation on the shops that can open on Sunday. There is only one option that holds out that prospect.
  Mr. Blair: I would not normally respond, but the right hon. Gentleman has directed so much of his speech to me that I feel that I should. It is precisely to ensure that we designate Sunday a special day that we argue in favour of premium pay and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support us when we table amendments on that issue.
  Many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making could equally be made in relation to his own proposal. The distinctions that he is making have to be justified. He says that we are keeping Sunday special if we tell people that they can buy food in a small shop but not in a large shop. I cannot understand what is his basis for
  830
  making those distinctions. Unless the basis can be made rational we are in danger of legislating for the same type of folly as we have at the moment.
  Mr. Alison: I do not want to bore the House or the hon. Gentleman by cantering over old ground, but I must point out that the essential difference between the options before us is that, under the Keep Sunday Special/RSAR proposals, the very large shops are virtually disbarred from opening—except on the four Sundays before Christmas—and only the smaller shops, as defined in a way that is perfectly statutorily manageable and feasible, will be able to open. A great gulf will be fixed between the great supermarket stores that are taking all the business out of the high street and the town centre and the small businesses that they are putting out of action. The fact that the large stores will be disbarred will be a special feature of Sunday. That is how Sunday will be kept special, as it would not under the full deregulatory option.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) mentioned Scotland. When the John Lewis Partnership carried out a survey in Edinburgh only a few weeks ago, it discovered an interesting phenomenon: 100 per cent. of the large out-of-town supermarkets and very large stores around Edinburgh were opening on the Sunday in question, whereas only 25 per cent. of the Edinburgh city centre shops were open. We are talking about the familiar doughnut with the hole in the middle. All the opening will take place in the large supermarket premises on the perimeters of cities while the small and medium-sized shops—the hole in the doughnut—will be driven out of business.
  If there is a restricted regulatory framework in England, the Scots will rapidly seek its help for the problem that is looming in Scotland. The Scottish solution is no solution. I repeat that we need the KSS regulatory framework if Sunday is to be kept special and if there is to be any chance of premium pay retaining effectiveness and reality on the English social and economic scene.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: We have been told that the occupant of the Chair will decide when the options are to be called. To avoid any confusion about when the options are to be debated or voted on, may we be told when options 1, 2 and 3 are to be called and in what order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): When I know the date for Committee, I shall be better able to help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it correct that amendments will have to be tabled in Committee so that hon. Members can choose which options to delete? Someone will have to move those amendments. If the Government table amendments to allow hon. Members to decide, is it not for the Government to decide the order of those amendments? Is it not a procedural fact that the Chairman will have no option but to take them in the order in which they are tabled?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Chair to view all amendments and the Government are free to table whatever amendments they wish. However, we have not yet given the Bill its Second Reading.
  Mr. Powell: In view of your last sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall get on with my speech.

  831
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr Blair) for his kind remarks about my efforts and those of my colleagues. I thank the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr Alison) for his efforts and his devotion to trying to change the law on Sunday trading. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about free votes. Why will there not be a free vote on Second Reading? Conservative Members are on a three-line Whip, but Opposition Members are on a one-liner, which means that we may vote as we please. I hope that for the other debates on the Bill there will be a free vote.
  The Home Secretary openly declared that he supports total deregulation. His predecessor, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a total deregulator. Above all, the Prime Minister is a total deregulator. Does that mean that we can take heart from the Keep Sunday Special/Retailers for Shops Act Reform group of options, and that we shall be supported by Conservative Members because the Government back total deregulation? I look forward to the result.
  Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that those members of the Cabinet who support total deregulation are going for a double whammy? They hope to get through the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals, which are the most deregulatory. They will then bring in the Whips to make sure that there are no concessions on Sunday working. As I say, the Government are going for a double whammy, and when the first proposals are concluded we shall not be able to stop them.
  Mr. Powell: I agree, but I do not know what my hon. Friend means by a double whammy. Perhaps he will explain it to me later. I accept that the Government may use diversions, especially as they have now declared their intention.
  I recall the debate on Sunday trading in 1985–86. At that time the Government had a majority of well over 100 and there was talk in the Chamber and elsewhere of their Bill being pushed through. The Lords agreed to it, and when the Bill returned to this Chamber I was the home affairs Whip. To my amazement, Conservative Members were prepared to vote against the wishes of their Whips and, as a result, the Bill was defeated by 14 votes.
  Some of the people who voted against that Bill are still in the House. When we have discussed the matter with some of the new faces, I am sure that the House will once again reject total deregulation and will probably reject partial deregulation. I look forward to the vote on those matters.
  Discussions have continued since. 1986 and there have been attempts to introduce private Members' Bills. I was fortunate, if one can call it that, to be No. 3 in the ballot immediately after the last election and I chose to promote the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Perhaps it was not a wise move because there was much work involved and there was a good deal of criticism, even from some of my Front-Bench colleagues. They spoke about unacceptable Bills, but there was advice from the Clerks and from the Home Office. I do not know whether the new shop unit was set up deliberately to confuse or to assist the hon. Members who debated my Bill.
  On 14 May my Bill hit the rocks. There were a number of reasons for that. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is in her place, so I shall mention that in Committee on my Bill she tabled 122
  832
  amendments, most of which were called. On Friday 14 May she tabled 99 amendments and 30 new clauses. I thank the right hon. Lady for that because it meant that the House could decide whether to have the three options instead of the amendments and the new clauses that she had tabled. On 14 May there was a tremendous amount of support for my option, which was to keep Sunday special.
  There is no need for the Government to waste time on the current Bill and there is no need for the three options. On 14 May they could have adopted my Bill. The RASA and Keep Sunday Special proposals provide ample opportunity for reasonable shopping and most of the anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 could be avoided. I console myself with the fact that the Government would not have acted at all on Sunday trading if it had not been for the agitation of those of us who campaigned for a new Act to replace the 1950 Act.
  We have always been promised a free vote and the Prime Minister has reiterated that during Prime Minister's Question Time. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Lloyd), who is in his place, also promised a free vote, and on numerous occasions the Home Secretary promised a free vote on every issue. However, we have never been promised a free vote on employment protection. Indeed, it surprised most of us when we found that employment protection was included in the Bill, in any shape or form. Of course, the main reason for its inclusion is the combination of the two options suggested by Keep Sunday Special and the RSAR group.
  I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield to look closely at what the Government are offering. They should also read a document dated 26 November that I received today in my post bag. It is a report on Sunday trading and employment protection by S. F. Deakin, a fellow of Peterhouse and lecturer in law at the university of Cambridge, and K. D. Ewing, professor of public law at King's college, university of London. It details why the proposals on employment protection included in the Bill cannot possibly work.
  Because of the time factor, I shall refer only briefly to the statement issued by Sainsbury on Tuesday 23 November, which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) mentioned last week during Home Office questions. An article in The Independent stated:
  "J. Sainsbury, one of the country's largest supermarket chains, was at the centre of a Sunday trading storm last night after the leak of a memorandum which warned managers that a willingness to work on Sundays could affect promotion… The memo, from Colin Harvey, retail sales manager, warns that Sunday working will become 'a way of life' if the Sunday Trading Bill succeeds. Mr. Harvey says reluctance to work on Sundays will not affect Sainsbury's assessment of an employee's potential, but he adds: 'Willingness to work on Sundays will obviously be one, although clearly not the only, factor that we have to take into account when making appointments to such stores."
  I am sure that that will be the position with all supermarket chains.
  I have worked behind a shop counter and as a manager of a shop. I have been a member of USDAW since I was 16—which is one or two years ago! Therefore, I can say quite frankly that there is no way in which we can protect the promotion prospects of workers if they fail to work on Sundays.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman received the letter dated 24 November

  833
  from the chairman and chief executive of Sainsbury disowning the employee to whom the hon. Gentleman referred? I wrote to the chairman of Sainsbury, saying,
  "Do I take it that you will now be reviewing his career development?"
  The two are at odds, so in which one should we put our faith?
  Mr. Powell: I agree with the hon. Lady.
  Ms Janet Anderson: I have a memorandum issued by the joint managing director of Sainsbury in an attempt to clarify that very point. I do not wish to bore the House by reading the whole memorandum as I believe all hon. Members have received a copy. The joint managing director said:
  "I now wish to state categorically that the Board's policy in this matter is that a manager's willingness to work on Sundays will not be a consideration in making managerial appointments."
  Mr. Powell: I must continue with what I have to say, which is even more important than the point made by my hon. Friend.
  I was overjoyed when RSAR and Keep Sunday Special agreed to combine their options. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased at their attempt to produce a realistic Bill which will be acceptable and workable and which covers the wishes of most hon. Members. I must put on record the fact that the agreement was reached to avoid the House being confused by four options. For some reason the three options that were included in all the options that we discussed for some considerable time overnight became four options.
  The RSAR group referred to the four major issues. The first was the size of the shop, which would be between 1,500 and 3,000 sq ft. That was agreed in the Committee on my Bill. The second was the extent to which garden centres should open, which was also agreed in the Committee on my Bill. The third major issue was the question of employment protection. The fourth, which we put to RSAR, was a compromise solution for Sunday opening on four Sundays before Christmas.
  When the matter was debated in Committee on my Bill, that fourth issue proved to be a stumbling block. The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden tabled an amendment to allow opening on six Sundays before Christmas. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) tabled an amendment specifying three Sundays before Christmas. I tabled a probing amendment suggesting four Sundays before Christmas. The matter was debated for two hours, and the principle of Sunday opening for four Sundays before Christmas was overwhelmingly established. However, when it came to the vote each and every option was rejected, including that suggested by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. That is why the issue was so delicate when we discussed it with the RSAR group. I am glad that opening for four Sundays before Christmas is now one of the options in the Bill.
  As the right hon. Member for Selby said, in effect there are only two options, not three. One option is total deregulation—or deregulation that is practically total—and the other is to keep Sunday special as suggested by Keep Sunday Special. Those are the options that are really on offer to the House. If the Government were prepared simply to put those two alternatives before the House, we would know where we were going with the Bill.
  834
  Insisting on the three options makes matters complicated. Indeed, when the Home Secretary explained the procedure for voting, I wanted to intervene to ask him to repeat what he had said because it was obvious that even he was becoming confused. However, with your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all probability we will have some idea of the procedure for voting. I repeat: there should be two options, not three.
  We should all remember the protections that the Government have stripped away from trade unionists since 1979. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and to trade union leaders—especially those who have campaigned side by side with Keep Sunday Special since 1976—to examine the debate that eventually led to the abolition of the wages councils. We must also remember the Government's views on the social chapter and their general attitude towards workers' protection. We must then ask ourselves why, at this late hour, they have included schedule 4 to the Bill.
  It is the Government's last stand to compensate their financial backers for the hundreds of thousands of pounds that they have paid into Tory party funds. It is a reward for the further sell-out of workers—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. How long will all the promises for worker protection that were forced out of the Government without mention of double-time payments last? How workable is what is on offer? I remind all those who oppose the proposals that it did not take the Government long to abolish wages councils, and it will take them even less time to abolish that which they are promising today.
  The major campaign waged by Usdaw is the only option demanding not only full worker protection for those who decline to work Sundays but double time for all hours worked. That is a Keep Sunday Special proposal, which was backed and funded by USDAW until October 19. On 5 May 1993, an USDAW executive council spokesperson, speaking at the union's annual delegate meeting at Blackpool, said:
  "I can give this ADM, on behalf of the Executive Council, an absolute assurance that we will go on campaigning, we will go on lobbying, we will go on working with our friends and allies, and we will go on tackling our opponents. This issue is too important for this union to be swept aside by the rantings of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the profit-only entrepreneurs who have no interest in the trade in the general but interest only in profit in general.
  That is why we have spent so much time in the Executive Council statement to ADM looking at the principal proposals for reform that are currently being put forward. Everyone will understand why the Executive Council and this union can have no truck with the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Their proposals are only one small step away from a total free-for-all. The only protection they offer our people is a tinpot code of practice that is not worth the paper it is written on. Some of their own supporters, like Woolworth until recent date, are already trampling over the code of practice in any event. Actually to argue that a code of practice would be useful to shopworkers when one of the main proponents of that policy is in actual fact breaking that code of practice, shows how bankrupt and how sinister that particular offer is.
  And there are some deeply suspicious links between the people to run and back the Shopping Hours Reform Council. We have to be concerned that because of the publicity given by this union to their insidious propaganda, and because of our attacks on Tory-orientated Shopping Hours Reform Council officers, they have now tried to buy a Trojan horse into the Labour Party. They have appointed a leading Labour person, Margaret Jay…
  There are some very good points but also some unresolved problems about the REST proposals. So we intend to develop our relationship with the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, pursue our concerns with them, and we have every confidence that on all

  835
  those issues that we see as being of critical importance, provided they embrace the concept of keeping Sunday special, they will give us a favourable hearing."
  USDAW's executive council pledged unqualified support for the REST and Keep Sunday Special proposals. I hope that the House understands why I was compelled to make that statement.
  Only yesterday, I received a letter from an employee of Woolworth, stating that he was asked by his manager to sign the new terms and conditions of employment for Woolworth's retail staff. They include the sentence:
  "You may be required to work evening, Sundays, public holidays or following reasonable notice."
  He was unwilling to sign unless he could strike out the reference to Sunday working, and was told that unless he signed he could consider himself dismissed. That is happening before the Bill has received its Second Reading or all the options in respect of the comprehensive employment protection that we have always demanded have been considered.
  I doubt that the protection on offer will be acceptable to the House. It is vital that debate is not curtailed. Earlier, the House was, rightly, presented with a long statement on Northern Ireland, but it served to reduce the speeches that right hon. and hon. Members can make to this important debate. Given that, and the number of issues that right hon. and hon. Members want to raise, I shall resume my place—but I had much more to say.
  7.6 pm
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I begin by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues. I know only too well from my own experience of working at the Home Office the long discussions and negotiations that were the forerunner of the Bill. This is the right and proper way to take this contentious matter forward.
  I much enjoyed the opportunity to serve on the Committee that considered the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). It was an interesting experience and, for no reason to do with the number of amendments that I tabled, one of the most interesting aspects was the number of concessions that were made—often before amendments came before the Committee. As time went on, we found ourselves in more agreement, due to the concessions made to those of us who opposed the heavy regulatory provisions contained in the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  Interestingly, that debate continues. The proposal that the four Sundays before Christmas should be totally deregulated differs from the hon. Gentleman's Bill. He rightly pointed out that we voted down that proposal, so clearly we are still on shifting sands in respect of the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR proposals. Were that the will of the House, the Committee stage will be most interesting, for I suspect that a number of amendments will necessarily be tabled to try to ease any proposed restrictions.
  I took the approach of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seriously in my own constituency. I not only listened carefully to the views of Churches and constituents, but called a meeting of local retailers only last week. It covered the spectrum of small retailers and large stores, including representatives of large stores that are not in favour of total deregulation. Nevertheless, at the end of
  836
  that meeting, there was general agreement that close attention should be paid to customers in reaching our conclusions on the Bill.
  This evening, I shall make it perfectly plain that I support total deregulation. It is exceedingly important that we make a decision for a Second Reading of the Bill this evening. Otherwise, we will be left with the Shops Act 1950, which most people in the House would agree is not workable in this day and age. Thus, it seems to me that we have to go that far at least.
  It is equally important that we should endeavour to put a lasting measure on the statute book, and I have many worries about that. I do not necessarily agree with those people who have said that the issue is confined to two options only. That is a simplistic view. It is tempting to listen to and possibly to accept, but I do not accept it.
  It is reasonable for the Government to come forward with a third option, which is not the strict and regulatory proposal from the Keep Sunday Special campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform groups, but a proposal for partial deregulation which would at least allow those of my colleagues who have some concerns about the concept of Sunday being different from the rest of the week, to feel easy and at rest with their own views and, at the same time, to take into account the strong arguments that will have been communicated to them by many of their constituents who wish to be able to exercise freedom of choice about whether or not they shop on a Sunday.
  Mr. Lord: Is not the truth of the matter that those people who want total deregulation know that they cannot get it through the House of Commons in that form and that therefore partial deregulation, as it is called, has been devised in order for them to get what they want—total deregulation—by another route?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I would prefer to leave that issue to hon. Members, for them to demonstrate their views when we have an opportunity to vote on the options in Committee. I would not wish to predict how people will vote or how they are minded to represent their constituents.
  Any measure that the House now puts on to the statute book should be logical and comprehensible, and I mean comprehensible to all the people who have to make it work. Even were we to accept the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), that whatever one puts on to the statute book can be made to work—I would not deny that at any stage—none the less we have an opportunity to exercise some restraint and caution on the subject as a legislative body.
  It seems to me that what we put on to the statute book should be as unrestricted as possible, with as simple an approach as possible in terms of interpretation for those people who will be charged with the task of interpretation. Thus, I would argue that a simple measure which allows deregulation on Sunday would be the best option that the House could obtain, simply because it will not involve a large amount of enforcement or interpretation. I understand the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby that that might not be the will of the House. We shall have to see how that goes.
  Another general principle that we should consider carefully is enforcement. Should we put a more restrictive option on to the statute book, local authorities will be charged with the responsibility of enforcing that measure. Local authorities have already made it plain that they are

  837
  not especially happy or content to accept a new responsibility of that nature. They—and I agree with them—have said that they would now feel more comfortable with total deregulation, simply because it will be expensive and onerous for them to enforce and to monitor what would flow from a regulation along the lines of, for example, the Keep Sunday Special option.
  Simply and swiftly—because I believe that this is a Second Reading of the principle and not a debate on the various options, so I do not want to get into detailed argument about the various options now—I shall make a few simple points about my reasons for wishing to support the change.
  I do not think that it is in debate that there are considerable differences between the 1950s and the 1990s. I have argued that before on the Floor of the House. It is therefore important that we acknowledge that people who live in the country today have totally different aspirations about what happens on Sundays as well as on other days of the week, and also about what they may or may not purchase at any given time in a shop. Many things that people purchase today were not available to them in the 1950s; many facilities are available to them today that were not available to them then.
  I think it is a quite sustainable argument that, in some cases, retailers have wrongly offered people the opportunity to exercise their choice. None the less, people have exercised that choice where it has been available to them, and today about two thirds of the population are in favour of the general proposition that there should be an opportunity to shop on Sunday. Every week, at least 5 million people are said to visit a supermarket on Sunday. That is a substantial number, and I suspect that most Members of Parliament would be reluctant to ignore the views and wishes of their constituents to that extent.
  A substantial number of people who are employed on a Sunday would be deeply disappointed were the House to make a choice which restricted or limited their opportunities to work. Again, the situation in the 1990s is totally different from that in earlier decades.
  In the 1990s, and especially most recently, large numbers of women have found that it has been extremely convenient to work at weekends and to look after their small children during the week. That has been possible for them simply because opportunities have been offered to them in retailing work that were not available to them in the past. Sadly, not all but some of those jobs would not be available were we to impose a stricter regime than currently exists, albeit outside the law. I therefore believe that we have to pay some attention to the wishes and needs of our constituents in terms of how they work and how they obtain their income.
  I have already argued that local councils will have to implement and enforce whatever legislation we pass. The more complex that legislation is, the more difficult it is for one to assure oneself, and for local councils to assure themselves, that some shops are not breaching the new legislation. That will inevitably involve cases coming to court for interpretation. There will be a great deal of bureaucracy, and a considerable amount of money will be spent, most of it ending up in the lawyers' pockets—not, I dare say, something that we necessarily ought to wish to see.
  838
  My final argument—
  Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I would like to make my final argument, if I may, because I do not want to take up the time of the House.
  People argue passionately—and with a great deal of earnest belief, I am sure—that total deregulation would overnight, or perhaps not overnight but over a period, totally change Sunday as we know it. I do not believe that there is any evidence for that assumption. Indeed, we have evidence from north of the border, in Scotland, where there has been total deregulation for a long time, that Sunday is as special there as it is or is not in the southern part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Alton: May I draw to the hon. Lady's attention a letter that was sent today by Bishop David Sheppard, the Bishop of Liverpool, who refers to the Scottish experience? He says that the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland gave evidence to the Home Secretary:
  "It made absolutely clear that they believe that the experiment in Scotland was not a success and was no model to be followed elsewhere."
  Dame Angela Rumbold: If that is the belief of the Churches, it is not necessarily the experience of all the people. It is almost impossible to believe the serious and sweeping statement, which we would ultimately expect to hear in the country as a result of total deregulation, that every day of the week is exactly the same, one as another. I do not believe that that will happen, and that people want to change their habits to that extent. I simply believe that what happens at present outside the law would in many senses be much better encapsulated in a total deregulation measure. I do not necessarily think that that would encourage or substantially increase the amount of shopping that would take place as a result.
  Certainly, nothing that we will do on this measure will prevent people from going out with their families on Sunday to enjoy themselves at whatever event they wish to take, or prevent them from going to church. Indeed, if we were to talk on a religious basis—the reasons for keeping Sunday special—and bring the Churches into the argument, it is entirely a matter for the Churches to attract a larger number of people to worship, and I wish that were the case. But it still would not prevent people from going beyond that into the world around them and enjoying themselves by either shopping or participating in any other leisure activity.
  Thus, I do not see that there is a great argument that, simply by deregulating shopping hours, we will make a specific difference to Sunday. As I said at the beginning—my constituents are well aware of this—I support total deregulation, and I shall argue for it in detail on another occasion.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The final point of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) that Sundays would remain special despite total deregulation was comprehensively answered by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who talked about what happened to the special nature of

  839
  Good Friday when shopping practices were changed. The right hon. Lady's predictions are less reliable than the lessons of history.
  In this debate, one is at some risk of getting bogged down in arguments about anomalies that exist under the present law, or which might exist under putative alternatives, and overlooking the fundamental deep and important question which originally led to Sunday trade being restricted. It reflects not the changes of a few decades, to which the right hon. Lady referred, but the wisdom of at least two millennia —that people need a day of rest for mental, spiritual and physical reasons.
  It is not the view only of modern doctors, psychiatrists, personnel managers and many people involved in trade and commerce, and the professions. Throughout the ages, people have shared the view that without rest we cannot enjoy the fruits of our labour. Even the slaves of ancient Egypt and Rome were given a day of rest. If we cannot rest, we no longer work to live but live to work. The trends of the society in which we live have tended to lose sight of that. We have been told that God did not go to a supermarket on the seventh day.
  We may ask why we require a common day of rest. To put it simply, in our society it is possible to provide for one. Sunday is a valuable and still powerful social tradition. It is a wise institution. As we all take the same day to rest, we appreciate not only our own rest but that of other people. People who want to shop or work on Sundays believe that they do so for no reason other than convenience, but we must remember that one person's convenience is another's labour; we can become so enamoured of the need for convenience that we forget that a balance must be struck between getting what we want when we want it and having someone provide it for us.
  In the light of what the Home Secretary said, I am not confident that that balance will be properly struck. The protections for those employed on Sunday—and some people will always necessarily be employed on Sunday—would be safeguarded if the Bill proceeded through the House in its present form. For all the anomalies that exist, and those that would exist if regulation were retained, some degree of protection for those in employment and those seeking employment in the retail sector would be secured by maintaining the proposals advanced by the Keep Sunday Special organisation and the RSAR.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a little too trusting if he believes that the interests of workers employed in the retail trade can be secured by transitory assurances from transient Home Secretaries about employment protection. The Home Secretary is committed to total deregulation and has made his preferences abundantly clear not only in this area but in many others. He believes that regulation is an intrusion on private choice and freedom of decision-making and he vigorously resisted the social chapter. It is therefore a little strange to hear the hon. Member for Sedgefield buying the arguments of the Home Secretary with such enthusiasm; it seems a little out of character.
  It seems indisputable that the law needs changing. The Shops Act 1950 used concepts similar to the wartime reserved trades to proscribe non-essential trading. Clearly, it was flawed, and it was recognised as such early in its life. The momentum for its reform began almost as soon as it came into force. My research assistant is a bright young man called Charles Cohen whose grandfather was involved
  840
  in a leading case which became known as the kipper case—the case of Newbury v. Cohen (Smoked Salmon) Ltd. in 1956.
  In that case, it was held that it would be illegal to sell kippers on a Sunday if they had to be cooked before being eaten but not if cooking was unnecessary. The defence case consisted of a raw kipper sandwich that was presented to the judge. As it was decided that the sandwich was edible, and the clerk of the court enjoyed it, the case was dismissed. Such anomalies will undoubtedly continue wherever one chooses to draw the line. It is a counsel of perfection to imagine that we can produce an anomaly-free law to regulate this area.
  Mr. Lord: Is not the hon. Gentleman getting to the nub of the argument there? If we want to keep Sunday special, we can do so even if it is a little difficult. If we do not, we simply wash our hands of it and say that it is impossible to produce such regulations and so the only sensible thing is total deregulation. That is a fallacious argument, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman. The other argument used by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was that many were voting with their feet, and that many millions of people were going to the shops. Certainly, if shops are available and open on Sunday there is no doubt that their convenience is sufficient to attract people.
  There are some people for whom the non-availability of shops on Sunday can definitely provide genuine hardship. I acknowledge that. There are numbers of single mothers, for example, who are working on other days and who find it difficult to get to the shops on those days. Those people have genuine problems and genuine needs. We have to strike a balance.
  Excluding, for the purposes of the debate, all arguments about religious norms, we must consider where the balance of public interest lies. The argument cannot be confined just to what happens to those shop workers who have to remain in their places to serve those who want hie convenience of shopping on Sunday. We must recognise that there are many activities associated with the fact that the shops are open which would also have to multiply. We would expect greater policing and greater shopping inspection to take place. We would also expect, if shops are to become more universally open, much more refuse collection on Sundays.
  We would expect also to see a substantial increase in the volume of traffic, and I wish to comment on that. I believe that, on Sunday, people in cities, or people who are trying to leave cities to enjoy a day of leisure and recreation in the countryside, will face increasing unpleasantness. I do not know whether it is expected that public transport will take up the additional traffic engendered by the new Sunday shopping habits following total deregulation, but I doubt it. There will be a sea of cars on the road, and queues will stretch out into the suburbs and the countryside. Of course, there is the option to stay at home, but the quality of life will not be enhanced if that additional traffic is engendered.
  Mr. Luff: It is not just the freedom of shoppers that we must bear in mind. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the freedom of those people on whose lives traffic has a major impact. The hon. Gentleman's words will be particularly welcome to those who live near major supermarkets located in residential areas and who, even if

  841
  they choose to stay at home, will have the imposition of cars and lorries thundering past their homes on not six but seven days a week.
  Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was drawing attention to those people who perhaps do not want to shop at all but who are not unaffected by the activity of those who do. I was talking also about the balance of convenience.
  The nature of Sunday has already changed, in advance of the proposed change of law, so that Sunday is a much less restful day than many who are concerned about the health of the nation would wish.
  Mr. Alton: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend? Within my constituency, in the Allerton road area, a law-breaking branch of Woolworth's has made life intolerable for those living in the terraced streets alongside. Despite petitions been to Kingfisher, the owners of the chain, no action has been taken. My hon. Friend is right to state that the lives of people who live around the massive supermarkets and hypermarkets could be made miserable.
  Mr. Maclennan: I agree with my hon. Friend, as is so often the case.
  There is a further point. If one is to judge the matter in terms of consumer advantage, one must look at more than just the availability of goods on a counter on a particular day of the week. One must look at the long-term effect of shopping and retailing patterns.
  From the avalanche of briefings that have landed on my desk from shops of varying sizes, I have observed that no one expects the proposal to have a neutral effect on the shops. It is clear that most of those in the retail business consider the volume of trade to be constant. The proposal will mean a rearrangement of the business between the companies concerned.
  Most of those concerned about the matter believe that total deregulation, or deregulation of the type advocated by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, would result in some loss of that total volume to the small businesses because small shops tend to provide what might be regarded as goods which it is necessary to acquire, including things which may be needed in the event of a medical or other emergency on a Sunday. Changes in those trends would be highly disadvantageous. I cannot in conscience vote for a measure which will damage small corner shops, which shops are at some risk of being lost in any event because of the trends in shopping habits.
  It is not just the smaller shops which expect that their market share would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. The multiples, which provide a great deal of liveliness in the centres of the shopping districts of our towns and cities, also believe that. I hold no brief for any particular type of shop—I believe that they all have something to offer—but one cannot suggest that the impact of the proposed change would be neutral.
  One has to acknowledge that firms such as the John Lewis Partnership have been profoundly sensible about the prospects for their businesses if the changes were made. I noticed that one statement from the group said:
  "In the event of deregulation, the public would end up paying more for their retail service to cover the additional costs incurred. And since Sunday would in time become one of the two busiest days of the week, shops that wished to remain closed would do
  842
  so only at a cost. We should have to reckon that we would, against our will, be obliged to open on Sundays; not necessarily everywhere, not at once, but pretty generally in due course."
  The additional cost of shopping is certainly a factor that one would want to take into account. It is not something that manifests itself under the present anomalous law because the shops have to bear in mind the prices available in other shops, but that becomes less true if one sector of the market vastly increases its market share.
  I listened to the Home Secretary's speech and I would have greatly enjoyed it if he had felt able to give a more personal view about the matter. He was absolutely candid about his headline view of total deregulation legislation, but what led him to that position? Whether he felt that he was defending consumer interests, or whether he was defending the principle of the free market for seven days a week was less clear.
  Mr. Howard: Surely the hon. Gentleman would not want to put a false antithesis before the House. The free market is the best protection for the consumer.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has confirmed his reputation as a man who deals in slogans. That intervention was quite helpful. I know that he and his colleagues intend to have a bonfire of regulations and we all look forward to the impact of that on consumer safety, on consumer standards and on many of the other measures passed, with the protection of the consumer in mind, by his Government and Governments of very different hues.
  The Minister whose views on this most closely agree with mine is of equal or perhaps of even greater seniority than the Home Secretary—the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He and his wife happen to be constituents of mine and he has viewed those matters with great wisdom—the wisdom of ages. I share his judgment that it would be folly for England and Wales to follow the path of Scotland.
  It is a misrepresentation to suggest that we would be moving to the Scottish pattern if we legislated in the manner recommended by the Home Secretary. Shopping patterns in Scotland are very different from those in England. Only 25 per cent. of the shops in Scotland are open on Sunday, under a legal regime, whereas even today, under the existing laws, some 38 per cent. of the shops in England and Wales are open on a Sunday. A London economist has predicted that 65 per cent. of English and Welsh food retailers would open in a completely deregulated Sunday market.
  There are several reasons for the differences. First, Scotland is much less densely populated and the incidence of car ownership is lower, which means that shopping involves greater travel and expense and thus there is much less convenience, relatively, in Sunday shopping. There is much higher church attendance on Sunday and there is apparently more emphasis on family life on Sundays. I cannot account for that difference of practice, but it is recognisable and the law must be judged against that background.
  The large multiples do not have a significant presence in Scotland while they dominate the scene in England. There are 651 hypermarkets in England and Wales and only 49 in Scotland. Scottish retailers face relatively lower fixed costs, most notably the cost of property, but relatively higher marginal costs, in energy and wages, than in England, which means that longer hours are less profitable.

  843
  Costs would rise notably for retailers if they had to maintain shop opening seven days a week. Costs will not be reduced by the need to make premium payments to those who work on Sundays. They are more likely to be taken account of in rising prices for those who shop, so even on the narrow question of consumer interest the case for an extension of shopping hours on Sundays does not seem to be made.
  Having said that, I do not put forward the alternative as the last word in sense. It is a patent compromise. It does not rest on an absolute principle. It is impossible to defend a proposal that advocates four open shopping Sundays before Christmas as founded on a solid bedrock of principle. It is a compromise designed to meet the interests of the groups involved—which have applied themselves most carefully to the problem—around which we can find it easy to unite.
  Whatever we may do with the Bill, it will not become like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. It will not necessarily remain unchanged for another 40 or 50 years. It can be amended to take account of changing social attitudes and economic practices. It seems to me good enough for today and certainly a great deal better for today than the free-for-all that has the support of the Home Secretary.
  7.44 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I warmly welcome the Bill. For too long the anomalies of the Shops Act 1950 have been allowed to create confusion. I do not intend to debate the generalities of Sunday trading. I am mindful of Madam Speaker's plea for brief speeches, so I shall restrict myself to one issue—what will happen to garden centres as a result of the Bill in whichever form it becomes law.
  I represent a constituency with a long horticultural history. I am chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee, and I also have the honour to be the parliamentary consultant for the Horticultural Trades Association.
  The law allows garden centres to open on Sunday for the sale of certain specified gardening goods. There is no doubt about the importance that trading on a Sunday has for garden centres, both large and small. The annual turnover of horticultural retailing between the years 1991 and 1992 was some £800 million, of which 40 per cent. was earned on Sundays. That means that Sunday trading was worth some £320 million to the industry in those years. That not only represents a significant amount of economic activity but creates many thousands of jobs for people who actively seek to work on a Sunday through their own free choice.
  As garden centres have grown in number and popularity from the 1970s, they have developed into a wholly different entity. They have become a leisure venue for many people. The range of products that they sell has expanded greatly and now include such items as pottery, books, pet food, and—important at the moment—Christmas decorations.
  By selling that wider range of goods, many garden centres are breaking the law, but many local authorities have turned a blind eye to the sale of goods unauthorised under the 1950 Act. However, some have acted to prevent certain garden centres from trading to their full potential on Sundays. I think that everyone believes that garden centres
  844
  should open on Sundays. I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on that point and I believe that we are agreed on it.
  What people find hard to accept is why items that they have come to expect garden centres to sell should be on sale for six days in the week but not on the seventh. It all seems artificially restrictive, especially as Sunday is the day when most people visit garden centres. It is important that, with the Bill, we sort out the situation once and for all.
  The millions of people who visit garden centres each Sunday, and the thousands who work in them, need to be reassured that what they do, they do legitimately. The legislation that we introduce must be sufficiently comprehensive and flexible to accommodate current and future anomalies. I am concerned that one of the options—regulation—will adversely affect many larger garden centres and lead to great practical difficulties. Garden centre shops would have to be arranged not according to what is best from a commercial point of view but rather to meet the administrative needs resulting from the necessity to cordon off certain goods each Sunday. That is an unnecessary restriction on their trade at a time when we are trying to reduce burdens on our businesses.
  The House will select its preferred option, but no matter which the House chooses, there are three specific technical issues relating to garden centres that I would wish to be addressed. It is important to recognise that a number of businesses such as garden centres have been trading legitimately on Sundays for many years. They have adopted trading practices that best suit their business. Any new legislation should not adversely affect such companies. If it did, that would be a retrograde step. Even those options that are viewed as deregulation for many shops may lead to more regulation for garden centres.
  I have three concerns about extra regulation on garden centres. The first relates to restrictions on the hours of opening. Garden centres have a seasonal trade. The vast majority of their income is earned between Easter and June, when people are actively gardening. It is vital that, during those few months, garden centres seize every opportunity to maximise their income. They need to trade in as many daylight hours as possible. A restriction to six or eight hours on a Sunday—normally the busiest day of their week—would damage the industry. The busy months are counterbalanced by months such as January and February when trade is slack and there is less pressure to open for such long hours. The proposal to permit opening hours should be flexible enough to reflect the fact that certain businesses are seasonal and need to open for longer on certain Sundays.
  My second concern is about the paying of premium wages for Sunday working. Under current legislation, most garden centres already open on Sundays, and have done so for many years. Staff recruitment has always been on the basis that the business operates seven days a week and that there will need to be some Sunday working. That is reflected in the wages and conditions offered to staff when they are employed. Therefore, the garden centre industry has already built into its system premium wages for Sunday working.
  Profits at garden centres will not support the imposition of compulsory double time and time off in lieu of Sunday working. Introducing that for garden centres that have operated successfully on Sundays for many years would be

  845
  a retrograde step and would inflict unnecessary extra costs. Rather than encouraging Sunday opening, in many instances it might force closure.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Lady said that garden centres have built the equivalent of premium rates into their terms and conditions, which—I hope that I am not putting words in her mouth—reflect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. What are average earnings in the garden centre industry, and how do they compare with those of the other shops that have been referred to in the debate?
  Mrs. Roe: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman that detail because there is quite a lot of part-time work in garden centres. I shall provide him with the information, which I think he will find supports my point.
  The final issue that I want to raise relates to the one that I have just mentioned. Provisions for opting out of Sunday working will also damage garden centres, which for many years have operated a successful system of employing staff to work on Sundays. Garden centres are normally small businesses that employ a few staff. Unlike larger retailers, they simply do not have the flexibility to cope with such a provision within a small operating team.
  I do not think that there is much objection among the garden centre industry to giving existing staff the single opportunity to opt out on the passing of the Bill, but to allow the option to run indefinitely could certainly wreck managers' ability to plan and run their businesses efficiently.
  I hope that the House will consider ensuring that small businesses are not penalised by being burdened by regulations appropriate to larger companies but inappropriate to smaller ones. I welcome the opportunity to consider the issue of Sunday trading, but I urge the House to ensure that we do not burden smaller businesses such as garden centres with more regulation at a time when the ethos of Government is to move towards deregulation.
  Companies that have been successfully trading legitimately on Sundays should not be forced to close as a result of new regulations introduced under the Bill.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I begin with a word, across the Floor, of appreciation to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). It was both helpful to the House and very timely for him to quote the lucid and incisive opinion of Anthony Scrivener QC, a distinguished former chairman of the Bar Council, on one of the options provided in the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Anthony Scrivener effectively demolished the claim that the Keep Sunday Special/Retailers for Shops Act Reform option presents any particular difficulties of interpretation or enforcement. Anyone who still believes that fallacious claim should hasten to read Anthony Scrivener's compellingly persuasive opinion.
  One hon. Member has so far declared an interest in the debate and I want to inform the House of mine. I have the honour to be sponsored by the Co-operative Movement. In declaring that interest, I declare also my pride in being sponsored by a movement whose traditions are among the most admirable this country has to offer. The Co-operative Movement will celebrate its 150th anniversary next year and, as the anniversary approaches, I am sure that right
  846
  hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will congratulate the movement on its achievements worldwide. There are now 700 million co-operators across the world.
  Today's debate is not mainly about how, but whether we should amend the Sunday trading law. It is not about the options for change the Bill offers, but whether we should proceed at all to amend the Shops Act 1950. The Bill offers the means of tackling a mess that gets messier every week and, for my part, I am in no doubt that we should amend the Act providing adequate safeguards for working people can be secured.
  We should amend the Act in a way that respects the special nature of Sunday while allowing a reasonable range of activities to be pursued. I entirely agree with the letter in The Times today from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, and I offer no apology for making further reference to their letter. They write:
  "Commercial pressures already loom large enough in our society. Sunday affords space for the nurture of other values, pursuits and dimensions… we believe that the spirituai, psychological and physical health of our nation would be poorer if there were no longer one common day in the week which was substantially different from the rest."
  I also agree with the Bishop of Manchester, who says in a letter I received from him today:
  "One person's freedom to shop means another person's obligation to work. Even if the legislation proposes safeguards against Sunday working, the creation of a commercial climate in which Sunday trading becomes a competitive necessity will mean unbearable pressure on individuals and organisations."
  However, my principal reason for intervening on Second Reading is to comment very briefly on the deeply serious effects of illegal Sunday trading on law and order policies. Over recent years, a growing number of major companies have decided blatantly to ignore the Shops Act. There are people who believe that, but for the BBC's public service broadcasting role—such is the huge advertising revenue these companies dispose of—there would have been scant if any media coverage of their malfeasance. They have acted, and persist in acting, in straight defiance of the law. They have taken the law into their own hands by trading illegally, and make not the merest apology for iaw-breaking on a massive scale. They have been even luckier than Roger Levitt.
  Their conduct debases the law and is grossly contemptuous of Parliament at a time when the Government say that law and order is their priority of priorities. The public reaction is that there is one law for the rich private multiple and another for their poor consumers, who may buy illegally but must not shoplift from the law-breaking retailer—even on a Sunday. How can parliamentarians, in any part of this House, who make the law and work to uphold the rule of law by discouraging crime, even think of condoning law breaking by major companies on the present scale?
  What the Home Secretary must tell us unequivocally today is that, whichever option for reforming the Shops Act 1950 is approved by the House, it will be very strictly enforced. Otherwise, shall we not be wasting our time in debating the options in the Bill? We need to know also whether the Government have sought any undertaking from powerful law-breaking traders, such as Sainsbury and Safeway, that their stores will not open in defiance of the law if the joint KSS/RSAR option is approved by this House. Has any such undertaking been sought? That

  847
  question is of crucial importance to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and must be answered by the end of this debate.
  Allegations in The Sunday Times of "price coordination" by Sainsbury, Safeway and others, and their attempts to stop the American cut-price food store, Costco, from opening in Thurrock, show how determined these chains are either to break the law or to buy access to it beyond the means of others, whenever it serves to protect or increase their market share. The only way to make them respect and obey the law is to introduce a system of fines for illegal trading that will make sure that crime does not pay. We should also deal firmly now with companies that obtained planning permission on the strict condition that they would not trade on Sundays and have since broken their undertakings.
  In December 1992, the European Court of Justice made it clear that the British Parliament was free to legislate as it saw fit on the issue of Sunday trading. This decision was endorsed by the House of Lords in March this year when B and Q's claim that the Shops Acts 1950 was in breach of European law was firmly rejected. That decision makes it crystal clear that it is for this Parliament, not the big multiples or the European Court, to determine the law on Sunday trading, and for Ministers accountable to this Parliament to enforce what we determine.
  Again, I most strongly emphasise that law and order is a fundamentally important issue in this debate. Not only is the Government's credibility at stake but also the reputation and respect for the authority of this House.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I echo his point about law and order. On Sunday trading, it seems as though there has been one rule for the big multiples and another for other people. We in the Conservative party are now making law and order a big issue, as we should, and this issue highlights the point. It would be a travesty if the major retailers were allowed to bully the House into changing legislation. That would set a bad precedent.
  The Conservative party has coined the slogan "back to basics", with which I very much agree. What could be more basic than the traditional British Sunday? Keeping our Sunday as a different day of the week is essential for all sorts of reasons. We may not have time to go into all those reasons tonight, but we all know what we mean when we talk about the importance of keeping Sunday as a different day of the week. For some people it is a clay for religion and going to church, and for others it is a clay for family life or simply a day that breaks the rhythm of the week and gives people time to think and to rest from their ordinary labours.
  Hon. Members may demand further definitions of Sunday and may nitpick about what we mean by a "traditional Sunday" but, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we all know what we are talking about. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that Sunday was not a new day of the week and that for the past 2,000 years, we had had such a break in our working week to rest and refresh ourselves. It is crucial that Britain keeps Sunday special.
  The point that I wish to make strongly on Second Reading is that we shall have to choose between two
  848
  separate options. The water has been muddled, accidentally or deliberately, by the third option of six hours' trading, described as "partial deregulation". My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) destroyed the idea that that could be a sensible, intelligent compromise. That option is no such thing; it is a fig leaf for total deregulation.
  The House has before it two options: first, a framework to preserve our Sundays and, secondly, deregulation in one form or another. How can six hours' trading, from 10 am to 4 pm, which many big supermarkets enjoy now on Sundays, be described as a compromise? Those are the hours that they want to open and the hours that they will get if we are daft enough to fool ourselves into believing that that is a sensible compromise. So let us have no wishy-washy arguments about the matter. Either we want regulation to look after Sundays or we want deregulation in some form.
  I have no doubt that if we decide to keep our Sundays special and to frame that in legislation it will be difficult to do so. A massive amount of effort has now gone into that attempt. I was lucky enough to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Shops (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). We had a difficult time trying to thrash out a compromise that would work, but it can be done, and it has been done. No one who believes in keeping Sunday special can be entirely happy with our compromise. However, if one believes that it is worth marking Sunday out as different from a working day and if one wants regulations to do that, some compromises must be made. It is difficult to do, but not impossible.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that enforcement was impossible. Those who argue that enforcement is impossible and say that that is why they want total deregulation either fool themselves or have other reasons for putting forward that argument. They really want total deregulation and are using the argument that the other regulations cannot be enforced to support their position. I believe that a framework will be difficult but not impossible. If it is worth having, it is worth working for.
  Although, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, whatever we decide is unlikely to be perfect, no legislation is perfect. A good example of how it is possible to distort legislation if one wants to do so is the argument that we often hear about girlie magazines and the Bible. Those who want to joke about the possibility of making enforceable regulations say that it is ridiculous that one can buy a girlie magazine but not a Bible on a Sunday. That is true. However, the people who framed the legislation said that one could buy newspapers but not books, for many other reasons, on a Sunday, and that is not stupid. The fact remains that a girlie magazine is a newspaper and a Bible is a book. That is how the argument can be stretched to its most ridiculous extent. That is the kind of argument that those opposed to keeping Sunday special are using to put forward their case and it is quite ridiculous.
  I must make the point—it has been made more than once this evening—about the dominance of the large retailers. There is no doubt that if we have total deregulation on Sundays, the large supermarkets will grow at the expense of the smaller corner shops. Nobody denies that. Is not that a strange thing to be doing when times are difficult and when our smaller shops are struggling, while

  849
  our large grocery retailers are one of the few sections of industry turning in massive and record profits? There is something rather strange about that balance. It is stranger still that when profits are so huge, the large retailers should want even more trading at the expense of the smaller shops, which will undoubtedly suffer.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) has said that we are no longer in the 1950s and that we are now in the 1990s. That is patently obvious and true. But some people would suggest that in terms of standards and the way in which we run our national life, the 1950s were not so bad in many areas, and that perhaps we should look backwards to some of those standards to see whether we have gone wrong on our way from the 1950s to the 1990s. I do not suggest that we should look backwards or that we should in any way be hidebound about such things, but I suggest that we may be wrong in thinking that we are always right in terms of deregulation and letting retail business in particular do exactly what it wants to do.
  The supporters of Keep Sunday Special are often described as killjoys. That is nonsense, because more shops will be able to open under the proposed regulations than in the past. That is not entirely a false impression. If the regulatory system proposed by KSS comes about, we shall have open things that used to be open before all the lawbreaking started, plus sensible additions such as garden centres and DIY stores. The four Sundays before Christmas have already been mentioned. We need sensible regulations to keep Sunday a different day of the week.
  We should think carefully before we finally pass total deregulation measures through the House of Commons. If we do that, it will be an irreversible decision. Having done that—having cast off all the regulations to allow Sunday to become just another day of the week—we shall never be able to put the clock back. I believe that we shall look back with sadness, and possibly with shame, in the years to come. I wonder what future generations will think about what we in the House of Commons have done. Most countries have some form of regulation. What a sad statement by our nation it would be if we consigned all our regulations for Sunday to the dustbin and the history books.
  I started by talking about the slogan "back to basics". I believe very much that that is what we should be doing as a country. What better place to start than by preserving the basic traditions of the British Sunday?
  8.12 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: I believe that we are here this evening to discuss the general case for reform. That is what I would like to concentrate on.
  As we all know, the present Shops Act goes back to 1950. It was largely a consolidating measure, based on original legislation that goes back to 1936. It fails to recognise the huge social changes in the way that we shop and work.
  When the 1950 Act was passed, I was still a small baby. My mother did not work, and had the time to do the shopping every day. Forty-three years on, as a working
  850
  mother of three teenage children, it would be quite impossible for me to meet my family's shopping needs on a daily basis.
  That change in working and shopping patterns has not just happened overnight. It has been a gradual change as more women have sought paid work outside the home—some voluntarily and some forced to by necessity.
  But for whatever reasons those changes have occurred, the fact is that they have occurred. The Shops Act 1950 is now out of date, unworkable and virtually impossible for local authorities to enforce. In 1950, there were no DIY shops, video shops or rental centres, and, I suspect, few if any supermarkets—certainly none on the scale that we have today.
  In 1950, shops sold a relatively limited range of goods. It may have been possible then to believe that Sunday shopping could be regulated by a list of goods. But by doing so, the legislation has produced a list of test cases such as whether a kipper is a meal or refreshment, or whether marzipan and toffee apples are confectionery. If legislation based on the type of goods sold threw up anomalies in the 1950s, clearly it was bound to produce more and more as patterns of work and shopping, and indeed of retailing, have changed.
  The list pretty well now stretches into infinity. One can sell fresh vegetables but not frozen; bottled water but not fruit juice; gin but not baby milk; cigarettes but not fresh meat. One can even sell mule fodder on a Sunday—it is specifically mentioned in the 1950 Act. I do not suppose that there is much demand for that these days.
  It is a scandal that such a nonsensical piece of legislation should have been allowed to remain on the statute book for so long. It is important to remember that it is not Parliament that has to enforce it, but long-suffering local authorities up and down the country, with trading standards officers forced, probably, to work on a Sunday to ensure that no shopkeeper tries to boost his takings by attempting to sell the odd bag of frozen peas.
  It is no wonder that the Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour of being vice-president, has said that securing a change to the Shops Act was one of its most important objectives. It went on to say that the overriding concern of district councils was being saddled with the onerous responsibility for a piece of legislation that has proved very difficult and costly to enforce.
  Seldom has a statute been so frequently and regularly challenged. It does not enjoy the confidence of business, local authorities or the public, and is now almost untenable. Reform should be brought forward as soon as possible.
  Although I know that we shall be dealing with various options in the Bill at a later stage, it is important to point out that the ADC would not wish the anomalies of the 1950 Act, which have been exploited with such vigour and ingenuity, to be replaced with a new set. The law must make entirely clear, without ambiguity, those shops that are permitted to open and those that are not.
  For local authorities, the cost of enforcement will largely depend on the complexity of the model. The cost of enforcing the regulatory models will increase depending on the number of restrictions. Those hon. Members—from the Opposition or from Government—who care about local government will, I am sure, bear that in mind should they be tempted by the KSS-RSAR option, for behind the smiling and welcoming faces of Mr. Michael Schluter and

  851
  Marks and Spencer lies the reality of a situation that could prove to be as confusing and anomalous as the one that we seek to reform today.
  I return to the case for reform. There are two rather special groups around whom the whole debate should revolve—the consumer and the shopworker. The most convincing case for change is that it is what people want. Polls over the past 10 years have shown consistent majority support by 2:1 for Sunday trading. A 1991 Gallup poll found that 44 per cent. of people wanted food supermarkets open; 43 per cent. DIY shops; 43 per cent. convenience stores; 37 per cent. garden centres; and between 20 and 30 per cent. for video, clothes, and book and record stores. How many of those even existed in 1950?
  Mr. Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend see the very watchable "To Play The King", which is a serial on Sunday evening? There was an interesting part, which perhaps my hon. Friend should have watched carefully, where the character Sarah promised the Prime Minister that she could arrange any result he liked from any opinion poll that he liked to give her.
  Ms Anderson: I cannot comment, because I did not happen to see the programme in question.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Lady aware that the television programme "To Play the King" is fiction? Is she aware that she is describing reality?
  Ms Anderson: I could not possibly comment.
  Many families find that the only day when they can go shopping together is Sunday. If the House will indulge me, I would like to read out a letter that I received only the other day from two constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Marsh, who live in Darwen, Lancashire:
  "Dear Ms Anderson,
  We strongly support Sunday shopping because we are busy working parents with two small children, and Sunday is the only day we can buy our weekly shopping and our children's needs, like nappies etc. It is also a very enjoyable day out for us which would otherwise be boring."
  As the shopworkers' union USDAW has said, while we must all deplore lawbreaking in any form, we must also recognise that illegal Sunday trading has been taking place largely unchecked and on an increasingly widespread basis.
  Large numbers of consumers have become accustomed to being able to shop freely on a Sunday. It would be difficult for Parliament now to legislate significantly to obstruct or curtail that activity, much less reverse it. Moreover, large numbers of retail employees have become used to working on Sundays. Many of them will have taken on financial commitments on the strength of the income that their Sunday working generates. It is simply not feasible for Parliament to deny such opportunities to working people, many of whom have come to rely on their Sunday earnings.
  Only sensible reform of the 1950 Act can guarantee the continuation of these opportunities for working people. I believe that a new consensus has emerged on Sunday shopping—a consensus that crosses political party boundaries and embraces consumers, trade unions and local authorities. It is a consensus to which Members of this House must, and I hope will, respond tonight.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to have caught the Chair's eye during this historic debate, for I have worked for 10 years since first I entered this House for reform of the outdated and ludicrous Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing this Bill today.
  Through two private Members' Bills, drafted for me by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, and recently as chairman of the all-party group for shopping hours reform, I have sought to bring sense to the present untenable situation. In so doing, I have tried to respond to the very first request—nay, demand—put to me by my local district council, Gillingham borough council, 10 years ago, when it exhorted me to sort out the Sunday trading mess.
  That early instruction from Gillingham council mirrored the frustration felt by councillors and council officers throughout the country as they recognised their inability to perform their statutory task of enforcing the 1950 Act. They recognise that the Act has become irrelevant and is widely flouted by otherwise law-abiding citizens.
  The shortcomings of the 1950 Act, itself a consolidation measure, have long been recognised. The anomalies are legendary; my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some which have led to extraordinary court cases. I will not weary the House by repeating them, but it is worth noting that the option put up by the KSS and the RSAR merger would actually perpetuate some of those very anomalies.
  For instance, a shop whose main trade was selling pornographic magazines could open, but a shop selling bibles and religious tracts could not, even if located in a church. A tobacconist could not open, but smokers' requisites could be sold from newsagents and convenience stores as long as they did not form too large a share of the business.
  Large DIY shops could sell fire extinguishers for use in cars but not for use in the home. An art gallery could sell local scenes but not abstract art—unless the pictures were given local names. Programmes could be sold in concert halls, but not recordings of the works played. This seems a perpetuation of the sort of nonsense that has plagued us for 40 years.
  I believe that the simple thrust for reform comes from the fact that the 1950 Act was designed to protect workers who did not want to work on Sundays, but in circumstances wholly different from today's. Only 26 per cent. of married women wanted to, or did, work in 1950. Now, 70 per cent. of them go to work, although most are still the main shoppers in the family. In 1950, few people had refrigerators, and almost none had a deep freeze. Shopping was therefore necessarily done several times a week.
  Today, because most people have fridges and many families have freezers, shopping has become a once-aweek trip, frequently on a Saturday or Sunday because the principal shopper works during the week. Even the relaxation of the strict terms of the 1950 Act governing tourism related to the family seaside holiday of yesteryear, taken during the summer at a traditional resort. No account is taken of today's trend towards short breaks in non-traditional locations.
  In 1950, shopworkers were almost all employed full time in small, single-commodity shops, many of which served a small catchment area of people who did not have

  853
  cars, whose income came into the household in the form of a weekly wage, and who therefore shopped frequently for modest purchases from several shops. The butcher, the baker, the grocer, the greengrocer, the sweetshop and the ironmonger were all likely to be small, owner-run shops with one or two shop assistants.
  Today, many shopworkers are part-time employees working for only a fraction of the opening hours of large, multi-commodity supermarkets serving wide catchment areas in which live people who mostly arrive by car and who, being paid monthly, fill their trolleys with a variety of purchases at considerable cost.
  In short, the 1950 Act is riddled with anomalies, irrelevant to today's employment, irksome to today's life style and impossible to enforce. I cannot believe that any hon. Member does not accept the urgent need to reform the Sunday trading provisions of the Act, if only to clarify the law and restore obedience to it. Each of us must be uncomfortable with a statute that has fallen into such disrepute.
  An estimated 150,000 shops open on Sunday, almost all of them selling some goods prohibited by the 1950 Act. Those shops serve more than half the population—25 million people—regularly and at least once a month, and more than a quarter of the population every week. So shopping on Sunday is clearly popular. It follows that reforming the outdated law on Sunday shopping is likely to be popular too, and opinion polls confirm that large majorities favour reform—and not just reform, but liberal reform to allow more shops to open.
  Although the House is today debating whether the Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act should be reformed without specifying the form that that reform should take, it is impossible not to consider what form it should take, or at least what the essential qualities of any reform should be. The perceptive analysis of the Bill offered by Queen's counsel—by David Vaughan, John Samuels, Gerald Barling, Nicholas Davidson—and by David Anderson for solicitors Hepherd Winstanley and Pugh seems to me to lay down an excellent set of parameters for successful reform.
  First, is the reform morally acceptable: does it accord with the views of right-thinking persons? Is the reform socially desirable and acceptable? Will the reform prove to be durable? Is the reform territorially coherent? Will it remove or perpetuate the differences in trading law in different parts of the United Kingdom? Is the law likely to be regarded as economically fair to shopowners and shopworkers, full and part-time? Is the proposed reform logical and comprehensible to the citizen? Shopkeepers and shoppers do not want to have to consult a lawyer to discover what can and cannot be sold on a Sunday.
  Is the proposed law easy to interpret? It is essential that any reform leads to a law that is easy for courts and local authorities to apply consistently. The past two years of confusion over the 1950 Act should warn us against passing a new law that could be bedevilled by as much controversy as the one being reformed.
  Will the new law be treated with general respect? It is evident to all that the present law is widely disregarded and flouted. Whichever of the three options for reform that
  854
  Parliament chooses to support, it must satisfy these questions positively for that reform to stand the test of time.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that those questions have been adequately answered by this proposed legislation? For example, it omits Scotland. The scope of the Bill has been tightened to such an extent that there can be no amendments to it. It does not apply to Northern Ireland, yet I understand that one of the questions posed by the hon. Gentleman related to the United Kingdom. More specifically, when he refers to "right-thinking people", is it right to go against the Maker's instructions? Would it be possible to carry any insurance cover were we to break the instructions of the Maker?
  Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I can refer to him as such, because he is a friend—for that intervention. I am not going to swap biblical quotations with him. The Bill contains sensible and reasonable proposals. If either the total or partial deregulation option were to find favour with the House, I would like to see it applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, although in Scotland it would be unnecessary. I would also like to see it applied to Northern Ireland, although I know that the hon. Gentleman would resist that.
  The Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act have had a troubled history, and it would be a tragedy if the House chose an option which failed to command popular support. In that event, it would be a matter of weeks or months before pressure began to build up for a fresh reform that did appeal to the public.
  Whatever reform Parliament chooses needs to be easy to apply. Local authorities and courts should not have too great a burden put upon them by the new law—there are more important tasks for them to undertake. In the event of infringement, penalties should not be disproportionate. At least one of the options proposed contemplates penalties which could bankrupt all but the largest retailers. That is quite unrealistic, and immediately throws that option into question.
  That option fails to answer many of the other questions that I asked a few moments ago, and depends for its foundation on a series of 56 exemptions to a total ban, leaves me believing that Parliament has a duty to reform the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950—not by placing a new set of vexatious restrictions on the freedom of a willing seller and a willing buyer to do business on a Sunday, but by seeking to legitimise the present position. Either the total deregulation or the partial deregulation envisaged by the Shopping Hours Reform Council would fulfil that aspiration.
  The public have, over the past two years, become used to being able to shop on Sundays. I believe that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle, and I shall be consistent and support the partial deregulation of the Shopping Hours Reform Council—an option which I believe will preserve the specialness of Sunday without imposing restrictions which are massively unpopular and which would catalyse contention and possible court action.
  I will be in good company. I am encouraged by a letter from the deputy general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Mr. Bill Connor, dated 23 November 1993, in which he says:
  "First, on the question of trading hours and the options for reform which the Government is presenting to Parliament, we are

  855
  urging all Members of Parliament to vote in favour of option 2, which would basically permit all small shops to open on a Sunday and all larger ones to open for up to six hours."
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wonder whether USDAW has taken into account the fact that many shops will clearly be unlikely to observe the restrictions placed on them by the law. I have a letter from W. H. Smith:
  "It is now certain that the Centre will be open for the last three Sundays before Christmas from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm.
  In view of this I feel it is important to give you warning that you will be required to work all three Sundays…If, in the final resort, you are asked to work, you must."
  That is when the law says that they cannot work. What are they going to do when the law says that they can but that there has to be some protection? What happens then.
  Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend is wrong; there is currently no protection. This Bill envisages bringing in the sort of protection that will make it illegal for that firm to put that onerous burden on its workers who do not want to work on Sunday. She has totally missed the point.
  I know that other hon. Members would like to speak. I will enthusiastically support the Second Reading of the Bill tonight. I look forward to supporting the partial deregulation option when the House debates clause 1 in Committee in the near future.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It has been a great pleasure to participate in this debate. It is not often that one gets the chance to intervene on political friends and foe alike and to enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches. The way in which the debate has developed has been most instructive.
  I have to declare an interest in this matter. I am sponsored by the Co-operative party—that is something that I am very proud of, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchetster, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—there is no financial bond involved in my voting for or against this measure. There is no whip on this matter in the Co-operative party; I am my own person on this issue.
  I have long been in favour of Sunday trading reform. Like all the other speakers in the debate, I think that the Sunday trading laws are outdated and nonsense and that they need to be updated and changed.
  I will take a slightly different tack from many of the points which have been made and which do not need repeating. This debate on Sunday trading is important, not only because of the specific issue before the House but because it begs some interesting questions about the way in which we organise our democracy and run our Parliament.
  I have always believed in a measure of reform, and my constituents have consistently said to me that they want to be able to go to DIY centres, garden centres and small shops. That is my position on this matter and I shall support that option when we vote.
  I have not had very many, what I call, free and independent spirits writing to me. We have all received letters, dictated by a manager, which say, "I must write to say that I am in favour of Sunday trading, otherwise the manager will be very displeased with me." There have been lots of those letters. None of us has been fooled by the endless requests made by the nice man or woman at the checkout who asks, "Will you sign our petition?" Following the great British tradition of good manners, people sign the petitions and do not think much about
  856
  them. I do not think that they are worth the paper they are printed on. The petitions are well organised, but they all come from one direction.
  I have had five genuine letters about Sunday trading. Let us get it into proportion. Some hon. Members would suggest that the whole world is demonstrating to be able to shop on Sundays. That is total nonsense and a myth. But why do we get the feeling that there is a great deal of activity and interest out there? I think it is because certain people are organising a campaign.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that much of the interest might exist because 25 million people shop on Sundays? Are they not the ones who are showing an interest?
  Mr. Sheerman: If I develop my argument, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by the way in which I answer his point.
  Many Opposition speakers have tried to define the essence of Sunday, although it is impossible to quantify. It is valuable to think in terms of the regenerative nature of a Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the shadow Home Secretary, should bear firmly in mind the fact that it is a very important day, the one day in the week for ordinary people to relax, to regenerate their spirit. That is meant in some slightly mystical way, not a religious way. It is a day for people to take a break from the traumas and pressures of other days. In that respect, both my hon. Friend and I have been involved in home affairs, and I think that the restful and recuperative nature of Sunday keeps the crime rate down.
  I do not think that it is a simple case of retailers breaking the law; that is a disgraceful example. It should not be suggested that household names such as Sainsbury have been breaking the law ruthlessly for the sake of their profits. A quieter voice, however, suggests that if people are not allowed some rest—some opportunity to stay together as a family and to relax on one day a week—there will be a knock-on effect on criminality, and on the general way in which people face life.
  Ms Janet Anderson: Do not some families regard shopping as a relaxation? If I can go shopping on a Sunday, my family go to help me. It is a much more pleasureable activity than shopping alone on a weekday.
  Mr. Sheerman: I appreciate that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sheerman: May I answer one question before I begin on another?
  I wonder what these people are doing. They must be working extremely hard if they cannot shop on a Saturday. When I return to my flat in the Barbican, I can go across to the local Safeway, which is open until 8 pm. An enormous amount of shopping time is now available. However, I do not want to pursue that point now; I want to return to the nature of consumerism.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) ever tried to shop with two small boys below counter height and a shopping bag in each hand? It is impossible to hold the children, who are off around the next corner before you can say knife. That is not my idea of relaxation.
  Mr. Sheerman: I have been shopping with my four children, and have found it enjoyable. In that regard, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Not being a very modern man, I simply let them run riot; I think that it is the shop proprietor's responsibility to call them to order.
  Some people object to the fact that most of our holidays have traditionally been driven by religion. Holidays followed the Church timetable, which itself followed the pattern of the seasons. A spiritual, agrarian tradition decided when we worked and when we rested. I accept that holidays—rightly—now follow a different pattern and have a different tone, reflecting the modern urban realities of the late 20th century, in which few people are tied to the land by occupation and far fewer would describe themselves as active members of any religion or creed.
  I suggest, however, that a new religion now holds sway in Britain. Its name is consumerism. It is preached by its high priests, the successful retail bosses—the chairmen and chief executives of the big retail chains, the David Sainsburys of the high street. Those new high priests have a great deal of power.
  In Britain, retailing power lies in the hands of a select few—a point that I have tried to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. That is more true of us than of any of our European neighbours or American counterparts. In food retailing alone, five companies control a massive share of the total market. The top three—Sainsbury, Tesco and Safeway—together account for more than 50 per cent. of the retail food market; the top four account for 61 per cent. Is that what we want, in terms of retailing diversity? I do not believe so. I believe that Sunday trading will increase the power of those few retailers and will be very damaging to society.
  In any other society and under any other Government, that degree of power and that share of the market—the inflated profit margins and the lack of competition—would have led to accusations of monopoly, followed by investigation and a curb on at least the worst excesses of such market domination. In Britain, however, retail power has been allowed to grow to terrifying proportions. Increasingly, the retail monopolists are eager to win friends in government and other political parties and to influence political decision making. To achieve their aims, they have in turn aided and financed a huge expansion in the world of the political lobbyist: the lobbying of parliamentarians, civil servants, regulators in Europe and those in the United Kingdom has reached an unprecedented scale.
  Any hon. Member present now would honestly admit that we have not seen such a movement in the political lobby during the time in which we have been in Parliament. A small group of monopoly retailers, ever hungry for higher profit and in the single-minded pursuit of increased market share, decided some time ago to launch an overall strategy. Let us picture the scene. They could afford the best—all the top lawyers, the posters, the public relations and the lobbyists. All were invited to talk about thow the market share of particular companies could be expanded. It was decided, as one of the strategies, that they must be able to use their fixed capital as often as possible, and that, over the next two or three years, they must target the ability to trade on Sundays.
  Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that tens of thousands of pounds are involved. When the research into the campaign has been completed, it will be proved that millions are involved. Which Member of Parliament has
  858
  not been inundated with glossy leaflets and telephone calls, and asked to participate in lavish entertainment? Champagne, oysters and caviare were available; it was only necessary to go along to Sainsbury, Tesco and Safeway and join in their campaigns.
  Some of our opponents may laugh, but it is true, and there is a serious message behind it. Millions of pounds have been spent on persuading Members of Parliamentt to change their minds—on persuading them that the British people want not a peaceful Sunday, but a retailing Sunday.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse others of being corrupt—of being open to bribes of caviare offered in an attempt to make us think that we should vote in a particular way?
  Madam Deputy SpeakerI think that the hon. Gentleman is taking this a little too seriously.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) knows, as the House knows, that that kind of pressure—that kind of entertainment—does not work with independent-minded Members of Parliament. That is why those who organise it will not succeed in changing the law and giving it a non-regulatory framework.
  The first piece of advice that the experts offered their paymasters was that, to be successful, the whole campaign should be fought in the name of the consumer and should purport to come from a genuine desire of the part of the British public not only to shop till they drop, but to do it on Sundays as well. During the campaign, intolerable pressure has been exerted on Members of Parliament by the band of monopoly retailers, through their lobbyists.
  I believe, however, that some good may come of this. I believe that, after the debate is over and when we win our preferred option, an analysis will be made of what has gone on over the past two years. I think that there will be a general call for an examination of the political lobbying techniques that have been used over the period. I also believe that there will be a heightened awareness of what is going on in our democracy when large retailers—or interests with large amounts to spend—can mount a campaign of the size and power of the one that we have seen over the past weeks and months. Some good will come out of this campaign, but I tell the House most seriously that I believe that that is the only good that will come from it.
  The issues in the debate are clear. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will support the Second Reading of the Bill. However, I beg the House to adopt a careful approach to the subsequent vote on the two choices. I agree with my hon. Friends on both sides of the House that there are only two choices. A characteristic of the campaign has been that the experts—the spin doctors —have said, "You must make yourselves look as though you are in the centre—as though yours is the compromise position." It was because of that that we saw the emergence of the total deregulation lobby, which I regard as absolutely phoney. Then we had the RSAR and Keep Sunday Special and—nicely positioned, as it thought—the Shopping Hours Reform Council.
  By good footwork, we have marred the SHRC's ability to present its position as the compromise position. The genuine compromise on Sunday trading is the compromise that we offer, which would allow people to choose to shop

  859
  in DIY stores, garden centres and small shops. If that alternative is not chosen, we will see the end of Sunday as we know it—and, as has been said, we are talking not just about Sunday being special but about Sunday being precious. Once we have got rid of Sunday as we know it, it will never come back. We shall not have an oppportunity to debate a motion to the effect that we should bring back Sunday.
  My hon. Friends and I and, on this issue, my good friends on the other side of the House are making common cause tonight because we want not only to highlight what is going on in British politics today but to take this opportunity to show the British public—our constituents, who have a view on the matter—that we are not beguiled by the big lobbyists or persuaded, as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire suggested, by lavish entertainment. We owe our constituents our judgment, and our judgment must be that we want to keep Sunday special and we want to keep it precious. We owe that duty to our constituents, and when the options are voted on, next week or the week after, we will win the day.
  8.52pm
  Mr. James paice: I must start by reminding the House that I have an interest, which is declared in the Register of Member's Interests, as a consultant to the Dixon group of companies.
  I suspect that an analysis of today's Hansard will show that by far the longest speeches in the debate have been those made by the proponents of the Keep Sunday Special proposals. What one can read into that I do not know—unless it is that it takes longer to make a difficult case.
  Before I deal with specific points, I want to refer to a peripheral matter which might, none the less, form the basis of an important sequel to this debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is to wind up the debate because the matter to which I refer falls within his remit. I refer to the absurdities and anomalies in relation to Sunday betting under the betting, gaming and lotteries legislation.
  My hon. Friend knows of my great interest in the racing industry. He will be aware that, earlier this year, the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), gave the all-party committee on Racing and Bloodstock an undertaking that, once the Sunday trading issue had been resolved, he would seek to bring into line and liberalise the betting, gaming and lotteries legislation as it applies to Sundays. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that that remains his position and that, once this matter has been resolved—as I am sure that we all wish it to be—he will fulfil that undertaking.
  The issue of Sunday trading gives rise to strong emotions, and we have heard some of them expressed this evening. There are strong feelings on both sides. Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I have been inundated with what I believe to be genuine letters on both sides of the argument in which strong points have been made.
  In seeking to reform Sunday trading we must start with two fundamental criteria: first, we must be as fair as possible; and, secondly, any legislation must be enforceable. The latter point has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the argument, but I shall refer to it again in a moment.
  860
  I started from the position that I wanted to keep Sunday special. That is a policy that I still maintain. I will not undertake political engagements on a Sunday because I value Sunday as the one day in the week that I spend with my family. I think that that is important, but I question whether I have the right or responsibility to impose my position on others. The position that I adopted was a matter of personal choice. I do not pretend to be a regular churchgoer—I am not—but Sunday is the one day of the week that I keep for myself.
  Initially therefore, I looked at the KSS proposals in a favourable light—not least because KSS is based in Cambridge, in the constituency immediately adjoining my own. The more I looked at those proposals, the more I came to believe that they did not constitute the right way forward.
  There are only two ways of regulating Sunday trading —if, that is, it is to be regulated at all. One can define the type of shop that can open or the type of product that can be sold, or one can specify the number of hours for which a shop can open. I emphasise that type of shop and type of product are closely related. The existing legislation is based on the products that may be sold; the KSS proposals refer to types of shop, but they are defined by the type of product that can be sold in those shops.
  Many hon. Members have accused the large shops of breaking the law—and that has been a theme of many of the letters that I have received—but, in reality, virtually every shop that is open on Sundays is breaking the law. Any shop may open if it does not sell anything. That is how the law is framed at present—the type of product that can be sold is the basis of the existing legislation. Virtually every shop that is open on Sundays sells goods which, strictly speaking, are prohibited. We must be clear that it is not just the big shops that are breaking the law, although they are certainly breaking the letter of the law.
  Part of the reason why the existing law has fallen into disrepute is that the definition of products in the 1950 Act is completely out of date. First, many of the products now on offer in shops had not even been dreamt of in 1950 and, secondly, people's behaviour and shopping habits and lifestyles have changed dramatically since then.
  The type of shop approach—the KSS approach—gives rise to risks identical to those that have already completely destroyed the basis of the existing legislation. The KSS approach would create a lawyers' paradise. Take for example, the DIY shops. At present, the provision refers specifically to goods on sale which are
  "wholly or mainly … Material and tools suitable for use in the construction, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings."
  I undertake a good deal of do-it-yourself work in my home and regularly visit the local DIY shop. Such shops sell tools, materials, hardware, tiles, lamps, lightshades, outdoor chairs, barbecue units, curtains and all manner of electrical items, because almost anything nowadays can be electrically operated.
  How does one define those items? When an item is invented to help the DIY person, will it be classified as a DIY item? Who will decide? Such a decision will ultimately require case law. The Bill's provisions will be extremely difficult to enforce and ultra expensive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke about the report containing the joint opinion of four QCs and David Anderson. They referred to the term "domestic cleaning materials" which also occurs in the Bill. They state:

  861
  "Does it mean items reqired for the cleaning of the house and fittings and fixtures or does it extend to general cleaning in or about the house and thus include soaps, powders and liquids for the washing of dishes or clothes as opposed to those for the cleaning of floors and baths? Does it extend to brushes, dusters, mops and other items used in the process of domestic cleaning?"
  That is an example of how the law would quickly fall into the disrepute that attaches to the present law.
  What happens if the DIY shop starts to stock more electrical items, either those that are currently available or those that may soon be invented? Beyond the lamps, lights and tools, it may stock camcorders and built-in ovens. Who can say that a built-in oven is not part of the structure of a building? Such items still fall within the defined primary activity.
  Near my home but not in my constituency, in a small area in Newmarket adjoining a shared car park, there is a major DIY shop and a major store owned by Eastern Electricity. It is incredible that on a Sunday one can enter the DIY shop to buy electrical items while the Eastern Electricity store will be closed. That is not fair in anybody's judgment and it has to be addressed.
  In terms of fairness, how do we define the principal activity? A small activity in a large store which does not hinder the principal activity argument may be the principal activity in a smaller store. I question the fairness of saying that one store can open to sell a particular product while another cannot. I used the example of purchasing curtains. Why should I be able to buy curtains in a big DIY store and not be able to buy them in a high street shop that specialises in curtains and other soft furnishings and furniture?
  I understand the desire to protect Sunday trading and small shops. I represent a large rural constituency and to me village shops matter a great deal. My life has been spent in villages and in trying to defend their interests. However, I do not accept the argument that more liberal Sunday trading would destroy village shops. Such shops face immense pressures: the very existence of supermarkets has damaged them considerably. Our shopping behaviour has affected them dramatically and, dare I say it, rating valuation and the penal business rates levied on some village shops and post offices have had an effect.
  In its report, the Rural Development Commission concluded that the best way to help is to improve competitiveness and commercial viability. The rural pressure group ACRE concluded that Sunday opening was not a key factor in the changes already affecting the whole question of the future of small shops.
  Another aspect of Sunday trading relates to the workers who are involved. I welcome the White Paper changes on worker protection, which are entirely sensible. Many people who advocate the restrictive measures option in the Bill are applying double standards. We all accept that people in the emergency services work on Sundays, we expect them to do so, but how many of those who write to me pressing for keeping Sunday special appreciate that many other people work on Sundays?
  A recent survey estimated that some 40 per cent. of the work force work regularly on Sundays. That applies not only to those in the emergency services but to people in the media—television and the press—although perhaps we do not worry too much about them. What about our electricity supply industry? People expect the television and the lights to work on a Sunday. The gas supply for heating and
  862
  cooking and the water supply are all expected to operate. We forget that many factories work a seven-day rota shift and that for many people Sunday is part of the working pattern. One of the oldest industries in the world, the farming industry, has Sunday as a natural part of its working pattern.
  All those are people who work regularly on Sundays. It is not something relatively unique to shopworkers; indeed, we could almost argue that it is the shopworkers who are unique in never having to work on Sundays, as the law stands.
  I am a little concerned about complete deregulation, which would give the wrong signals about an end to Sunday as a particular day. That is why I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, intend to support the proposals which were described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) as a minor compromise but which I believe to be a significant compromise between the two extremes. That compromise will retain a degree of regulation that is both enforceable and reasonably fair to everybody.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I must tell the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that I have not experienced the flood of public opinion to which he referred, with people knocking on my door or writing to me demanding the right to shop on Sundays. I have received 101 unsolicited letters on the issue, 78 of which were from people who supported either the Keep Sunday Special option or the RSAR option. Twenty came from people who supported the SHRC proposal, a large number of those being from employees writing on company notepaper. I received three letters from constituents urging me to support total deregulation.
  I recognise that many people find it convenient to shop on Sundays, and do so. If that were not the case, none of the shops would open. However, I do not get the feeling that for those people it is a critical, life-or-death issue. It is not something about which they feel strongly enough to write to their Members of Parliament. I have not felt under any pressure from the public to support the deregulation of Sunday shopping.
  However, I have felt under some pressure from managers of the companies in the SHRC group. I recently had a meeting, which it kindly organised, with the York managers of all the stores in the group. Perhaps the final factor that tilted me in favour of the RSAR proposal was that one of the managers of a large food superstore in my constituency, from within the SHRC group, said that if I did not support its proposal he would tell all his Sunday workers that I was putting them out of a job. I regret that threat. I realise that Sunday work is important to those workers, but the work of the draper's assistant, the shoemender's assistant and those in the small Spar store or corner shop are equally important.
  Research shows quite clearly that if large stores open on a Sunday there will be a net loss of jobs in retailing. As a Member of Parliament, I cannot support one group of retail workers against another—I have to support the interests of all.
  Mr. Couchman: If the hon. Gentleman supports the RSAR-KSS option, he is supporting one group of workers

  863
  against another. He is supporting the employees of small shopkeepers against the employees of large shopkeepers. He is being partial.
  Mr. Bayley: Yes, I accept that; I am being partial. The House must make a choice and, faced with a choice between the interests of big business and those of small business, the interests of large retailers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the biggest of four control 61 per cent. of the market—against the interests of a range of shops that provide a great deal of diversity—the small, local businesses—I shall support the latter.
  The debate is about the interests of big business versus the interests of the small trader. It is about the interests of out-of-town shopping centres against those of the high street. It is about the interests of big employers against the interests of employees. A vote for deregulation would be a vote for giving some large chain stores the freedom to increase their market share at the expense of small shops and businesses. It would be a vote for the hypermarket at the expense of the high street.
  I have to make a choice, and in an historic city such as York that attracts may tourists, I want to maintain its city centre shops. They are an important part of the city—important to local people and to visitors. At the latest count, 79 shops in the centre of York were empty, partly because of extremely high business rates, partly because of high rents—which increased at the end of the 1980s—and partly because of the recession, but also partly because of increased pressure from Sunday opening in out-of-town shopping centres.
  It is claimed that freedom to shop on Sundays is a matter of freedom of choice. For some shoppers, it is a matter of choice. Unrestricted Sunday shopping would give those with cars the choice of shopping at the supermarket on Sunday as well as on the other six days of the week, but their freedom would mean restricted choice for other shoppers—especially the elderly, who do not have cars and who may in some cases lose the opportunity to shop at a local store. They will lose the independence that is terribly important to them. They will have to become dependent on somebody else—a home help if they can get one, or a friend. Someone else will have to do their shopping for them.
  It is claimed also that Sunday shopping would be a boon to working women—not to all, because 1·5 million working women are retail workers who would have to work on Sunday. It is hard to believe the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) that large numbers of working women cannot shop on the other six days a week, when the shops are open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. It will be true for some, but I do not believe that large numbers of working women work a 12-hour day, six days a week, and cannot get to the shops except on Sunday. Some of them may find it convenient to shop on Sunday, but that convenience may be at the expense of the ability of others else to shop at all.
  It is hard to believe also that there is an overwhelming demand for Sunday shopping. I read in The Daily Telegraph on 20 November that Sainsbury does not intend to open many of the high street stores that are closed on Sundays now, because it does not see the demand.
  I received a number of letters from small businesses in my constituency urging me to support their interests
  864
  against those of the large stores. Stuart Watson, who manages a number of Spar stores, states that, since the large out-of-town shopping centres around York started trading on Sunday, his trade has dropped 30 per cent. He believes that if Sunday shopping is deregulated, thousands of small shops and tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.
  Mr. Beresford, a shoe repairer, wrote:
  "Everyone seems just to think about the big supermarkets with no thought for the small specialist retailer."
  Mr. Woodhead, a baker, describes deregulation as
  "a sledgehammer to crack a nut."
  Maurice Vassie, an architectural ironmonger, wrote:
  "It is ironic, though not surprising, that a Government which pontificates about family values should be so busily promoting a measure that will create tens of thousands of latch-key kids."
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to an architectural ironmonger. I do not know the size of that store, but does he consider it fair that I could go into Texas or B & Q and buy architectural ironmongery, but I could not go into a specialist shop if it happened to be one of more than 3,000 sq ft?
  Mr. Bayley: If it is a DIY store, all DIY stores would be able to open.
  Michael Frampton, a jeweller in my constituency, sent me an article from the Financial Times, which said that Shopping Hours Reform Council directors
  "have no objection to a statutory enforcement"
  of the SHRC proposals, but he points out that they have not abided by the current statute law.
  There are 2 million shopworkers whose future is being considered when we debate this measure, but it is not just that of the shopworkers; it is that of the other workers who will have to service shopping centres—street cleaners, the police and so on. Whichever option the House chooses, we must ensure that there is statutory protection, and doublle time payment—not just statutory protection of an enhanced rate, because that could simply be an enhanced rate of one penny a day.
  In my meetings with local store managers, both from the SHRC and the RSAR, I have asked them specifically whether their stores would object to the Bill containing a stipulation that payment for Sunday working for those shopworkers who work on Sundays would be at double time. Not one of those store managers said that they would object. It is essential, to my mind, that double time should go into the Bill.
  Finally, there are two other issues which I would like to be discussed in Committee. The first is the issue of car boot sales and Sunday markets. They are driving down quality and they are now competing with the food retailers, but trading standards officers find it impossible to enforce standards because one trader who is there one week selling dodgy meat, for example, is not there subsequently. Car boot sales and Sunday markets encourage crime; they are places where stolen goods change hands. They are also taking market share from large and small retailers.
  Secondly, in Committee I would want the status of electrical goods shops to be reconsidered in relation to the RSAR proposal.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I know that two other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall be fairly brief, unlike some of my predecessors.
  It is anathema, as we enter the year 2000—the third millennium—that we are discussing the question of

  865
  controlling whether shops should or should not open on a Sunday. It seems absolutely astonishing to me. Nevertheless, we are witnessing a move in the House towards reality. It was interesting that, as we heard from a previous speaker, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has already come out in favour of trading on Sunday. I notice that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who was so active and vituperative in relation to the private Member's Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), is not in her place and has been absent throughout the debate, despite being president—unless she has been deposed—of USDAW.
  I have also noticed, during the debate, that the most incredible horror stories have been suggested by hon. Members who would like to keep Sunday special. They feel that if the deregulation option is chosen, or the option proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, there would be a great difference to life in the United Kingdom, and in England and Wales in particular. Why do they take that view? In Scotland and indeed Ireland, where there has been total deregulation, a larger proportion of people regularly worship in church on a Sunday than in England and Wales where there is regulation. The situation in Scotland is interesting because it has stabilised. Only about 25 per cent. of the shops choose to open.
  As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, Sainsbury does not intend to open every shop, because there is no demand for it. However, there is certainly a demand for shopping on Sunday, as evidenced by 25 million people regularly shopping on Sundays. I have visited retail outlets such as Tesco and Safeway, and I have met shopworkers who do not want to work on a Sunday, but that is not a problem—there is no question of compulsion as the majority of shopworkers want to work on a Sunday and are queueing up to do so. Those who do not wish to work on a Sunday need not do so as there is no shortage of people willing to work on a Sunday for all sorts of reasons, and premium payments are but one of them.
  The Retailers for Shops Act Reform have an amazing morality. They would like to keep Sundays special for all sorts of economic reasons. We have heard about those reasons today, and most of them are fallacious. One of the reasons that hon. Members have spoken about is that Sunday is the seventh day, and they made religious allusions. It is the utmost irony, then, that Sunday is a religious day, but that the four Sundays leading up to the birth of Christ are not, and they would have shops open then. Some hon. Members have accused the Shop Hours Reform Council's option of being some sort of strange compromise, but in fact RSAR's is the compromise.
  The John Lewis Partnership is an interesting case. The company has been stringent in keeping all of its stores closed on a Sunday, at a cost of more than £1 million per week. One of the arguments that it gives for keeping shops closed on a Sunday, apart from not wanting to break the law, is that it would increase the cost of sales of goods. However, that it not the case. Research by London Economics shows that, far from leading to increased cost, deregulation would produce a saving for households. Under more regulatory schemes, the converse would happen.
  866
  I do not want to filibuster, as some of my colleagues have done. I recommend that hon. Members read the briefing provided by the Library on the Sunday Trading Bill as it contains all the details.
  It seems that those hon. Members who say that people should not shop on Sundays are the same ones who do not go out and shop for themselves. They have wives to do it. Heaven forbid—they may even have servants to do it for them. Being a single man—I am still single despite the inaccurate caption in the Evening Standard today—I know that women and single men need to shop on a Sunday. Therefore, I commend to the House that we support Second Reading and support either deregulation or the Shopping Hours Reform Council's option.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My speech will be extremely brief, and I shall get straight to the salient point. I intervened on the Home Secretary to ask whether the Government would force Conservative members to vote a particular way on some parts of the Bill. Recently, I had a debate with a regional manager of Sainsbury's on that very point. He was shocked by my suggestion that the Government would not allow a genuine free vote on all aspects of the Bill. Earlier, however, the Home Secretary made it clear that I was right and the regional manager was wrong. Perhaps I should have told that Sainsbury's manager, "As in all trading arrangements, caveat emptor," if one is permitted to drift into Latin in the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made an extremely important point relating to employment protection. Undoubtedly, the Government have operated double standards in the context of this debate. Earlier this year, on 16 June, on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, in the interests of companies of a specific size the Government set a totally arbitrary figure of 20 employees below which different regulations would apply. They cannot have it both ways. Either there is a mechanism for differentiating between small shops and the largest chains, or there is not. If the Government were consistent, they would at least look at column 912 of Hansard for 16 June and try to find a formula which would meet all the interests throughout the country on that point.
  My intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who was talking about small local garden centres, illustrated precisely that point. Those small centres are often family businesses which could be protected by a formula devised in the same way as the Government suggested in earlier legislation. That is what the country is looking for, and in many ways it is what the House wants to see.
  If the Government were prepared to allow a free vote, perhaps taking into account a formula derived from that in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, a solution might be found which could satisfy a wide proportion of the population and virtually all hon. Members, except for the die-hards who do not believe in employment protection at all.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: In the few moments which are available to me, I wish to stress what I consider to be the most important point. In framing the legislation, we must find a simple solution which can be easily understood.
  I am sorry to find myself disagreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who described the regulation proposal as "workable." That view was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris). The name of Anthony Scrivener QC has been raised in support of that view. I am not interested in the views of learned silks who look at the problem from their eyrie in the Temple. I am interested in the extent to which the laws are understood by the shopkeepers in the back streets of Gloucester. While they are good at running small shops, they are not necessarily legal eagles, so my prime concern is that the solution should be straightforward.
  The moment I see the words "wholly or mainly" in a set of proposals, I am reminded of the extent to which we over-complicate so much legislation. In relation to the tax, benefit and VAT systems, for example, we so often make things far more complicated than is needed. That is a fault which we would be well-advised to correct, if we can.
  Regarding the proposals in the regulatory formula on specialist shops, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) drew attention to some of the anomalies which that would cause. They would be even greater than those which exist in the legislation which we are seeking to get rid of.
  The anomalies include the fact that one would be able to buy toys and books at a newsagent, but not from a toys or book shop. One could buy meat or bread from a small supermarket but not from a butcher or baker. That seems to be impractical, confusing, unfair and virtually unenforceable.
  We see similar problems with the size requirements, which appear both in the regulation and the partial deregulation proposals. I urge the House not to underestimate the difficulty of deciding when an outlet is less than 280 sq m and when it is more. This is a charter for lawyers and surveyors to get their teeth into, at the expense always of the shopkeepers.
  One can think of all kinds of practical difficulties. For example, what if the lobby of a shop has a couple of trays of goods, or the storeroom of a shop has a couple of shelves which are in reach of the customer? Will they come within the 280 sq m requirement or not? Even if one could agree about those things, the design of shops does change and can be subject to constant evolution.
  Another hon. Member mentioned the contrast between a do-it-yourself store of 270 sq m, which would be allowed to sell a lampshade, and a branch of precisely the same store down the road which is slightly over 280 sq rn. The latter would have to cordon off not only its lampshades, but its smoke alarms and other things. That seems to be a recipe for maximum confusion.
  I also think of the effect of the regulations on the business man himself. Whenever he starts to think about taking on a new line, he will have to have regard to whether it alters his "wholly or mainly" position, and if he considers an extension of his premises, he will have to have
  868
  an eye to the size limit. There will also be the enforcement problems for the local authorities, which will incur enormous expenses checking on the size of the establishment, on the wholly or mainly provisions and on the stock being carried. It is a recipe for disputes and disagreements, and for plenty of work for solicitors and surveyors. It will lead to an even more complex situation than the one we are trying to get rid of.
  I am much more attracted to the partial regulation formula, but it raises the question of how small shops should be treated. I place great value on the diversity of small shops, and the importance of them in the retailing network. Nothing should be done to tilt the balance against the interests of small shops.
  I am somewhat concerned that the partial deregulation proposals will do precisely that, because they go too far in the direction of large shops, which would be permitted to open for six hours. I do not agree with that approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby that Sunday has a special character that is worth preserving, and one does not preserve that special character by making it a sort of low-key Saturday.
  My formula would be a compromise, avoiding the complexities of the type of shop and the type of goods, of the size of the shop or the hours of opening. We can do without all that in the interests of having effective, low-cost enforcement and easy-to-understand laws. We could achieve a result that acknowledged the fact that some people wish to shop on Sundays and some people wish to work on Sundays by a simple formula along the lines of allowing all shops to open, whatever they are selling, for half of Sunday. I have a personal preference for Sunday afternoons, but there are arguments for Sunday morning.
  That is a simple proposal that would be understood by everyone. It would not be a charter for lawyers or surveyors. It would be understood in the Temple as it would be understood in the high streets of Gloucester. I recommend it to the House.
  9.31 pm
  Ms Joan Ruddock: The debate has been remarkably restrained compared to some of the knockabout exchanges of the past. None the less, there has been plenty of claim and counter-claim, as befits a debate about a fundamental change in our way of life, a change that some would seek to halt, some to endorse and some to encourage.
  All the proposals in the Bill represent an extension of Sunday trading beyond that of the Shops Act 1950. Some of us would like to put the clock back, not to the absurd anomalies of the Act but to that kinder, gentler society, to a time when rampant commercialism did not hold sway and Governments did not promote competition and personal acquisitiveness as a politically correct way of life.
  Let us be clear about the nature of today's debate. Of course there is a need to update the Act, but that would have been done a decade ago by a responsible Government. Today's debate has been conditioned less by the changes in society over the past 40 years than by an unprecedented orgy of law-breaking for commercial ends.
  There are those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who have argued that law-breakers should not be rewarded. I have great sympathy with that view, but unfortunately rewards have already been granted. The Government's failure to act

  869
  since the defeat of their 1985 Bill has enabled a new climate and a new market to be created. Today's debate is taking place against public opinion formed by the new circumstances and new experience of widespread Sunday trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, that public opinion is one of the factors that has to inform our choice of options.
  I cannot accept, however, that ordinary people have created the demand for Sunday trading. For many smaller family shops, it has been the struggle to stay in business during repeated recessions that has led to increasingly long hours and Sunday opening. For the larger supermarket chains and DIY stores—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—Sunday opening has been about carving out, maintaining or increasing market share.
  I accept that there has been a consumer response to Sunday trading from workers and shoppers. That response undoubtedly stems from changes in the pattern of our working and domestic lives, which were so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson).
  Only a minority now work 9 to 5. A quarter of Britain's work force are part-timers, and 70 per cent. of married women work outside the home. Part-time work can be desirable and Sunday shopping can be convenient and pleasurable, but neither is entirely neutral in its impact on society. In general, part-time work attracts lower pay and more limited prospects. Sunday trading is acceptable to those who are shopping, but can be a nuisance to those who are not.
  Most important, current levels of Sunday trading do not tell us how things would be under new Sunday trading laws. Complete deregulation would have an effect far beyond current trading levels, and clearly would endanger the special nature of Sunday.
  Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and the Home Secretary, have cited complete deregulation in Scotland as having had no significant effect on society north of the border. That has more to do with the good sense of the Scots and the ambient culture in Scotland than with the state of legislation.
  Commercial pressures, population density and, consequently, potential profits are radically different in England than in Scotland. The proportion of outlets trading illegally on Sunday in England is already considerably higher than in Scotland. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that, because of the lack of employee protection in that completely deregulated society, wages and conditions for Scottish Sunday workers have worsened in recent years as Sunday trading has increased.
  All extensions of Sunday trading in England, Scotland or Wales will impact on our local environment. Even where outlets are on industrial estates, experience in urban areas such as mine in south-east London is of long traffic queues along high streets and in residential areas.
  For those reasons, and for many others, we believe that complete deregulation must be unacceptable to the House. We are, however, prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill, acknowledging that the issue must now be settled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we desire an outcome that is logical, fair and enforceable.
  870
  We do so in the belief that Sunday is a special day. For most people, it is still the day when they are most likely to be able to spend leisure time with family and friends. In most social circles, the majority of people are still not required to work on a Sunday. In that respect, Sunday remains different from Monday to Saturday, and most people have developed a life style that takes account of that.
  We believe that, although all aspects of the Bill will give rise to more Sunday trading there is a duty on the House, in recognising the special nature of Sunday, to attempt to find a formula that will in some way preserve that and at the same time be responsive to changing circumstances, the changing way of life and changing public opinion.
  If some people are to be denied the opportunity to take advantage of a free Sunday and to act as others will do in their social and family circles, and if they are to be required to work for the convenience or pleasure of others, they must do so voluntarily and be rewarded appropriately for that sacrifice. The Opposition are united on that matter.
  The Government have been forced to concede the strength of our argument, not least because they have done their arithmetic and know how hon. Members' votes are likely to be cast. For a Government who have systematically undermined rights at work, abolished wages councils and set their face against the social chapter, this must be a bitter pill.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady has stated her personal views, and I fully accept that they are not the views of the entire Opposition Front Bench. She says that she would like to control trading on Sundays and has now mentioned the social chapter. What would she say to the 150,000 shopworkers who would lose their jobs if, on top of bringing in the social chapter, we were to control trading on Sundays?
  Ms Ruddock: Like all my colleagues, I have no doubt that introducing the social chapter would be to the advantage of our society, our workers and our businesses. If it is good enough for all the other members of the EC, their businesses, industries and workers, it is certainly good enough for British workers. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing in favour of deregulation or partial deregulation. He would be wise not to present himself as someone seeking to reduce the conditions and wages of British workers, as one could impute from what he has just said about the social chapter.
  I am not expressing a personal view on the options in the Bill. I believe that Sunday should be a special day, and I try to act that out in my personal life. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spelled out what we seek from the Bill, and I shall mention that in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) asked why, at this late hour, the Government had put schedule 4 into the Bill. It was simply because of our pressure, my hon. Friend's pressure and pressure by the campaign groups that the Government realised that that was the price they must pay to guarantee a Second Reading.
  Even so, we shall go on to seek amendments to the schedule, not least in favour of premium pay. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we believe that special financial reward would give proper recognition to the continuing special nature of Sunday.

  871
  That premium payment—we shall propose double payment—will force employers to recognise that people who work voluntarily on Sunday are sacrificing family life and should be appropriately rewarded. That would be the case whether the KSS-RSAR option or the SHRC option were adopted.
  We urge the Minister again to allow the House—perhaps he will comment on this in winding up—to decide that issue as all the other issues of the Bill. If it is a matter of conscience whether shops should open, equally it is a matter of conscience how workers who must staff those shops should be treated. A free vote on that issue is essential to the House expressing its view.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Ruddock: I am about to finish. I will not give way at this stage, because it would take up the Minister's time.
  I want to reiterate what the Labour party seeks from the Bill; that the choice that is made will be fair and enforceable, and, particularly and importantly, that it recognises the rights of shopworkers and the fact that there must be choice about Sunday working.
  Much further debate is required. Choices have to be made. Amendments will be tabled, but, for the moment, we are content to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): This has been an unavoidably short debate, but with the impressive increase in pace after 9.15 pm, I am glad to see that all those who wanted to speak just managed to do so.
  However, the central issues of the Bill—the way in which Sunday is special, and how far the criminal law should prescribe which shops may open and what they may sell on a Sunday—will, if the Bill is read a Second time, and if the business motion is accepted, be continued in the Chamber on the first day in Committee.
  During the debate this evening, we have listened to different recipes for Sunday espoused on both sides of the House. But I did not hear—although I was looking out for it — anyone argue that the Shops Act 1950 represents the best arrangement for Sunday shopping, and that it should be kept. Far from it. Every hon. Member who spoke wanted the law changed in one direction or another. There were many who backed one of the three options just as they stood. Quite a number would obviously like to fine-tune their preferred option in Committee.
  I am confident that there is an overwhelming desire to sort out Sunday on both sides of the House, and a general agreement that the options give a real opportunity to do so properly. I hope, therefore, that whatever detailed changes hon. Members individually want to bring to our existing Sunday trading legislation, the House will overwhelmingly support the Second Reading of the Bill as the only realistic chance of reforming it at this present time. If we reject it, I do not believe that we shall be able to secure ourselves another chance for a considerable time to come.
  It is not for me to argue for or against any of the options. They represent the aspirations of the different campaigning groups, not of the Government. It is for hon. Members to weigh and choose between them.
  Although I shall do what I can to help the Committee examine in detail how the chosen option will work and the
  872
  impact that any amendments tabled might have, I do not think that it would be right for me, as I would in the normal way—I hope that hon. Members who have spoken will not take it as a discourtesy—to try to answer the detailed points raised by hon. Members about the options and the way that they will work. They are neither mine nor the Government's, and there is not too much time before 10 o'clock.
  A number of points have been raised on which I think it would be useful if I commented. First, I have been asked by several hon. Members about the voting of Conservative Members. On the options and on the way that the options will be dealt with in Committee, there will certainly be a free vote for everyone on the Government side of the House.
  On schedule 4—employment matters—the Government will, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, be expecting to whip in the normal way. That question was put to me by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I pay tribute to him for the energy and determination that he has shown in his cause, but he was wrong to think that the Government would not have introduced a Bill on that issue had it not been for his efforts, although I accept that his Bill has strongly influenced the shape of part of the Government Bill.
  Although the options are for the House to judge, the law protecting Sunday working is certainly a matter for the Government——
  Mr. Alison: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I should like clarification of one point before he moves on to employment protection. If the KSS option is chosen on the first day in Committee of the whole House and that is the option that then goes into Standing Committee, will the Government attempt to table Government amendments to the freely chosen option in Committee? If so, will there be a free vote on those Government amendments?
  Mr. Lloyd: If that option is chosen on the first day of Committee on the Floor of the House, then I imagine that the Committee of Selection will select a Committee that reflects that decision. If I serve on that Committee—as the Minister in charge of the Bill, it seems to me that that is likely—I do not expect to introduce Government amendments. I will take the decision of the House as moral guidance on how the House wants to proceed.
  If, as I dare say there will be, there are amendments in Committee, there will be a free vote on them. My role will be to advise the Committee on their significance and how they would work out in practice, but it would be for the Committee to decide on a free vote what to accept and what to reject.
  As I said, the law protecting Sunday working is very much a matter for the Government. It is one on which virtually every speaker has had something to say. The Government accept that all shopworkers, including those taking up employment after the Bill becomes law, should be able to withdraw from Sunday work, subject to three months' notice.
  As the House knows, because of what I have said on previous occasions, I am not convinced that extra formal protection is necessary in practice, as the retail trade has always been confident that it has more than enough volunteers for Sunday work. But it is clear that, whichever option they support, hon. Members believe such a statutory right to be an important ingredient of any successful

  873
  solution. As the whole exercise is designed to find the broadest acceptable set of arrangements, we have been happy to meet their concerns.
  I therefore remind the House of the full package that we are offering. The new rights will apply to all current shopworkers, even if they have already signed a contract to do Sunday work. They will immediately have the right not to work on Sundays. All shopworkers will be able to opt out of Sunday working on giving three months' notice. That applies to new shopworkers or to shopworkers who agree in writing to work on Sundays.
  To answer the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), schedule 4 will protect any employee declining to work on Sunday from dismissal and from any detriment short of that. The rights apply to all who work in or about a shop, and include managers, cleaners and warehouse staff. The rights apply if a shop is open for a period in 24 hours, starting at midnight on Saturday through to midnight on Sunday. They do not apply only to employees who work in the shop when it is open.
  The new rights have no qualifying period of service and no upper age limit. Premium pay, however, is quite another matter. The Government are firmly opposed to such a proposal. Many large shops can afford premium pay and will pay it whether or not there is a statutory requirement to do so. Naturally, they would like their competitors to be compelled to pay it as well. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in an intervention, expressed her worry that, without premium pay, shops may not get the staff they need. If she is right, any shop that wants to open will have to pay premium pay. On the hon. Lady's argument, there is no need to legislate on premium pay if that is what we want to see.
  Not all shops can afford premium payments. Many shops which have been legally trading on Sundays for years—newsagents and flower stalls, for example—may well not be able to afford premium pay rates. A requirement to pay them could drive such shops out of business. That would be quite wrong in principle, and it could lead to job losses. We have heard much today about small shops suffering at the hands of big shops; premium pay would give that statutory backing. The Government believe that statutory premium pay is wrong in principle. It would also be impossible to enforce.
  Mr. Miller: I did offer the Minister a potential solution. Would he like to comment on it? I referred to the debate that took place on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill. There the Government created an arbitrary differentiation between sizes of companies. According to the Government, that created a solution in that case. Why cannot a similar debate take place in the context of the Bill?
  Mr. Lloyd: We could of course gerrymander the arrangements in favour of small shops.
  Mr. Miller: So arrangements were gerrymandered in June?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course arrangements would be gerrymandered if one required larger shops to pay more than small shops, rather than leave it to negotiations between employees and employers and what they are able to afford.
  874
  There is another problem, which is that it would be impossible to enforce. The problem surrounding the 1950 Act shows that it is essential to have a law that can be easily enforced. If an employer is prepared to offer somebody a job in a shop on Sunday, and that person is happy to accept the rate offered, is it seriously proposed that there should be some system to check whether that person is getting a premium rate? Ask the local authorities whether they want to take on that responsibility, and I know what they will say.
  Mr. Sheerman: Does not the same rule apply to people such as those in Sainsbury who are stopped in their promotions, and stopped in their tracks, because they refuse to work on Sundays?
  Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it quite clear that nobody will be disadvantaged by not wishing to work on a Sunday. If any manager was so disadvantaged, he would have protection under schedule 4 of the Bill.
  Mr. William O'Brien: But for how long?
  Mr. Lloyd: For as long as the Act stays on the statute book.
  Since the Government's Sunday Trading Bill was defeated in 1986, shopping habits have continued to change, the number of women working has continued to grow, the range of products on the market has continued to expand, and the structure of the retail trade has continued to evolve. The only factor that has remained absolutely static is the Sunday trading legislation—set in a mould that was antique even in 1950.
  Public impatience with the Act has grown, on the part of shoppers, shopkeepers and local authorities, whether they want to liberalise or to regulate, but on a more coherent and up-to-date basis.
  Despite strenuous efforts by my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), we found no common ground between the campaigning groups outside the House on which a broadly acceptable Bill could be based. That is why we have constructed a Bill containing all the main options, so that Parliament can examine, contrast and compare those options and select the one that it believes will put the law on a coherent and principled basis, commanding once again the support and respect of the community.
  I am sure that the House will want to seize that opportunity by giving the Bill an overwhelming Second Reading tonight.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 26.

  Division No. 6]

  [10.00

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkins, Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alton, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bates, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ashby, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  875

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Betts, Clive

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Harvey, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hutton, John

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lord, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  876

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Madel, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Soames, Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sproat, Iain

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Merchant, Piers

  Steen, Anthony

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stephen, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Sumberg, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sweeney, Walter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sykes, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Norris, Steve

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Olner, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Patnick, Irvine

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walden, George

  Pickles, Eric

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Ward, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Watts, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Rendel, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Richards, Rod

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilshire, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Marek, Dr John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Parry, Robert

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Patchett, Terry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Simpson, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Madden, Max

  Trimble, David

  877

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
  That Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 4 be committed to a Committee of the whole House; That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee; That, when the provisions of the Bill considered respectively, by the Committee of the whole House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee. —Mr. MacKay.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  Sunday Trading Bill

    SUNDAY TRADING BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified——
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sunday Trading Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act. —Mr. Mackay.

  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT FUND
  10.13 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I beg to move,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
  The order's provenance will be well known to the House. It has been commented upon on a number of occasions, and the House will recall that the Edinburgh European Council in December last year at the conclusion of the British presidency agreed a package of measures to promote economic recovery in the European Community. One of those measures was a request that the Economic and Finance Council and the European investment bank
  "give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the establishment of a European Investment Fund".
  Work has now been undertaken and substantially completed, with agreement being reached on the precise role of the fund and on the draft statute which sets out its rules of operation. The Brussels European Council on 29 October was able to commit itself to bringing the fund into existence by the new year.
  The order provides for the small amendment necessary for the treaty of Rome to be regarded as one of the Community treaties as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The amendment would add a new article—article 30—to the protocol on the statute of the European investment bank. If the amendment is ratified by all member states, that article will enable the board of governors of the bank to create the European investment fund by unanimous decision.
  I come now to the fund itself and how it would operate. The new fund has its origins within the European investment bank, which is one of the Community's least-known, but most efficiently run bodies. It is under the new and illustrious British presidency of Sir Brian Unwin, Because of recent concerns, I visited the bank, and I can report that I did not see signs of extravagance; indeed, I found it to be an extremely professional and well-run organisation.
  As the House will know, the bank's primary purpose is to provide medium and long-term loans to capital investment projects that further the economic development of the Community. It borrows the bulk of its funds on the capital markets and borrowers have to meet the full cost of loans. The bank is not allowed to subsidise. Because it has a triple-A credit rating and is non-profit-making, it is able to on-lend at very attractive rates. It now operates on a considerable scale throughout the Community and the United Kingdom is a major beneficiary.
  The European investment fund will be an offshoot of the bank. Although the fund will be based at the bank's headquarters in Luxembourg, it will be staffed by bank personnel on secondment. Legally and financially, it will be entirely independent of the bank. There are two reasons for that. The first is operational. The fund will complement, not duplicate, the bank's function as a lender to European Community investment projects. It will not make loans, but rather provide guarantees and in due course take equity stakes in enterprises.
  The fund's draft statute allows it to operate throughout the Community in support of two classes of undertakings. One will be small and medium-sized enterprises; the other

  879
  will be trans-European networks—projects to improve the links between the various member states' national transportation, telecommunication and energy networks.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say clearly and precisely whether the order will enable a European fund to underwrite the losses of the channel tunnel, while domestic legislation—as my hon. Friend well knows—prevents us from doing so? There is concern that intra-Community transport could cover the channel tunnel, which some of us consider to be a great white elephant. Bearing in mind that the Government are not permitted under law to subsidise it, can my hon. Friend assure us that the European fund also will not be able to subsidise the channel tunnel project?
  Mr. Nelson: The channel tunnel project would be eligible to apply for capital guarantees of the sort that I have mentioned. I understand my hon. Friend's proper concern that the fund might provide guarantees for loans that would effectively finance loss-making activities. The intention is not to subsidise losses, but to guarantee loans that are made available by other institutions.
  If a loan is made available to Eurotunnel or one of the other organisations concerned with the project, it is unlikely to be made available specifically to write off an operating loss —although it inevitably forms part of the total capital of the organisation. A loan to that or any other project would be made on the basis of the viability of the project. The fund would enable a guarantee to be provided to the institution providing the loan. Therefore, the position is not quite as my hon. Friend suggested. I hope that he is clear on the point that the fund would not be used in that way, although projects of the sort that he mentioned might be eligible for guarantees of certain loans that had been obtained from other sources.
  Mr. David Shaw: On the key issue of subsidising the channel tunnel, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 prohibits the British Government from subsidising or financially supporting the tunnel with public funds. Will my hon. Friend confirm that nothing in the order is inconsistent with the 1987 provision or will allow Europe to do that which the British Government cannot do?
  Mr. Nelson: I do not believe that the order is inconsistent with the 1987 Act. The ability of the fund to provide equity stakes—risk capital interest in businesses —is intended to be applied not to trans-European networks but to small and medium-sized enterprises. Certainly, the channel tunnel does not fit into that category. In any event, it is intended that the equity stakes will be provided only to funds that invest in a variety of such concerns.
  The fund's other activities will deal entirely with the provision of guarantees against loans provided elsewhere. They will not break across domestic law. The purpose of the order is to import into domestic law the obligations and agreements made.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister will be glad to know that I do not want to pursue the points raised by two Conservative Members, to which he gave detailed and fair answers. However, given the Minister's general remarks about the investment fund, its
  880
  siting and the use of seconded personnel, can he give some idea of the likely scale of the enterprise involved, as and when the fund begins to take shape?
  Mr. Nelson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond to that point during my remarks.
  I mentioned that there were two reasons for the fund's independent status. After it has been in existence for two years, its shareholders may allow it to take equity holdings. It will concentrate particularly on small to medium-sized enterprises, to strengthen their capital base. The fund would not take a holding in its own name but would require stakes in financial institutions that specialised in holdang equity.
  The second reason for the fund's independent status is legal and institutional. It is proposed that the fund will have an initial subscribed capital of 2 billion ecu, or around £1·5 billion, which will not be held entirely by the European investment bank. The bank will take a 40 per cent. stake, but it is envisaged that the remaining 60 per cent. will be divided equally between the Community itself—represented by the Commission—and those of the Community's private sector banking institutions that want to become members.
  That participation by the private sector is most important. The fund would not attempt to provide guarantees directly to small to medium-sized enterprises in the member states; rather, it would enter into arrangements with local banks that knew those markets and that could then act as the fund's agent.
  The fund will be run on a commercial basis and may pay dividends on its capital. As to the fund's guarantee operations, it is expected to have a gearing ratio of 3:1; therefore, a subscribed capital base of 2 billion ecu would allow it to give 6 billion ecu worth of guarantee cover. For reasons of prudence and to allow the maximum spread of support, the fund would not guarantee that more than 50 per cent. of the cost of any project was covered. If, for example, the average guarantee provided by the fund covered 25 per cent. of a project's cost, it could assist projects worth a total of 24 billion ecu, or around £18 billion—but that is very much the ceiling estimate of the fund's potential.
  The concept of the European investment fund was given a big push by the initiative launched at Edinburgh last year under the United Kingdom presidency. If the treaty amendment is ratified by all member states, the fund will provide a useful addition to the Community's response to the key problems of unemployment and loss of competitiveness. Because the fund is targeted at small to medium-sized enterprises—the important engines of economic growth and employment in the Community—it will encourage private sector initiative and work with the grain of the enterprise culture, thereby helping to improve competitiveness and employment.
  The fund will operate under the aegis of the European investment bank, which has a proven record of competence and efficiency. I commend the order to the House.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The Labour party supports the establishment of a European investment fund. It is a useful and potentially very beneficial innovation for which the Labour party has been calling. Indeed, we would like to see it built upon.

  881
  Incidentally, the small piece of paper in the form of this order will, if passed this evening, amend the treaties that govern the European Communities. By a similar small piece of paper we could bring the social chapter into effect in this country, and that is precisely the mechanism for doing so which we pointed out during the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It would be no more difficult to extend those employment rights to British workers than it is to pass the order this evening, but that is a matter to which we shall return on other occasions.
  In addition to welcoming this legislative step to help the European investment fund on its way, I shall ask several questions. First, why on earth has it taken so long to get this far? After all, the decision to set up a fund, as we have just heard, was taken as long ago as the Edinburgh summit on 11 and 12 December last year, and Commissioner Christophersen's letter, setting out in more detail the proposal for the establishment of the fund, was dated 15 January this year. What has been taking the time since then? Who is responsible for the delay?
  After all, more than 18 million people are unemployed throughout Europe and the European economy—now, to many intents and purposes, the real macro-economy of all the member states—remains deeply in recession. Depressed private investment is one of the most disturbing aspects of that recession. In such circumstances, Opposition Members would have thought that a good deal more urgency could and should have been injected into the programme so that the fund could be up and running, generating jobs, improving infrastructure and stimulating recovery.
  Secondly, how far has the establishment of the fund progressed? What other countries have yet to take the step to which we are giving effect tonight in amending the protocol? What progress has been made with setting up the interim board of shareholders of the fund? The European Commission said in April, in its report on the Edinburgh initiative about the interim board of shareholders:
  "This Board will work on the further arrangements for the entry into force of the Fund … Most importantly, it will also begin discussions right away with project promoters, financial institutions and national/regional administrations on specific potential candidates for support."
  I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary would tell us how far those consultations have progressed. I should also be grateful if he would tell us in reply who is on the interim board of shareholders, and what reports the Government have received about the progress of its discussions. In particular, because their participation is an important element of the concept of the fund, what third party shareholders have been consulted and what has been the outcome of those consultations? My final question on the subject of timing is, when do the Government expect that the fund will be up and running and giving the guarantees for loans which will enable projects to proceed?
  My third category of questions is about what projects the Government—or other organisations, such as the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies—are encouraging to apply to the fund. What sort of projects do the Government have in mind? It would be helpful if the Economic Secretary would tell us the beneficiaries. The Labour party very much hopes and strongly urges that British private and public sector organisations, and the two together in partnership, are encouraged and assisted by the
  882
  Government to apply to the fund and to take full advantage here in the United Kingdom of the opportunities that it offers. We cannot afford to be left behind in the take-up of funds as we have been with other sources of finance, such as the regional and social funds, and on occasion in the use of the European investment bank itself. We want Britain to obtain the full benefits of the opportunities which that type of European Community institutions have to offer.
  Fourthly, I propose to ask about the financial accounting for the subscription of capital and expenditure from the fund. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary could explain whether expenditure on the fund or its guarantees counts against the United Kingdom public sector borrowing requirement. If so, how is that recorded?
  How do the Government see the role of the fund developing? I note that the Commission's explanatory memorandum says:
  "The main objectives of the fund will be to contribute to the strengthening of the internal market and the furthering of economic and social cohesion. Major infrastructure projects in the framework of the transeuropean networks (TENs), as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), especially in Community assisted areas, constitute the main targets of support of the EIF."
  Will loan guarantees be used to hasten the progress of public-private partnerships on which to date the Government's words and reannouncements of the same schemes greatly exceed actual progress on the ground? Given that the front-end risk on such projects has been identified as one of the main factors inhibiting private sector involvement, could there not be a role for the European investment fund in providing guarantees to enable such schemes to get under way? Is there a need for the project task force, which the Labour party has advocated, to inject the requisite urgency to get things moving?
  Given that small and medium-sized enterprises are intended to be among the prime beneficiaries of the European investment fund guarantees, does not that make it more important to consider how the interface between small businesses and the European investment fund will work? I note what the Economic Secretary said about the role of banks familiar with the markets in which small and medium-sized enterprises are extending their activities. What do the Government envisage as their role in bringing about that partnership between the domestic banking sector and small and medium-sized enterprises? It is not as though small and medium-sized enterprises do not have one or two complaints about the treatment that they receive from banks at present.
  If those enterprises are to benefit from the fund, it is absolutely vital that their involvement with it is assisted. I would argue that that makes a strong case for regional development agencies in the English regions, as well as those in Scotland and Wales, to facilitate that involvement. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary could tell us how he envisages the fund developing what is described in the Commission's summary as its "secondary business" —that of the limited provision of equity largely through financial intermediaries. Will that become a sort of Euro national enterprise board? If not, how does it differ?
  The Commission's memorandum states:
  "Other projects, for example in the areas of environmental protection and energy production, may become eligible later after decision of the Fund's ruling bodies."
  Given the substantial contribution that environmental projects can make to generating jobs and improving the

  883
  quality of life, the sooner those projects can be brought on stream through the work of the European investment fund, the better. What is the Government's thinking on that?
  Finally, what is the Government's position on the size of the fund? Once all the institutional and administrative machinery is in place, and assuming a good take-up of funds can be encouraged, is there not a strong case for
  884
  expanding the size of the fund beyond the indicative levels given by the Economic Secretary so that it could be used in a more counter-cyclical way, as the Labour party has argued, to help to play a more significant role in lifting Europe as a whole out of the recession which condemns millions of our fellow citizens to unemployment and thereby diminishes the living standards of us all?
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I welcome the new initiative and facility for the European investment bank. The bank has long needed to be able to invest in equities, but it has not had that ability. The new facility to guarantee loans is also extremely welcome.
  I should like to add two other points to the list of questions asked by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). First, it seems to me that the change requires a completely different managerial approach by the bank, which is traditionally a conservative bank and has operated, generally speaking, with Government guarantees and other means of securing its lending. An advance into equity lending will be quite foreign to most of its personnel, and they will need additional training. The bank will also need the injection of people with experience in the private sector so that it can make those equity investments on a sound basis.
  There is another problem that I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary would explain to the House. How will the bank account to the nation states' Parliaments and to the European Parliament in Strasbourg? The new facility will require careful monitoring, and there should be careful arranged accounting procedures to the Parliaments and possibly to the Public Accounts Committee.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have another couple of questions to add. One Minister is known to have a little list, but the Economic Secretary has rather a long list of inquiries to answer, and I do not want to add to his burden, particularly as I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) intends to contribute to the in-tray of intrigue in a few moments' time.
  I welcome the measure, which is further proof, were any needed, that after the Edinburgh summit and the British presidency, and the passage of the Maastricht treaty through Parliament early this year, those who argue in newspapers and the broadcasting media that Maastricht marked the end, the problem is over and the issue can be put to one side, are wrong. The Europe Community, now the European Union in its other respects, will continue to develop and it is important that it should do so.
  As is always the way, we are having a late-night debate in a thinly attended Chamber, with only those of us who have a specific interest in European matters, but the measure is still another sign of the important political and economic steps that will have social implications across the Community as a whole. I have a plea to make as I welcome those developments: it is not the Minister's responsibility, but I hope that the business managers will consider allowing the House one day a week just for European issues, as they have such impact on domestic political and legislative matters that it is nonsensical to go in this way.
  My first question concerns the future development of the Community. Clearly, the investment fund will be coming on stream after much discussion—that was acknowledged in the Queen's Speech—about the agreements on accession that will be concluded with the remaining Scandinavian countries and Austria. Given that it is impossible for any measure to anticipate everything that may or may not happen, but that it is a reasonable assumption that those countries will be joining the
  886
  Community, it is important to know how the Minister sees any restructuring or rejigging of this which may need to take place to accommodate those developments.
  Those of us who have had discussions with the representatives of the Scandinavian countries will know that they have specific anxieties and agendas that they are trying to pursue about the distinct geographic needs of their countries, which are different from, and contrast with, those of some of the existing member states. I suspect that the Scandinavians may look to the investment fund as being of use to them. To what extent has that been anticipated in the discussions?
  My second question concerns our domestic banks. The Minister made some interesting references to personnel of the fund being on secondment and how in due course the fund will look to banks in member states—although perhaps this is less true of banks in this country than of those in other member states—which have regional expertise within member states and may be able to assist or facilitate projects. Will the Minister put a little more flesh on the bones of the attitude of domestic bankers and say what role they hope to play?
  The order is welcome. Let us hope that it will make an important political, economic and social contribution to the well-being of the Community in turning itself into union in due course.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is right—I cannot add a chorus of praise for the order, although it has potential. We need to examine what that potential is and how it is to be exercised. There is some confusion about the nature of the fund and how it will be organised and run.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is right to say that this is a relatively simple piece of paper, but I remind hon. Members and anyone who may be listening or who may read the debate that a single paper of this sort can authorise a complete treaty. This is not all that long. It is not called a treaty. It is rather confusingly called an Act. In the early days of this procedure, I arrived in the Chamber with a heap of treaties this high, which were being authorised by a single statutory instrument. At lease we have this opportunity to scrutinise, and if my questions to the Minister appear naive it is not for want of reading the literature that has been supplied to us.
  It is a pity that the explanatory note is highly constitutional and does not tell us much about the fund. I understand that it is a fund, but not necessarily one that will give loans, although other hon. Members have suggested that it might. As I understand it, its purpose is to provide guarantees, thus stimulating activity that would not otherwise take place in the realm of trans-European networks and small and medium-sized enterprises. A gentleman in Denmark once said to me, "Mr. Spearing, in Denmark all our firms are small or medium-sized enterprises." There are volumes of Government commissioned documents according that definition, which is pretty elastic to start with.
  I am concerned because the explanatory note on the order does not take us far down that road, although the explanatory memorandum on the Commission document does. It makes it fairly clear. It says that the fund is for

  887
  "assuming and managing more specific risks without jeopardizing its credit standing and mainstream lending."
  That refers to the European investment bank. I assume that the fund is not a fund from which we can borrow and earn income but is a form of guarantee. The explanatory memorandum later says that the fund will
  "facilitate private infrastructure financing by providing a complement or alternative to recourse to government guarantees for infrastructure financing. The viability criterion will also be an essential ingredient in its approach to SMEs."
  That confirms that it is a mechanism for creating guarantees that give confidence to those who subscribe capital, rather than for subscribing capital itself.
  The Act is a mini-treaty, agreed in Brussels in March 1993 and awaiting ratification, of which this debate is part. Article A explains that, at present, the protocol of the European investment bank is not wide enough to fulfil that function. Paragraph 2 of new article 30 of the European investment bank statute says:
  "The Board of Governors shall establish the Statute of the European Investment Fund by unanimous decision. The Statute shall define, in particular, its objectives, structure, capital, membership, financial resources, means of intervention and auditing arrangements, as well as the relationship between the organs of the Bank and those of the Fund."
  So all is there to be decided. By what means will the statute be made known to the House and the public? The objectives exist in broad terms and will, I presume, be part of the statute setting up the fund.
  On the mysterious question of membership, the explanatory memorandum says that membership will be tripartite: member states; the Commission—30 per cent.; and other private organisations. I assume that those private institutions mentioned in paragraph 4 can be banks or other funds already in the private sector within the Community. I presume that members, who are appointed in proportion to their risk, must manage the fund and decide to whom, and for what purposes, guarantees are to be made.
  The knock-on effect appears to be considerable, because other parts of the memorandum say that we will not have to pay much to the fund. Britain's paid-up amount is relatively small and we therefore take a proportion of the risk, in proportion to our national sector. How can the Commission take a risk separate from that of member states?
  This does not seem to be a fund in the normal sense of the word, unless it is a fund for guarantees. It appears to deal with insurance, akin to institutions in the City that take on risks. Is it not essentially a risk-bearing mechanism, to be controlled partly by the bank—the Minister mentioned our representative on it—but also by other persons, as yet unnamed, and representing world institutions that would take the risk? Can we know more about who they are likely to be? Will there be people from the United Kingdom? What qualifications will they have? How will those matters be reported? I presume that they will be reported first to the bank, then from the bank to member Governments, then from member Governments to the House—if they get that far.
  I am less enamoured of this set-up than some of my hon. Friends, who may assume that it will have the effects that they hope, but I cannot see the connection. It may deal with large projects—the channel tunnel was mentioned earlier —and various small and medium-sized enterprises may benefit. I assume that they must put up a case, saying that they are part of the European single or internal market. I understand that another purpose of the fund is to stimulate the said market.
  888
  I am also a little worried about the extent to which this is not just a complement to Government guarantees but a replacement for them. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum said:
  "The existence of the Fund will thus facilitate private infrastructure financing by providing a complement or alternative to recourse to government guarantees for infrastructure financing. The viability criterion will also be an essential element".
  The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East about the proportion of public sector borrowing is relevant here. Will decisions on financial guarantees for large projects be transferred away from Her Majesty's Government and handed to those who govern the running of the fund? I take it that that is what the memorandum means. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I hope that he will tell the House the answer at some stage.
  I close on a topical note. At a time of great unemployment and when there was a need for transport expansion and co-ordination in London, following the first world war, the House passed an Act known as the Trade Facilities Act 1921, which resulted in guarantees for the extension of the Northern line south of Clapham to Morden, and the western extension of the Central line, which was not actually built until after the next war. Could such guarantees be given now to British Rail or to any private firm by the Government without transgressing any European treaty? If not, and if this fund is the only way of assisting such networks, especially the channel tunnel, the House should know about it. If the Minister cannot reply tonight, I intend to table a written question on the subject tomorrow.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Nelson: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank hon. Members for their highly pertinent questions this evening.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made a number of points with which I will try to deal as expeditiously and frankly as possible. He asked why it had taken so long to bring the fund from its inception at the Edinburgh Council to where it is now. Actually, it has moved fairly speedily, given that all member states have to ratify the proposal. Only two have done so thus far, but all will have to ratify by the end of this year.
  In the Edinburgh presidency conclusions, there was a specific request that "urgent" progress be made with implementation of the fund. But it was necessary first for the draft EIF statutes to be drawn up. It was also necessary for a draft Council decision under article 235 of the European Communities treaty on Community participation in the fund to be drawn up and submitted to the Scrutiny Committee—as indeed it was.
  We are now approaching the point at which the EIF can be launched. We hope that it will be up and running in the early part of next year, but work is already under way to identify those who may be able to benefit from the guarantee resources which will constitute the early part of the fund's remit.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked what work was being done to identify the candidates. Preliminary work has certainly been done, but it was felt premature, before the fund's constitution had been set, for applications to be invited and candidates to be vetted. Nevertheless, in conjuction with work on the proposed statutes of the fund, some work has been done.

  889
  I pay tribute to the president of the EIB, Sir Brian Unwin, who has worked hard in the member states, including this country, encouraging commercial banks to take up the opportunity of being shareholders in the E1F, and advertising more widely among the member states the opportunities that will arise once the fund is itself funded.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked who would be on the board. There will be a supervisory board. It is intended, I believe, that the president of the bank will be the chairman of that board, but the detailed composition will be a matter laid down in the statute of the fund after article 30 has been imported into the protocol to the treaty of Rome. It will then be up to the fund, in conjunction with the European investment bank, to determine the details of how the various constituent shareholders will be represented on the supervisory board and the working committees.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what sort of projects would qualify. I know that this is of interest to hon. Members —particularly those who want industrial regeneration and the uptake of employment for their constituencies, especially through small to medium-sized enterprises. Earlier, I referred to energy, telecommunications and transport; they clearly fit the definition of trans-European networks. The range of small to medium-sized enterprises is much wider, but the fund is not intended to provide guarantees direct to such enterprises: that will be done through the medium of commercial banks. However, the European investment bank itself provides—and recently the European Communities have enhanced the resources for—capital lending to small to medium-sized enterprises. An additional facility of some 1 billion ecu is being provided for subsidised lending: I believe that the current proposal is around 3 per cent. on the interest rates paid by such enterprises. A lot is being done.
  As for financial accountability, a report will be prepared. The various constituent shareholders of the Community and the commercial banks that take up their shareholdings, as well as the investment bank itself, will be recipients. It will be run in close conjunction with the investment bank; it will be subject to the European Court of Auditors, and statute will lay down in great detail the financial accounting and reporting procedures.
  A number of hon. Members asked about the status of the contributions to the fund, its capitalisation and how it relates to our public sector borrowing requirement. The answer is that it does not—except in so far as we make a notional contribution through the total resources that we give to the European Community, part of which will go towards financing our shareholding through the Community. We are shareholders in the investment bank, but its shares in the fund will be bought by its own internal capital resources; that will not be a call on the taxpayer, here or elsewhere in the Community.
  The Community's shareholding will be funded from Community resources. That was provided for in the Heads of Government conference in Edinburgh; no additional contribution is involved. The private-sector funds will not be a call on the Government. That is not to say that no liabilities are involved. In the past, the House has rightly been concerned about the fact that nothing is free. Contingent liabilities are potentially involved, with the guaranteeing of loans given to organisations. Those can go
  890
  belly up: things can go wrong. If the guarantee is called, it is real money that must be paid out of the European investment fund to the lending institution.
  It is intended that only 20 per cent. of the 2 billion ecu that will be the initial proposed ceiling of funding will be drawn down in initial subscriptions for capital to run, or pay for, the business. The remainder will be held as a call against default on those guarantees. If a number of those enterprises go wrong, the loan is called in and the guarantee is called, the funds will be there; but it will run on a very prudent basis, with only 20 per cent. initially being drawn down and the remainder being held against default.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked how the present proposals would interface with the private finance initiative. In answer to him, and perhaps to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), let me say that the intention is not that the fund should take over from existing guarantees that are provided or make up for shortfalls elsewhere. The intention of the European Community expressed at the Edinburgh summit was that here would be a positive sum gained—a recovery fund in addition to what was already provided at national level. I hope and believe that the fund would be reluctant simply to refinance liabilities that had already been entered into. We are talking about funding over and above existing provision—or rather new guarantees of funding for trans-European networks and small to medium-sized enterprises.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked whether the fund would become a Euro-national enterprise board. We all pray fervently that it will not, and I was interested that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be making the case against such a trend. The important point is that, even if, after two years, the fund takes direct investment interest, it is not intended that it should invest directly in the small to medium-sized enterprises concerned. Funding will be through the medium of private sector investment trusts or funds so that the commercial element of choice and backing is introduced. The fund will simply pump prime or add additional liquidity to the financing and sources of funding of small to medium-sized enterprises. I hope that the fund will not be a direct investment board but will greatly help the private sector to do the job that it should be doing in the regeneration of industry.
  Provision will be made for the funds to be increased beyond the level of some £2 billion, but that is not intended to be an early aspiration: the organisation must walk before it runs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked about equity investment and said that new expertise would be needed. I entirely agree, and that is an important point. There are some extremely able people at the European investment bank who have to make judgments about risk as well as debt financing, and they will be seconded to the organisation. Additional people will probably be employed, but it is intended to keep them to the minimum and to appoint only in specialist areas. Provision will be made largely by seconding existing effort from the European investment bank. My hon. Friend also asked how the fund would be accountable, and I hope that I have answered that.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) gave a welcome to the proposal—for which I thank him—and rightly pointed out the great social implications that it may have. He asked about the

  891
  implications of the accession of other countries, and, in doing so, made an extremely telling and important point. Very often, Euro-bodies—the European investment bank is a large and eminent one—end up with empire aspirations that go beyond their original remit. Instead of financing organisations within the Community—the purpose for which they were originally established—they start becoming emulators of world banks. So it is that the European investment bank is financing enterprises in the Caribbean, south America and eastern Europe. There are good arguments for that, and I have tried to test some of them, but we need to keep our eye on the ball and ensure that the overwhelming majority of hard-pressed taxpayers' funds and liabilities are directed within the Community and not allowed to escape it. So there are implications for relations with nearby and potential acceding countries.
  I have answered the question about domestic banks and the interest that they have taken. Only one in the United Kingdom has shown an interest so far, and that is Nikko Securities, but it is hoped that more interest will be forthcoming. The Government have certainly supported Sir Brian Unwin in making information available to the banks concerning the opportunities that exist.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South rightly made a number of points about procedure. It is not novel but it is slightly unusual that we should be proposing the change by way of an order rather than primary legislation, and the hon. Gentleman is right to test the Government on that point. It was felt that the provision fell within section 1(3), and there are good precedents both in relation to changes to the European investment bank and to the de-accession of Greenland, so I am told.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked by what means the European investment fund statute would become known to the House. The statute has not been promulgated because the fund has not yet been set up. There is no requirement that the detail of the statute shall be published or promulgated. I agree that a strong case could be made for that, and I shall take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, as will those Ministers who are involved in the European Community. There is a strong case for ensuring that the statute—that is to say, the detail of the constitution of the new fund—is made more widely available.
  I hope that I have answered most of the queries raised in this interesting debate, and that the House will approve the order.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to answer the bulk of the questions asked by hon. Members. I asked a question to which he did not respond. I asked whether the Commissions's proposal that an interim board of shareholders be established immediately had been implemented, and whether the board is meeting and taking decisions. I shall give way to the Minister if he is prepared to answer that, or perhaps he will write to me on the matter.
  The Minister said that the European Community and member states had moved speedily on this matter. The hon. Gentleman and the Government may think it speedy, but Europe's unemployed could not possibly agree, and the quicker it is up and running and doing some good by generating investment funds, the better. We shall watch closely to see how quickly it is established and what good it does. We shall also keep a close watch on how it reports
  892
  its work and how the Government report back to the House to ensure the accountability that hon. Members rightly expect.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 3.

  Division No. 7]

  [11.06 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Amess, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ancram, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Horam, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bowis, John

  Jack, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brazier, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Bright, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Butcher, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Colvin, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Congdon, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Legg, Barry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Couchman, James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Cran, James

  Lidington, David

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

  Lightbown, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  MacKay, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Maclean, David

  Dover, Den

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Eggar, Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Elletson, Harold

  Marland, Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Faber, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Forman, Nigel

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Norris, Steve

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Fry, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gallie, Phil

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Gorst, John

  Richards, Rod

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hague, William

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  893

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sproat, Iain

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stern, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Sweeney, Walter

  Yeo, Tim

  Sykes, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Cryer, Bob

  Mr. Nigel Spearing and

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

  Merchant Shipping
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday. This debate is a distress call of behalf on the British merchant shipping industry, and it is one in a long line of debates, amendments, committee reports and questions to Ministers that have for more than a decade —and certainly ever since I entered the House—sought to achieve Government action that would halt the catastrophic and unnecessary decline of the British merchant fleet.
  I make it crystal clear that this is not a request for Exchequer handouts to an inefficient industry unable to compete on world markets. Our shipping industry is highly efficient and competitive. In several sectors, United Kingdom operators are among world leaders. The Department of Transport itself has stated that British companies have taken significant steps to rationalise their activities and to improve their competitiveness. Wage costs, thanks to a revolution in labour relations in recent years, are kept at competitive levels.
  The Government have a policy to assist the industry, and on many occasions Ministers have spelt it out to the House. Why, then, is there still a problem and what is it? The difficulty arises because the Government's policy has not been successful in the past, it is not working now, and it shows no sign whatever of being successful in the future.
  Other developed countries provide measures to encourage investment and to reduce crewing and operating costs that the British Government have steadfastly refused to contemplate for Britain's merchant shipping industry. Instead, the Government's policy has been to persuade our competitors to abandon their support measures and, in the meantime, to do nothing to enable our industry to compete on level terms, which is what the industry asks for.
  I believe that those terms must now be provided. If they are not, as surely as night follows day, the merchant fleet will continue to decline and, by the time of the next election, we may very well see "the end of the Red Duster". That was to be the title of the debate when I applied to Madam Speaker for it. I suppose that, unfortunately, the Table Office must have intervened, and bowdlerised the title to the blander one of "Merchant Shipping". Either way, I am delighted to have the opportunity of the debate.
  I ask again, is the end of the Red Duster—because that is what we are contemplating, for sure—what a Conservative Government wish to preside over? If it is, I believe that they should say so and we shall know where we are, but if it is not, the measures that I shall speak about are essential.
  Let me first spell out several examples of what other Governments are providing. On the investment side, German shipowners are now allowed tax depreciation that gives, in effect, a 50 per cent. first year allowance, but that is in addition to a continuing depreciation allowance, reduced corporation tax rates on foreign earnings and existing operating subsidies—the continuation of those was confirmed, contrary to expectations in Britain, earlier this year.
  In the Netherlands, shipowners receive ship investment grants, the scope of which was recently extended.

  895
  Furthermore, shipowners may now elect for a reduction in the profits tax in place of the subsidy, and that gives further flexibility to owners.
  Let us now consider crewing and operating costs and the way in which other countries' measures have helped their shipping industry. In France, the level of contributions that are made by the shipowner to the seafarers' social security fund was cut by 50 per cent. in October 1993, making the cost of employing French seafarers comparable to crew costs on the French second register.
  In Sweden, shipowners receive the income tax that is paid by their seafarers and a portion of seafarers' national insurance contributions as a wage cost subsidy. That measure had been cancelled, but was reintroduced and extended indefinitely in October this year.
  The Norwegian Government are considering increasing substantially the subsidy that they provide for the employment of Norwegian seafarers, and the United States Government are actively supporting a new maritime subsidy scheme for designated ships operated by US companies at a cost of $1 billion over ten years.
  Those are all measures that were either recently introduced or confirmed. Unfortunately, they are a broadside—it gives me no pleasure to say this—which demolishes the Government's argument that working for level terms is the right way forward at this time. The Government are going backwards, not forwards, as the examples that I have given show.
  Working towards level terms may be the right way forward in the long term, but at present all our European competitors and the United States are moving firmly the other way. If my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me otherwise to any significant extent and give me examples, I shall be glad to hear them. In addition to the countries that I have already mentioned, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain all provide some form of tax allowances and related benefits, which in most cases are superior to what is available in the United Kingdom.
  My purpose tonight is to impress on our Government the vital importance of taking urgent action to stimulate the renewal of our merchant fleet, which is aging fast, and express the hope that that will be reflected at last in tomorrow's Budget. We must staunch the decline of our merchant fleet and encourage the training and employment of British seafarers.
  In terms of investment—the specific point on which I want to focus tonight—the purpose of what the industry asks for is the fiscal treatment of British owners on level terms with those of their competitors specifically by introducing a 100 per cent. first-year allowance for investment in ships. Interestingly, there is a precedent for that. Effectively, a sectoral maritime enterprise zone would be created, following the precedent of regional enterprise zones, of which shipping companies cannot take advantage. I should also like to see extended to seven years the period of roll-over relief which currently applies to the balancing charges on the sale and purchase of ships.
  Recent independent research offers both a negative and a positive scenario for the future. It was commissioned by the Chamber of Shipping, but it was carried out by Professor Douglas McWilliams. He used econometric modelling to predict the future of the shipping industry under, first, the current regime and, secondly, a regime of 100 per cent. first-year allowances. Under the current
  896
  regime, the picture is extremely gloomy. The report estimates that the size of the United Kingdom-owned fleet will fall from its present level of almost 14 million dead weight tonnes to 8·5 million dead weight tonnes by the year 2000, and to 5 million dead weight tonnes by 2,010.
  The number of seafarers would fall from its present level of 19,000 to 9,000 by the year 2000 and to 4,000 by 2010. The invisible earnings of the United Kingdom shipping industry would also be substantially reduced under the current regime. However, a policy of 100 per cent. first-year allowances would encourage greater investment in ships by United Kingdom owners. It is estimated that by 2010 the policy would have paid for the expected renewal programme and brought £360 million in overall additional tax revenues per year. It would maintain the size of the fleet at more than 11 million dead weight tonnes. It would also create or preserve 15,000 jobs in shipping and other industries. Most importantly, it would increase the invisible earnings of shipping to £6·6 billion from the present £3·7 billion.
  That report was independent, but it confirms the arguments made by the Chamber of Shipping in the past five years. The prospects for world shipping are good. Estimates are that world trade will grow at about 4 per cent. compound until the year 2010. The Department of Transport supports that view. The demand for shipping services will expand, as the report recognises.
  British companies are ready and able to take advantage of those opportunities in the right conditions, but unless the United Kingdom shipping industry is able to compete on an even footing with its rivals it will be unable to sustain its share of the market or its current contribution to our economy. If it sustains and improves its position in an expanding market, the benefits will feed into sectors other than shipping, especially the manufacture of shipbuilding and marine equipment and, most vitally, the various services in the City of London. That will help to keep Britain and London at the centre, where they are now, of the maritime world. We cannot expect that position to continue if we are not developing people with a maritime background, who then come ashore and work in the maritime industries later in their lives. That has always been the backbone of the strength of Britain's business contribution world wide to shipping activity.
  One of the great difficulties in obtaining full recognition of the importance of these issues by Government may be the wide range of Departments and Ministries whose interests are affected, which include the Department of Transport, the sponsoring Ministry, on whose behalf my hon. Friend will reply. The Department of Trade and Industry is concerned, and the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Defence are involved. Key to all this, of course, is what I have to call tonight the baleful influence, so far, of the Treasury. That inevitably diffuse appreciation of the issues may dilute the real impact and urgency that Britain faces. It tends to result in a lower priority being given to the shipping sector than to other transport sectors.
  I appreciate that, in making that point, I am not making a totally fair comparison. However, it is right to point out to the House the tiny proportion of the annual budget of the Department of Transport that is devoted to shipping matters. It is about 0·5 per cent. The annual budget is £6 billion and sea transport gets £30 million, which mainly covers safety and pollution control work. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that shipping is given a higher priority in

  897
  the Department than it has had in the past. It is surely essential to us as an island nation—to the carriage of our trade, to our economy, to our balance of payments, to our employment, to our skills and, not least, to our defences.
  I know that Ministers argue robustly that the latest information makes them sanguine that if sea lift was required in an operation of the kind that we had to carry out in the Falklands or in the Gulf, in one way or another, ships and crews could be chartered and made available to do that sea lift. This is certainly not the view of Sir Julian Oswald, the recently retired First Sea Lord, who, addressing a meeting recently in another place, made it clear that he had deep concerns on the issue. I believe that current senior officers in the Royal Navy share those concerns. That issue too is of major importance.
  I now turn to the most recent committee report—the report, produced by the Select Committee on Employment two or three days ago, containing its recommendations following a study into the decline of employment in the merchant fleet. It made a number of important points. It expressed its concern at the decline in the number of officers and ratings and said:
  "The extra cost of employing British crews has been made harder to bear by the fact that the UK industry is forced to compete with countries which have introduced strong financial assistance for their own merchant fleets."
  It repeated what others have said when it reported:
  "Britain is not training enough officers to meet either future demand or the needs of related industries."
  In uncovered an interesting point when it said:
  "Furthermore, we are concerned that public funds intended to subsidise training opportunities for UK seafarers are being applied to train staff from competitor countries."
  That issue must be addressed.
  The Committee also focused on the need for training enough officers to take their place in jobs ashore in the future. It also spoke about defence requirements. In conclusion, it reported:
  "We welcome the modest support that the taxation system currently provides the shipping industry, but we believe that measures to encourage investment in ships and reduce employment costs are essential to safeguard the future interests of the merchant navy, of related industry, of our national defence and of those young people seeking a career in shipping."
  I rest my case, not on what I have just said, but on the long line of reports, amendments and discussions in the House and in Committee, and in the outside world, which have unfortunately demonstrated that the prognosis of decline has come true. That must not be allowed to continue.
  11.36 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on his excellent speech on an important subject. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who listened to him, take a keen interest in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) is also present and he has told me of his specific interest in merchant shipping. They have greatly enjoyed what my hon. Friend had to say.
  I hope that it is not too churlish to say that it is rather significant that there is not one member of Her Majesty's Opposition present to listen to this important debate on an
  898
  industry that they purport frequently to hold dear. When push comes to shove at what is, after all, just after half-past 11, they cannot even find a Front-Bench spokesman to attend. When the crocodile tears are shed on future occasions, I shall remind the Opposition of how much they seem to care, in practice, about our merchant shipping.
  My hon. Friend has a great future ahead of him in writing film scripts. His opening line of "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" was dramatic enough and I am rather sorry that the Table Office chose to delete the rather dramatic title for the debate of "Death of the Red Duster" and substitute the anodyne, "Merchant Shipping". I hope to be treated to other examples of my hon. Friend's imaginative approach to this matter in the future. It certainly does a great deal to enliven our debates at this hour.
  My hon. Friend made some important comments and I shall try to reply to some of them in the short time available to me. He quoted from the report of the Select Committee on Employment, which said:
  "the percentage of the Department of Transport's budget … devoted to shipping … is a telling example of how low down the list of the Department's priorities shipping stands."
  If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, that quotation is simply untrue, and it would be untrue even if the Committee had used the correct statistical data to support its conclusion.
  I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the contributions that the British merchant fleet has made and continues to make to the country in times of peace and crisis. We are also well aware that there are associated maritime industries, which have grown up in the City, which serve the merchant fleet and which now exist to serve not only the British industry but the needs of a significant proportion of world shipping.
  In the past, the British fleet developed and prospered by identifying opportunities and exploiting them. It should therefore come as no surprise that other nations, especially the newly industrialising nations, will follow a similar route in developing their own national fleets.
  Inevitably, such competition will impact on the size and composition of our fleet. Over the past 20 years or so, we have witnessed a big reduction in British flagged and owned tonnage, and at the same time a significant restructuring which is reflected in the types of ships that now comprise our national fleet. But our experience is not unique. Other traditional maritime nations have faced similar and undoubtedly equally painful adjustments. Given that a large part of our shipping is international, we cannot insulate ourselves from international competition of the sort that I have described.
  My hon. Friend was correct in claiming that we can all swallow hard and accept the consequences of fair competition, but it is a great deal more difficult to accept the pain caused by unfair competition. My hon. Friend had something to say about that which I thought was pertinent, but I hope that he will allow me to say that it is not the whole story. He gave the House some examples—and he was quite right—of areas in which some other European nations appear to offer more favourable practices, including fiscal practices, treatment of training and treatment of personnel, than perhaps is the case in the United Kingdom. I recall that the Select Committee report contains a tabulation listing the practices in each of the member states. I hope that I am not misrepresenting my hon. Friend when I say that he will undoubtedly have taken

  899
  his information from that table. If he did, perhaps I may make it clear that there are also examples which tend to point in the other direction.
  In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, seafarers are treated no differently from other employees for taxation purposes. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, seafarers who spend fewer than 183 days in this country in any 365-day period qualify for 100 per cent. tax relief on foreign earnings. Seafarers in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, like their United Kingdom counterparts, make the same social security payments as other employees, and I know that some recent concessions have been made by France on this. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we are seeking further clarification from the French Government on their move.
  In Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy and Portugal, corporation tax is higher than the 35 per cent. levied in the United Kingdom. Of course, Germany's rate of 33·6 per cent. and the 35 per cent. levied in the Netherlands and Spain are exactly comparable with the United Kingdom. Unlike many other countries covered by the survey, we offer direct financial support for officer training. At present, that is in excess of £3 million a year—not, incidentally, the £0·7 million quoted on page 155 of the Select Committee's report. We also provide relief in the form of a subsidy of about £3 million per year to enable crews to be shipped or flown abroad to where they pick up the vessel.
  In addition, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained during the debate on the Finance Bill earlier this year, shipping—together with the rest of industry—benefits from the Government's fiscal and monetary policies. While I am on this subject, I take the opportunity to acknowledge my hon. Friend's understanding that on the eve of the Budget he cannot expect me to say anything more specific on that matter; I aim to hold this office for at least another 24 hours, if not longer.
  I have given those examples simply to demonstrate that there are two sides to the coin. My hon. Friend is right that there are some areas in which other European competitors appear to offer more advantage than that offered in the United Kingdom. As I hope that the illustrations I have given show, however, there are many ways in which the United Kingdom offers a competitive environment.
  Our Government have evolved a package of measures tailored to suit the needs of our shipping industry. For example, training is high on our agenda, and that is entirely right. Some support measures serve only to distort the market and, as such, they represent unfair competition. It is that latter group that we targeted during our recent EC presidency, and which we shall continue to attack. I make no apology for that. We hope that our partners will be persuaded by our arguments. I do not claim that we are on the threshold of success, but there are signs that others are beginning to accept the force of what we say.
  900
  It is interesting to note that many of the EC countries which are often praised for the support that they give their national shipping have been unable to work the longed-for miracle. Within the Community, in the 12 months from 1 January 1992 to 1 January 1993, only France, Greece and the Netherlands could claim an increase in registered tonnage. All the other member states lost ground during that period.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to acknowledge that overt financial and/or fiscal support is not the only means whereby our competitors can gain unfair advantage. Over the years, we have made every effort to remove restrictions on trading opportunities. We were delighted that the debate on EC cabotage was brought to a successful conclusion during our presidency.
  I shall not disguise the fact that the result was not so liberal as we should have liked. Nor do I ignore the fact that, regrettably, some member states are being selective in their implementation of the agreement. Nevertheless, even in its present form it is of considerable significance to British shipping and will open up new and potentially profitable opportunities, which will grow as the various derogations lapse. As I speak, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping met our EC counterparts in an endeavour to agree further measures, which we hope will redound to the benefit of the Community and, by extension, to our shipping industry, to those who work in it and to users.
  It is of regret that many of the newer flag states regard shipping as a soft option and consequently pay little or no attention to their responsibilities. That is grossly unfair to seafarers, to passengers who sail on their ships and to manufacturers who, in good faith, entrust their cargoes to them. Nor is it fair to countries whose environment suffers the consequence of badly maintained vessels, or indeed those responsible ship owners, particularly those who fly the Red Duster, who maintain their ships to the highest standards at considerable cost in terms of time and money. The United Kingdom has recognised the problem and taken the lead in seeking remedies with like-minded Governments in the EC and International Maritime Organisation.
  There are one or two points that my hon. Friend made on the detailed 100 per cent. ship allowance and roll-over relief that I have not been able to answer, together with his point about merchant shipping and defence. I hope that he will accept that the recent review allowed Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to announce that special measures on shipping were not considered necessary. If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on any outstanding issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Marsh Arabs
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had regarding the plight of the Marsh Arabs; what discussions have taken place between his Department and the United Nations over their future; what efforts his Department are making over their continued security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received numerous representations about events in southern Iraq.

  We frequently raise the plight of the Marsh Arabs at the United Nations, most recently during the review of sanctions on 18 November. We drew the attention of the United Nations weapons inspectors to reports that chemical weapons were used against civilians. We support the call of the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights for the deployment of monitors in Iraq.

  In addition, British aircraft are deployed over southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have been carried out between his Department and the BBC in respect of the BBC World Service lease at its headquarters in Bush house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The current lease on Bush house was signed in 1990 and expires in 2005. Discussions with the BBC World Service have already taken place, and it has been agreed that the question of future location will be discussed again in due course.

  Miss Patience Ikeazota
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the refusal of a tourist visa for a limited stay in Britain to Miss Patience Ikeazota by the entry clearance officer in Lagos.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following an interview at the high commission in Lagos on 9 April 1992, Miss Ikeazota's application for a visit visa was refused, as was her previous application in April 1991, because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that she was genuinely seeking entry to the United Kingdom for the period of the visit stated by her.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist in implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We maintain high-level contacts with the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis and urge them to adhere to United Nations Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884.

  We are actively supporting the efforts of the Minsk group whose efforts to find a peaceful resolution to this conflict have been fully endorsed by the United Nations.

  In the past year we have provided almost £1·9 million of humanitarian aid to the region.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence and minutes of meetings between his Department and Gerald Bull between 1987 and 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As far as we have been able to establish, there is no record of any correspondence or record of any meeting between this Department and Dr. Gerald Bull.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what exemptions have been sought by Norway under the EC convention on international trade in endangered species regulation and habitats directive.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Norwegian Government are seeking exemptions from the habitats directive and the CITES regulation for a wide variety of species. These include several species of fish, terrestrial mammals, seals and whales.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts Norway has made to secure opt-outs from EC regulations covering the killing and trade in whale and seal products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Norwegian Government are requesting exemptions from the EC habitats directive in respect of five seal and three whale species. We shall be discussing the Norwegian request with other member states.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current sanctions are being applied against the military Government of Nigeria; and what new ones are being considered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 24 June, we announced our decision to withdraw all offers of new military training courses provided for members of the Nigerian armed forces in the United Kingdom; to suspend all assistance to
  277
  the National War College in Lagos and withdraw the British military advisory team; to suspend issue of visas for members of the Nigerian armed forces and their dependents; to withdraw special treatment of visa applications from Nigerian officials; and to consider all new aid to Nigeria on a case-by-case basis. These measures remain in force.

  Our response to the latest developments is currently being discussed with our partners in the European Union and the wider donor community.

  Mr.Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to discuss the new military takeover in Nigeria with his European Union counterparts; and what Proposals he will be taking to that meeting.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Union issued a statement on 19 November condemning the fact that the democratic process in Nigeria has been interrupted through

  1991

  19921

  Total fire calls

  Malicious false alarms

  Per cent. malicious of all calls

  Total fire calls

  Malicious false alarams

  Per cent. malicious of all calls

  United Kingdom

  859,522

  148,112

  17·2

  874,343

  160,327

  18·3

  England and Wales

  726,015

  125,790

  17·3

  742,840

  134,421

  18·1

  England

  683,997

  118,388

  17·3

  697,720

  124,712

  17·9

  England-Non-Met

  349,015

  49,579

  14·2

  362,234

  53,580

  14·8

  Avon

  11,840

  1,643

  13·9

  12,737

  1,837

  14·4

  Bedfordshire

  5,245

  580

  11·1

  5,646

  724

  12·8

  Berkshire

  8,504

  1,170

  13·8

  9,097

  1,350

  14·8

  Buckinghamshire

  6,511

  840

  12·9

  6,636

  1,036

  15·6

  Cambridgeshire

  7,744

  1,091

  14·1

  7,954

  1,232

  15·5

  Cheshire

  13,053

  1,548

  11·9

  12,203

  1,457

  11·9

  Cleveland

  13,237

  4,418

  33·4

  14,150

  4,346

  30·7

  Cornwall and Scilly

  4,197

  305

  7·3

  4,817

  366

  7·6

  Cumbria

  6,029

  807

  13·4

  6,721

  1,013

  15·1

  Derbyshire

  9,570

  1,490

  15·6

  11,030

  1,920

  17·4

  Devon

  11,936

  1,749

  14·7

  12,484

  1,724

  13·8

  Dorset

  6,715

  825

  12·3

  6,476

  693

  10·7

  Durham

  9,827

  2,397

  24·4

  10,745

  2,574

  24·0

  East Sussex

  6,922

  780

  11·3

  7,472

  793

  10·6

  Essex

  15,872

  2,462

  15·5

  16,886

  2,957

  17·5

  Gloucestershire

  5,552

  804

  14·5

  5,666

  867

  15·3

  Hampshire

  14,423

  1,019

  7·1

  15,408

  779

  5·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,863

  962

  14·0

  6,862

  1,067

  15·5

  Hertfordshire

  9,346

  967

  10·3

  9,987

  989

  9·9

  Humberside

  14,773

  2,956

  20·0

  14,162

  3,104

  21·9

  Isle of Wight

  1,125

  94

  8·4

  1,147

  100

  8·7

  Kent

  15,783

  2,476

  15·7

  16,992

  2,678

  15·8

  Lancashire

  24,574

  4,305

  17·5

  25,271

  4,745

  18·8

  Leicestershire

  9,696

  1,722

  17·8

  9,904

  1,615

  16·3

  Lincolnshire

  5,829

  869

  14·9

  5,495

  862

  15·7

  Norfolk

  8,081

  714

  8·8

  7,626

  984

  12·9

  North Yorkshire

  7,145

  544

  7·6

  7,132

  555

  7·8

  Northamptonshire

  6,723

  619

  9·2

  6,493

  616

  9·5

  Northumberland

  4,021

  538

  13·4

  4,850

  688

  14·2

  Nottinghamshire

  13,559

  1,532

  11·3

  12,445

  1,446

  11·6

  Oxfordshire

  6,440

  790

  12·3

  7,011

  986

  14·1

  Shropshire

  5,199

  766

  14·7

  4,951

  701

  14·2

  Somerset

  4,752

  578

  12·2

  5,033

  555

  11·0

  Staffordshire

  11,312

  1,778

  15·7

  11,608

  2,164

  18·6

  Suffolk

  5,591

  408

  7·3

  5,951

  632

  10·6

  Surrey

  11,497

  1,215

  10·6

  11,885

  1,320

  11·1

  Warwickshire

  5,534

  502

  9·1

  5,684

  681

  12·0

  278
  the resumption of power by a military dictatorship. It strongly urged the Nigerian military authorities to re-establish democratic institutions.

  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 17 November,we are now consulting with our partners in the European Union on what further actions we should take in response to the new military takeover.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of fire calls in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 for each fire authority area and in total; if he will identify the number of hoax calls in each year on a similar basis; and if he will express hoax calls as a percentage of total calls.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information for fire calls attended by local authority fire brigades is shown in the table.
  279

  1991

  19921

  Total fire calls

  Malicious false alarms

  Per cent. malicious of all calls

  Total fire calls

  Malicious false alarms

  Per cent. malicious of all calls

  West Sussex

  8,035

  655

  8·2

  8,635

  687

  8·0

  Wiltshire

  5,960

  661

  11·1

  6,982

  737

  10·6

  England-Met

  334,982

  68,809

  20·5

  335,486

  71,132

  21·2

  Greater Manchester

  58,439

  13,191

  22·6

  57,306

  11,972

  20·9

  Merseyside

  39,689

  6,562

  16·5

  34,286

  6,451

  18·8

  South Yorkshire

  19,079

  3,853

  20·2

  19,527

  4,630

  23·7

  Tyne and Wear

  30,228

  6,891

  22·8

  32,628

  6,949

  21·3

  West Midlands

  41,727

  9,398

  22·5

  44,199

  10,747

  24·3

  West Yorkshire

  38,075

  7,164

  18·8

  41,521

  7,999

  19·3

  Greater London

  107,745

  21,750

  20·2

  106,019

  22,384

  21·1

  Wales

  42,018

  7,402

  17·6

  45,120

  9,709

  21·5

  Clwyd

  5,475

  733

  13·4

  5,677

  1,024

  18·0

  Dyfed

  3,816

  559

  14·6

  4,231

  806

  19·0

  Gwent

  6,033

  1,409

  23·4

  7,246

  2,109

  29·1

  Gwynedd

  3,268

  258

  7·9

  3,355

  309

  9·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,487

  1,843

  19·4

  9,467

  2,160

  22·8

  Powys

  1,061

  94

  8·9

  1,130

  120

  10·6

  South Glamorgan

  6,575

  1,279

  19·5

  7,222

  1,638

  22·7

  West Glamorgan

  6,303

  1,227

  19·5

  6,792

  1,543

  22·7

  Northern Ireland

  29,425

  3,844

  13·1

  26,568

  3,397

  12·8

  Scotland

  104,082

  18,478

  17·8

  104,935

  22,509

  21·5

  Strathclyde

  55,973

  11,370

  20·3

  58,295

  16,349

  28·0

  Highland and Islands

  4,932

  394

  8·0

  4,565

  346

  7·6

  Grampian

  6,400

  613

  9·6

  6,611

  616

  9·3

  Tayside

  7,619

  1,023

  13·4

  8,133

  1,136

  14·0

  Lothian and Borders

  17,245

  3,206

  18·6

  15,540

  2,107

  13·6

  Fife

  5,710

  997

  17·5

  6,011

  1,108

  18·4

  Central

  4,067

  592

  14·6

  3,869

  567

  14·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,136

  283

  13·2

  1,911

  255

  13·3

  1Provisional.

  Police Equipment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are laid down by his Department in respect of being informed of police equipment that is either lost or stolen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The loss or theft of police equipment is a matter for individual police forces and authorities. The Home Office would not become involved unless the scale of such losses was such as to call into question management procedures or the efficiency of the force in question. Nor has the Home Office any plans to introduce monitoring of losses of police equipment.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police inquiries into the Carl Bridgewater convictions and the outcome in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since the conviction in 1979 of those concerned, there have been seven police inquiries into the case, involving four separate police forces, as follows:

  Police force

  1980 and 1981

  Cheshire Constabulary

  1983, 1984 and 1985

  Greater Manchester Police

  1986

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  1991

  Merseyside Police

  280
  Following the inquiries by Warwickshire constabulary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), then Home Secretary, decided in 1987 to refer to the Court of Appeal the convictions of Michael and Vincent Hickey and James Robinson. Their appeals were dismissed. in 1989.

  None of the other inquiries to which I have referred disclosed grounds to take action in respect of the convictions. As part of our consideration of the latest representations in this case, we are arranging for further police inquiries to be carried out into some of the matters raised.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which dates since 1988 he has received submissions from solicitors representing the men convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater and say what action he has taken in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  Solicitors for those convicted of killing Carl Bridgewater have made a number of submissions to the Home Office since 1988. Those which relate most directly to the allegations of wrongful conviction were made on 17 Septemberr 1990, 7 June 1991, 2 August 1991, 13 August 1991, 17 October 1991, 26 May 1992 and 19 January 1993. The matters raised there were carefully considered but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Home Secretary, announced on 3 February, they provided no grounds for action to be taken in respect of the convictions.
  281
  Further submissions from the solicitors were made on 8 June, 13 July, 10 November and 15 November 1993 and we understand that more are to follow. As part of our consideration of these allegations of wrongful conviction we are arranging for further police inquiries to be carried out into some of the matters raised.

  Parish Constables
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the locations of the 20 pilot schemes for parish constables he intends setting up by Christmas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is for police forces and local communities to decide—through consultation—where the pilot schemes for parish constables should be. A number of forces are currently engaged in such consultation. A further announcement will be made nearer the time about the pilot schemes which are being set up. I am pleased with the progress made so far.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was received by the Metropolitan police from London's professional football clubs for policing services in the season 1992–93 and 1993 to date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the Metropolitan police received £2,076,781 for the 1992–93 season. The amount received so far during the 1993–94 season is £424,515.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation in his next criminal justice Bill that every tenancy for(a) homes and (b) shops contains a condition prohibiting racial harrassment, binding on landlords as well as tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Current landlord and tenant legislation already gives local authorities powers to take action against tenants who racially harass other tenants. The Public Order Act 1986 created a new low-level offence of offensive conduct which is relevant to all forms of harassment. There are no plans to introduce additional legislation.

  The Commission for Racial Equality has produced codes of practice for both rented and non-rented housing, which were approved by Parliament in 1990 and 1992 respectively. These include practical steps to deal with, and pre-empt, racial harassment.

  Police Sirens
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to the Commissioner of Police regarding the use of police sirens in the Metropolitan area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that guidance on the use of sirens is included in the training given to drivers at the Metropolitan police driving school.

  Lunar House
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the backlog of work at Lunar house, Croydon.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for the end of October 1993 on the main areas of work is given in the table.

  Immigration and asylum work items1 in the Immigration and Nationality Department at 31 October 1993

  Number

  Cases in the general immigration caseworking groups2

  22,430

  Cases in the EC caseworking group2

  1,190

  Cases in the asylum and special cases division

  51,400

  Items in the post room and registry3

  12,420

  1Including referred enty clearance applications and appeals awaiting preparation of statements.

  2The majority of these were under consideration or the subject of further inquiries.

  3Mainly passports and letters, being sorted and allocated to caseworkers.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will being forward proposals to make it illegal to wheel-clamp orange badge holders on private car parks or other private land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the consultation paper on wheel-clamping on private land, issued earlier this year, we acknowledged the need to consider the particular position of orange badge holders. In the light of that consultation, we are still considering what action it might be appropriate to take.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current waiting time for consideration of immigration appeals by the immigration appeals tribunals and independent applellate authorities for nationals of each country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The immigration appellate authorities—IAA—list cases for hearing once the parties have indicated readiness to proceed to a hearing. The nationality of the appellant does not affect when a case is heard. The first available hearing date at each of the IAA's centres as at 22 November 1993 is set out in the table:

  Centre

  Long appoinment

  Short appointment

  Hatton Cross, West London

  31 January 1994

  4 January 1994

  Thanet House, London1

  As Hatton Cross

  26 January 1994

  Birmingham

  21 December 1993

  21 December 1993

  Manchester

  15 March 1994

  15 March 1994

  Leeds

  7 February 1994

  17 January 1994

  Glasgow

  March 1994

  February 1994

  1Hearings are offered at Hatton Cross, but where this is not accepted by the appellant, cases are listed at Thanet House for May 1994.

  In proceedings before the immigration appeal tribunal, if leave to appeal is granted, a hearing currently takes place within four weeks of the record of proceedings being prepared by the adjudicator who originally heard the case.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Wigs
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the wearing of wigs by lawyers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The standard of court dress requires wigs to be worn by barristers but not by solicitors.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Queen's Counsel there are; and how many are(a) women, (b) black and (c) Asian.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 1 October 1993 there were 797 Queen's Counsel in private practice, of whom 41 were women. The ethnic origin of applicants for the office of Queen's Counsel was not recorded prior to the autumn of 1991, and the formal records in respect of ethnic origin are therefore incomplete. I believe that on 1 October 1993 there were three black and five Asian Queen's Counsel.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Kinnock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace fail to achieve attendance for the requirement minimum of 26 sittings of their respective benches a year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kinnock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy on the continuation of a magistrate system which includes members of the public from a wide spectrum of occupations and experience; and if he will make it his policy to encourage employers to co-operate with arrangements for their employees to meet the minimum requirements for justices of the peace.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor remains wholeheartedly committed to the concept of summary justice provided by lay people drawn from their local community and from a wide spectrum of backgrounds. In the past, the Lord Chancellor has written to the chairmen of major firms and organisations to encourage them to make employees available to serve as justices; on a local basis, his advisory committees from time to time make similar contacts.

  Mr. Kinnock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of those justices of the peace who have been officially recorded as being unable to meet the annual minimum attendance have signified that their absences were due to pressures of work or inability to secure release from work for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as magistrates; and how many of these people are civil servants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr Kinnock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many civil servants are justices of the peace;
  284
  (2) how many civil servants who are justices of the peace are not allowed 18 days paid leave in order to permit them to fulfill their duties as magistrates;

  (3) what are the civil service grades of those civil servants who are justices of the peace.

  Mr John M. Taylor
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  High Court Judges
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many High Court judges there are; and how many are(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As at 1 November there were 95 High Court judges including six women. The ethnic origin of those appointed as High Court judges has not been recorded in the past, but none is black or Asian.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of the numbers of staff employed in each civil service grade are set out in the table. In column two of the table the total number of staff employed in each grade appears; column three shows the total number of women in each grade.

  Civil Service Grades in Post as at 22 November 1993

  Substantive Grade

  Staff in Post

  Number of Women in Grade

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  Grade 2

  2

  0

  Grade 3

  9

  1

  Grade 4

  5

  0

  Grade 5

  20

  3

  Grade 5 Solicitor

  14

  3

  Grade 6 Senior Principal

  36

  8

  Grade 6 Legal

  35

  13

  Senior Legal Assistant

  9

  2

  Grade 7 Principal

  143

  37

  Grade 7 Legal

  51

  33

  Legal Assistant

  2

  0

  Legal officer

  2

  2

  SEO

  322

  108

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  2

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  0

  HEO

  1,066

  550

  Information Officer

  2

  1

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  0

  Chief Typing Manager

  3

  3

  Librarian

  8

  4

  HEO D

  7

  5

  Administration Trainee

  6

  1

  EO

  2,060

  1,346

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  15

  15

  Typing Manager

  34

  34

  Assistant Librarian

  9

  9

  Support Manager 1

  1

  1

  Support Manager 2

  5

  0

  Support Manager 3

  30

  20

  AO

  4,447

  3,933

  Personal Secretary

  66

  66

  Inerpreter

  2

  2

  AA

  652

  466

  Support Grade Band 1

  156

  95

  285

  Substantive Grade

  Staff in Post

  Number of Women in Grade

  Support Grade Band 2

  1,404

  827

  Typist

  754

  752

  Specialist Typist

  1

  1

  Trainee Typist

  4

  4

  TOTAL

  11,388

  7,806

  In office

  Black

  Asian

  Women

  Full time District Judges (County Court)

  279

  —

  1

  22

  Full time District Judges (Principal Registry of the Family Division of the High Court)

  17

  —

  1

  5

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Poland
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many British companies in the last two years have been refused permission by the Polish authorities to sell their products in Poland; what products these British companies have been seeking to export to Poland; what reasons the Polish authorities have given to justify refusal of permission; and what efforts his Department has made on behalf of these companies to overturn the decision of the Polish authorities.

  Mr. Needham
  No comprehensive record has been kept in the last two years but my Department has received complaints from about half a dozen British companies concerning the application to their products of Polish technical specifications and health and safety regulations. In each case where the company has been unable to resolve the difficulties my Department has intervened in close collaboration with our embassy in Warsaw. One such case has recently been resolved entirely to the satisfaction of the British company concerned; two others are under discussion.

  If the hon. Member would like to discuss any individual case, I should be pleased to hear from her. She will, no doubt, be aware that British exports to Poland have increased very rapidly over the period in question and it would perhaps be surprising if we did not encounter a few difficulties with a legal framework for business which is still evolving.

  Regional Industrial Policy
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on regional industrial policy in each year since 1974–75; and what the expected expenditure will be in the current financial year, at constant prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The exact amount spent on regional industrial policy since 1974–75 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Most of the expenditure under regional industrial policy was on regional development grants and regional selective assistance. Information on the spend of these two schemes in Great Britain since 1974–75 is set out in the table together with expenditure on European Community

  District Judges
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many district judges there are; and how many are(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested, as at 1 November 1993, is as follows. Records are not held on the ethnic origins of all office holders, but the numbers relating to those of black and Asian origin are believed to be as given.

  schemes, regional enterprise grants and some residual spend on investment grants. The information is at 1992–93 constant prices.

  FY

  Total £ million

  1974–75

  1,407·5

  1975–76

  1,606·8

  1976–77

  1,604·6

  1977–78

  1,360·7

  1978–79

  1,458·9

  1979–80

  1,022·9

  1980–81

  1,170·9

  1981–82

  1,319·2

  1982–83

  1,371·3

  1983–84

  924·7

  1984–85

  869·6

  1985–86

  777·0

  1986–87

  1,007·6

  1987–88

  650·3

  1988–89

  653·6

  1989–90

  501·8

  1990–91

  389·6

  1991–92

  290·3

  1992–93

  248·2

  1993–94

  1325·7

  1Estimates provision.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many statutory instruments have been introduced by his Department in each year since accession to the EEC.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Records for statutory instruments introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry since accession to the EC are not readily available before 1979. Accordingly the information requested is provided from that year onwards and is as follows:

  Number of Sls which came into operation

  Year

  Number

  1979

  153

  1980

  201

  1981

  141

  1982

  118

  1983

  94

  1984

  69

  1985

  130

  1986

  92

  1987

  77

  1988

  114

  1989

  132

  1990

  137

  287

  Year

  Number

  1991

  161

  11992

  96

  21993

  91

  1Figures from this year forward include Sls relating to the former Department of Energy. Figures for Sls introduced in earlier years by the Department of Energy are not readily available.

  2 As at 24 November 1993.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations consulted over his proposed deregulation Bill and indicate which were broadly in favour of greater deregulation and which were broadly satisfied with the status quo.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A wide range of organisations are beign consulted on proposals for deregulation including those which will be dealt with in the deregulation Bill. Details of measures to be dealt with in the Bill will be announced when the Bill is published. Since consultations cover a large number of specific issues they cannot be classified as for or against deregulation in general.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will review the terms of reference and the guidelines within which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are required to operate and their operation following in the case of their recent decision on distribution arrangements for perfumes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will institute an investigation into the workings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in order to ensure that mechanisms exist to ensure that no sectional commercial interest is allowed to overrule consumers' interests.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In reaching conclusions as to the public interest, the Monoplies and Mergers Commission are required by schedule 84 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to take into account all matters which appear to them in the particular circumstances to be relevant. These matters include the desirability of maintaining and promoting effective competition in the United Kingdom and promoting the interests of consumers. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans to review these provisions in the Act.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether protectionist trade practices approved by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission fall within the regulations of the competitions policy of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In conducting its inquiries, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission takes account of the possible application of European competition law and discuss this with the EC Commission in specific cases where this seems appropriate. Enforcement of European competition law is a matter for the EC Commission or national courts.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost of each visit to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have made three visits abroad during 1993, one to Brussels, one to Argentina and Mexico, and one to Germany.

  The visit to Brussels was for discussions with EC Commissioners and cost £2,185. The visit to Argentina and Mexico was for trade promotional purposes and cost £27,901. The visit to Germany was to attend the Anglo-German summit and cost £1,071.

  NCM
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade from what date his Department will extend NCM's transitional reinsurance cover.

  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department's transitional reinsurance support to NCM will be extended beyond its originally envisaged expiry date of December 1994 until at least the end of 1997. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 June 1993,Official Report, columns 265–66.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects or localities that have been or will be assisted through the use of objective 2 funds from the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]. The areas at present eligible for European structural funds grants under objective 2 are listed in full in two Commission decisions dated 21 March 1989 and 3 May 1990—Official Journal No. L 112/19 and 206/26. They include areas in central Scotland, the north-east, west Cumbria, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, the west and east midlands, and north-east and south Wales. A very large number of infrastructure, training and other economic development projects have received, or are receiving, objective 2 grant in these areas in the current, 1989–93, programme period.

  Objective 2 areas for the period 1994–96 are under review at present; and the Government put proposals to the Commission in October. A full list of areas proposed is available in the Library of the House. The final decision on these proposals is expected in December.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what share and how much EC objective 2 funding has been allocated to the United Kingdom; and, of this sum, what proportions have now been received or committed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]For the period 1989–93 some 3,200 mecu—1992 prices —has been allocated to the United Kingdom under objective 2. This represents 38 per cent. of the total allocated to this objective. To date, over 85 per cent. of the United Kingdom's allocation has been committed to projects.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Historic Gardens Awards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the applicants for European Community financial assistance under this year's awards for the conservation of gardens of historic value; what were the reasons in each applicable case for a garden not receiving such funding and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The EC pilot projects grant scheme makes awards annually to conservation work within certain themes. The 1993 theme was the conservation of gardens of historic value and the English applicants were:

  Gibraltar

  Gibraltar Botanic Gardens

  Avon

  Royal Victoria Park

  Prior Park

  Buckinghamshire

  Canes

  Hughenden Manor

  Stowe—The Lamport Garden

  Cheshire

  Haughton Hall

  Tushingham Hall

  Cornwall

  Penjerrick

  Heligan

  Prideaux Place

  Cumbria

  Brantwood

  Naworth Castle

  Kirkby Lonsdale, Ruskin's View

  Devon

  Castle Hill

  Aileron

  Hill House Nursery and Garden

  Derbyshire

  Melbourne Hall

  Dorset

  Mapperton

  Essex

  Marks Hall

  Cressing Temple, Walled Garden

  Greater London

  Victoria Embankment Gardens

  Ham House Avenues

  Hogarth House

  York House Gardens, Twickenham

  William Barefoot Gardens, Greenwich

  Priory Gardens, Orpington

  Norwood Grove, Norbury

  The Privy Garden, Hampton Court

  Greater Manchester

  Smithills Hall

  Hampshire

  Laverstoke Park

  Sir George Staunton Country Park

  Dean Garnier Garden, Winchester

  The Wakes, Selbourne

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hanbury Hall

  Hewell Park Garden

  290
  Hertfordshire

  Temple Dinsley

  Humberside

  Burton Constable Hall

  Kent

  Chatham Dock Yard

  Merseyside

  Birkenhead Park

  Sefton Park

  Norfolk

  Norwich Parks

  Elgood Brewery Garden, Wisbech

  North Yorkshire

  Hackfall

  Allerton Park

  Newby Hall

  Harewood House

  St. Saviour's and St. Crux Churchyards, York

  Oxfordshire

  Oxford Botanic Gardens

  Blenheim Park

  Staffordshire

  Hulton Abbey

  Suffolk

  Ickworth Park

  Surrey

  Roysted

  Painshill Park

  Gosden House School, Bramley

  East Sussex

  Exceat Farmhouse, Walled Garden

  Brunswick Square and Royal Pavilion

  Glynde Place

  St. Leonards Subscription Garden

  Herstmonceaux Place

  Great Dixter

  West Sussex

  High Beeches

  Hammerwood Park

  West Dean

  West Yorkshire

  People's Park

  Kirkstall Abbey Monastery Gardens

  Wiltshire

  Hazelbury Manor

  An independent group of experts advises the Commission on the selection of those schemes to be awarded grants; it is not Commission practice to release reasons for non-selection. I congratulate the English applicants chosen by the Commission to receive assistance under the scheme, which were Painshill park, Cobham; Harewood terrace, Leeds; Brantwood garden, Coniston; Hanbury Hall garden, Droitwich; and Prior park, Bath.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether a new director-general of the Sports Council has been appointed; and if he will make a statement.
  291
  Mr. Brooke
  A final decision on the appointment of a new director-general has not yet been made. The selection process is continuing.

  Tourist Attractions
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many visitors were recorded at(a) the Tower of London, (b) Hampton court, (c) the Cutty Sark, Greenwich and (d) the national maritime museum, Greenwich in 1992.

  Mr. Sproat
  The number of visitors in 1992 were:

  Numbers

  Tower of London

  2,235,199

  Hampton Court Palace

  580,440

  Cutty Sark, Greenwich

  304,124

  National Maritime Museum, Greenwich

  550,608

  BBC
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect on the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland of changes in the funding of the BBC.

  Mr. Brooke
  Licence payers in all parts of the United Kingdom will benefit from the licence fee settlement I announced on 4 November, which will allow additional and better programmes.

  The BBC is responsible for deciding how to allocate its revenue under the terms of its present royal charter and licence and agreement.

  Dame Daphne Park
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the qualifications that led to Dame Daphne Park being appointed a governor of the BBC.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is not normal practice to comment on the reasons for appointing particular individuals to public bodies. The role of the BBC board of governors is to protect the public interest, and its membership reflects the experience and diversity of the country at large.

  Arts and Disability
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals the Arts Council has to abolish the arts and disability unit; what advice it received from the Arts Council's arts and disability monitoring committee on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Arts Council intends to integrate the work of the units within the council responsible for implementing strategic policy in the fields of cultural diversity, disability, and women in the arts, with the art form departments. Such structural changes are matters for the Arts Council to decide.

  Cliveden House
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action his Department is taking over preserving Cliveden house; and if he will make a statement.
  292
  Mr. Brooke
  Cliveden is owned by the National Trust. I understand that the house, which is let as an hotel, has been admirably restored and refurbished by Cliveden Hotel Ltd., which has invested some £10 million in bringing this fine building to its present excellent condition. Sympathetic new uses such as this are essential to bring in the resources needed to preserve the best of our heritage.

  Some other parts of the estate require major works and for these the National Trust has launched a public appeal. Works to the clock tower have been included in the priority repair programme agreed between English Heritage and the National Trust for 1993–94 and English Heritage expects to offer substantial grant aid. The National Trust proposes to carry out further works as soon as the success of its appeal allows.

  Bush House
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for National Heritage what consultations have been carried out between his Department and the BBC in respect of the BBC World Service lease at its headquarters in Bush house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. This is not a matter on which the Department of National Heritage would expect to be consulted.

EDUCATION

  Schools, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency that(a) are grant maintained, (b) have had grant-maintained status approved which is yet to come into force and (c) have not yet sought grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on schools by parliamentary constituency is not collected centrally. Relevant information held by the department for schools in Essex local education authority has been placed in the Library.

  The benefits of self-government are becoming increasingly clear to governors and parents. This is particularly true in Essex, which already has 114 self-governing schools—more than any other LEA in the country.

  Students
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he has taken since incorporation of further education colleges to ensure that student financial support matches the needs of students.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authorities have the power under the Education Act 1962 to make discretionary awards to students on courses of further education in the light of local needs and priorities. They also have duties and powers under the Education Act 1944, as amended by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, to provide free transport and assistance with travel costs to post-16 students.

  My right hon. Friend has made it a condition of grant that colleges in the further education sector may not charge tuition fees to home and EC students aged 16 to 18 on

  293
  full-time courses. Many colleges operate concessionary fees for other students. Access funds are disbursed by colleges to help eligible full-time students who are in particular financial difficulties.

  Students may apply for career development loans from the Employment Department; and those in employment can look to their employers for assistance.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the drop-out rate from further education colleges; and what representations he has received that dropping out is being caused by financial constraints on support for meals and travel.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on drop-out rates is not currently collected centrally for colleges in the FE sector. The Audit Commission and Ofsted report "Unfinished Business" estimated that for schools and colleges the drop-out rate for 16 to 18-year-olds on full-time courses was 13 per cent. on courses leading to academic qualifications and 18 per cent. on those leading to vocational qualifications.

  We are seeking to reduce drop-out from colleges in a variety of ways: by providing more information to young people to help them make the right choices at 16; by improving the range and choice of courses available, including new GNVQs and NVQs which offer high-quality alternatives to GCE A levels; and by ensuring that funding mechanisms provide an incentive to colleges not only to recruit but to retain more students.

  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters about the duties and powers of LEAs to provide free transport and assistance with travel costs to post-16 students. He has told LEAs that he expects them to monitor the effects of transport policies on participation rates overall and that he will himself keep this aspect of the new arrangements under review.

  LEAs' responsibilities to provide free meals do not extend to students in colleges in the new FE sector.

  Examination League Tables
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reasons the school examination league tables, published on 17 November, include information about special schools, including those for children with severe learning difficulties.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Special schools are included in secondary school performance tables on the grounds that parents have a right to information on any relevant results, and on rates of unauthorised absence. In successive consultation exercises, last year and this, no organisation representing special needs groups argued that they should be excluded.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the precise cost of collating the information published on 17 November about school examination results and unauthorised attendance; and on what dates this information was dispatched from his Department to(a) the national press, (b) schools and (c) local education authorities.
  294
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of collecting, processing and collating the comparative information on school and college performance published on 17 and 24 November is estimated at £458,000. The data on secondary school performance were sent to the national press on 15 November, under embargo until 1 am on 17 November, so that they could make the necessary preparations for publication; and to schools and local education authorities on 16 November so that they would receive it on the day in question.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of providing nursery places for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost would depend on the types of provision, the balance between full-time and part-time attendance and the numbers of parents who chose to take up a nursery place. Currently, some 53 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in England are in some form of full-time or part-time schooling. We estimate that the average annual recurrent unit cost for a full-time equivalent pupil aged under five in the maintained sector is £1,770 at 1993–94 prices. In addition, there would be capital and teacher training costs.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response he has made to the report on sustainable development prepared by the Education for Sustainability Forum as part of Her Majesty's Government's consultation on the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department is taking account of the education for Sustainability Forum's consultation document "The Role of Education for Sustainability" when preparing its contribution to the Government's overall strategy for sustainable development.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police Evidence
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to simplify the procedure by which the police have to present evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recently announced his acceptance of all 16 of the recommendations of a report by outside consultants designed to reduce and streamline police paperwork. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office are now working together to implement these recommendations.

  Cautions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice has been given to police authorities about cautions by his Department and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Solicitor-General
  The police exercise their discretion to caution in accordance with guidelines issued
  295
  by the Home Office and administer the vast majority of cautions without reference to the Crown Prosecution Service whose function is limited to advising the police on individual cases of difficulty.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding legal proceedings against Asil Nadir.

  The Attorney-General
  Mr. Asil Nadir remains in northern Cyprus with which the United Kingdom does not have extradition arrangements. There is a warrant for his arrest should he return. Interpol has been notified.

  War Crimes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about progress under the War Crimes Act 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is presently considering interim reports from the Metropolitan police relating to several individuals and further inquiries are being made. Inquiries are not yet complete and the question of possible prosecution cannot be considered until they are concluded. In accordance with the requirements of the War Crimes Act 1991, my consent would be sought in any case where the Crown Prosecution Service considers that proceedings are appropriate.

  "Juliette"
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General what prosecutions have been brought in connection with the publication of the book "Juliette" by the Marquis de Sade.

  The Solicitor-General
  No prosecutions have been brought.

HEALTH

  Steroids
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Medicines Control Agency's enforcement policy relating to the investigation of reports of the illegal sale or supply of anabolic steroids.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the policy of the Medicines Control Agency to investigate all reports concerning the illegal sale or supply of all drugs including anabolic steroids and to take legal action where it is appropriate to do so.

  Hospital activity: Beds and finished consultant episodes

  Specialty group

  Available beds

  Per 1,000 population

  Finished consultant episodes

  Per 1,000 Population

  All specialties

  231,000

  4·8

  9,636,000

  199·2

  Acute

  113,000

  2·3

  7,775,000

  160·7

  Geriatric

  40,000

  0·8

  529,000

  10·9

  General and acute1

  153,000

  3·2

  17,770,000

  160·6

  Mental illness

  47,000

  1·0

  234,000

  4·8

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to collect statistics on the number of fires, fire deaths and fire injuries caused by cigarettes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on fires caused by smokers' materials is already collected and published in the Home Office statistics bulletins by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Copies of the bulletins are available in the Library.

  Still Births
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been done into the causes of stillbirths in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national perinatal epidemiology Unit—NPEU—which is recognised both nationally and internationally as a centre for research on maternity and perinatal services, is funded by the Department of Health through its research and development division—RDD. The NPEU's publication "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" lists research carried out into many aspects of care during pregnancy including circumstances where stillbirth occurs. A copy is available in the Library.

  The nationwide confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy is currently collecting its first full year of data. The first annual report on the work of the inquiry was published on 15 November 1993, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospital Administrators
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on(a) salary levels and (b) 1994 pay increases for top hospital administrators.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service salaries are set at levels sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of the right calibre within what is affordable. The Government are committed to delegating responsibility for pay to local managers within robust controls on total pay costs, and to establishing closer links between rewards and performance.

  In 1994–95 pay increases will need to be funded from within efficiency improvements.

  Treatment Activity
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list for 1992–93 the number of beds and patient activity by broad specialty or departmental group;

  (2) if she will list for 1992–93 the number of beds and patient activity per thousand population by broad specialty group.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  297

  Specialty group

  Available beds

  Per 1,000 population

  Finished consultant episodes

  Per 1,000 population

  Mental handicap

  18,000

  0·4

  56,000

  1·2

  Maternity

  13,000

  0·3

  1,042,000

  21·5

  1 Excludes "Well Babies", includes geriatric cases.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by(a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in ophthalmology;

  (2) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in haematology;

  (3) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in vascular surgery;

  (4) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in ear, nose and throat;

  (5) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in neonatology;

  (6) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in urology;

  (7) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in obstetrics;

  (8) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in genito-urinary medicine;

  (9) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in pain management;

  (10) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a) regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in general surgery;

  (11) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and
  298
  (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in dermatology;

  (12) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in gynaecology;

  (13) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in oral surgery;

  (14) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in paediatrics;

  (15) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in rheumatology;

  (16) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in general practice maternity;

  (17) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in general-geriatric medicine;

  (18) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patient and (z) in-patient treatment in endoscopies;

  (19) if she will list by year for the last five years and this year to date and by (a)regional health authority and (b) district health authority (i) the average waiting times and (ii) the year-end waiting list for (y) out-patients and (z) in-patient treatment in (i) trauma and (ii) orthopaedics.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times for out-patient treatment is not currently available centrally. The information available centrally on waiting times for in-patient treatment by district health authority and specialty is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", published twice yearly since 1987. Copies are available in the Library.

  Perinatal Epidemiology Unit
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when her Department will reach a decision about a new contract for the national perinatal epidemiology unit; how this will take account of the recommendation by the second report of the Health Select Committee of Session 1991–92,
  299
  on "Maternity Services", HC 29, that funding be guaranteed for sufficient time to ensure the recruitment and retention for the NPEU of high quality staff;

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to set in train the recruitment of a new director of the national perinatal epidemiology unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's director of research and development wrote to the national perinatal epidemiology unit—NEPU—on 24 November, stating that he had started discussions with Sir David Weatherall, Regius Professor of Medicine at the university of Oxford, about the appointment of a new director of the NPEU. The firm expectation following this is that the Department will let a new contract with the university of Oxford in regard to the NPEU.

  The Department fully intends to follow the recommendation by the second report of the Health Select Committee of Session 1991–92, on maternity services, HC 29.

  Low-income Scheme
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review into the health benefits—low—incomescheme was begun; when it was ended; and when its conclusions will be made public.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many AGI forms are administered each year; and how much per form is spent on administration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The review was announced to Parliament on 22 May 1991,Official Report, column 530. Since then, a number of internal measures to improve operational efficiency have been implemented, including the transfer of the responsibility for operating the scheme to the Prescription Pricing Authority, a special health authority within the national health service. Other proposals remain under consideration including those resulting from an examination of forms and leaflets. Any changes to the scheme itself will be announced if and when it is agreed that they should be implemented. The NHS low-income scheme remains an essential part of Government policy ensuring that only those who can afford to pay NHS charges are required to do so. In 1992–93, 1.129 million claims to the scheme were processed at an average administrative cost of £6.30 per claim.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place to allow immediate payment for emergency dental treatment for those on low incomes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Recipients of income support, family credit, or holders of national health service low-income scheme AG2 certificates for full remission of NHS charges do not pay for NHS dental treatment. Remission certificates are valid for a period of six months and may be sought as a protection by those on a low income before the need for treatment arises. These arrangements ensure that those who cannot afford to contribute towards the cost of dental services should not be deterred from seeking treatment at any time.

  Pharmacies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure of average population per pharmacy in each EC country.
  300
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available information is contained in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 6 May 1993 at column 221.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average earnings of general practitioners, broken down by the smallest available geographical area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about the geographical distribution of general practitioners' earnings is not available. The intended average net income for an unrestricted principal providing general medical services in Great Britain in 1993–94 is £40,610. Payments for achieving higher levels of coverage for childhood immunisations and cervical screening, and for administering Hib meningitis vaccine are made in addition. These are currently estimated to add £3,200 to the average GP's remuneration in 1993–94.

  Footwear
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the cost to the national health service of treating patients with problems that could have been prevented by healthy footwear.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by her Department in relation to children's footwear.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health Education Authority's publication "Birth to Five", copies of which are available in the Library, includes a section on feet and first shoes. The book is given free to all first-time mothers in England.

  Geriatric Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the latest available figures for the numbers of geriatric(a) units, (b) beds and (c) consultants;

  (2) what plans she has to increase the number of geriatric units, beds and consultants.

  Mr. Bowis
  The provision of such facilities and services are a matter for local health authorities who have the responsibility for assessing and meeting local health needs.

  Specialist Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the correlation between the degree of specialisation of consultants and the levels of morbidity and mortality in their patients following treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Confidential audit work supported' by the Department of Health, and international studies, indicate that consultants with specialist skills and experience achieve better outcomes, bearing in mind that specialised consultants may need to deal with more complex problems.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1989–90 the percentage of women invited for breast screening who attended, by regional health authority.
  301
  Mr. Sackville
  The breast screening programme is achieving its average uptake target rate of 70 per cent. We do not have central statistics for 1990–91 but unvalidated data are available from the national health service breast screening programme. Validated central figures are currently available only for the year 1991–92. Both are shown in the table.

  Percentage uptake rate

  Regional Health Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  England

  71

  71

  Northern

  75

  75

  Yorkshire

  68

  74

  Trent

  76

  77

  East Anglian

  74

  81

  North West Thames

  60

  58

  North East Thames

  60

  61

  South East Thames

  70

  71

  South West Thames

  70

  67

  Wessex

  76

  78

  Oxford

  81

  77

  South Western

  69

  74

  West Midlands

  69

  72

  Mersey

  73

  69

  North Western

  74

  73

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities and trusts have chief executives who are foreign nationals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Suicides
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets she has set to decrease the suicide rate.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to "The Health of the Nation, A Strategy for Health in England", Cm 1986, published in July 1992.

  Perioperative Death
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that all consultants who could take part in the national confidential inquiry into perioperative death are required to do so.

  Mr. Sackville
  We strongly support the participation of all clinicians in medical audit and in national confidential inquiries, but to be effective we believe that this must be done on a voluntary basis. All surgeons and anaesthetists are encouraged by their respective royal colleges to take part in the national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths.

  Physicians
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure for the number of practising physicians per 1,000 of population in each EC country.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As at 30 September 1992, there were 1·6 practising physicians per 1,000 of population in England. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the 302
  Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Equivalent information for other European Community countries is not available.

  Consultants' Hours
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures available for the number of hours consultants worked per week, on their feet, on call and total.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Charges
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the items for which recipients are charged in the NHS and give the amounts raised in each category.

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

  Charged National Health Service items and revenue from charges in England 1992–93

  Service

  Charge Revenue

  Family Health Services Prescriptions

  242·0

  Family Health Services Dental Treatment

  394·8

  All NHS sight tests are free of charge. People who are entitled to help with the cost of spectacles receive this in the form of a spectacle voucher; the sale of spectacles is always a private transaction between patient and practitioner, even when an NHS voucher is used. Information about hospital prescriptions, the hospital eye service, and hospital orthotic services is not available centrally.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the results of her Department's investigations into the case of a young mother who contracted hepatitis B while undergoing a caesarian operation at Whipps Cross hospital, Leyton; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  An investigation is being carried out jointly by Forest healthcare national health service trust and Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority with advice from the communicable disease surveillance centre. The hon. Member may wish to contact Lord Jenkin of Roding, the trust chairman, for details.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the turnover of each NHS trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total income of first and second wave trusts in England for 1992–93 will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the start-up grant for NHS trusts is calculated;

  (2) what guidance she has issued to shadow NHS trusts on the use of their start-up grants.
  303
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The amount allocated for top-sliced funding to meet start-up costs is divided on an equal basis between successful trusts in each wave. The uses towards which start-up costs may be put are set out in letters from the national health service management executive notifying the shadow trust of the amount to be allocated.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts(a) met and (b) failed to achieve a 6 per cent. return on assets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  According to 1992–93 annual accounts 106 national health service trusts have made a pre-interest rate of return of 6 per cent. or greater. Fifty

  National health service staff employed in each region (whole-time equivalents)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  53,610

  52,970

  53,110

  51,800

  Yorkshire

  58,060

  58,320

  58,470

  57,800

  Trent

  75,280

  75,650

  75,810

  73,910

  East Anglia

  31,020

  31,490

  31,770

  31,120

  North West Thames

  51,100

  50,910

  50,170

  49,330

  North East Thames

  66,300

  66,440

  66,540

  63,420

  South East Thames

  59,690

  60,220

  59,940

  58,520

  South West Thames

  43,080

  42,090

  42,310

  44,800

  Wessex

  43,750

  44,410

  44,940

  43,230

  Oxford

  33,040

  33,540

  32,670

  32,860

  South Western

  51,050

  51,900

  52,770

  52,410

  West Midlands

  83,570

  83,840

  83,980

  85,160

  Mersey

  41,660

  40,610

  40,040

  39,370

  North Western

  71,950

  70,780

  71,890

  70,400

  SHAs and others

  24,020

  24,980

  29,880

  35,870

  England total

  787,170

  788,140

  794,280

  789,990

  Notes:

  1. Some totals for 1990 and 1991 differ from those given in my reply on 20 November 1992 at column 435 where the medical and dental figures were at that time provisional and have now been revised.

  2. The validation of the 1992 data for ambulance staff uncovered an error in the statistics for ambulance staff in Northern region in 1991. The error has been corrected in this table and so staff totals for 1991 differ from figures previously published.

  3. "SHAs and others" includes those in special health authorities, family health services authorities and other statutory authorities. Staff in special hospitals are included in "SHAs and others" from 1991 onwards.

  4. The total number of staff given includes both medical and non-medical staff but excludes locum doctors and agency nurses.

  5. All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  6. Whole-time equivalents are calculated by aggregating the total number of hours worked by staff in a grade and dividing by the standard hours for that grade. In this way, numbers of part-time staff are converted into an equivalent number of whole-time staff.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure that adequate supplies of influenza vaccine are being made available to doctors in(a) the north-western region and (b) Chorley.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has kept in close touch with influenza vaccine manufacturers who are producing additional supplies to replace those which did not gain a licence. The manufacturers have said that they intend to complete delivery of all outstanding orders no later than 7 December.

  Bromley DHA
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much of the HIV/AIDS funds was ring-fenced for Bromley district health authority for 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if the relevant accounts have been published and audited;

  (2) what are the South East Thames regional health authority South East Thames regional health authority
  304
  NHS trusts have made a pre-interest rate of return of less than 6 per cent. The rate of return is calculated as the percentage that operating surplus bears to the average relevant net assets.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of NHS staff employed in each region for each of the last four years.

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

  HIV/AIDS funds budgets for each year since 1991–92; and what proportion of the SETRHA HIV/AIDS funds went to each of the district health authorities;

  (3) when the 1991–92 and 1992–93 Bromley district health authority's overall accounts were published and audited.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested has been published in the AIDS (Control) Act reports for South East Thames regional health authority, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The external auditor cert:ified the accounts of Bromley health authority on 30 October 1992 and 29 October 1993 for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. The accounts are made pub]Iicly available following the audit certification.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the names of the members of Bromley district health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairmanship of Bromley health authority is vacant due to the recent death of Mr. Alan Cumming.

  At the next meeting of the district health authority on 14 December, the members will select an acting chairman from among the non-executive members.
  305
  The non-executive members are Mr. C. Ilsley, Mrs. E. Giles, Ms M. Theobald and Dr. R. Kirby.

  The executive members are Ms C. Perry, Mr. P. Lloyd, Mr. K. Barton, Mr. R. Lorimer and Dr. J. Spilby.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken to monitor the impact of the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant in the independent sector on domiciliary care; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what mechanisms exist to monitor local authorities' compliance with the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant for domiciliary care in the independent sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  Prior to 1993, all the resources transferred from the Department of Social Security to social services departments, via the community care transitional grant, went to the independent sectors. Local authorities are required to spend at least 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element of the special transitional grant on independent sector community care services. We have established an extensive programme of monitoring and evaluation which is considering all the key aspects of the implementation of the community care reforms. The district audit service will verify compliance with the requirement.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing those district health authorities that are over their capitation targets indicating(a) the percentage that they are over capitation and (b) the cash amount that this represents of current budgets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information for 1993–94 has been placed in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners' surgeries there are in Liverpool, South Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens and Wirral health authorities; how many of these are single general practitioner's practices; and what is the average list size of practices in each authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Family services health authority

  Number of practices

  Number of single handed practices

  Average list size

  Liverpool

  103

  41

  2,041

  Sefton

  55

  21

  2,010

  St. Helens and

  Knowsley

  77

  26

  2,034

  Wirral

  68

  17

  1,874

  The data relate to April 1993.
  The practice information provided relates to the number of partnerships. Some of these partnerships may practise from more than one surgery.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have moved from working outside London to inner London under the provisions of "Making London Better".
  306
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data are not available centrally showing the movement of general practitioners from one family health services authority to another. It is too early to assess the impact of "Making London Better" on GP manpower. Available information on the numbers of unrestricted GPs in the 12 complete FHSAs which fall wholly or partly within the London initiative zone as at 1 April 1993 is shown in the table:

  FHSA

  Unrestricted GPs

  Brent and Harrow

  272

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  372

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  189

  Barking and Havering

  182

  Camden and Islington

  218

  City and East London

  355

  Enfield and Haringey

  277

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  225

  Greenwich and Bexley

  213

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  419

  Croydon

  160

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  323

  TOTAL

  3,205

  Sight Tests
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the costs to optometrists of carrying out a GOS sight test in 1992; and what was the GOS sight test fee paid to optometrists for the corresponding period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has recently received a report commissioned by the staff side of Whitley committee C in support of their claim for an increase in the level of the national health service sight test fee. This report, which we are now studying, suggests that optometrists' unit costs in 1992 were £18·42 per sight test. The NHS sight test fee was £.12·75 in 1992.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency admissions have been made through accident and emergency units at the Royal Liverpool university hospital, Broadgreen hospital, Fazakerley hospital, and Whiston hospital during(a) April 1992 to April 1993 and (b) April 1993 to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the relevant national health service trusts for details.

  Registered Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals to registered homes tribunals have been heard in each year since the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984, and what were(a) the categories of case/section of the Act which appellants appeared, (b) whether the hearings concerned care, nursing homes, or joint registered homes and (c) the outcome of hearings.

  Mr. Bowis
  The numbers of appeals heard by registered homes tribunals in each year since they began to operate in 1985 were:
  307

  Number

  1985

  11

  1986

  36

  1987

  26

  1988

  30

  1989

  25

  1990

  26

  1991

  32

  1992

  33

  The further information requested by the hon. Member could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered homes have been deregistered since the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984; in each year how many of those were(a) charitable or not-for-profit homes, (b) private care homes, (c) private nursing homes and (d) joint registration homes; and under which provisions of the Act the deregistration took place.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not hold information about the numbers of homes which have been deregistered.

  Oxendon House
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with Bedfordshire county council about the future of Oxenden house, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 November 1993, c. 136]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply which should have read:
  "The Department has been kept informed about recent developments in relation to Bedfordshire county council's children's home, Oxendon house. I understand that the acting principal of the home has been arrested by the police and that four other members of staff have been suspended. Following advice from the social services inspectorate, the county council is conducting an investigation into allegations of inappropriate therapies and restraint techniques and the general culture of the home. Meanwhile the home has been closed, the children relocated and 45 members of staff have been given leave of absence.
  The social services inspectorate is continuing to monitor the situation."

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the United Kingdom aid budget the Government plan to give to non-governmental organisations in the next two years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The policy of enhancing the role that NGOs play in delivering our aid will continue. I cannot anticipate the public expenditure plans that will be announced tomorrow.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Overseas Development Administration is supporting the work of non-governmental organisations in helping to meet the long-term needs of the poorest communities in developing countries.
  308
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992–93 the ODA gave grants totalling over £77 million to support the long-term development programmes of British non-governmental organisations in their efforts to alleviate poverty among the poorest groups in developing countries.

  Aid Spending
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations have been received by his Department urging him to increase aid spending to 0·7 per cent. of national income.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Many hon. Members have written to Ministers.

  Bosnia
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to help the victims of the war in Bosnia during the winter.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government have committed over £152 million for aid to victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We also contribute substantially to the Sarajevo airlift and through our 2,300 troop contribution to the United Nations protection forces.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has received of the number of refugees from Burundi into neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to latest estimates we have received from the United Nations, a total of some 700,000 refugees have fled Burundi—including 375,000 into Rwanda, 245,000 into Tanzania and 50,000 in Zaire.

  World Bank (Loans)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what evaluation studies have been undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration of the impact and effectiveness of World bank project loans and structural adjustment programmes; which non-governmental organisations have been consulted in these studies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what evaluation studies have been done by the Overseas Development Administration of World bank project loans and structural adjustment programmes; which non-governmental oganisations were consulted; and what measures are being taken to forward these reports to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee or the executive director of the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Evaluations of completed World bank projects are the responsibility of the bank's independent operations evaluation department. Summaries of evaluation reports will be among the expanded list of documents to be made publicly available under the bank's revised disclosure of information policy.

  The ODA has produced a number of evaluations where we have co-financed with the bank. Details of how reports or summaries can be obtained are set out in ODA' s "Catalogue of Evaluation Studies", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  World Bank Projects
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what evaluations were made of the environmental effects and effects on indigenous peoples of the World bank-funded Pangue dam project in Chile by the Overseas Development Administration; what were the results; what guidance was given to the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank as to voting on the project; and how the United Kingdom executive director voted;

  (2) what evaluations were conducted by the Overseas Development Administration concerning the displacement effects of the World bank's Daguangba Hainan project in China; what were the results; which local groups were consulted; what guidance was given to the United Kingdom executive director as to voting; and how the United Kingdom executive director voted;

  (3) what studies were conducted by the Overseas Development Administration on the environmental effects of the World bank-funded National Thermal Power Corporation's project in India; what were the results; which groups were consulted; what guidance was given to the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank as to voting on the issue; and how the United Kingdom executive director voted;

  (4) what environmental studies were conducted on the Kureimat thermal power plant in Egypt by the Overseas Development Administration; what were the results of any such study; which groups were consulted in the evaluation; what advice was given to the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank as to voting on the issue; and how the United Kingdom executive director voted;

  (5) what studies were conducted of social consequences and displacement of population by the Overseas Development Administration on the Ertan hydroelectric plant in China; what were the results of any such study; which local groups were consulted; what guidance on voting in respect of the plant was given to the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank; and how the United Kingdom executive director voted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA does not commission studies of individual project proposals presented to the World bank's board of directors for approval except where we are considering co-financing. This has not arisen in the cases specified.

  Project appraisal reports and such supporting documents as summary environmental assessments which are sent to the board are reviewed by our executive director's office and, on a selective basis—mainly adjustment operations or environmentally sensitive projects—within ODA. Comments received from time to time from interested NGOs are taken into account. It is not our practice to reveal instructions to our executive director, nor to disclose the position he takes in board discussions, the proceedings of which are confidential.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the results of the World bank studies of the Narmada dam project in India initiated at the time that the loan was cancelled.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A number of environmental and hydrological studies which were initiated before cancellation of the balance of the bank loan for the Sardar Sarovar dam project in the Narmada valley, India, were financed 310
  under a technical assistance grant from ODA to the bank. The Indian authorities have recently agreed that these reports can be made available publicly. A set of the reports is being placed in the Library of the House. We have not yet seen other studies arising from the action programme agreed between the Indian authorities and the bank in October 1992.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what World bank projects are currently being evaluated by the Overseas Development Administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA's evaluation unit is not currently undertaking any evaluation of completed bank projects.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies have been conducted by(a) the Overseas Development Administration and (b) the World bank on the Pak Mun World bank project; what were the results of such studies; which social and environmental experts from the area were consulted; what advice was given to the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank in respect of voting on the project; and how the United Kingdom executive director voted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have not commissioned any studies of this project. When the World bank's board approved the loan in December 1991, we asked the bank to undertake a mid-term review given the concerns expressed at the time about the environmental impact and resettlement aspects of the project. The board is currently considering the report of a bank mission which concluded that the Thai authorities were complying with agreements reached with the bank on the resettlement and environmental aspects of the project, although much more needed to be done to improve communications with the affected population and NGOs.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank will be attending the non-governmental organisations meeting in Washington on 19 November concerning the environmental impact of the Pak Mun project in Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our executive director was represented at the briefing meeting held in Washington on 19 November when presentations were made by a Thai NGO and academics about the potential environmental impact of the Pak Mun dam.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the United Kingdom executive director has made to the World bank to ensure that energy efficiency should be encouraged in developing countries rather than increasing the number of power plants.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our executive director played a full part in board discussion of a bank policy paper on energy efficiency and conservation in 1992. The report on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association—IDA-10—which was approved by the board
  311
  in January 1993, noted the importance of promoting end-use energy efficiency alongside increases in supply. It also underlined the need for IDA to expand its least cost planning analysis to take account of both demand side and alternative supply side options employing proven technologies in energy conservation and renewable energy sources.

  Policy Information Markers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what are the policy information markers going to consist; and when they will be established.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration's policy information marker system—PIMS—has been operational since 1 October 1993. It is a computer based system which allows ODA's commitments of aid to be marked against one or more of 19 policy markers. The markers include ODA's seven priority objectives already announced by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in her speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 18 October. PIMS will provide a means of closer monitoring of ODA's performance against the objectives set for the aid programme.

  Initial data from PIMS will appear in the ODA section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report 1994.

  Russia
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluations his Department has conducted of the quality of World bank lending to Russia; and what has been the level of lending in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  World bank lending to Russia began in August 1992 with a $600 million rehabilitation loan. In the bank's fiscal year ended June 1993—FY93—commitments totalled $760 million. Approvals in the current year—FY94—include a $610 million loan to the oil sector.

  Further details of the bank's activities are contained in its 1993 annual report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  It is too early to assess the impact of bank lending to Russia, but we have been impressed by the preparatory work they have undertaken in support of its lending programme.

  Arun-3 Project
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies of the social and environmental effects of the Arun-3 project in Nepal have been conducted by the Overseas Development Administration; what were the results and which groups in Nepal were consulted; and what is the current status of the project.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA has made no bilateral financial commitment to the Arun-3 dam project in Nepal, and has commissioned no studies. The Nepalese authorities have prepared an environmental assessment. The World bank, together with other co-financiers,312
  initiated its appraisal of the project in May; and has stated that it intends to disseminate information about the project to NGOs and other interested parties to facilitate informed discussion.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the ODA has given recently to humanitarian crises in the emerging countries of the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Over the last two years we have provided over £8 million in humanitarian assistance to countries of the former Soviet Union. Details are as follows:

  Bilateral aid

  £'000s

  Financial year 1992–93 (expenditure)

  Financial year 1993–94 (commitments to date)

  Armenia

  227

  270

  Azerbaijan (Inc. Nagorno-Karabakh)

  533

  1,541

  Georgia

  498

  456

  Khazakhstan

  —

  33

  Kyrgyzstan

  27

  67

  Russian Federation

  475

  —

  Tajikistan

  100

  140

  Ukraine

  —

  24

  TOTAL

  1,860

  2,531

  United Kingdom share of EC aid

  £'000s

  Calendar 1992

  Calendar 1993 (to date)

  Armenia

  182

  768

  Azerbaijan

  182

  1,088

  Georgia

  —

  934

  Russian Federation

  —

  64

  Tajikistan

  97

  576

  TOTAL

  461

  3,430

  Cyprus
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the per capita income of Greek Cypriots living in southern Cyprus; and what considerations underlie the giving of United Kingdom aid to Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information on the per capita income of the two communities in Cyprus is not available. The figure for Cyprus as a whole was $8,640 in 1991. The considerations underlying our small aid programme to Cyprus are our historical relationship and an even-handed approach towards both communities.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Information
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the statutory provisions which(a) restrict the disclosure of official information and (b) provide legal rights of access to official information.
  313
  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of some 200 statutory provisions which have been identified as restricting the disclosure of official information can be found in the "Open Government" White Paper—Cm 2290—published earlier this year.

  Statutory provisions which provide legal rights of access include: the Data Protection Act 1984; the Access to Personal Files Act 1987; the Education Reform Act 1988; the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988; the Access to Health Records Act 1990; the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985; the Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986; the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act 1988; the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; and the Education (School Records) Regulations 1989.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the amount spent on official hospitality by each Department, including the Prime Minister's Office, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The expenditure on official hospitality by those Departments for which I have responsibility is as follows:

  OPSS

  COI

  £

  £

  1984–85

  17,618

  3,911

  1985–86

  45,707

  4,121

  1986–87

  26,595

  4,802

  1987–88

  13,514

  4,499

  1988–89

  29,775

  2,895

  1989–90

  37,276

  3,267

  1990–91

  32,689

  530

  1991–92

  48,642

  3,187

  1992–93

  45,154

  3,042

  The figures for Office of Public Service and Science include expenditure by the Prime Minister's Office. In addition to the amount shown under OPSS for 1991–92, a further £234,126 was spent in that year in respect of official hospitality for the 1991 economic summit.
  Expenditure by HMSO on official hospitality in 1992 was £15,984. Figures for hospitality were not recorded centrally by HMSO before 1992.
  Expenditure records prior to financial year 1984–85 do not provide information in the form requested.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what instructions have been given to Departments of State concerning requests to them from the Scott inquiry for confidential documentary material.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Departments have been instructed to make available to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry all material upon request, irrespective of classification, and have not been issued with specific instructions concerning requests for classified material.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many magistrates in Lancashire have resigned this year citing as a reason dissatisfaction with the Government's policies on the administration of justice.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total number of resignations in Lancashire this year, less those retiring for reasons of age, has been 40. Only a small proportion of these have given dissatisfaction with the administration of justice as a reason for their resignation.

  British Geological Survey Laboratory
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council concerning the proposed closure of the British geological survey laboratory and office, Aberystwyth;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the quarrying, mining, civil engineering and academic research interests in Wales concerning the proposed closure of the British geological survey laboratory and office, Aberystwyth;

  (3) what representations he has received in relation to the proposed closure of the British geological survey laboratory and office, Aberystwyth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These are matters for the British geological survey—BGS—and the Natural Environment Research Council—NERC—of which the BGS is a constituent part. I have received no representations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Brussels
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will consider proposals for hon. Members to be allowed to visit Brussels more than once each year on parliamentary business up to the maximum of the overall allocated budget; and if he will make a comment.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Parliamentary Broadcasting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will propose to the Select Committee on Broadcasting that the Central Office of Information should supply the live television feed for hon. Members in their offices.

  Mr. Newton
  No purpose would be served by my placing this matter before the Broadcasting Committee at this juncture. As I have explained in my previous answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions, the factors influencing the time scale within which Members can be supplied with the clean feed in their offices are the complexity and cost of the comprehensive cabling exercise involved and their relationship to decisions yet to be taken by the House on the proposed parliamentary data and video network. This remains the case whatever agency or organisation might eventually be employed to carry out the necessary work.

  Child Care
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what is the cost to public funds for arranging for a comprehensive survey of potential demand for a
  315
  parliamentary child care facility; how much Research Services Ltd. is being paid to prepare a questionnaire; to how many people the questionnaire has been sent; and when he hopes to make a statement as to the conclusions.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Following deliberations in the Administration Committee, the Department of Finance and Administration commissioned the preparation and circulation of the questionnaire on parliamentary child care facilities to some 4,100 recipients who work in the parliamentary estate. The Committee expects to report the results of the suvey to the House of Commons Commission early in the new year. For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not appropriate to publish the cost of the exercise.

  Vote Bundle
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if his Committee will send a questionnaire to hon. Members about the Vote bundle to ascertain what use hon. Members make of the Vote bundle, what ideas they may have for improving the service and what suggestions they have for reducing the amount of public money currently spent on the bundle.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  As I mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend's similar question on this matter on 3 November in the last session of Parliament at column 198, the form and content of the Vote bundle remain under review by the Committee. I therefore see no reason for any survey of the kind suggested. Members are, however, always free to submit specific suggestions to the Committee.

  Note Taking
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what are the current restrictions applied to note taking in the Strangers' Gallery.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee has agreed for an experimental period of six months that the taking of informal notes of the proceedings of the House for personal purposes should be allowed in the Strangers' Gallery. These arrangements will not extend to any kind of formal reporting from that Gallery, for which the current prohibition will remain.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Working Allowance
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many current awards of disability working allowance there are; what is the total number of claims for disability working allowance received in the last six months for which statistics are available; how many claims were adjudicated upon in those six months; what proportion of those claims adjudicated in the last six months resulted in an award; and what were the reasons for unsuccessful claims with numbers and percentage for each ground for disallowance.

  Mr. Scott
  As of 31 October 1993 there were 3,176 current awards of disability working allowance.

  The total number of claims for DWA in May to October 1993 was:
  316

  Number

  New claims

  4,688

  Repeat claims

  2,256

  Total

  6,944

  The number of claims adjudicated upon in the last six months is 6,547.
  The proportion of adjudicated claims which resulted in an award is 54·06 per cent.
  The reasons for unsuccessful claims with numbers and percentages for each ground for disallowance in the last six months are in the table.

  Reason

  Number

  Percentage

  Capital exceeds £16,000

  8

  0·26

  Not in remunerative work

  1,108

  36·83

  Income exceeds DWA level

  443

  14·73

  No qualifying benefit

  1,264

  42·02

  Disability test

  4

  0·14

  Other reasons

  181

  6·02

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently claiming disability working allowance; what is the average payment to a person receiving disability working allowance; and how many people were expected to receive disability working allowance at any one time when it was launched.

  Mr. Scott
  There are 3,176 people currently in receipt of disability working allowance. The average payment for October 1993 was £40·63. Our original estimate was that once the benefit was fully established about 50,000 people might be entitled to disability working allowance based on the surveys of disabled people carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Pensions Law Review Committee
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of producing and printing the report of the Pensions Law Review Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Roy Goode.

  Mr. Hague
  The Pensions Law Review Committee—PLRC—report was published as two separate volumes. The cost, which was met by this Department, of producing these volumes to final art work was £73,375. As a priced publication, the printing costs of £42,737 were borne by HMSO and will be recovered from sales via HMSO.

  In addition, a summary version of volume one of the report was produced at a cost of £18,640 and copies of the summary are available free of charge.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) lone mothers and (b) lone fathers were in receipt of social security benefits by type in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefits Agency district in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Benefit Fraud
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the extent of benefit fraud.

  Mr. Hague
  The full extent of social security fraud is not know but ways of producing statistical estimates are being considered by the Benefits Agency. Last year the Benefits Agency caught over 270,000 people defrauding the system which resulted in benefit savings of £558 million.

  Maintenance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the income ceiling at which an absent parent, having met the maintenance payment at 50p in the pound, no longer has to contribute at 25p in the pound.

  Mr. Burt
  The 25 per cent. rate of deduction from assessable income, which applies to income left after the absent parent has met the basic maintenance requirement, applies until a maximum amount is reached. For each child, the maximum additional amount is equivalent to three times the total of the income support personal allowance for the child plus the income support family premium.

  The parent with care of the children may apply to the courts for additional maintenance once the maximum is reached.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made two trips abroad on departmental business during 1993. The details are in the table.

  £

  Event

  Cost to public funds

  World Economic Forum

  735·00

  Meeting with Mme. Veil (the senior French Minister for Social Affairs) in Paris

  160·00

  Suicide
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many suicides he has estimated have occurred in the last five years as a result of decisions taken by his Department about benefit entitlement;

  (2) if he will commission research to establish whether the rate of incidence of suicides is higher among those on benefits and whether suicides have been caused by his Department's benefit decisions.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the reasons for suicides is not collected. There are no plans to commission research on the rate of suicides among people receiving social security benefits.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total sum of money being withheld from women as a result of the suspension of payment of the increased award for invalidity benefit, pending the result of the court case concerning Council directive (EEC) 79/7.

  Mr. Scott
  Benefits Agency records show that around 30,000 women are having increased benefit suspended pending the outcome of this case. Statistics concerning the amount of money involved are not routinely kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what it would cost to introduce a £5 and £10 disregard on income support for parents with care in receipt of maintenance from an absent parent for a child or children but still receiving income support assuming that this involved(a) one third, (b) one half or (c) two thirds of lone parents on income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimates in costs are in the table.

  Cost £ million

  Cost of (a)

  Cost of (b)

  Cost of (c)

  £5 disregard

  90

  130

  170

  £10 disregard

  170

  260

  350

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the number of lone parents in receipt of income support as at February 1993.

  2. Costs given are full year costs and rounded to the nearest £10 million.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of staff and the number of women in post in the Scottish Office and associated departments as at 1 October 1993—but excluding the Scottish prison service—are shown by grade equivalent in the table:

  Grade (and equivalents)

  Women

  Total Staff

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  8

  3

  4

  28

  4

  3

  19

  5

  18

  133

  6

  35

  199

  7

  85

  492

  Senior Executive Officer

  60

  500

  Higher Executive Officer

  294

  995

  Executive Officer

  507

  1,188

  Administrative Officer

  951

  1,396

  Administrative Assistant

  902

  1,408

  Industrial Staff

  18

  491

  TOTAL

  2,877

  6,858

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department operates an equal opportunities policy of recruitment to all departments for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. In common with other civil service employers my departments and agencies have in place equal opportunities policies based on the principle of fair and open competition for recruitment.

  Number of 3 and 4-year-olds attending education authority nursery schools/departments at September

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1989–87

  Scotland

  31,037

  31,531

  32,231

  32,913

  34,411

  36,356

  37,601

  n/a

  38,851

  40,204

  41,785

  43,274

  44,488

  46,144

  Borders

  299

  313

  301

  363

  387

  394

  359

  n/a

  390

  438

  447

  470

  484

  481

  Central

  1,399

  1,512

  1,681

  1,858

  1,960

  2,166

  2,210

  n/a

  2,492

  2,568

  2,744

  2,732

  2,733

  2,818

  Dumfries and Galloway

  253

  257

  266

  247

  271

  287

  316

  n/a

  428

  550

  625

  630

  825

  1,204

  Fife

  3,192

  3,235

  3,280

  3,142

  3,439

  3,805

  3,993

  n/a

  4,193

  4,402

  4,329

  4,388

  4,552

  4,538

  Grampian

  2,233

  2,196

  2,222

  2,244

  2,235

  2,425

  2,433

  n/a

  2,678

  2,985

  3,171

  3,391

  3,867

  4,686

  Highland

  331

  455

  484

  519

  567

  580

  618

  n/a

  617

  645

  622

  730

  835

  891

  Lothian

  6,718

  6,529

  6,795

  6,799

  7,045

  7,477

  7,966

  n/a

  7,965

  8,064

  7,969

  8,457

  8,709

  8,819

  Strathclyde

  14,501

  14,768

  14,841

  15,406

  16,071

  16,793

  17,376

  n/a

  17,551

  17,828

  18,683

  18,911

  18,799

  18,695

  Tayside

  1,841

  1,933

  2,007

  2,014

  2,097

  2,112

  2,136

  n/a

  2,344

  2,516

  2,975

  3,326

  3,357

  3,565

  Orkney

  78

  96

  93

  74

  85

  89

  92

  n/a

  83

  97

  101

  102

  89

  192

  Shetland

  32

  86

  99

  91

  85

  82

  102

  n/a

  110

  1ll

  119

  137

  238

  255

  Western Isles

  160

  151

  162

  156

  169

  146

  0

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Percentage of 3 and 4-year-olds attending education authority nursery schools-departments at September

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Scotland

  22·9

  23·8

  25·6

  27·8

  27·9

  28·0

  25·2

  Borders

  12·2

  12·8

  13·7

  17·1

  17·5

  16·6

  15·2

  Central

  19·3

  21·4

  25·2

  28·8

  29·3

  31·2

  31·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7·0

  7·4

  8·4

  8·0

  8·1

  7·9

  8·7

  Fife

  35·4

  36·3

  38·3

  39·3

  40·8

  42·2

  42·8

  Grampian

  18·2

  18·0

  18·7

  19·4

  18·3

  18·6

  18·6

  Highland

  6·3

  8·5

  9·1

  10·2

  10·7

  10·3

  10·5

  Lothian

  36·0

  36·6

  40·4

  43·0

  43·3

  43·8

  45·3

  Strathclyde

  22·2

  23·2

  24·7

  27·7

  27·8

  27·7

  27·6

  Tayside

  18·5

  20·4

  22·1

  23·2

  23·5

  23·0

  22·6

  Orkney

  16·8

  19·4

  19·3

  14·9

  16·5

  17·9

  18·3

  Shetland

  4·5

  11·7

  13·2

  12·1

  12·1

  11·1

  13·6

  Western Isles

  19·2

  16·8

  18·4

  19·3

  19·7

  16·2

  0·0

  1985–86

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1986–87

  Scotland

  n/a

  30·8

  31·9

  32·2

  33·0

  33·8

  35·4

  Borders

  n/a

  16·6

  18·7

  19·2

  19·5

  19·5

  19·6

  Central

  n/a

  37·8

  39·2

  40·7

  41·4

  40·1

  42·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  n/a

  12·7

  15·8

  17·4

  17·8

  22·4

  33·2

  Fife

  n/a

  48·5

  50·4

  48·4

  47·6

  49·3

  49·7

  Grampian

  n/a

  21·2

  24·0

  25·0

  26·1

  29·0

  34·9

  Highland

  n/a

  11·6

  12·3

  11·8

  13·6

  15·5

  16·9

  Lothian

  n/a

  47·8

  47·9

  44·5

  45·9

  46·9

  47·4

  Strathclyde

  n/a

  29·6

  30·1

  30·7

  30·9

  31·1

  31·3

  Tayside

  n/a

  25·1

  26·5

  31·0

  34·2

  34·9

  37·3

  Orkney

  n/a

  18·3

  20·7

  20·9

  20·4

  16·4

  34·8

  Shetland

  n/a

  17·7

  18·1

  19·3

  20·5

  34·4

  39·2

  Western Isles

  n/a

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of revenue support grant allocated to each district council in

  Nursery Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of children aged three and four years were in receipt of nursery education in each region and islands area of Scotland in each school year from 1978–79.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. The numbers of three and four-year-old pupils shown are those attending education authority nursery schools and departments as at September in each school year. The percentages shown are based on the relevant mid-year estimate of the three and four-year-old population.

  Scotland in the current financial year on a per capita basis; if he will explain the formulae applied in calculation of these grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table. An explanation of how the amount of RSG
  321
  payable to each authority in 1993–94 was determined is set out in the report to the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1993, copies of which are in the Library.

  1993–94 RSG 1Per Capita £

  Berwickshire

  112·89

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  104·32

  Roxburgh

  116·04

  Tweeddale

  100·78

  Clackmannan

  143·29

  Falkirk

  130·11

  Stirling

  162·54

  Annandale and Eskdale

  100·99

  Nithsdale

  112·66

  Stewartry

  98·10

  Wigtown

  136·10

  Dunfermline

  121·12

  Kirkcaldy

  127·51

  North East Fife

  122·71

  Aberdeen

  145·41

  Banff and Buchan

  118·48

  Gordon

  112·44

  Kincardine and Deeside

  99·49

  Moray

  126·92

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  103·12

  Caithness

  131·37

  Inverness

  102·12

  Lochaber

  150·65

  Nairn

  102·14

  Ross and Cromarty

  162·06

  Skye and Lochalsh

  186·57

  Sutherland

  166·31

  East Lothian

  135·56

  Edinburgh

  177·42

  Midlothian

  133·34

  West Lothian

  137·70

  Argyll and Bute

  214·65

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  100·88

  Clydebank

  170·36

  Clydesdale

  138·55

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  122·33

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  141·02

  Cunninghame

  150·31

  Dumbarton

  128·43

  East Kilbride

  107·04

  Eastwood

  81·85

  Glasgow

  230·24

  Hamilton

  138·35

  Inverclyde

  159·73

  Kilmamock and Loudoun

  129·12

  Kyle and Carrick

  131·65

  Monklands

  175·72

  Motherwell

  154·17

  Renfrew

  147·98

  Strathkelvin

  125·58

  Angus

  113·99

  Dundee

  173·69

  Perth and Kinross

  126·69

  1 The per capita figures have been calculated using the Registrar General for Scotland's mid-1992 estimates of total population.

  Johnstone
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit the town of Johnstone to evaluate the need for a generation strategy similar to that in place in Barrhead.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The method of selecting areas for regeneration initiatives is one of the issues raised in the consultation document "Progress in 322
  Partnership" which my right hon. Friend and I published on 4 October. We look forward to receiving responses by the deadline of 14 January 1994.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the sources his Department uses for names from which to make appointments to non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Lang
  As can be seen from the current edition of "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House, I make appointments to more than 160 different non-departmental public bodies which differ widely in nature and remit. The sources of names for appointment are equally diverse. I am always pleased to receive names for public appointment from any source.

  Civil Servants (Dismissal)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the grounds for summary dismissal of civil servants in each Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: It is Scottish Office policy to dismiss staff only after agreed internal procedures have been followed and, in serious disciplinary cases, after a full investigation of the circumstances has taken place. Where appropriate, staff may be suspended from duty while these investigations are being carried out.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost of each visit to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  The Prime Minister
  I have made 11 overseas visits involving 16 countries. The cost and purpose of each visit was as follows:

  Destination

  1993

  Purpose

  Cost£

  India

  23-28 January

  Republic Day celebrations

  179,512·00

  Oman

  28 January

  Bilateral

  Saudi Arabia

  28 January

  Bilateral

  USA

  23-25 February

  Bilateral

  46,696·00

  Switzerland

  5-6 April

  Bilateral

  7,246·00

  Austria

  6 April

  Bilateral

  France (Paris)

  27-28 May

  Bilateral

  4,421·00

  Denmark

  20-22 June

  European Council

  11,690·001

  Japan (Tokyo)

  7-9 July

  G7 Economic Summit

  68,500·001

  Sweden (Stockholm)

  11-13 August

  Bilateral

  31,724·00

  Portugal (Lisbon)

  22-23 August

  Bilateral

  5,296·00

  Japan

  17-21 September

  Bilateral

  173,907·00

  Malaysia

  21-22 September

  Bilateral

  Monaco

  23 September

  Manchester 2000

  Cyprus

  21-25 October

  CHOGM

  43,873·00

  Belgium (Brussels)

  29 October

  Special European Council

  4,243·00

  Germany (Bonn)

  25 November

  Bilateral

  Not yet available

  323
  1 Costs also include those of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the last year's annual fuel bill for each of the official residences at his disposal; and out of which Government budget they were paid;

  (2) if he will list the official residences at his disposal for the use of Ministers in the Government.

  The Prime Minister
  Fuel costs at Chequers, Dorneywood and Chevening are met by independently administered trusts. The cost of utilities at those parts of Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing street used as residences, and of flats in Admiralty house, are not separately identifiable.

  Ministers Abroad
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official Report the rules governing Ministers' activities and conduct abroad.

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance covering Ministers' visits overseas is contained in paragraphs 63-81 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Local Government
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he has given to the Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), on the propriety of making public statements indicating his own preferred structure for local government for the area including his own constituency.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning has the guidance given to all Government Ministers entitled "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". My hon. Friend has made it clear that decisions on local government reorganisation affecting his constituency will be taken by other Government Ministers.

  10 Downing Street
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if(a) Mr. John Latsir, (b) Mr. Y. K. Pao, (c) Mr. Octav Botnar and (d) Mr. Lika-Shing have attended functions at 10 Downing street since 1980.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, except, as far as I am aware, Mr. Botnar.

  Irish Republic
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic in December.

  Legislation (Local Representatives)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on consulting and negotiations leading to agreement with local elected political representatives before undertaking legislation affecting each part of the United Kingdom.
  324
  The Prime Minister
  This will depend on the nature of the legislation in question.

  GATT
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by the Commonwealth mission on GATT in bringing forward a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: I met members of the Commonwealth on 17 November at the end of their programme which included visits to Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, France, the United States, and Japan. The mission has brought home to the major participants in the negotiations that not only the developed world but a wide range of other countries have an interest in the success of the Uruguay round. The mission was able to speak on behalf of a third of the world's nations and a quarter of the world's people.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what further action he will be taking to assist the achievement of a successful outcome of the Uruguay round of GATT talks before the 15 December deadline; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: Completion of the GATT Uruguay round by the 15 December deadline is currently the Government's top trade priority. My colleagues and I take every opportunity to stress to Governments both within and outside the European Community the importance of a satisfactory conclusion, and the need for all parties to bring this about. We are also doing all we can to support the European Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the European Community.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Greece on the policies to be followed by the new Greek Government regarding Cyprus.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: None.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what financial and other help from Her Majesty's Government the city of Manchester can expect if its bid to host the Commonwealth games in 2002 is successful.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: The Commonwealth Games Council for England will decide next February whether an English bid will be made for the 2002 Commonwealth games. It would therefore be premature for me to comment on the nature or scale of Government support in advance of that decision.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many establishments in Northern Ireland can carry out research which requires experimentation on live animals; and if he will make a statement regarding the legal guidelines which are laid down for such experimentation.

  Mr. Ancram
  Nineteen establishments can carry out research on live animals in Northern Ireland. The use of animals in experiments is regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Home Civil Servants

  Grade

  Number employed

  Number of Women

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  2

  —

  Grade 3

  4

  —

  Grade 4

  2

  —

  Grade 5

  10

  —

  Grade 6

  4

  —

  Grade 7

  26

  6

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  3

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  —

  Senior Research Officer

  1

  —

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  4

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  20

  12

  Administration Trainee

  2

  1

  Research Officer

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  28

  15

  Senior Personal Secretary

  7

  7

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  19

  11

  Personal Secretary

  15

  15

  Administrative Assistant

  9

  5

  Typist

  16

  16

  Catering Manager 1

  1

  —

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  —

  Support Manager 3

  1

  —

  Chef 1

  4

  2

  Support Grade Band 1

  6

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  7

  3

  Industrials (Non-craft)

  16

  12

  TOTAL

  213

  111

  Northern Ireland Civil Servants Non-industrial

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Head of Service

  0

  1

  1

  Permanent Secretary (G2A)

  0

  6

  6

  Under Secretary (G3)

  0

  31

  31

  Unified Grade 4 (G4)

  0

  3

  3

  Assistant Secretary (G5)

  12

  104

  116

  Senior Principal (G6)

  0

  31

  31

  Principal (G7)

  56

  348

  404

  Accountant Grade 7

  1

  1

  2

  Deputy Principal

  165

  500

  665

  Accountant Deputy Principal

  0

  4

  4

  Staff Officer

  427

  581

  1,008

  Staff Officer (A)

  2

  9

  11

  326

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Staff Officer (Accountant)

  3

  17

  20

  Administration Trainee

  1

  5

  6

  Executive Officer 1

  800

  599

  1,399

  EO1 (Accountant)

  2

  3

  5

  Auditor (SO) MIIA or BATS

  2

  8

  10

  Auditor (SO) MIIA and BATS

  6

  16

  22

  Auditor Deputy Principal MIIA or BATS

  0

  1

  1

  Auditor Deputy Principal MIIA and BATS

  1

  11

  12

  Social Security Officer 1

  626

  280

  906

  Executive Officer 2

  1,004

  499

  1,503

  Administrative Assistant

  2,399

  819

  3,218

  Administrative Officer

  2,544

  982

  3,526

  Social Security Officer 2B

  1,304

  505

  1,809

  Social Security Officer 2A

  246

  129

  375

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  1

  2

  Accommodation Manager/ess

  0

  2

  2

  Assistant Accommodation Manager/ess

  1

  1

  2

  Accommodation Manager (Enniskillen)

  1

  0

  1

  Chief Executive

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Agricultural Economist (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Agricultural Economist (G6)

  0

  2

  2

  Principal Agricultural Economist (G7)

  2

  3

  5

  Senior Agricultural Economist

  0

  3

  3

  Agricultural Economist

  0

  3

  3

  Assistant Agricultural Economist

  1

  0

  1

  Chief Executive Valuation and Lands Agency

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Executive

  0

  3

  3

  Senior Deputy Chief Agricultural Officer (G5)

  0

  2

  2

  Deputy Chief Agricultural Officer (G6)

  0

  3

  3

  Agricultural Inspector Grade I

  1

  22

  23

  Agricultural Inspector Grade II

  7

  65

  72

  Agricultural Inspector Grade III

  48

  110

  158

  Inspector Group 4

  0

  84

  84

  Agricultural Inspector Grade IV

  1

  3

  4

  Inspector Group 5

  0

  7

  7

  Post-Mortem Room Attendant

  0

  4

  4

  Inspector Group 3

  0

  34

  34

  Inspector Group 2

  2

  105

  107

  Inspector Group 1

  12

  121

  133

  Food Technology Technician

  1

  5

  6

  Chief Alkali and Radiochemical Inspector

  0

  1

  1

  Alkali and Radiochemical Inspector

  0

  4

  4

  Director of Works Service DOE (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Architect (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  SUPT Architect (G6)

  0

  2

  2

  PPTO (Architect) (G7)

  0

  23

  23

  SPTO (Architect)

  2

  20

  22

  HPTO (Architect)

  2

  3

  5

  SPTO (Architectural Assistant)

  0

  23

  23

  HPTO (Architectural Assistant)

  0

  27

  27

  PTO (Architectural Assistant)

  2

  45

  47

  HPTO (Maint Tech Architect)

  0

  1

  1

  PTO (Maint Tech Architect)

  0

  8

  8

  DIR Estate Services (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Executive (1DB)

  0

  1

  1

  Divisional Director

  0

  3

  3

  Principal Auditor (G7)

  0

  2

  2

  Snr Auditor H and SS (Acc)

  0

  2

  2

  Auditor H and SS (Acc)

  3

  2

  5

  Assistant Auditor

  0

  2

  2

  Audit Assistant DHSS

  3

  1

  4

  Asst Divisional Director

  0

  3

  3

  Chief Auditor (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Principal Auditor LG (G7)

  0

  2

  2

  Auditor LG

  0

  4

  4

  Assistant Auditor LG

  0

  2

  2

  Senior Audit Assistant LG

  1

  2

  3

  PPTO (Building Surveyor) (G7)

  0

  1

  1

  SPTO (Building Surveyor)

  0

  4

  4

  HPTO (Building Surveyor)

  0

  3

  3

  PTO (Building Surveyor)

  0

  3

  3

  Career Adviser

  1

  3

  4

  Senior Careers Officer

  9

  7

  16

  Careers Officer

  63

  42

  105

  327

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Catering Adviser

  1

  0

  1

  Catering Manager 2

  1

  0

  1

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  0

  1

  Div Manager Belfast (G5)

  0

  2

  2

  Chief Civil Engineer (G5)

  0

  3

  3

  Divisional Manager (G6)

  0

  8

  8

  OPS Director Water (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Supt Civil Engineer (G6)

  0

  8

  8

  PPTO Civil Engineer

  0

  73

  73

  SPTO (Civil Engineer)

  3

  180

  183

  HPTO (Civil Engineer)

  6

  85

  91

  Grad Trainee Civil Engineer

  4

  19

  23

  SPTO (Civil Eng Asst)

  1

  42

  43

  HPTO (Civil Eng Asst)

  5

  197

  202

  PTO (Civil Eng Asst)

  20

  505

  525

  TG1 Tmee Civil Eng Asst

  0

  8

  8

  O Level Trnee Civil Eng Asst

  5

  56

  61

  Chief Clerk of Works (SPTO)

  0

  4

  4

  Clerk of Works 1 (HPTO)

  0

  20

  20

  Clerk of Works 2 (PTO)

  0

  88

  88

  Manager/Warden

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant Manager Warden

  0

  1

  1

  Director of Conservation

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO (Senior Warden)

  0

  2

  2

  PTO Warden

  0

  11

  11

  TGI (Assistant Warden)

  3

  9

  12

  Chief Dental Officer

  0

  1

  1

  Dental Officer

  0

  4

  4

  Dental Surgery Assistant

  3

  0

  3

  Development Executive

  5

  9

  14

  Deputy Development Executive

  1

  1

  2

  Assistant Development Executive

  0

  2

  2

  Assistant Secretary Statistician (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Senior Principal Statistician (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  Principal Statistician (G7)

  5

  12

  17

  Deputy Principal Statistician

  17

  14

  31

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  5

  12

  17

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  9

  12

  Assistant Secretary Economist (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Special Economist (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  Principal Economist (G7)

  1

  7

  8

  Deputy Economist

  2

  5

  7

  Senior Assistant Economist

  2

  5

  7

  Assistant Economist

  3

  4

  7

  Director Environmental Services (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Director Environmental Protection (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Environmental Health Officer (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  Senior Environmental Health Officer (G7)

  0

  2

  2

  Environmental Health Officer

  1

  1

  2

  Estates Superintendent HPTO

  0

  1

  1

  Controller (CTO) (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Examiner (CTO)

  0

  2

  2

  Senior Examiner

  1

  0

  1

  Deputy Crown Solicitor (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Chief Inspector (Health and Safety) (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Inspector (Health and Safety)

  0

  2

  2

  Principal Inspector (Health and Safety)

  0

  10

  10

  Inspector (Health and Safety)

  1

  6

  7

  Inspector 2 (Health and Safety)

  0

  3

  3

  Fire Officer 1

  0

  2

  2

  Senior Fire Officer

  0

  1

  1

  Fire Officer

  0

  4

  4

  Fire Officer 2 (PTO)

  0

  2

  2

  PTO4 Drilling Rig Supervisor

  0

  2

  2

  Chief Fisheries Officer

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Fisheries Officer

  0

  2

  2

  Senior Fisheries Officer

  0

  3

  3

  Fisheries Officer 1

  0

  12

  12

  Fisheries Officer 2

  0

  10

  10

  Area Foreman (PTO)

  0

  6

  6

  Technical Grade 1 (DANI)

  0

  26

  26

  Chief Forest Officer (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Forest Operations Officer

  0

  1

  1

  Divisional Officer (G7)

  0

  2

  2

  Forest Officer I

  0

  11

  11

  Forest Officer II

  0

  11

  11

  Forest Officer III

  0

  21

  21

  328

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Forest Officer IV

  23

  24

  Area Forest Engineer

  0

  3

  3

  General Manager TC (G7)

  0

  1

  1

  Senior Instructional Officer

  0

  41

  41

  Higher Instructional Officer—NIO

  0

  2

  2

  Higher instructional officer

  2

  47

  49

  Instructional officer 1

  13

  262

  275

  SPTO graphic designer

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO graphic designer

  0

  1

  1

  Audio visual technician

  0

  1

  1

  PTO graphic designer

  0

  5

  5

  Training service manager

  4

  27

  31

  Principal inspector

  1

  0

  1

  Senior inspector

  2

  5

  7

  Principal photographer

  0

  1

  1

  PTO supervisor (historic monuments)

  0

  1

  1

  PTO senior supervisor (historic monuments BD. B.)

  0

  1

  1

  Senior photographer

  0

  1

  1

  Custodian (historic monuments)

  0

  1

  1

  Photographic officer

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant draughtsman illustrator

  0

  1

  1

  Photographer

  0

  1

  1

  Field monument warden

  1

  2

  3

  Senior imports inspector

  0

  4

  4

  Imports inspector

  0

  12

  12

  Senior industrial accountant

  0

  2

  2

  Industrial accountant (G7)

  2

  7

  9

  Management accountant

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant industrial accountant

  0

  2

  2

  Deputy director information services (GR 5)

  0

  1

  1

  SP information officer (G6)

  0

  2

  2

  Principal information officer (G7)

  0

  6

  6

  Deputy principal information officer

  5

  6

  11

  Information officer

  3

  2

  5

  Chief inspector (G3)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy chief inspector (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Staff inspector (G5)

  1

  5

  6

  Inspector (G6)

  15

  34

  49

  Senior housing inspector (HPTO)

  0

  1

  1

  Housing inspector 2 (PTO)

  0

  1

  1

  Investigation officer

  0

  4

  4

  PTO (interior designer)

  0

  1

  1

  PPTO (landscape architect)

  0

  3

  3

  SPTO (landscape architect)

  1

  1

  2

  SPTO landscape architect

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO (landscape architect's assistant)

  0

  1

  1

  PTO (landscape architect's assistant)

  3

  4

  7

  PTO development control inspector

  0

  10

  10

  PTO senior photographers

  1

  0

  1

  TG I photographer

  0

  1

  1

  Chief law clerk

  1

  5

  6

  Registrar lands tribunal

  0

  1

  1

  Senior law clerk

  8

  6

  14

  Law clerk 1

  22

  18

  40

  Law clerk 2

  3

  2

  5

  1st legislative draftsman (G2B)

  0

  1

  1

  2nd legislative draftsman (G3)

  1

  1

  2

  Librarian

  0

  2

  2

  Assistant librarian

  4

  1

  5

  Deputy director MGT training

  0

  1

  1

  Senior MGT training adviser

  0

  1

  1

  Management training adviser

  0

  1

  1

  Chief mapper

  1

  1

  2

  Superintendent mapper

  2

  3

  5

  Senior mapper

  7

  6

  13

  Technical grade 1

  37

  48

  85

  Mapper

  24

  17

  41

  Technical grade 2

  9

  15

  24

  HPTO ferry manager

  0

  1

  1

  Ship's captain

  0

  1

  1

  DDEE harbour master/foreman works

  0

  1

  1

  Ship's engineer

  0

  2

  2

  Ship's mate

  0

  1

  1

  Director of OSNI

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy director ordinance survey (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  PR mapping and charting of (G7)

  0

  3

  3

  329

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Senior map and charting officer

  0

  6

  6

  Higher map and charting officer

  0

  17

  17

  Mapping and charting officer

  8

  120

  128

  Map and charting technical grade 2

  1

  9

  10

  Map and charting technical grade 1

  6

  23

  29

  Map and charting technical grade 1

  0

  2

  2

  Senior meat inspector

  0

  12

  12

  Meat inspector

  9

  82

  91

  Poultry meat inspector

  6

  20

  26

  PTO electrical engineer assistant

  0

  10

  10

  G/T electrical engineer

  0

  1

  1

  Trainee electrical engineer assistant

  1

  6

  7

  Superintendent M+E engineer (G6)

  0

  2

  2

  PPTO (M&E engineer) (G7)

  0

  20

  20

  SPTO (M&E engineer)

  0

  12

  12

  HPTO (M&E engineer)

  2

  7

  9

  Grad TR M&E engineer

  0

  3

  3

  TR mechanical engineer assistant

  0

  2

  2

  SPTO (M&E engineering assistant)

  0

  33

  33

  HPTO (M&E engineer assistant)

  0

  56

  56

  PTO (M&E engineer assistant)

  0

  110

  110

  PT04 (M&E engineer assistant)

  0

  1

  1

  PTO (service engineer)

  0

  3

  3

  SPTO (superintendent of works)

  0

  2

  2

  HPTO (superintendent of works)

  0

  1

  1

  POT (superintendent of works)

  0

  6

  6

  Chief medical officer

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy chief medical officer

  1

  1

  2

  Principal medical officer

  0

  4

  4

  Senior medical officer

  4

  5

  9

  Medical officer

  5

  11

  16

  Medical officer (PT-time)

  0

  3

  3

  PTO materials testing TH

  0

  2

  2

  Chief nursing officer

  0

  1

  1

  Principal nursing officer

  0

  1

  1

  Nursing officer

  3

  1

  4

  Nursing grade G

  1

  0

  1

  Nurse grade F

  1

  0

  1

  Nurse grade C

  2

  0

  2

  Senior assistant director DPP

  0

  2

  2

  Superintendent office machines

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant supervisor office machinery

  0

  1

  1

  Support manager 2

  3

  1

  4

  Support manager 3

  18

  20

  38

  Support grade band 1

  316

  245

  561

  Support grade band 2

  290

  393

  683

  Chief pharmaceutical officer (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Senior principal pharmaceutical officer

  0

  1

  1

  Principal pharmaceutical officer

  0

  2

  2

  Pharmaceutical officer

  0

  1

  1

  Director T and C planning (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  DV planning officer (G5) BF

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant director planning (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  DV planning officer (G6)

  0

  5

  5

  Superintendent planning officer (G6)

  0

  2

  2

  PPTO planning officer

  4

  13

  17

  SPTO (planning officer)

  5

  42

  47

  HPTO (planning officer)

  13

  26

  39

  GRAD TR planning officer

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO (planning assistant)

  7

  34

  41

  PTO (planning assistant)

  12

  42

  54

  Trainee planning assistant

  7

  5

  12

  Chief education and training officer (G7)

  1

  0

  1

  Education officer HOD2

  0

  1

  1

  Education officer HOD1

  1

  2

  3

  Senior teacher

  1

  1

  2

  DC ED and training officer (N10)

  0

  1

  1

  Teacher

  6

  6

  12

  HPTO prison industries

  0

  3

  3

  PTO (prison industries)

  0

  1

  1

  Chief examiner (G7)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy chief driving examiner

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy chief examiner (SPTO)

  0

  3

  3

  Supervising examiner

  0

  2

  2

  District examiner

  0

  14

  14

  PTO vehicle driving examiner

  0

  119

  119

  Senior driving examiner

  0

  3

  3

  Driving/traffic examiner

  0

  9

  9

  330

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Chief psychologist (GR6)

  1

  0

  1

  Senior psychologist

  0

  1

  1

  Higher psychologist

  0

  2

  2

  Principal psychologist

  1

  0

  1

  Curatorial grade A (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Curatorial grade B (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  Curatorial grade C (G7)

  2

  2

  4

  Curatorial grade E

  4

  10

  14

  Curatorial grade F

  1

  4

  5

  Superintendent quantity surveyor (G6)

  0

  5

  5

  PPTO (quantity surveyor) (G7)

  0

  14

  14

  SPTO (quantity surveyor)

  1

  10

  11

  HPTO (quantity surveyor)

  0

  6

  6

  GRAD TR quantity surveyor

  0

  1

  1

  SPTO (quantity surveying assistant)

  0

  11

  11

  HPTO (quantity surveying assistant)

  0

  13

  13

  PTO (quantity surveying assistant)

  1

  9

  10

  Senior enforcement officer

  0

  2

  2

  Enforcement Officer

  1

  5

  6

  PTO Supervisor (Roads)

  0

  41

  41

  Director of Roads Service (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Scentific Officer (G5)

  0

  2

  2

  SP Scientific Officer (G6)

  0

  17

  17

  Principal Scientific Officer (G7)

  6

  68

  74

  Senior Scientific Officer

  27

  109

  136

  Higher Scientific Officer

  32

  110

  142

  Scientific Officer

  62

  114

  176

  Brucella Tester

  9

  4

  13

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  101

  128

  229

  PT04 Supervisor

  0

  6

  6

  Security Guard

  0

  7

  7

  Security Officer

  0

  7

  7

  SPTO Health and Safety Adviser

  0

  3

  3

  HPTO Safety Advisory Officer

  0

  15

  15

  Chief Inspector (SSI)(G4)

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant Chief Inspector

  0

  3

  3

  Inspector(SSI)

  5

  8

  13

  Head Legal Services (G3)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy Head of Legal Service

  0

  1

  1

  Assistant Solicitor (G5) NS

  0

  24

  24

  Deputy Resistar Land Reg

  0

  1

  1

  Senior Legal Assistant

  34

  49

  83

  Legal Assistant

  26

  6

  32

  SPTO (Supplies)

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO (Supplies)

  0

  4

  4

  PTO Supplies

  0

  15

  16

  Stores Officer (Grade c)

  0

  5

  5

  PTO Stores Liaison Officer

  0

  6

  6

  Chief Structural Engineer UN GR 5

  0

  1

  1

  Superintendant Structural Engineer (G6)

  0

  1

  1

  PPTO Structural Engineer

  0

  4

  4

  SPTO (Structural Engineer)

  0

  11

  11

  SPTO (Structural Engineering Assistant)

  0

  2

  2

  HPTO (Structural Engineering Assistant)

  0

  7

  7

  PTO (Structural Engineering Assistant)

  0

  13

  13

  Superintendent Systems Analyst (G7)

  0

  7

  7

  Senior Systems Analyst

  12

  59

  71

  Systems Analyst

  32

  119

  151

  Programmer/Analyst

  41

  111

  152

  Programmer

  28

  96

  124

  SW Course Student (IT)

  8

  13

  21

  Assistant Programmer

  2

  5

  7

  Principal Transport Manager

  0

  1

  1

  Area Transport Manager

  0

  2

  2

  Fleet Centre Manager

  0

  1

  1

  PTO Workshop Supervisor

  0

  4

  4

  Chief Typing Manager

  11

  0

  11

  Typing Manager

  110

  0

  110

  Typist

  1,132

  1

  1,133

  Senior Personal Secretary

  36

  0

  36

  Personal Secretary

  196

  0

  196

  Assistant Commissioner

  0

  3

  3

  Direct Valuer (G6)

  0

  10

  10

  Senior Valuer (G7)

  0

  26

  26

  331

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Valuer 1

  0

  63

  63

  Valuer 11

  14

  40

  54

  Senior valuation assistant

  0

  12

  12

  Valuation assistant

  4

  37

  41

  DC veterinary officer (G5)

  0

  2

  2

  SP veterinary officer (G6)

  1

  4

  5

  Divisional veterinary officer

  1

  23

  24

  Veterinary officer (G7)

  22

  58

  80

  Chief veterinary research officer (G5)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy chief veterinary officer

  0

  2

  2

  Senior veterinary research officer 1 (G6)

  0

  3

  3

  Senior veterinary research officer 2

  1

  5

  6

  Veterinary research officer (G7)

  2

  13

  15

  PTO water supervisor M&E

  0

  7

  7

  Director water service (G4)

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO (water supervisor)

  0

  4

  4

  PTO (water supervisor)

  0

  141

  141

  Assistant supervisor water (personnel)

  0

  3

  3

  HPTO projects officer

  0

  1

  1

  Chief inspector trading standards (G7)

  0

  1

  1

  Deputy chief trading standards officer

  0

  2

  2

  Area inspector

  0

  7

  7

  Senior inspector

  0

  1

  1

  Trading standards inspector

  0

  15

  15

  Principal (work study) (G7)

  0

  1

  1

  HPTO (work study officer)

  0

  1

  1

  Senior work study officer

  0

  2

  2

  PTO (work study officer)

  0

  14

  14

  Senior telecommunications engineer (SPTO)

  0

  2

  2

  Telecommunications technical engineer I

  0

  12

  12

  Telecommunications technical engineer II

  0

  19

  19

  Telecommunications engineering technician

  0

  76

  76

  PTO

  0

  4

  4

  PTO model maker

  0

  1

  1

  Under secretary (personnel appointments)

  0

  1

  1

  Director management training (PA)

  0

  1

  1

  Management training adviser

  0

  2

  2

  Temporary veterinary officer

  5

  19

  24

  Investigation officer (PA)

  0

  6

  6

  Principal librarian (PA)

  0

  1

  1

  TOTAL NON-INDUSTRIALS

  12,748

  12,147

  24,895

  Industrials:

  Craft

  1

  628

  629

  Non-craft

  67

  3,731

  3,798

  TOTAL INDUSTRIALS

  68

  4,359

  4,427

  OVERALL NICS TOTAL

  12,816

  16,506

  29,322

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Royal Victoria hospital has obtained in revenue from health authorities in the Irish Republic through the sale of bed space and theatre time for the treatment of patients from the Irish Republic; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the sale on the treatment of patients from within Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Royal group of hospitals has won a contract to carry out hip replacement operations for Eire patients. Under this arrangement some 300 patients will undergo surgery at the Royal. This has now commenced. The contract involves a half million pounds deal in a major bid by the Cork regional hospital to reduce its waiting list. No Northern Ireland people will suffer because of the Royal's arrangement with Cork. The Royal group remains committed to fulfilling obligations to patients through existing contracts with Northern Ireland health and social services boards. These contracts do not at present include hip replacement procedures.

  Adoptive Mothers
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the provision of statutory maternity benefits to adoptive mothers.

  Mr. Ancram
  Statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance provide a measure of earnings replacement to help working women give up work around the time of the birth in the interests of their own and their unborn baby's health. There are no plans to extend the provisions to mothers of adopted children.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Incomes
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average income per head by the smallest available geographical areas for which information is available for the most recent available year.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest available estimates for household income, by standard region for 1991, and by county for 1990, were published in the May 1993 issue of "Economic Trends", available in the House of Commons Library. These estimates provide a breakdown of household gross and disposable income in pounds-million and per head of resident population.

  Intra-EC Trade
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Intrastat system for measuring intra-EC trade.

  Sir John Cope
  The current system of collecting intra-EC trade—Intrastat—which was introduced as a result of the implementation of the single market on 1 January 1993 is radically different to the previous one which was based on customs documentation. Intrastat relies on a declaration by the larger traders of the details of their EC trade. A change of this magnitude has required constant assessment of all aspects of the new system.

  A range of performance indicators is being monitored, including both the response levels of businesses required to complete the special returns and the error rates on returns. Both indicators have shown a continuous improvement with targets set for the new system prior to its introduction being met. Currently there is a compliance rate of 95 per cent.; amongst the highest in the EC. Some commentators have suggested there may be a discontinuity in the figures based on past trends and customs is carrying out additional checks and audits. But overall the Instrastat system is meeting operational objectives and is expected to provide timely and reliable statistics. A more general assessment of Intrastat in the context of the single market changes has been conducted by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and will form part of a policy evaluation review to be published shortly.

  EC Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest assumption for United Kingdom net contributions to the EC in the 1994 calendar financial year; and what assumptions have been made on
  333
  the level, in the period, of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product and the exchange rate between the pound sterling and the ecu.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest forecast of the United Kingdom's net contribution to EC institutions by United Kingdom financial year, for the years to 1996–97, together with relevant economic assumptions, will be published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" on 30 November. The 1994 EC budget is expected to be adopted by the European Parliament in December. Following its adoption, the Government will publish a White Paper, "Statement on the 1994 Community Budget". The statement will include a calendar year forecast for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC budget in 1994.

  Meanwhile the position remains as set out in the explanatory memorandum on the draft 1994 EC budget submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 22 November 1993.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has further to support the development of credit unions in communities and workplaces.

  Mr. Nelson
  The credit union sector continues to expand steadily. There are now 316 community-based and 57 workplace credit unions in Great Britain. Three bodies exist to promote the further growth of the credit union movement: the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd., the Forum of Credit Unions Salford—FOCUS—and the National Federation of Savings and Co-operative Credit Unions. Funds have been made available through the DOE's urban programme to assist with the development of credit unions. Grants totalling £500,000 supported 20 projects in 1992–93.

  Independent Forecasters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the qualifications of his current panel of independent forecaster advisers to his Department; when their term of office is due to expire; what plans he has for replacements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The panel members are all highly-respected economists, and experienced forecasters, who represent a range of views on how the economy works and a variety of forecasting institutions.

  Appointment to the panel was for a renewable two-year period. I will review membership of the panel towards the end of this period, at the end of 1994.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) individuals and (b) trusts that have gains falling below the capital gains tax annual exempt amount for the latest year available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that precise estimates are not possible, but the number of individuals and trusts with total net chargeable gains below the capital gains tax annual exempt amount and above £1,000 in 1992–93 could be in the order of half a million.
  334
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1994–95 or the latest year available an estimate of the yield and the number of taxpayers affected by restricting the capital gains tax allowance to relief at the(a) 25p rate and (b) 20p rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under current rules, net chargeable gains below the capital gains tax annual exempt amount are totally exempt from tax. The effects of restricting this relief at the 25 per cent. and 20 per cent. rates are given in the table based on 1992–93 liabilities. The estimates assume the restriction would affect only individuals with gains above the annual exempt amount and do not allow for any consequential change in their behaviour.

  Number of taxpayers affected

  Capital gains tax yield (£ million)

  Restricting the relief to

  (a) 25 per cent. rate

  50,000

  40

  (b) 20 per cent. rate

  75,000

  60

  Pensionable Earnings
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax is expected to be raised from capping pensionable earnings in(a) 1993–94, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2013–14.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Share Offers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure of his Department on advertising and promoting share offers in(a) gas, (b) electricity, (c) water and (d) telecommunications.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the cost to the Government of marketing the privatisations and secondary offers within the sectors specified. The marketing expenses include the costs of advertising. The costs of the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity plc will shortly be reported to Parliament.

  Marketing costs of privatisations and secondary offers

  Share offer

  Year

  £ million

  BT

  1984

  14

  British Gas

  1986

  40

  Water

  1989

  136

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  1990–91

  1222

  Electricity (Scotland)

  1991

  16

  BT

  1991

  40

  BT

  1993

  31

  1 Excluding VAT.

  2 Costs to 31 December 1991.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated total value of mortgage income tax relief for the United Kingdom, and for each standard region, for the latest available financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for 1993–94 based on a projection of the 1992 family expenditure survey are given in the table.
  335

  Cost of Mortgage Interest Relief

  Region

  £ million

  North

  190

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  350

  North West

  450

  East Midlands

  350

  West Midlands

  390

  East Anglia

  170

  Greater London

  500

  South East

  1,000

  South West

  380

  England

  3,780

  Wales

  180

  Scotland

  280

  Northern Ireland

  60

  United Kingdom

  4,300

  The figures are based on current interest rates as it is not yet known what reductions mortgage lenders will make following the recent reduction in the base rate.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the tax revenues lost to the Government through residence in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man for the purpose of tax avoidance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals paid income tax in the latest year for which figures are available; and what percentage were liable for the higher rate of tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimate of the number of taxpayers in 1993–94 is 24·8 million. Of these, about 7·4 per cent. will be liable at the higher rate.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money would be raised by(a) a top tax rate of 50 per cent. for income over £35,000 and (b) a top tax rate of 50 per cent. for income over £50,000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Higher rate income tax is charged on taxable income—that is gross income for tax purposes less those allowances and reliefs which are available at the taxpayers's marginal rate—in excess of the basic rate limit.

  At 1994–95 income levels, the yield in a full year from the introduction of a 50 per cent. rate on taxable incomes over £35,000 would be about £2·8 billion and the yield from the introduction of a 50 per cent. rate on taxable incomes over £50,000 would be about £1·9 billion. These estimates do not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such changes to the tax system and do not include capital gains tax.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the change in income tax in each year since 1978–79 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime broken down into the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and bottom 70 per cent., 50 per cent. and 30 per cent. and all taxpayers, giving the number of taxpayers in each category.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer November 1993]: Readily available information on the annual reduction in income
  336
  tax liability for the years 1989–90 to 1993–94, compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime is given in the tables. The 1978–79 regime has been indexed by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation from 1990–91 onwards. For 1989–90 married couples are counted as one unit. For the purpose of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the later income base. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  1989–90

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Numbers of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  (Per cent.)

  (Thousands)

  (£ million)

  Top 1

  200

  7,100

  Top 5

  1,100

  11,000

  Top 10

  2,300

  13,400

  Bottom 70

  15,900

  6,700

  Bottom 50

  11,400

  3,500

  Bottom 30

  6,800

  1,400

  All taxpayers

  22,700

  25,300

  1990–91

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Numbers of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  (Per cent.)

  (Thousands)

  (£ million)

  Top 1

  300

  8,500

  Top 5

  1,400

  13,000

  Top 10

  2,800

  15,800

  Bottom 70

  19,600

  7,200

  Bottom 50

  14,000

  3,600

  Bottom 30

  8,400

  1,400

  All taxpayers

  28,000

  29,100

  1991–92

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Numbers of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  (per cent.)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  Top 1

  300

  9,500

  Top 5

  1,400

  13,900

  Top 10

  2,800

  16,600

  Bottom 70

  19,300

  7,300

  Bottom 50

  13,800

  3,600

  Bottom 30

  8,300

  1,400

  All taxpayers

  27,600

  30,000

  1992–93

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Numbers of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  (per cent.)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  Top 1

  300

  9,600

  Top 5

  1,300

  14,000

  Top 10

  2,700

  16,700

  Bottom 70

  18,800

  8,700

  Bottom 50

  13,400

  4,500

  Bottom 30

  8,000

  1,800

  All taxpayers

  26,800

  32,000

  337

  1993–94

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Numbers of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  (Per cent.)

  (Thousands)

  (£ million)

  Top 1

  300

  9,300

  Top 5

  1,300

  13,100

  Top 10

  2,600

  15,600

  Bottom 70

  18,500

  8,700

  Bottom 50

  13,200

  4,500

  Bottom 30

  7,900

  1,700

  All taxpayers

  26,400

  31,000

  Registrations

  Collection

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Belfast

  3,413

  3,952

  4,373

  4,226

  3,607

  3,674

  3,173

  Birmingham

  13,973

  16,550

  18,169

  16,297

  14,044

  13,291

  11,670

  Dover

  6,186

  7,795

  7,552

  7,104

  6,575

  5,859

  5,134

  East Anglia

  7,874

  9,474

  9,625

  8,475

  8,564

  8,061

  6,735

  East Midlands

  10,591

  12,799

  14,354

  12,100

  10,592

  9,429

  8,308

  Edinburgh

  7,423

  7,808

  8,228

  7,873

  6,667

  6,604

  5,375

  Glasgow

  5,460

  5,757

  8,297

  7,477

  6,728

  6,188

  5,118

  Leeds

  10,515

  12,821

  14,124

  12,496

  11,035

  10,256

  7,837

  Liverpool

  9,866

  12,246

  13,239

  12,548

  10,724

  9,815

  7,769

  London Central

  5,492

  5,214

  5,346

  5,290

  4,614

  4,772

  4,455

  London North and West

  11,681

  13,517

  15,901

  14,305

  11,447

  10,956

  8,927

  London Port

  7,851

  9,064

  10,252

  8,187

  6,980

  6,682

  5,355

  London South

  13,028

  14,482

  16,573

  14,875

  12,455

  11,699

  10,901

  Manchester

  10,827

  12,382

  14,013

  13,577

  12,099

  11,259

  8,962

  Northampton

  15,518

  18,390

  19,060

  17,345

  13,229

  12,087

  10,015

  North England

  6,345

  7,854

  8,409

  7,290

  5,942

  5,756

  4,425

  Southampton

  12,194

  13,807

  16,261

  12,903

  10,744

  9,658

  8,432

  South West and Borders

  10,404

  13,535

  14,624

  12,942

  10,582

  9,629

  7,700

  South West England

  13,376

  16,839

  16,972

  13,803

  11,681

  10,965

  9,300

  Thames Valley

  16,027

  19,230

  21,141

  20,223

  17,639

  16,615

  13,207

  1To September.

  Deregistrations

  Collection

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Belfast

  2,920

  7,498

  3,224

  3,113

  3,783

  3,595

  2,391

  Birmingham

  11,580

  12,571

  12,637

  12,519

  16,963

  17,002

  11,419

  Dover

  4,403

  5,784

  4,952

  5,736

  9,765

  8,915

  5,519

  East Anglia

  5,814

  10,125

  9,625

  8,475

  8,564

  8,061

  7,339

  East Midlands

  8,726

  11,104

  9,753

  10,026

  13,258

  12,235

  8,247

  Edinburgh

  6,108

  9,562

  6,042

  6,065

  7,440

  6,757

  5,158

  Glasgow

  4,494

  5,095

  6,279

  6,178

  8,035

  7,033

  4,864

  Leeds

  8,985

  10,522

  10,041

  10,284

  13,621

  12,383

  8,761

  Liverpool

  8,645

  9,837

  10,061

  10,002

  13,207

  12,991

  8,364

  London Central

  4,071

  4,867

  4,232

  4,453

  4,677

  4,839

  4,154

  London North and West

  8,421

  8,568

  9,938

  10,687

  13,765

  15,070

  10,312

  London Port

  5,722

  6,741

  6,457

  5,913

  10,275

  10,048

  6,909

  London South

  8,384

  9,394

  10,515

  10,832

  15,038

  14,613

  10,113

  Manchester

  9,670

  9,822

  10,248

  9,641

  13,571

  13,387

  9,399

  Northampton

  10,157

  15,446

  11,777

  12,857

  16,451

  15,143

  9,622

  North England

  5,354

  6,283

  5,998

  6,357

  7,686

  7,242

  5,088

  Southampton

  8,484

  12,220

  10,411

  9,739

  14,476

  13,783

  9,525

  South West and Borders

  8,156

  14,380

  10,296

  10,437

  14,394

  11,902

  8,898

  South West England

  10,525

  16,687

  11,716

  11,751

  16,461

  15,811

  10,320

  Thames Valley

  11,214

  15,057

  13,865

  14,722

  21,431

  19,824

  13,276

  1to September.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be taxing the DVLA staff's receipt of charter mark bookmarks, coasters and vehicle licence holders as a work-related benefit.

  VAT
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by region and county of the number of businesses that have registered and de-registered for value added tax since 1981.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs holds registration and deregistration information by local office and groups these offices to form collections. It is only able to provide this information, by collection, for the period from January 1987 to September 1993. This is as follows:

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: The cost of these items was 90p per employee. The Inland Revenue will deal with these tiny amounts as it would with similar benefits for other employees.

  Agency Chief Executives
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the chief executives of national agencies set up by the Government in the past 14 years are on performance-related pay; and if he will name the agencies concerned.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 November 1993]: Seventy-three of the 84 chief executives appointed to next steps agencies—excluding those in Northern Ireland agencies for which I am not responsible—are eligible for performance-related pay and the agencies concerned are as listed:

  Next steps—Executive Agencies—Chief Executives eligible for performance-related pay

  Accounts Services Agency

  ADAS

  Building Research Establishment

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  Central Office of Information

  Central Science Laboratory

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Civil Service College

  Companies House

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency

  DVOIT

  Employment Service

  Fire Service College

  Forensic Science Service

  Government Property Lawyers

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Historic Scotland

  HMSO

  Insolvency Service

  Intervention Board

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Land Registry

  Medicines Control Agency

  Meteorological Office

  National Physical Laboratory

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Natural Resource Institute

  NEL

  NHS Estates

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Occupational Health Service

  Ordnance Survey

  Patent Office

  Paymaster General's Office

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Planning Inspectorate

  Public Record Office

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Registers of Scotland

  Royal Mint

  Royal Parks

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Record Office

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  340

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  The Buying Agency

  Transport and Security Services

  Transport Research Laboratory

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Valuation Office

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  War Pensions Agency

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

TRANSPORT

  Road Construction
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the total cost of proposed budget for new roads over the next five years; and by how much it has been reduced as a result of recent discussions with the Treasury.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect to spend over £1·3 billion in 1993–94 on new construction of national roads in England. As for future years, I cannot, of course, pre-empt tomorrow's unified Budget statement.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop an overall strategic policy for London following the decision not to proceed with deregulation of bus services in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Our strategy for transport in London focuses on three priorities: improving the management of the road, rail and bus networks; modernising and where necessary expanding the provision of transport infrastructure; and making greater use of private sector resources and skills. The policies for buses which we announced earlier this month are fully consistent with that approach.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers are transported on London area buses on an average day; what was the figure five years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1992–93 the number of passenger journeys on LT buses was 1,127 million—3·09 million per day. In 1987–88 there were 1,211 million—3·31 million per day.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the net receipt which his Department expects for the privatisation of each of the subsidiary companies of London Buses Ltd.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's estimate of the net receipts from the sale of the London Buses Ltd. subsidiary companies is commercially confidential and thus cannot be made publicly available.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the timetable for tendering all the London Transport bus routes which have not yet been put out to tender.

  Mr. Norris
  The timetable for tendering the remaining London Transport bus routes which have not been put out to tender is currently under consideration.
  341
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of the proposed privatisation of the subsidiary companies of London Buses Ltd. for the pension fund of current and former London Transport employees.

  Mr. Norris
  The proposed privatisation of the London Buses Ltd. subsidiary companies will not affect the pensions of former employees of the subsidiary companies. The pension position of current employees of those companies is now under consideration. I recognise the concerns of employees about their pension arrangements, and will soon give London Transport guidance on the treatment of these in the privatisation.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the minimum subsidy requirement in 1994–95 for London Transport bus services; and what comparable level of subsidy has been required for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Norris
  The total of revenue grant support for London Transport bus services, including tendered bus services, for the years 1987–88 to 1992–93, was as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  83·0

  1988–89

  79·3

  1989–90

  67·7

  1990–91

  88·3

  1991–92

  101·9

  1992–93

  100·6

  The current forecast for 1993–94 is £52·1 million. The amount of revenue grant support for 1994–95 will be determined in due course in consultation with London Transport.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to specifying a minimum reserve price for each of the subsidiary companies of London Buses Ltd. which he is proposing to privatise.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no plans to specify a minimum reserve price for the subsidiary companies of London Buses Ltd.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current book value of(a) the vehicles, (b) the garages and (c) all other assets of each of the subsidiary companies of London Buses Ltd.

  Mr. Norris
  At 31 March 1993, the net book value of the vehicles within the London Buses Ltd. group was £164 million; the net book value of the property was £143 million; and the net book value of the remaining assets was £21 million. These valuations reflect the current value or replacement cost of the assets, reduced by the proportion of the life of the asset which is already expired, in line with normal public sector accounting practice.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet with the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the west coast line.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets both the chariman of British Rail and the chairman 342
  designate of Railtrack to discuss current railway issues. Further announcements about investment in the west coast main line will follow the outcome of the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Hambros study into possible joint public/private sector financing initiatives for the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect to be able to do so very shortly.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the detailed terms of reference of the Hambros research project into joint private sector/public sector alternatives for financing the west coast main line project; when the Hambros report was received by his Department; when it will be made public; and what amount was paid to Hambros for the research work.

  Mr. Freeman
  Hambros's remit is to examine the scope for using private finance to modernise the infrastructure of the west coast main line. We expect to receive the Hambros report shortly, but no decision has yet been taken concerning publication. Hambroc'c final invoice has yet to be received

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary a State for Transport when he next intends to make an official journey on the InterCity train between London and Carlisle.

  Mr. Freeman
  I last travelled to Carlisle on the west coast main line on Monday 14 June. I intend to repeat the journey again in the coming months.

  Airport Privatisation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives he intends to give local authorities to privatise their airports.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on encouraging local authorities to privatise their airports.

  Mr. MacGregor
  BAA has proved that the private sector is ready and willing to provide capital investment for airports. I have therefore reduced the amount allocated to local authority airports to the level necessary for safety and security measures. The local authority owners, therefore, have every incentive to consider privatisation.

  Railway Electrification
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on railway electrification.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under our plans for restructuring the railway, it will be for Railtrack, in the first instance, to consider the case for the electrification of any particular line.

  M27
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the appointment of consultants to study the widening of the M27 motorway.

  Mr. Key
  The widening is being considered within the review of scheme priorities announced by my right hon. Friend in August. Any decision about the appointment of consultants will have to await the outcome.

  London-Colchester Railway Line
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures will be pursued to improve services for travellers on the London-Colchester line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The bulk of London to Colchester services are provided by the Great Eastern route group of Network SouthEast, which is already one of the best performing lines.

  In addition, the route is currently undergoing a major resignalling scheme, at a cost of £100 million. When this is completed I expect to see performance improve even further.

  Hazardous Freight
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to subsidise the Trainload Freight division of British Rail in order to arrest the switch towards road transport of flammable petroleum based products.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the Railways Act 1993, a new environmental grant is to be introduced next April to help marginal rail freight flows with the payment of track access charges. In addition, all freight operators, including BR, will be eligible for the enhanced freight facilities grants scheme.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure fair play in the allocation of Jubilee line construction contracts.

  Mr. Norris
  The award of contracts for the Jubilee line extension (JLE) is entirely a matter for London Underground Ltd. LUL has a duty to secure competitive tenders in a proper, legal fashion, having regard for EC directives, and to secure best value for taxpayers' money.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects construction of the channel tunnel fast link to commence.

  Mr. Freeman
  Construction commencement depends on the progress of a hybrid Bill through Parliament. We expect that a Bill will be ready for introduction to Parliament next autumn.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make mandatory the installation of seat belts in buses and coaches in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  The Department is currently looking at the circumstances surrounding the recent tragic coach and minibus accidents and is reviewing the full technical and cost implications of the compulsory fitment of seat belts in minibuses and coaches. It would not be right to take any decisions before this work has been completed.

  Transport Expenditure, London
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of public spending on transport in London is spent on roads; and what proportion on public transport.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1992–93 public investment in London Transport, Network SouthEast and docklands light railway amounted to around £1,400 million, while expenditure by central Government and local authorities on roads in London, excluding M25, was about £400 million. Expenditure on Network SouthEast benefited a broader area than London alone.

  Socially Necessary Railway Lines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for how many years a subsidy for socially necessary rail lines can be guaranteed under current Treasury rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It will be for the franchising director to negotiate contracts with franchisees, and to make such subsidy payments as are specified in those contracts from within his budget. In doing so he will be in no different a position from any other public sector body in entering into contracts which may run beyond the normal annual period for which Parliament votes expenditure.

  A5
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had recently concerning improvements to the A5, Watling street from the A5-M69 junction to the Nuneaton Longshoot junction.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has recently met landowners who may be affected by a possible improvement of the A5-Nutts lane junction at Hinckley. Any scheme would be aimed at reducing congestion and the number of accidents which presently occur at, and in the vicinity of, the junction.

  Toll Roads
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position regarding the development of toll roads funded by the private sector.

  Mr. Key
  The new Dartford-Thurrock river crossing was completed in October 1991, and work has begun on the second Severn crossing. Draft orders for the Birmingham northern relief road were published in June this year; the public inquiry is expected to start next spring. We shall be considering further the possibility of involving private finance in the planned Birmingham western orbital route after we have announced our conclusions on the possibility of direct charging for existing motorways in the light of responses to the Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways".

  Roads, South-East Essex
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve road communication in south-east Essex.

  Mr. Key
  With regard to the trunk road network in south-east Essex, my Department is pressing ahead with its plan to improve the Al27 between M25 and the new two-level junction at Rayleigh Weir.
  345
  In respect of local roads, Essex county council has identified three major schemes as a result of their south-east East Essex traffic study. The county council has bid for transport supplementary grant funding to start work on improving the northern section of the A130, between Al2 and A132, in 1994–95. It has also bid for advance design costs on the eastern section of the Al27 Southend-Rochford bypass and credit approval for a third major project in the area, the B1013 access to Southend.

  A decision on TSG funding will be announced in December.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with ScotRail management relating to the electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

  Mr. Freeman
  I discussed Edinburgh and Aberdeen electrification matters with ScotRail management and Grampian regional council during my visit to Aberdeen in September.

  I understand that ScotRail and a consortium of local authorities are jointly funding a study of the feasibility of the scheme. A report on the first phase of the study is expected in spring 1994.

  M1
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has plans to improve the M1 in the coming year.

  Mr. Key
  Our construction programme for 1994–5 has still to be settled.

  Trans-Pennine Study
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to give the Government's response to the trans-Pennine study.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 October 1993,Official Report, column 807.

  Commuter Trains
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of trains on Network SouthEast commuter services into London were late in the latest 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  For the 12-month period to 5 November 1993, 89 per cent. of Network SouthEast's morning and evening peak services trains arrived within five minutes of the advertised time. This includes some trains which did not begin or end their journeys in central London. The comparable figure for the previous 12 months was 85·6 per cent. There has therefore been a significant improvement in the quality of service for passengers.

  NAO and PAC
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are held by his Department; and how many are marked "Not for Public Accounts Committee eyes".

  Mr. Norris
  There are 684 files in my Department—out of a total of 1,331,002—marked "Not to be seen by NAO 346
  without reference to the appropriate Head of Division", sometimes abbreviated to "Not for NAO eyes". These figures refer to individual jackets—file parts. For each NAO study, a number of divisions in different locations may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and PAC are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  There is no marking "Not for PAC eyes".

  London Underground
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that London Underground has sufficient resources to ensure the efficient running of the capital's underground system and the safety of passengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I cannot comment on the Government's expenditure proposals for London Transport in advance of the unified Budget on 30 November.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement in respect of the derailments on the Central line at(a) Loughton on 8 November and (b) Epping on 1 November of the London underground.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter on which London Underground Ltd., LUL, is best placed to comment. I understand from it that the immediate cause of these derailments was very rapid rail wear on sections of the Central line. LUL's engineers have now replaced the worst affected section of track. They are also investigating why it has worn so quickly. The interface between rails and wheels of trains is a complex technical issue, but track lubrication may be an important factor.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the lines affected and estimate the number of train services delayed as a consequence of the power failure on the London underground on 24 November.

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked London Transport for an urgent, full report on the circumstances of the power failure, to include what actions it proposes to ensure that there is no recurrence.

  M65
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to him regarding implications on jobs and investment prospects in north-east Lancashire arising from an eastwards extension of the M65.

  Mr. Key
  Some of the many responses to our consultation on the trans-Pennine study indicated that any extension of the M65 eastwards should help to stimulate economic activity in the east Lancashire area generally.

  Pension Funds
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the exact sums remaining in the railway pensions fund; and what is the actuarial assessment of the amount needed to meet the pension benefits of past and present employees.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the British Rail Pension Trustee Company and the individual management committees of the various BR pension schemes, as appropriate.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for adjudication in the case of a dispute between actuaries working for the railway pension fund and actuaries working for the Government.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the unlikely event of a difference of opinion between the actuaries, it will be for the trustees, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State where he is involved, to reach their own views after taking whatever advice they consider appropriate.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the measures he is taking to safeguard pension funds in cases where privatised transport industries become insolvent.

  Mr. Freeman
  Where transport industries have been privatised, measures have been taken to safeguard the accrued rights of pensioners and active members of the industries' pension schemes up to the point of privatisation. When employees move into the private sector, any pension scheme operated by their new employer will continue to be subject to the general legal framework which applies to all such occupational pension schemes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has responsibility for such matters and announced in the House, on 3 November, that he will be issuing discussion papers as a basis for detailed exchanges with interested parties on matters arising from recommendations of the Pensions Law Review Committee.

  VAT (Bus Fares)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study he has made, or proposes to make, of the effects of VAT on bus fares in relation to bus use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received representations from the Bus and Coach Council, and others, which estimate the effect on bus fares and patronage of imposing VAT. Decisions on taxation are a matter for the Chancellor but in reaching these he will be aware of the likely transport implications.

  A51 Bypass
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make an announcement of his decision on the A51 Burford and the Green proposed bypass.

  Mr. Key
  I hope to be able to announce the preferred route next spring.

  Private Bus Operators
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Transport if he will list the private bus operators which operate more than 100 buses.

  Mr. Freeman
  For licensing purposes, bus operators are not distinguished from coach operators. According to records held centrally in October 1993, the following private bus and coach operators, listed alphabetically, are licensed to operate more than 100 vehicles in Great Britain:

  Badgerline Ltd.

  Barton Buses Ltd.

  Bayline Ltd.

  Beeline Buzz Co. Ltd.

  Bluebird Buses Ltd.

  A. E. and F. R. Brewer Ltd.

  Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Co. Ltd.

  Bristol Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  British Airways plc

  Busways Travel Services Ltd.

  Cambus Ltd.

  Capital Citybus Ltd.

  Capital Coaches Ltd.

  Cheltenham and Gloucester Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  Chesterfield Transport Ltd.

  City of Oxford Motor Services Ltd.

  Cleveland Transit Ltd.

  Clydeside 2000 plc

  County Bus and Coach Co. Ltd.

  T. Cowie plc (Grey-Green)

  Crosville Wales Ltd.

  Derby City Transport Ltd.

  Devon General Ltd.

  East Kent Road Car Co. Ltd.

  East Midland Motor Services

  East Yorkshire Motor Services Ltd.

  Eastern Counties Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  Eastern National Ltd.

  Eastern Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.

  Fife Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.

  Gateshead and District Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  Grampian Regional Transport Ltd.

  Highland Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.

  Keighley and District Travel Ltd.

  Kelvin Central Buses Ltd.

  Kentish Bus and Coach Co. Ltd.

  Lincolnshire Road Car Co. Ltd.

  London Coaches Ltd.

  London and Country Ltd.

  owland Omnibuses Ltd.

  Luton and District Transport Ltd.

  Maidstone and District Motor Services Ltd.

  Mainline Group Ltd.

  Merseyside Transport Ltd.

  Midland Bluebird Ltd.

  Midland Fox Ltd.

  Midland Red (North) Ltd.

  Midland Red (South) Ltd.

  Midland Red (West) Ltd.

  North Western Road Car Co. Ltd.

  Northern General Transport Co. Ltd.

  Northumbria Motor Services

  O K Motor Service Ltd.

  PMT Ltd.

  Preston Bus Ltd.

  Provincial Bus Co. Ltd.

  Q Drive Buses Ltd.

  Red and White Services Ltd.

  Ribble Motor Services Ltd.

  Shearings Ltd.

  South Coast Buses Ltd.

  South Wales Transport Co. Ltd.

  Southern National Ltd.

  Southern Vectis Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  Stagecoach (Northwest) Ltd. (Cumberland Motor Services)

  Stagecoach (Scotland) Ltd.

  349

  Stagecoach (South) Ltd.

  Stevensons of Uttoxeter Ltd.

  Strathclyde Buses Ltd.

  Strathtay Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.

  Sunderland and District Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  Sussex Coastline Buses Ltd.

  Tayside Public Transport Ltd.

  Tees and District Transport Co. Ltd.

  Thames Transit Ltd.

  Thamesway Ltd.

  Trent Motor Traction Co. Ltd.

  United Automobile Services Ltd.

  United Counties Omnibus Co. Ltd.

  Wallace Arnold Coaches

  West Midlands Travel Ltd.

  West Riding Automobile Co. Ltd.

  Western National Ltd.

  Western Scottish Buses Ltd.

  Wilts and Dorset Bus Co. Ltd. Yorkshire Rider

  Yorkshire Traction Co. Ltd.

  Yorkshire Woollen District Transport Co. Ltd.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number of private bus operators and (b) the estimated number of bus users in major conurbations.

  Mr. Freeman
  (a) For licensing purposes, bus operators are not distinguished from coach operators. In March 1993, there were an estimated 1,300 private bus and coach operators based in London and the English metropolitan areas, out of a total of 6,800 in Great Britain
  as a whole. Of these, about 300 operated local bus services during 1992–93, out of a total of about 1,900 in all Great Britain.

  (b) The number of bus users is not available; however, it is estimated that passengers made a total of 2,514 million local bus journeys during 1992–93 in London and the English metropolitan areas, out of a total of 4,483 million local bus journeys in Great Britain.

  Motorways
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for major motorway works in 1994–95 and for lighting schemes and additional service areas.

  Mr. Key
  There will be an announcement about major motorway works in the new year. It is expected that about 16 miles of motorway will be equipped with lighting for the first time during 1994–95. Following a change of policy in August 1992, proposals for new motorway service areas —MSAs—are now a matter for the private sector. Nevertheless, three MSAs proposed by the Department before the change in policy are expected to open during 1994–95: they are at Birchanger on the M11 and Barn Hill and Cherwell Valley on the M40.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to vote at the EC Council of Ministers against the proposal for a 100 brake horse power limit on motor cycles.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Council of Ministers is expected to convene a conciliation meeting on this issue with the European Parliament. The United Kingdom's position is that there is no evidence to link motor cycle power with the level of accidents. We hope that a conciliation meeting will successfully resolve the issue.

  Motorway Lavatories
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will state the number of lavatories adjacent to motorways in Britain in October 1992 and the number at the present date distinguishing between male, female and disabled:

  (2) if he will list new toilets adjacent to motorways in Britain on which building work has commenced since October 1992 and those for which planning permission has been given, distinguishing between male, female and disabled.

  Mr. Key
  In October 1992 there were 44 motorway service areas—MSAs—in England and a further one, Clacket Lane on the M25, has opened since. All are required to provide free lavatories 24 hours a day. At present, the minimum number of lavatories for males, females and disabled people is specified in the leases of the MSAs, but operators are free to provide more. We do not keep records of the number currently available. Pending the provision of full MSAs, the Department also maintains temporary lavatories with facilities for the disabled alongside the M26, M40—two sites—and M56.

  Motorway services in Wales and Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animals (Exports)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what control she has on the live export of lambs to prevent them being misleadingly described as being produced in another country.

  Mr. Jack
  Animals exported live from the United Kingdom are accompanied by documentation which identifies the country of origin. The descriptions applied to lambs or meat derived from them in another country after export from the United Kingdom are the responsibility of the authorities in that country.

  Declaration on Environment and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by her Department to implement each of the principles of the Rio declaration on environment and development, agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992, in so far as they apply to the matters for which her Department has responsibility.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government will shortly publish the United Kingdom's strategy for sustainable development, together with reports on climate change, biodiversity and forestry. This Department is contributing fully to all of these.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the June census set-aside figures for England for 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The June census set-aside figures for England for 1990 and 1991 are as follows: for 1989 the census recorded set-aside land in the category "All other land on agricultural holdings".
  351

  Land Use ('000 ha)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Set-aside scheme land

  —

  72

  97

  All other land on agricultural holdings

  398

  375

  382

  Set-aside was introduced as a census category only in 1990. Since it was a new category there was some uncertainty as to whether all set-aside land would have been declared as such. Some set-aside land may have been declared as bare fallow or other land. Therefore, for the purposes of determining the base area for the arable area payments scheme, the set-aside areas submitted to the EC Commission were based on actual set-aside agreements reached with farmers for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, which gave the precise areas in set-aside.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what evidence he has that legislation requiring employers to contribute towards the cost of employing people with disabilities, under the access to work scheme, will benefit the disabled work force, and not be a disincentive to the employment of such workers;

  (2) when he will announce the maximum level of aid which people with disabilities can receive over a five-year period under access to work;

  (3) when he will specify the maximum contribution an employer will be expected to make over any five-year period under access to work;

  (4) what estimates his Department has made of the number of people with disabilities to receive assistance under the access to work scheme in its first year of operation;

  (5) how many people with disabilities received assistance from the adaption of premises and equipment, special aids to employment, personal reader service and the fares to work schemes, in the last year for which statistics are available;

  (6) who will assess eligibility for assistance under access to work;

  (7) what differences he proposes in the eligibility conditions for access to work compared to adaption of premises and equipment, special aids to employment, personal reader service and the fares to work schemes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement about access to work to the House on 22 June 1993,Official Report, column 102. Access to work will replace and extend four of the Department's current special schemes and enable us to help more disabled people and meet a much wider range of their employment-related needs. To help fund the extra costs we will expect employers to contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of help, up to a ceiling, to employees who enter the scheme after working for them six months or more. Both recent and earlier research suggests that employers would be willing to make a reasonable contribution. They already do in the current adaptations to premises and equipment scheme.

  There are a number of issues on access to work on which we have still to make decisions. In addition to the
  352
  limits on individual entitlement and employer contributions, these include transitional arrangements for existing beneficiaries of the current special schemes, for how long those helped as new recruits will remain exempt from the employer contributions and whether there will be special arrangements for certain types of firm. My right hon. Friend is currently listening to the views of a number of interested parties and individuals and hopes to make decisions as soon as possible. Once my right hon. Friend has taken decisions on these areas it is intended to make an announcement to the House.

  The numbers helped through each of the four special schemes which will be replaced and extended by access to work were: adaptations to premises and equipment—284; special aids to employment—5,255; personal reader service—796; fares to work—1,789. We hope to help around 9,000 people in the first year of operation of access to work; each person will have access to a wider range of individual items of help.

  Eligibility for access to work will be assessed by disability employment advisers, who are part of the Employment Service's network of placing assessment and counselling teams—PACTs. Eligibility will be based on registrability under the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Formal registration will not, however, be required. Formal registration under the 1944 Act is required for the special aids to employment and fares to work schemes. For the personal reader service, beneficiaries must be registered as blind or partially sighted, but need not be registered as disabled under the 1944 Act. Formal registration under the 1944 Act is not required for the adaptations to premises and equiprnent schemes.

  Fares-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the exclusions which apply on the fares-to-interview scheme; and what plans he has to remove them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The exclusions which apply on fares to interviews are published in the "Travel to Interview Scheme" leaflet which I will arrange to have placed in the Library.

  The scheme has been reviewed and we are now considering what changes should be made and how quickly they can be implemented.

  North Norfolk Action
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will estimate the savings on benefits incurred due to persons leaving the unemployment register after interviews to persons obtaining employment after participating in North Norfolk Action stating the number in each case;

  (2) what was the overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action up to 31 October; and how much expenditure has been incurred on (a) provider fees, (b) allowances, (c) fares to work, (d) publicity, (e) evaluation and (f) employment service running costs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  353
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 29 November 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 Questions about overall expenditure on North Norfolk Action up to 31 October; how much expenditure has been incurred on: provider fees; allowances; fares to work; publicity; evaluation; Employment Service running costs; and an estimate of the savings on benefits incurred due to persons leaving the unemployment register after interviews to persons obtaining employment after participating in North Norfolk Action stating the number in each case. These are matters which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The total expenditure on North Norfolk Action up to 31 October 1993 is £205,182, incurred on:

  £

  (a) Provider fees

  87,349

  (b) Allowances

  85,178

  (c) Fares to work

  2,455

  (d) Publicity

  1,500

  (e) Evaluation by external contractors

  1—

  (f) Running costs

  28,700

  1 Work to start in 1994.

  The numbers of those starting work following participation on the North Norfolk Action programme is 16. The numbers of clients leaving the register to go into work following Supportive Caseload interviews is 120.
  An evaluation exercise is being considered by my Research and Evaluation Branch to estimate the register effect of supportive caseload. A final report will be available early in 1994. Until we have the evaluation it is not possible to estimate savings on benefit as the effect of "deadweight" and "substitution" cannot be taken into account. Further evaluation will involve measuring the improvements in clients' jobsearch, attitude to work and motivation due to participation in North Norfolk Action. This will be done by external providers next year.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he made to endure the monitoring of the standards of employment training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils —TECs—are responsible for delivering employment training schemes. Relations between TECs and the Employment Department are governed by the TEC operating agreement. Under the 1993–94 agreement TECs are required to contract only with training providers that: obtain and maintain approved training organisation status uner criteria published by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, —a copy of which is in the Library; or, have an alternative system approved by my right hon. Friend, as of equivalent or greater assurance and effectiveness.

  From April 1994, the Employment Department will require TECs to operate new arrangements in the way they contract for and manage services and products which the Department funds. The new requirements have been approved by my right hon. Friend and a copy can also be found in the Library.

  Vocational Courses
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed people have taken up the education allowance to enable them to study on full-time vocational courses which the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement in March; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The education allowance announced in March became available in September and is called learning for work. There were approximately 5,000 people participating on 14 October 1993.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places were offered on the business start-up scheme in 1992–93; how many places have been taken up in the current financial year; how many of the additional 10,000 places the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement he now expects will come on stream; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1992–93 there were 35,337 places available on the programme in England. Latest information for 1993–94 shows that, to 10 October 1993, there were 18,254 programme entrants. Of the additional 10,000 starts on the programme 8,580 were allocated to England. Of those 8,580, a total so far of 5,850 have been contracted with training and enterprise councils to be taken up in this financial year. Information for Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Community Action Programme
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places have been taken up in the new community action programme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 16 March; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 29 November 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 him about the number of Community Action places currently taken up. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may help if I explain the background to Community Action and our plans for the provision of the announced places.
  Community Action is a programme to help long-term unemployed people back into work, by providing work experience on projects of benefit to local communities. In the Spring Budget the then Chancellor committed £113·5m, sufficient to provide 20,000 places and help 60,000 people in a full year. Following extensive consultation and development of this new programme, to ensure quality and value for money, the first places became available at the end of July.
  Community Action opportunities will be delivered, in the main, by voluntary/charitable organisations and my people in Regional Offices were given responsibility for contracting with them. The contracting round is now almost complete and 165

  355
  contracts have, so far, been awarded. At the end of October there were 1,200 long-term unemployed people participating in the programme and numbers are increasing steadily. The programme is planned to build to 20,000 filled places by the end of March.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Pilot Schemes
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many pilot schemes have been launched, under which payments are made to employers who recruit the long-term unemployed, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement of 16 March; where are these pilot schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In his spring Budget, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont), announced the introduction of a pilot scheme called workstart which offers a financial incentive to employers who recruit eligible long term unemployed people. There are four pilots, two run by the employment service in south London and east Kent, and two by training and enterprise councils in Tyneside and Devon and Cornwall.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the new £25 million fund for training and enterprise councils announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement of 16 March; when he will invite applications for this fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A prospectus inviting training and enterprise councils to bid for TEC challenge funds was issued on 13 April and the successful bids were announced on 13 July. Copies of both the prospectus and a list of winning bids have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the training and enterprise councils which have designated specific budgets to assist with student hardship in the further education sector.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not allocate specific funds to training and enterprise councils to assist with student hardship in the further education sector. TECs would be able to use their own resources to do this if they

  Great Britain (not seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage of total ILO unemployed

  Duration of ILO unemployment (per cent.)

  All

  Over six months

  Over one year

  Black

  4

  100

  78

  53

  Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi

  4

  100

  77

  48

  White

  90

  100

  75

  42

  Others1

  2

  100

  77

  36

  All ethnic groups

  100

  100

  75

  42

  2 Includes those of mixed origin and other Asian groups not elsewhere specified.

  356
  chose, but information is not held by the Department on those that may have set aside specific budgets for this purpose.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of employment in the Rugby-Daventry travel-to-work area in 1992 and at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Employment estimates for travelto-work areas are available only from the periodic censuses of employment. The latest estimates are for September 1991 when the total number of employees in employment in the Rugby and Daventry travel-to-work area was 50,600.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in employment, broken down for full time and part time, in(a) April 1989, (b) April 1993 and (c) the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The work force in employment estimates are available only for March, June, September and December of each year. The numbers in full-time and part-time employment were:

  Work force in employment: Great Britain (seasonally adjusted)

  Full-time

  Part-time

  March 1989

  19,637,000

  6,341,000

  March 1993

  17,480,000

  6,774,000

  June 1993

  17,529,000

  6,769,000

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time(a) black men, (b) black women, (c) Asian men, (d) Asian women, (e) white men and (f) white women remain unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the unemployed are(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) white; and in each case what percentage is unemployed for more than (i) six months and (ii) one year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimates from the spring 1993 labour force survey according to the international standard—International Labour Organisation —definition of unemployment are given in the following table:

WALES

  Value Added Tax (Books)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has made of the impact upon local education authority budgets in Wales of VAT upon books; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Taxation policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot comment on speculation about possible Budget measures.

  Plough Lane Link Road
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit Wepre Park and Aston, Deeside, to consider the line of route for the Plough lane link road;

  (2) if he will permit a public inquiry into the proposed Plough lane link road, Deeside.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. This is a Clwyd county council scheme and the line of the route has already been determined by it. The county has submitted a compulsory purchase order and a side roads order for my right hon. Friend's consideration. The objection period for the orders expires on 17 December after which time a decision will be taken as to whether or not a public inquiry will be held.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to secure that payments made under the European Community regional development fund objective 3 and 4 programmes to projects in Wales are administered on an all-Wales basis.

  Mr. Redwood
  Payments made under the European regional development fund—ERDF—to projects in Wales

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Hectares base area (3-year average)

  Set-aside

  697

  1,229

  1,591

  1,172

  Proteins

  1,004

  925

  1,009

  979

  Oilseed rape

  554

  744

  1,094

  797

  Cereals

  61,621

  56,016

  53,068

  56,902

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the June census set-aside figures for Wales for 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Redwood
  There were 582 hectares of set-aside land in Wales recorded in the June 1989 agricultural census. This figure is not regarded as reliable and so comparable data were not collected in Wales in 1990 and 1991. More complete data, collected for the administration of the set-aside scheme, based on all land in the scheme during the year, are shown in the following table.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Set-aside Scheme land (hectares)

  697

  1,229

  1,591

  358
  are administered in Wales. Objectives 3 and 4 come under the European social fund and not ERDF, and future administrative arrangements are being considered.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the figures for expenditure in the last financial year on(a) urban development corporations, (b) higher education, (c) grant-maintained schools, (d) further education, (e) care in the community, (f) district health authorities and (g) training and enterprise councils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is set out in the following table:

  £ million

  (a) Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (net)

  36,038

  (b) Higher Education

  44·546

  (c) Grant Maintained Schools

  5·132

  (d) Further Education1

  2·100

  (e) Care in the Community2

  245·300

  (f) District Health Authorities3

  1,384,000

  (g) Training and Enterprise Councils

  107·260

  1 Information on expenditure on further education in 1992–93 under the control of local education authorities is not held centrally. Expenditure by the Welsh Office in respect of adult continuing further education in 1992–93 was £2·1 million.

  2 This figure is approximate and is based on outtum estimates provided by county councils.

  3 Includes Welsh Health Common Services Authority. (Excludes FHSAs).

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the figures in hectares for(a) set-aside, (b) pulses, (c) oil seed rape and (d) cereals for 1989, 1990 and 1991 which were used to calculate the base area in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The figures used to calculate the base area in Wales are as follows:

  A465
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now announce the start date for work on the A465 between Aberdulais and Glynneath.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Cardiff International Arena
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with Cardiff city council in relation to the release of urban development grant funds to Brent Walker with respect to the Cardiff international arena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: Cardiff city council is party to the urban development grant

  359
  agreement drawn up with Brent Walker and responsible for monitoring the Cardiff international arena project. The Welsh Office receives written quarterly progress reports from the council and frequent informal contact is also maintained. These arrangements are no different from those which apply to other UDG projects.

  The CIA project is now almost complete and final payment of grant, £256,000, will be made when a certificate of final completion has been issued and approved.

  British Gas Wales
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he was consulted about the proposed closure of British Gas Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: I understand that British Gas is considering restructuring to become more efficient and competitive and that it has not yet reached a final decision. The future of British Gas Wales is a matter for the company to decide.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify for each local authority the amount of accumulated capital receipts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Usable cash backed accumulated capital receipts at 31 March 1993.

  £'000

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  Colwyn

  452

  Delyn

  0

  Glyndwr

  350

  Rhuddlan

  634

  Wrexham Maelor

  110

  Carmarthen

  1,120

  Ceredigion

  371

  Dinefwr

  761

  Llanelli

  0

  Preseli Pembs

  1,910

  South Pembroke

  1,741

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,406

  Islwyn

  648

  Monmouth

  2,248

  Newport

  5,250

  Torfaen

  1,634

  Aberconwy

  1,223

  Arfon

  141

  Dwyfor

  144

  Meirionnydd

  0

  Ynys Mon

  71

  Cynon Valley

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  781

  Ogwr

  3,453

  Rhondda

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  949

  Taff Ely

  91

  Brecknock

  996

  Montgomeryshire

  1,016

  Radnorshire

  125

  Cardiff

  2,601

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,659

  Lliw Valley

  1,794

  Neath

  1,778

  Port Talbot

  77

  Swansea

  1,514

  Clwyd

  0

  Dyfed

  549

  Gwent

  5,877

  Gwynedd

  382

  360

  £'000

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,266

  Powys

  213

  South Glamorgan

  328

  West Glamorgan

  1,140

  TOTAL DISTRICTS

  41,048

  TOTAL COUNTIES

  9,755

  TOTAL WALES

  50,803

DEFENCE

  Forces (Resignations)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's forces leave before the end of their contract; and what is the ethnic breakdown.

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available, 24,616 service personnel left the armed forces before the end of their commission or engagement. This figure includes those who left on redundancy terms, but excludes those who died or left for medical or compassionate reasons.

  Information on the ethnic origins of those leaving the armed forces is not available.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of members of Her Majesty's forces from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available at present. My Department will however shortly be undertaking a survey of the ethnic origins of serving personnel as part of our implementation of in-service ethnic monitoring.

  Skyguard
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capacity the Skyguard system has for passive monitoring of the height and speed of low-flying aircraft; and what use is made of this capacity when the system is used for covert monitoring of low flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Skyguard radar system is an active system which has no capacity for passive monitoring of the height and speed of low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what surveys have been conducted of the actions taken by military aircrew when they become aware of the location or presence of a Skyguard radar monitoring low flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  No such surveys have been conducted.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on which nations possess the Skyguard-Oerlikon anti-aircraft system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Nations which possess this system include: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.

  Minehunting
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's minehunting capability; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to achieve a flotilla of 25 mine counter measures vessels;

  (3) when he expects to issue an invitation to tender for a further batch of Sandown minehunters.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government are committed to retaining a capable and effective mine counter measures fleet. We therefore intend to continue over the next decade with our modernisation programme, which will entail the procurement of further Sandown class single-role minehunters and a mid-life update for the Hunt class. As we made clear in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, it is our intention to build up to a 25-strong fleet, consisting solely of highly capable Hunt and Sandown class vessels. The timing of this build-up will be dependent on the in-service dates of further Sandown class vessels. We expect to make an announcement on future orders for the Sandown class shortly.

  Forces Pay
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the rates of pay of British forces serving in central Bosnia and Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  United Kingdom service personnel are paid the same rates of,basic pay irrespective of where they are serving.

  Total remuneration will however vary depending on a range of factors including the allowances to which personnel are entitled. Personnel in Germany receive local overseas allowance— LOA—paid to compensate for the additional costs of living there compared to the United Kingdom. No LOA is payable in the former Yugoslavia but personnel deployed to the former Yugoslavia from Germany continue to receive a significant element of their LOA in recognition of their continuing financial commitments in Germany—70 per cent. for married personnel, 40 per cent. for single personnel.

  In addition, married personnel in the former Yugoslavia are entitled to separation allowance and all personnel receive the United Nations set allowances to cover incidental expenses and rest and recreation leave. Food and accommodation charges have been waived for all personnel in the former Yugoslavia in recognition of the conditions under which they are serving.

  United Nations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to his counterparts in NATO, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Western European Union in seeking to gain support for strengthening the United Nations, as indicated in paragraph 50 of the Government's reply to the fourth report of the Defence Committee of Session 1992–93, House of Commons Paper 988.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government see a clear role for organisations such as NATO, the CSCE and WEU in supporting the conflict management and prevention 362
  activities of the United Nations. All three are already providing such support, in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Considerable work is also under way within these organisations on how they might best contribute to and support United Nations activities in the future. The United Kingdom is a full and active participant in this work.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether high alumina cement was used in the construction of the Queen Elizabeth military Hospital at Woolwich.

  Mr. Hanley
  An inspection of available information shows no specific evidence of high alumina cement being used in the construction of this hospital.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total annual maintenance expenditure on the Queen Elizabeth military hospital at Woolwich for each year since 1982; and what is the budgeted expenditure in the current year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The budgeted expenditure for works maintenance at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich in 1993–94 is £1,990,000. Corresponding figures for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 were £1,030,000, £2,040,000 and £2,430,000 respectively. Prior to 1990, works maintenance expenditure was the responsibility of the Property Services Agency and my Department does not hold any recorded information.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been introduced to improve the geographical spread of low flying in the United Kingdom low-flying system since the report by the National Audit Office in 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1992, a fast jet turn-round facility was established at RAF Leuchars to enable low-flying training in the United Kingdom by RAF aircrews based in Germany to be carried out in the relatively lightly used northern half of Scotland. In addition, a continuous review of the United Kingdom low-flying system is carried out which ensures that avoidances, which tend to channel activity, only continue to apply where absolutely necessary.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the maximum permitted speeds for each type of aircraft during(a) the run-up to simulated targets and (b) practice interceptions and fighter evasion, during low-level sorties at (i) 250 ft and (ii) 100 ft, in the United Kingdom low-flying system; and if he will indicate the date on which each specified limit was introduced.

  Mr. Hanley
  For military aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low-flying system at 250 ft above ground level, the maximum speed permitted overland during run-up to simulated targets or during practice interceptions is 550 knots, except for F111 and FI5E aircraft which are limited to 520 knots and Hawk aircraft which are limited to 500 knots. The maximum speeds for military aircraft flying at 100 ft above ground level are as follows:
  363

  Military aircraft

  Knots

  Jaguar

  520

  Tornado

  500

  Hawk

  480

  Harrier GR5/7

  420

  Speed restrictions for most of the aircraft concerned were introduced in January 1991, although further restrictions were introduced for Jaguar and F15E aircraft in April 1992.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force fast jet pilots currently hold a qualification to fly at 100 ft above ground level.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational low-flying sorties were authorised in(a) the Borders tactical training area, east, and (b) the Borders tactical training area, west, in each month from January 1991 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  Figures showing the number of operational low-flying sorties flown in the borders tactical training area are not available. However, the number of operational low-flying movements authorised into the borders tactical training area, east, and borders tactical training area, west, in each month from January 1991 to the latest available date are as follows:

  LFA2OT (East)

  LFA2OT (West)

  1991

  January

  113

  67

  February

  72

  55

  March

  203

  121

  April

  0

  0

  May

  4

  4

  June

  0

  0

  July

  0

  0

  August

  0

  0

  September

  5

  4

  October

  15

  23

  November

  103

  85

  December

  226

  156

  1992

  January

  76

  65

  February

  162

  199

  March

  146

  117

  April

  96

  91

  May

  52

  37

  June

  79

  72

  July

  74

  50

  August

  98

  75

  September

  39

  29

  October

  139

  104

  November

  87

  49

  December

  70

  61

  1993

  January

  149

  130

  February

  105

  74

  March

  396

  321

  April

  212

  200

  May

  138

  102

  June

  34

  23

  July

  0

  0

  August

  104

  46

  September

  28

  16

  364
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been collected since the Royal Air Force Strike Command trial in 1988–89, on the amount of actual low flying carried out by Royal Air Force aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since mid-1989 information has been collected showing the amount of time spent in different height bands by Royal Air Force Strike Command aircraft while operating in the United Kingdom low-flying system. Collection of the information continues.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the first operational low-flying sortie took place in the Borders tactical training area, west..

  Mr. Hanley
  Operational Low Flying was first carried out in the borders tactical training area, west, on 29 June 1988.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are held of low flying between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records of low-level sorties flown between these times will be held on the flight authorisation sheets held by flying stations and on the low-level booking sheets held by the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton. Such sorties are not, however, separately identified in the statistics maintained for central management purposes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been adopted since 1989 to achieve a more even distribution throughout the working week of low-flying training over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  Every effort is made to ensure as even as possible a distribution of activity throughout the working week, subject to the constraining factors of aircraft availability, support and engineering staff availability, range opening times, normal operating hours of the United Kingdom low-flying system and suitable weather conditions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed on low flying in low-flying area 16; and what advice is given to aircrew booking into that area, when low-flying area 20 is active.

  Mr. Hanley
  Low flying is normally permitted down to a minimum height of 250 ft minimum separation distance within the whole of low-flying area 16. When low-flying area 20T—the borders tactical training area—is active, aircraft not conducting operational low flying are not permitted to operate below 500 ft in that part of LFA 16 which overlays LFA 20T. Aircrew are notified of the times when LFA 20T is active by means of notices to airmen.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the March 1989 report on the Royal Air Force Strike Command investigation of the amount of low flying carried out by aircrew.

  Mr. Hanley
  The document requested is classified and cannot be released.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational low-flying sorties were
  365
  authorised in the area covered by the Borders tactical training area in each year between 1979 and the formal incorporation of the training area in 1984.

  Mr. Hanley
  No operational low flying was conducted in the area now covered by the Borders tactical training area between 1979 and November 1983, when a six-month trial of operational low flying was begun in the area prior to its formal incorporation into the United Kingdom low-flying system in 1984. During this period, a total of 373 movements were authorised into the borders tactical training area.

  Civil Aircraft (Interception)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing the practice interception of non-co-operating civil aircraft by Royal Air Force fighters.

  Mr. Hanley
  Royal Air Force regulations specifically state that no practice interceptions are to be made on civilian aircraft.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what winter apparel has been issued to date to British forces serving in central Bosnia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the British forces serving in central Bosnia will be issued with Arctic kit including special warm clothing during the winter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Issues of winter clothing to British troops in central Bosnia commenced on 14 November 1993. The majority of troops have been issued with winter clothing items including cold weather caps, arctic gloves, wristlets, arctic socks, face masks, Norwegian shirts, wet weather boots and cover-ails. A delay in issuing winter clothing to a small percentage of the troops has been experienced due to the closure of the route between Split and Vitez. The route has now been reopened and all troops have now been issued with the full complement of winter clothing.

  IMS Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were employed by IMS Ltd. at each location in each year between 1987 and 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  IMS is a private limited company, which ceased trading in July 1991 and is in the process of rundown. Internal management matters are the responsibility of the company. However, figures from the company's published annual accounts are available as follows:

  1987

  160 employees (114 United Kingdom based)

  1988

  132 employees (102 United Kingdom based)

  1989

  96 employees (65 United Kingdom based)

  1990

  61 employees (42 United Kingdom based)

  1991

  29 employees (three United Kingdom based)

  Tornado
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have taken place in the requirements for competency in medium and/or high altitude weapons delivery for operational Tornado aircrew over the past four years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1991, crews are required to complete two medium-level weaponry profiles prior to 366
  being awarded combat ready status. They are then required to complete 12 medium-level weapons profiles as part of the aircrew annual training syllabus. In addition, designated thermal imaging and laser designator crews are afforded extra sorties as are those on specific operational duties. Weapon delivery can only be undertaken at low and medium level by Tornado aircraft.

  Live Weapons (Carriage)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing the carriage of live weaponry on military aircraft using civil airports in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military aircraft carrying live weapons plan not to use civil airports in the United Kingdom. Where, for safety reasons, an aircraft has to land as a matter of urgency however, an approach and landing may be made to a civil airport. In such cases the airport authorities are informed that weapons are being carried before the aircraft lands. On landing, all necessary precautions are taken to ensure the safety of the public and surrounding area.

  Arms Transfers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to encourage international responsibility in arms transfers.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom is an active participant in a number of multilateral export control regimes covering weapons of mass destruction. These include the missile technology control regime, Nuclear Suppliers Group and Australia Group—which deals with chemical and biological weapons. Through our membership of the EC and P5 we have agreed harmonised criteria concerning the export of defence equipment. We are also involved in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and negotiations among COCOM partners, the latter relating to replacing COCOM controls with an arrangement to cover conventional arms and dual-use equipments more generally. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of moves to promote greater transparency in conventional arms transfers through the United Nations register of conventional arms.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans Her Majesty's Government have to discuss with non-governmental organisations the present status of instruments of verification, as part of the policy announced in the Queen's Speech to take part in negotiations towards a verifiable and comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are currently considering how best to establish cost-effective and sufficient verification measures as part of our policy to move towards a verifiable and comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We will consult non-governmental bodies as necessary.

  Forces (Suicides)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of suicides recorded in Her Majesty's forces in each of the last five years, and the ethnic breakdown of these.
  367
  Mr. Hanley
  According to our records, the number of deaths in the armed forces recorded as suicide in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Numbers

  1988

  42

  1989

  36

  1990

  48

  1991

  43

  1992

  35

  Of the 43 personnel who committed suicide in 1991, two were Gurkhas. No further information in respect of the ethnic origins of those who committed suicide is available.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many current or former service men have contacted his Department since August indicating they believed themselves to be suffering from Desert Storm syndrome arising from toxic poisoning or uranium contamination during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  Three former members of the armed forces have contacted my Department since the beginning of August believing themselves to be suffering from medical conditions which they attribute to exposure to oil fire smoke—one individual—or to depleted uranium—two individuals. In the same period, a further two former service men have contacted my Department believing themselves to be suffering from symptoms connected to their service in the Gulf, but without specific reference to the possible causes. There have been no such approaches in the period from serving armed forces personnel.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to monitor the congressional hearings currently being held into claims that service men involved in the Gulf war, including

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Total FTE

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational Groups

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Open Structure Grade 1 (including 1A)

  4

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4·0

  0·0

  4·0

  Open Structure Grade 2

  9

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  9·0

  0·0

  9·0

  Open Structure Grade 3

  47

  2

  49

  0

  1

  1

  47·0

  2·5

  49·5

  Open Structure Grade 4

  32

  2

  34

  0

  0

  0

  32·0

  2·0

  34·0

  Open Structure Grade 5

  272

  8

  280

  1

  1

  2

  272·5

  8·5

  281·0

  Open Structure Grade 6

  712

  15

  727

  3

  0

  3

  713·5

  15·0

  728·5

  Open Structure Grade7

  2,618

  104

  2,722

  15

  10

  25

  2,625·5

  109·0

  2,734·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,056

  151

  1,207

  1

  3

  4

  1,056·5

  152·5

  1,209·0

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  12

  7

  19

  0

  0

  0

  12·0

  7·0

  19·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  2,112

  885

  2,997

  0

  36

  36

  2,112·0

  903·0

  3,015·0

  Administration Trainee

  5

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  5·0

  1·0

  6·0

  Executive Officer

  2,941

  2,679

  5,620

  7

  144

  151

  2,944·5

  2,751·0

  5,695·5

  Administrative Officer

  4,253

  9,845

  14,098

  16

  807

  823

  4,261·0

  10,248·5

  14,509·5

  Administrative Assistant

  1,612

  5,110

  6,722

  21

  882

  903

  1,622·5

  5,551·0

  7,173·5

  Senior Economic Assistant

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Senior Information Officer

  27

  2

  29

  0

  0

  0

  27·0

  2·0

  29·0

  Information Officer

  33

  19

  52

  1

  0

  1

  33·5

  19·0

  52·5

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  Senior Librarian

  9

  7

  16

  0

  0

  0

  9·0

  7·0

  16·0

  Librarian

  19

  29

  48

  0

  1

  1

  19·0

  29·5

  48·5

  Assistant Librarian

  16

  26

  42

  0

  6

  6

  16·0

  29·0

  45·0

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade D

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  5·0

  0·0

  5·0

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade E

  4

  2

  6

  0

  0

  0

  4·0

  2·0

  6·0

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade F

  8

  1

  9

  0

  0

  0

  8·0

  1·0

  9·0

  368
  United States service men on joint operations with United Kingdom service men, are suffering from Gulf war syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  Members of the British embassy and defence staff in Washington have attended the recent congressional hearings and have forwarded to my Department comprehensive details of the discussions which have taken place. They are also actively liaising with the Department of Defence, Health Service and Veterans Affairs officials to ensure that the United Kingdom is kept fully up to date with current developments, including any further congressional hearings which may take place.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current radius of the avoidance area around the town of Lockerbie.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to release detailed information on flying restrictions in individual areas.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries he knows to possess depleted uranium bullets or shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom, the United Slates and Russia have publicly acknowledged that they have depleted uranium ammunition.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the total number of women employed.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following information relates to staff employed at 1 April 1993, and shows full-time, part-time and full-time equivalent numbers, which count part time as half.
  369

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Total FTE

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational Groups

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Museum Curatorial Group Grade G

  2

  4

  6

  0

  0

  0

  2·0

  4·0

  6·0

  Museum Conservation Group Grade F

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Chief Constable

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Deputy Chief Constable

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2·0

  0·0

  2·0

  Assistant Chief Constable

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  5·0

  0·0

  5·0

  Chief Superintendent

  12

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12·0

  0·0

  12·0

  Superintendent

  27

  0

  27

  0

  0

  0

  27·0

  0·0

  27·0

  Chief Inspector

  63

  3

  66

  0

  0

  0

  63·0

  3·0

  66·0

  Inspector

  141

  8

  149

  0

  0

  0

  141·0

  8·0

  149·0

  Sergeant

  621

  34

  655

  0

  0

  0

  621·0

  34·0

  655·0

  Constable

  3,228

  278

  3,506

  0

  0

  0

  3,228·0

  278·0

  3,506·0

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  2,317

  14

  2,331

  10

  0

  10

  2,322·0

  14·0

  2,336·0

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  3,950

  49

  3,999

  9

  1

  10

  3,954·5

  49·5

  4,004·0

  Professional and Technology Officer

  5,350

  82

  5,432

  4

  3

  7

  5,352·0

  83·5

  5,435·5

  Professional and Technology Officer IV

  6

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  6·0

  0·0

  6·0

  Technical Grade 1

  264

  134

  398

  0

  8

  8

  264·0

  138·0

  402·0

  Technical Grade 2

  15

  13

  28

  1

  3

  4

  15·5

  14·5

  30·0

  Graduate Trainee

  124

  19

  143

  0

  0

  0

  124·0

  19·0

  143·0

  Trainee Incorporated Engineer

  23

  1

  24

  0

  0

  0

  23·0

  1·0

  24·0

  Senior Mapping and Charting Officer

  95

  19

  114

  1

  5

  6

  95·5

  21·5

  117·0

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  197

  36

  233

  0

  2

  2

  197·0

  37·0

  234·0

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  374

  100

  474

  2

  39

  41

  375·0

  119·5

  494·5

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 1

  131

  74

  205

  1

  12

  13

  131·5

  80·0

  211·5

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 2

  42

  42

  84

  1

  7

  8

  42·5

  45·5

  88·0

  Senior Graphics Officer

  12

  1

  13

  0

  0

  0

  12·0

  1·0

  13·0

  Higher Graphics Officer

  54

  3

  57

  0

  0

  0

  54·0

  3·0

  57·0

  Graphics Officer

  187

  30

  217

  0

  1

  1

  187·0

  30·5

  217·5

  Marine Service Officer Grade 1

  15

  0

  15

  0

  0

  0

  15·0

  0·0

  15·0

  Marine Service Officer Grade 2

  92

  0

  92

  0

  0

  0

  92·0

  0·0

  92·0

  Marine Service Officer Grade 3

  176

  0

  176

  0

  0

  0

  176·0

  0·0

  176·0

  Marine Service Officer Grade 4

  108

  0

  108

  0

  0

  0

  108·0

  0·0

  108·0

  Senior Research Officer (R)

  38

  6

  44

  1

  0

  1

  38·5

  6·0

  44·5

  Research Officer (R)

  14

  6

  20

  0

  0

  0

  14·0

  6·0

  20·0

  Chief Typing Manager

  0

  16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  16·0

  16·0

  Typing Manager

  0

  199

  199

  0

  1

  1

  0·0

  199·5

  199·5

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0

  95

  95

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  95·0

  95·0

  Personal Secretary

  3

  812

  815

  0

  21

  21

  3·0

  822·5

  825·5

  Typist

  8

  2,958

  2,966

  0

  732

  732

  8·0

  3,324·0

  3,332·0

  Trainee Typist

  0

  3

  3

  0

  3

  3

  0·0

  4·5

  4·5

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1,516

  126

  1,642

  15

  21

  36

  1,523·5

  136·5

  1,660·0

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1,421

  234

  1,655

  3

  28

  31

  1,422·5

  248·0

  1,670·5

  Scientific Officer

  1,210

  258

  1,468

  2

  14

  16

  1,211·0

  265·0

  1,476·0

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  599

  126

  725

  0

  10

  10

  599·0

  131·0

  730·0

  Senior Instructional Officer

  66

  0

  66

  0

  0

  0

  66·0

  0·0

  66·0

  Higher Instructional Officer

  296

  1

  297

  0

  0

  0

  296·0

  1·0

  297·0

  Instructional Officer I

  1,071

  9

  1,080

  2

  0

  2

  1,072·0

  9·0

  1,081·0

  Instructional Officer II

  229

  4

  233

  1

  1

  2

  229·5

  4·5

  234·0

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Chef 1/Chief Cook 1

  11

  1

  12

  0

  0

  0

  11·0

  1·0

  12·0

  Chef 2/Chief Cook 2

  23

  1

  24

  0

  0

  0

  23·0

  1·0

  24·0

  Chief Fire Service Officer

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Senior Fire Service Officer

  12

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12·0

  0·0

  12·0

  Fire Service Officer 1

  34

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  34·0

  0·0

  34·0

  Fire Service Officer 11

  57

  0

  57

  0

  0

  0

  57·0

  0·0

  57·0

  Fire Service Officer III

  59

  0

  59

  0

  0

  0

  59·0

  0·0

  59·0

  Senior Investigating Officer

  12

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  12·0

  0·0

  12·0

  Investing Officer 1

  60

  1

  61

  0

  0

  0

  60·0

  1·0

  61·0

  Investigating Officer 2

  225

  3

  228

  0

  0

  0

  225·0

  3·0

  228·0

  Museum Technician Grade 2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Museum Technician Grade 3

  2

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  Museum Support Grade 1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Museum Support Grade 2

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3·0

  0·0

  3·0

  Museum Support Grade 3

  22

  1

  23

  0

  0

  0

  22·0

  1·0

  23·0

  Museum Support Grade 4

  5

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  5·0

  0·0

  5·0

  Museum Support Grade 5

  7

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  7·0

  0·0

  7·0

  Senior Photographic Officer

  9

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  9·0

  0·0

  9·0

  Higher Photographic Officer

  53

  2

  55

  0

  0

  0

  53·0

  2·0

  55·0

  Photographic Officer

  155

  9

  164

  0

  1

  1

  155·0

  9·5

  164·5

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade A

  7

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  7·0

  0·0

  7·0

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade B

  33

  0

  33

  0

  0

  0

  33·0

  0·0

  33·0

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade C

  116

  1

  117

  0

  0

  0

  116·0

  1·0

  117·0

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade D

  301

  8

  309

  0

  2

  2

  301·0

  9·0

  310·0

  Process and Supervisory Group Grade E

  127

  8

  135

  0

  0

  0

  127·0

  8·0

  135·0

  Senior Psychologist

  10

  11

  21

  0

  0

  0

  10·0

  11·0

  21·0

  Higher Psychologist

  7

  16

  23

  0

  0

  0

  7·0

  16·0

  23·0

  Psychologist (Graduate Trainee)

  1

  6

  7

  0

  0

  0

  1·0

  6·0

  7·0

  370 371

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Total FTE

  Grades within the Open Structure and Occupational Groups

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Stores Officer Grade A

  20

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  20·0

  0·0

  20·0

  Stores Officer Grade B

  130

  1

  131

  0

  0

  0

  130·0

  1·0

  131·0

  Stores Officer Grade C

  359

  12

  371

  0

  0

  0

  359·0

  12·0

  371·0

  Stores Officer Grade D

  719

  61

  780

  1

  1

  2

  719·5

  61·5

  781·0

  Support Manager 1

  7

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  7·0

  2·0

  9·0

  Support Manager 2

  22

  18

  40

  0

  0

  0

  22·0

  18·0

  40·0

  Support Manager 3

  87

  121

  208

  0

  0

  0

  87·0

  121·0

  208·0

  Support Grade Band 1

  338

  808

  1,146

  5

  54

  59

  340·5

  835·0

  1,175·5

  Support Grade Band 2

  507

  481

  988

  5

  55

  60

  509·5

  508·5

  1,018·0

  Senior Telecommunication Technical Officer

  50

  0

  50

  0

  0

  0

  50·0

  0·0

  50·0

  Higher Telecommunication Technical Officer

  166

  0

  166

  0

  0

  0

  166·0

  0·0

  166·0

  Telecommunication Technical Officer

  381

  3

  384

  6

  1

  7

  384·0

  3·5

  387·5

  Assistant Telecommunication Technical Officer

  462

  13

  475

  0

  0

  0

  462·0

  13·0

  475·0

  Trainee Telecommunication Technical Officer

  44

  9

  53

  0

  0

  0

  44·0

  9·0

  53·0

  Communications Officer I

  15

  I

  16

  0

  0

  0

  15·0

  1·0

  16·0

  Communications Officer II

  43

  4

  47

  0

  0

  0

  43·0

  4·0

  47·0

  Communications Officer III

  99

  33

  132

  0

  0

  0

  99·0

  33·0

  132·0

  Communications Officer IV

  245

  116

  361

  1

  4

  5

  245·5

  118·0

  363·5

  Total staff in Open Structure and Occupational Groups

  44,965

  26,446

  71,411

  136

  2,921

  3,057

  45,033·0

  27,906·5

  72,939·5

  Total staff in Departmental Non-Industrial Grades

  12,159

  2,563

  14,722

  75

  371

  446

  12,196·5

  2,748·5

  14,945·0

  Industrial staff

  34,343

  6,218

  40,561

  161

  1,399

  1,560

  34,423·5

  6,917·5

  41,341·0

  Total non-industrial and industrial staff

  91,467

  35,227

  126,694

  372

  4,691

  5,063

  91,653·0

  37,572·5

  129,225·5

  There are some 500 departmental grades and some 850 industrial grades used in the Ministry of Defence, most of which are managed locally. A detailed breakdown of these could only be provided at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his policies discourage non-nuclear countries from developing nuclear weapons of their own.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 157 countries have already committed themselves to non-nuclear weapon status by acceding to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states. We look to these states to honour their obligations under the treaty. We extend to all of them our standard security assurances which remove the fear that nuclear weapons might be used to coerce non-nuclear states. We play an active part in defusing regional tensions which might fuel proliferation. We continue to urge the remaining 28 non-parties to the treaty to accede at the earliest possible date. We have demonstrated our readiness to reduce our own nuclear force levels wherever we can. We are ready to participate fully and constructively in negotiating a verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty.

  Pindar Project
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has conducted into cost overruns on the Pindar project.

  Mr. Hanley
  Pindar project costs have been the subject of a number of thorough reviews and the lessons learnt are being implemented.

  Aircraft Interceptions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing the conduct of practice interceptions by aircraft carrying live air-to-air missiles.

  Mr. Hanley
  The regulations are: prior to a specific alert state, only designated United Kingdom quick reaction alert—(Interceptor) QRA(I)—aircraft, with a properly constituted crew may carry out interceptions with an aircraft armed with missiles or gun and missiles. During QRA(I) scrambles, a live armed QRA(I) aircraft may intercept its designated target provided the aircraft captain ensures that:Airways traffic is avoided
  The firing trigger is not operated
  The sighting system aiming point is not placed on the target Before closing below 10 nautical miles with the target aircraft, the fighter pilot is to confirm with the intercept controller that the "armament safety check is complete."

  The only exception to this regulation is training undertaken by air defence aircraft in the Falkland Islands where practice interceptions with armed aircraft are permitted but against other military aircraft only.

  Ministerial Speech
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of his speech to the Centre for Defence Studies on 16 November in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes.

  WE177 Nuclear Bomb
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the future of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb in relation to the introduction of the Trident submarine.
  373
  Mr. Hanley
  We plan on exploiting the flexibility and capability of the Trident system to provide the vehicle for our sub-strategic deterrent when the WE 177 eventually leaves service.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the factors taken into account by his Department when determining the size of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear capability deployed on Trident.

  Mr. Hanley
  We will deploy on Trident only the minimum nuclear capability which we judge necessary to provide effective deterrence, presenting any potential aggressor with the prospect of unacceptable damage.

  Minehunting
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's minehunting capability.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government are committed to retaining a capable and effective mine counter measures fleet. We therefore intend to continue over the next decade with our modernisation programme, which will entail the procurement of further Sandown class single role minehunters and a mid-life update for the Hunt class. The 1993 statement on the Defence Estimates makes clear our intention to build up to a fleet of 25 of these highly capable vessels. We expect to make an announcement on future orders for the Sandown class shortly.

  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis he has employed Mr. David Hart to work in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Hart is not an employee of the Ministry of Defence. He is one of several people who provide informal and unpaid advice to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence from time to time.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the amount of loan debt for each local authority in England in its capital account, excluding debt related to trading services, for the year 1992–93, together with his estimate of the amount of capital expenditure not authorised by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  Statistics on loan debt excluding trading services debt are no longer collected by the Department. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publishes figures for most local authorities. The most recent publication is "Capital Payments, Financing and Debt Statistics 1991–92".

  The amount of capital expenditure undertaken by local authorities is entirely for them to determine within the resources available to them. Central Government support for authorities' capital expenditure is set out in the
  374
  statistical supplement to the "Autumn Statement"—"Public Expenditure Analyses to 1995–96: Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", Her Majesty's Treasury 1993, Cm 2219.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify for each local authority the amount of accumulated capital receipts.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for information on the usable receipts held by each local authority in England at 1 April 1993 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the planning inspectorate has overruled local authorities and allowed the establishment of amusement arcades opposite the entrances to secondary schools since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held in the inspectorate's records.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many overseas visits he has made since his appointment; and if he will list the places visited, the costs of the visits and the cost to public funds.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since my appointment I have made four overseas visits. They are:

  Places Visited and Purpose

  Cost of Visit £

  New York

  To address the UN Commission on Sustainable Development

  9,321·50

  Luxembourg

  Meeting of the Environment Council

  1,013·12

  Brussels

  Bilateral with the EC Commissioner

  870·30

  Monte Carlo

  To support Manchester's bid to host the Olympic games

  2,517·55

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many visits abroad he has made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since January 1993 either I or my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State have made 10 overseas visits. They are:

  Places Visited and Purpose

  Cost of Visit £

  Washington

  Discussions with the relevant members of the new Administration

  12,024·37

  India

  Discussions on international environmental issues of importance to both India and the United Kingdom

  5,586·36

  Brussels

  375

  Places Visited and Purpose

  Cost of Visit £

  Informal Environment Council

  822·93

  Canada

  International Environment Ministers Conference

  6,689·13

  Lucerne

  European Environment Ministers Conference

  1,162·58

  Nairobi

  Meeting of the United Nations Enviroment Programme Council

  7,916·32

  New York

  To address the UN Commission

  9,321·50

  Luxembourg

  Meeting of the Enviroment Council

  1,013·12

  Brussels

  Bilateral with the EC Commissioner

  870·30

  Monte Carlo

  To support Manchester's bid to host the Olympic Games

  2,517·55

  Rents
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the average cost rent will be for social housing produced at(a) current and (b) projected housing association grant levels for (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  Sir George Young
  The cost rent of any housing association development will vary depending on the nature of the particular development and the circumstances of the individual association.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities he has visited since his appointment; and what is the total number of representations and correspondence he has received concerning the local government review.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since my appointment, I have visited the following local authorities:

  Monday 14 June — Manchester city council

  Wednesday 14 July — Liverpool city council

  Friday 16 July — Nottinghamshire county council

  Wednesday 8 September — Derby city council

  Wednesday 29 September — Southend-on-Sea borough council

  Wednesday 29 September — Thurrock borough council

  Wednesday 13 October — London borough of Tower Hamlets

  Friday 15 October — South Cambridgeshire district council

  Tuesday 19 October — London borough of Newham

  Friday 22 October — Gloucester city council

  Monday 8 November — Kent county council

  Gravesham borough council

  Dartford borough council

  Gillingham borough council

  Thursday 11 November — Leicester city council

  Friday 12 November — Peterborough city council

  A total figure for the number of items of correspondence I have received on the Local Government Commission's reviews is not available, except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place with the Local Government Commission concerning the possible creation of a new unitary authority straddling the Yorkshire and Lancashire border.
  376
  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission has discretion, where it judges it necessary, to make a formal request to my right hon. Friend that the area of review be extended to include localities bordering on that area. The commission has not made such a request in respect of either the Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire or the Lancashire review areas.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has reached oil the Local Government Commission's reports on Derbyshire and on Cleveland and Durham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today written to Sir John Banham, chairman of the Local Government Commission, about the commission's reports "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of Derbyshire" and "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of Cleveland and Durham".

  Having considered the commission's recommendations for Derbyshire and County Durham, together with representations made to me, I am not at present satisfied that the proposals in respect of those areas meet the criteria in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992. I am still considering the commission's recommendations for Cleveland.

  I have therefore, under section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, directed the commission to conduct further reviews of Derbyshire and County Durham, having regard to the revised policy and procedure guidance issued to it on 2 November and 22 November respectively.

  As with the other reviews which I announced on 22 November, I have directed the commission to start on 13 December 1993 and to report on or before 30 December 1994. I will be discussing target dates for final reports with the commission when it has consulted local authorities in these two areas.

  These two reviews were conducted in accordance with the original policy guidance which I issued to the commission in July 1992. The revised policy guidance which I issued on 2 November clarified the Government's views on a number of issues, including unitary authorities and the importance of local consensus. Representations have been made to me by local authorities in Derbyshire and Durham that they should be given the opportunity to make fresh proposals on the basis of the new guidance. I consider that the local authorities and people of these areas ought to be given that chance.

  A copy of my letter to Sir John Banham has been placed in the Library.

  GATT
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) the United Kingdom environment and (b) the environment of the United Kingdom's trading partners of the implementation of the proposals in the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  Mr. Yeo
  A successful outcome to the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade will bring lower tariffs on goods and a significant liberalisation of trade in services from which all countries will benefit. This
  377
  should increase the resources available to finance environmental improvements and should help to promote sustainable development.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to implement paragraph 22.4 of chapter 22 of the Agenda 21 report from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, on the minimisation of generation of radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Paragraph 22.4 of the Agenda 21 report from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development reflects current United Kingdom policies and practices.

  Inner-city Initiative
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name each urban programme authority and state the amount of aid they have received under each Government inner-city initiative since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Several Government Departments contribute to urban regeneration through a wide range of programmes. The total support provided by my Department's targeted urban group of programmes since 1981 is as follows:

  Outturn prices £ million

  1981–82

  160

  1982–83

  283

  1983–84

  326

  1984–85

  449

  1985–86

  437

  1986–87

  428

  1987–88

  516

  1988–89

  598

  1989–90

  817

  1990–91

  970

  1991–92

  987

  1992–93

  987

  1993–94

  1927

  1 provision

  Comprehensive information for all eligible areas is not readily available. Further information by programme is set out in the relevant departmental annual reports and public expenditure White Papers.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the workings of the planning inspectorate and list the number of occasions on which it has overruled local authorities in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is listed.

  Section 78 Planning Appeals

  Year

  Appeals allowed

  1979

  2,602

  1980

  4,044

  1981

  4,721

  1982

  4,003

  378

  Year

  Appeals allowed

  1983

  3,633

  1984

  3,773

  1985

  5,477

  1985–86

  5,581

  1986–87

  6,208

  1987–88

  6,955

  1988–89

  7,734

  1989–90

  8,852

  1990–91

  8,871

  1991–92

  7,590

  1992–93

  5,979

  Household Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the applicability of the German household waste management system to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  The approach taken in Germany to household waste management, as epitomised by the recent German packaging ordinance, has resulted in the collection of large quantities of recyclable material, without a corresponding increase in domestic processing capacity or market demand. The resulting imbalance between supply and demand has depressed prices for recyclable material across Europe. This approach proved very costly to German consumers and industry and has put at risk the recycling infrastructure in other EC member states.

  The lessons which we have learned are the importance of setting realistic targets for the recycling and recovery of waste; of gearing those targets to the development of processing capacity and markets; of involving local authorities in the collection rather than insisting on separate waste collection systems; and of giving energy recovery from waste a role where recycling is not practicable or environmentally beneficial.

  We believe that industry is in the best position to devise the most efficient and cost-effective means of achieving high recovery levels. That is why, in our producer responsibility initiative, we have challenged the packaging industry to devise a plan by Christmas to secure recovery of between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of all packaging waste by the end of the decade.

  London Pensions Fund Authority
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many people are employed by the London Pensions Fund Authority; and what is its total annual salary expenditure;

  (2) what is the total area of office accommodation occupied by the London Pensions Fund Authority; what is the rent per square foot; and what is the total annual cost of its accommodation.

  Mr. Baldry
  In its annual report and accounts for the year 1992–93, the London Pensions Fund Authority reported that there were 99 members of staff at the financial year end. The annual report also indicated that salary expenditure for the year was £2,359,000 and premises costs were £1,276,000. The total area of the office accommodation and the rent per squre foot are questions for the authority to consider and I have written to the chairman asking him to reply direct to the hon. Gentleman on these points.

  1 Victoria Street, London
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the building contract in respect of work at 1 Victoria street, London SW1 to commence; and what is the total cost incurred to date by his Department in respect of these premises since they were vacated in September 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  Property Holdings and DTI have concluded negotiations with the freeholders. DTI has now commenced work on the refurbishment of this building. The total cost incurred during the period the building has been empty is £4·4 million up to 9 November 1993.

  Toxics Release Inventory
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a toxics release inventory for pollution management along the lines of the system used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

  Mr. Yeo
  As announced in April this year, an annual inventory of releases of polluting substances, from processes subject to regulation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the integrated pollution control system introduced by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and under radioactive substances legislation, is being established. Detailed information will be available through the public register arrangements under both regimes and the first inventory data will be published in due course.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme to discuss the United Nations treaty on biodiversity.

  Mr. Yeo
  I met Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the executive director of UNEP, earlier this month when she was on a short visit to the United Kingdom. We discussed a number of issues of common interest including the convention on biological diversity.

  National Recycling Forum
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what level his Department was represented at the National Recycling Forum's annual meeting on 24 and 25 November.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department maintains a wide range of contacts on recycling with businesses, trade associations, local authorities and voluntary bodies but was not represented at the National Recycling Forum's annual meeting in November.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the development agencies together with their directors; and how much has been paid to each director, including expenses, in each of the past five years and this year to date.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information about the remuneration of chairmen, deputy chairmen and members appointed to 380
  non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible is contained in the annual HMSO publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are held in the House of Commons library. "Public Bodies 1993" will be published shortly. I shall write with a list of current board members. Similar lists for the past five years are not available. Information on expenses is not held within the Department.

  Dioxin Emissions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from the European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers regarding the proposals arising from its recent study on dioxin emissions from VCM and PVC plants.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department is not aware of having received any information from the European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers regarding its recent study on "dioxin" emissions from VCM and PVC plants.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of council properties in England is unfit to rent.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities report the numbers of their own dwellings that are unfit, whether occupied or not, in their annual housing investment programme—HIP 1— returns.

  Some 150,000 council properties in England, 4 per cent. of the total number of local authority dwellings, were reported as unfit at 1 April 1993.

  Waste Management Licences
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects waste disposal licences under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to convert automatically to waste management licences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is the Government's intention to bring the waste management licensing provisions of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 into force on 1 May 1994. Waste disposal licences will convert automatically to waste management licences on that day.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against banding under the council tax have been made in the current year; what is the average length of time taken to hear those appeals; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Baldry
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on Friday 26 November,Official Report, column 259.

  A meaningful figure cannot yet be given on the average length of time taken to hear appeals, since a great many cases are being settled by agreement between the taxpayer and the Valuation Office agency, and only a few have been transmitted as appeals to valuation tribunals.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he has received written representations from the European Commission or any EC member states concerning an environmental impact assessment of THORP under EC directive 85/337/EEC;

  (2) if he will list those countries which have written to his Department concerning an environmental impact assessment of THORP under EC directive 85/337/EEC; and what his reply was, placing copies of all correspondence in the Library, including copies of any correspondence with the Commission.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the European Commission inquiry into the legality of the THORP project.
  382
  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 24 November 1993]: The United Kingdom has received a letter from the Commission seeking information in relation to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. Since the start of the second consultation period on the revised draft authorisations for Sellafield, letters referring to directive 85/337/EEC have been received from Ministers of the Republic of Ireland and Denmark, and Ministers of Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have written about environmental impact assessments in connection with Parcom recommendation 93/5. Correspondence between the United Kingdom and the Commission or foreign Governments is treated in confidence.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Nuclear Weapons
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they share the view of the US Secretary of Defense that, "If we now had the opportunity to ban all nuclear weapons, we would. That is how profound the change is that we have undergone", and whether they have undergone similar change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, nuclear weapons cannot be dis-invented. We are, therefore, committed to maintaining a minimum independent nuclear deterrent for as long as it is needed as the ultimate guarantee of this country's security.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister answer the Question? Will he not say whether he will join the American Government, if opportunity arises, to do as the American Secretary of Defense said; that is, "If we now had the opportunity to ban all nuclear weapons, we would. That is how profound the change is that we have undergone"? Have the Government undergone a similar change? If the opportunity arises, will they join the American Government in banning all nuclear weapons?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord stands condemned out of his own mouth. The quotation from the member of the American Government is prefaced by the small and important word "if". I confirm, as I have on many occasions, that it is the ultimate goal of Her Majesty's Government to get rid of all nuclear weapons. That is not a practical proposition at the moment, but we can work towards it.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that many Members of this House, whether pacifist or not, would love to see the time when there is no need for nuclear weapons? Of course we would; everyone would. But the fact is that some countries—for example, Cuba—are trying hard to get nuclear weapons into their possession, and while that remains the position we must stay as we are. It is as simple as that and I do not know why we are having all this fuss.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am always greatly reassured when I find myself wholly in agreement with the noble Lord. I have nothing to add to what he said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when the representative of Her Majesty's Government goes to the non-proliferation
422
treaty extension conference in 1995 this is the kind of question that will be asked? Why are the Government refusing to contemplate becoming involved in disarmament negotiations? Why are they planning an increase in strategic warhead numbers between Polaris and Trident from 48 to 96 now that the Cold War has ended? That is the question that will be asked, because both policies contradict the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I expected rather better from the noble Lord. He knows that the Government have announced that the explosive power contained in the Trident deterrent will not in general terms exceed the explosive power contained in Polaris, and therefore there is no increase. The noble Lord also knows that we are committed, and have been committed publicly, to working towards a comprehensive test-ban treaty. Indeed, I made that announcement in your Lordships' House last Monday. When in 1995 the time comes for extending the non-proliferation treaty we intend to play our full part. There is nothing new in my saying that and I am sorry that when I do so the noble Lord believes that I am saying something new.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister try not to be so patronising? Does he accept that only recently the Government have accepted that there should be a comprehensive test-ban treaty? Up until that time the Government had refused that. In expecting better from me, will the noble Viscount ask himself whether we should not expect better from him?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely flattered that the noble Lord feels that I am capable of thinking of being able to patronise him. As always, we shall play our part to the best of our ability towards international disarmament. I have given specific examples of how we intend to do that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to some degree is not the Answer to the Question dependent upon the setting up of worldwide effective verification procedures?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, yes; I am grateful to my noble friend. That is absolutely crucial. When in 1995 we come to the negotiations attendant upon the extension of the non-proliferation treaty that will be absolutely crucial to the negotiating posture of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us were extremely interested in the reply which he gave to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, that although the number of warheads has been increased, the explosive power has been reduced? What does that mean in policy terms? Does it mean that the British Government now intend to have a greater number of targets? Is that what is implied? It seems to me that nothing else can be implied. If that is so, is that a good policy?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I should make it clear to the noble Lord that the figure of 96 is very much

423
a maximum. The noble Lord knows that we have never commented on targeting matters, and we shall not begin to do so now.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Government have been criticised for their foot-dragging, as it has been described, on this issue, not only from these Benches but also in the American Congress? In view of that, will he not look again at this question? If the Government cannot be in the lead in getting rid of nuclear weapons—to which they are committed in theory—will they at least ensure that they will not be the last country to give up nuclear weapons?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord and I, in spite of the very great respect I have for his views, start from completely opposite directions in our consideration of nuclear policy. Her Majesty's Government feel that it is the ultimate guarantee of British security. Therefore, if we are to change the level of nuclear weapons or the philosophy with which we approach nuclear policy, it is incumbent upon us, given our fundamental view, to make sure that any change is undertaken with due care and deliberation, because nothing less than the security of the nation is at stake.

The Disabled: Employment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from disability organisations about their proposals for the employment of disabled people entitled Access to Work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, disability organisations have given a general welcome to Access to Work, which will help more disabled people in a much wider range of ways, while expressing concerns about the proposal for employers to make limited contributions to help their own established employees and, to some extent, about the proposal for a limit on an individual's entitlement to help in a five-year period.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if anyone were so perverse as to wish to increase the unemployment of disabled people, one of the most effective ways in which to do that would be to force employers to pay 50 per cent. of the costs of special equipment for disabled employees? Why are the Government doing that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that our aim is exactly the same as his; that is, to increase provision for disabled people. We believe that Access to Work, which has been broadly welcomed, will make available much more provision for many more people with disabilities.
424
I accept that there has been anxiety about employers' contributions. That is why they will be only 50 per cent., up to a certain ceiling. That ceiling has not yet been announced and we shall certainly listen to all representations from the noble Lord and others as regards where that ceiling should be set. Certainly I wish to make it clear that I should not like that ceiling to be set at a level which would discourage employers from retaining their established employees. I must stress that employers' contributions apply only to existing employees. New employees will not be affected at all.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are many forms of disablement and that there are many specialist organisations which are trying to help disabled people? All that such organisations feel is that they should be given acknowledgement, encouragement and the opportunity to show that almost every disabled person can do some form of work which can be to the benefit of that person and his family and, indeed, to the country.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord and I are totally at one. Access to Work is really only to help people with particular special needs. A great many disabled people have no particular need for any help from the Government in the form of Access to Work. My department, through its various agencies, will certainly be glad to offer any help and advice that is needed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Spastics Society, for example, is one organisation that has asked for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation as regards disabled people? Would that not be a better approach, rather than the more piecemeal approach that we have seen recently?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that anti-discrimination legislation is another question, but it is one on which we have made our views clear on a number of occasions. We believe that Access to Work will provide a great deal of extra help for many people with disabilities, and it will certainly be an improvement on the rather scarce and varied schemes which we have at present.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that only 50 per cent. of employers responded to the department's research and less than 40 per cent. said that they were willing to pay more? That leaves a very large number of employers who are not prepared to pay the extra costs of disabled people and, consequently, that unemployment of disabled people is bound to rise. There is no point in the Minister speaking of Access to Work when many thousands will be denied access to work and a job unless that particular aspect of the policy is changed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that the research shows that to be so. We believe that it shows that employers are prepared to pay something to keep on existing employees. There is a perfectly good business case for paying a little—and I must stress that it will only be a small amount—to retain an employee that one already employs. After all, that saves the cost of

425
recruiting and training a new employee. I must make clear that, as regards employers having to pay, the proposals will not apply to new employees. Therefore, in no way whatever can one say that they are a disincentive to employers taking on new disabled employees.

Legislation: Drafting
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the European Communities' Council resolution of 8th June 1993 on the quality of drafting of Community legislation; and if so, what steps they are taking to improve the drafting of United Kingdom legislation?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we strongly supported the Council resolution. It was our initiative at the Edinburgh European Council to make new Community legislation clearer and simpler. The Community initiative has no direct relevance to UK legislative drafting. However, we expect to produce guidance on the implementation of EC laws in the UK to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on business.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not now the time to do something about our own failure to produce better drafting of legislation within the many areas of the Civil Service? Surely, we now have an opportunity to do just that.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I hope that the 10 guidelines which have been developed for European legislation will also apply to British legislation. It seems to me to be extremely sensible to have wording which is clear, simple, concise and unambiguous—for example, unnecessary abbreviations, Community jargon and excessively long sentences should be avoided; indeed, for Community, one could add government. It is also a very good lesson for us to learn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept my warm congratulations on the wisdom that she has shown in avoiding becoming too involved in the murky subject of UK legislation. Further, will she accept the very simple proposition that increases in volume are likely to be followed and reflected by a definite degradation in quality?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, bearing in mind some of the activities in the House during recent months, I fear that my noble friend may have set me a trap in his language. Nevertheless, I shall try to answer him honestly. Volume and quality do not always go together; but sometimes we have to have volume for sensible reasons, and then it must be our job to ensure that we also have maximum quality.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while English legislation (or British legislation), as produced, tends to have its defects from time to time—indeed, they form the subject of many debates in the House—perhaps I may ask this question. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that she fully endorses the remarks of the Prime Minister on the subject when he described much of European legislation as a lot of "waffle"? Anyone in your Lordships' House can verify that fact by looking through the official journals of the European Community which reproduce the legislation and which, in every case, contain at least three preambles and about 20 recitals prior to the actual wording of the regulation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe it is fair to say that waffle is not restricted to legislation; it sometimes happens in both this and another place.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem of drafting of legislation in this country is something which has, to my knowledge, been considered for at least 30 years and which, I assume, was considered for a long time before? Is she also aware that every government says that it wants to do something about it but that no government actually succeeds in doing so? Will the Minister recognise that, in some ways, one of the keys to the problem may be that in Britain we insist that our parliamentary draftsmen cover just about very eventuality that it is possible for the ingenuity of the human mind to encompass? However, on the whole, in continental systems of justice there is a tendency to legislate more in terms of principles and rather less in terms of detail. Will the Government move down that path or will they stay where they are?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is a difficult matter. I can well remember some 12 years ago being involved in the presenting of a Bill in another place on social security legislation. Everything that we tried to do in general terms, the Opposition of the day wished to put in in specific terms. Therefore, we ended up with the specificity in the legislation which we had really sought to avoid. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Richard; but the scrutiny team that looked at the EC legislation found little evidence to support the allegation that we deliberately added to the requirements on EC law. However, we have existing national legislation with a far wider scope and tougher penalties than other member states. That is the essential problem that we must set about tackling if we are to simplify our own UK law as well as EC law.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as regards the guidance that the Government are to give to officials about EC legislation, can the Minister say whether it will include an instruction not to add to and build upon the legislation which has come from the EC? Further, is the noble Baroness aware that because of the building upon EC legislation, many businessmen and farmers have been put out of business, while many other kinds of businesses have been very badly hurt?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, having spent 14 years in business before I entered the political arena, I always reckoned that it was very easy to blame

427
the Government when things went wrong in business, in the same way as governments sometimes look for other scapegoats, and they should not do so. One has to make legislation clear in order to ensure that it covers the principles, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and to make sure that we do not pressurise business to accept unnecessary burdens. That is why in the overhaul of the whole approach we have had an advisory steering group looking at the scrutiny report which included businessmen. We want their needs to be reflected in the legislative drafting for the future.

EC Preliminary Draft Budget 1994
2.57 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
On which dates was the European Community's preliminary draft budget for 1994 (Vols. 0 and 1 to 6 inclusive), or such of its contents as were communicated to them by the United Kingdom Permanent Representative of the Community prior to its publication, reviewed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European Questions (OPD(E)) prior to the Economic and Financial Council's establishment of the Community's draft budget on 22nd July 1993, and with what results.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government considered the preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1994 in the weeks leading up to 15th July, when the Paymaster General submitted an explanatory memorandum to Parliament. The explanatory memorandum set out the Government's broad objectives, which were secured at the Budget Council on 22nd July.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has not answered the Question on the Order Paper, which was the same as the question contained in the second part of a Question that I tabled on 28th October? I asked when the "preliminary draft budget" was considered by,
"the Cabinet Sub-Committee on European Questions (OPD(E))".—[Official Report, 28/10/93; col. 929.]
There ought to be an answer to the question: either it was not considered or it was. If it was, I should like to know when. That is the simple purpose of the question, and it has still not been answered. The noble Lord cannot get away with such Answers. When the Minister answers the Question again—as I trust he will—will he agree that there is much evidence to show that the £2.5 billion net subscription that the United Kingdom makes to the EC usually goes through on the nod by the British Government, without being considered in detail? If the noble Lord will look at the proceedings of Parliament over the past five years, he will see that that fact can easily be verified.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I gave the same Answer to the noble Lord as my noble friend Lord Caithness gave him a month ago quite simply because he asked exactly the same Question. The noble Lord expressed his
428
gratitude to my noble friend for his reply on that occasion. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in repeating the Answer. As the noble Lord is aware, it is a perfectly well-known and long-standing convention that the Government do not give details of discussions between Ministers that precede the formulation of government policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, but the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister has enunciated the principle of more open government and indeed to that end has published a detailed list of ministerial responsibilities and of the composition and function of ministerial sub-committees. Why should he now seek refuge behind the ambiguities which the noble Lord, or rather his predecessor, inflicted on me on 28th October and is inflicting on me again today? Did this sub-committee consider this matter or not? What consideration of security is involved in that other than the petty conceit of not wishing to reply to a Question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister published a list of the committees and sub-committees of Parliament and I could, if the noble Lord wishes, detail all the members of (OPD(E)) but, as I said earlier, it is a long-standing convention that we do not give details of discussions between Ministers and we believe that this confidentiality is necessary to ensure that all policy options can be considered fully and frankly.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite is not asking for details of the discussions: he is asking whether the discussions were held and when.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply cannot take my noble friend any further than I have taken the noble Lord opposite. The answer I have given is that we do not discuss the discussions between Ministers and their officials or between Ministers because it makes it far harder to formulate policy. I stick by that
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in the Government's scrutiny of the Community budget, careful or otherwise, have the Government noticed that that budget happens to be balanced? Does the noble Lord agree that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some important budgetary lessons to learn from M. Delors?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question and the noble Lord can wait for the Budget tomorrow.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord at least give the House an assurance, particularly in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observation that he had never read the Maastricht Treaty before he agreed with it, that he has read the Community budget?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on messages between the IRA and Her Majesty's Government.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [41st Report from the Joint Committee 1992–93].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is two years since this order was last debated by your Lordships' House. Last year, as your Lordships will recall, Ministers—and the others affected by the order, including the noble Lords the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip—agreed to freeze their pay following the introduction of public sector pay restraint. The proposals before us today take account of this. The proposals are quite complicated in some respects and I will need to explain the context in describing them here today.
The proposals reflect two important new principles. The first is the Government's intention that, in another place, Ministers and others covered by the Ministerial and other Salaries Order should henceforth normally receive the same percentage increases in respect of their ministerial salaries as do Members of Parliament in respect of their salaries. However, as your Lordships will be aware, Ministers and office holders in another place are also paid a parliamentary salary at a reduced rate. Accordingly, the second new principle is that Ministers and office holders in this House should normally receive the same overall cash increase as their counterparts in the other place, taking account of their combined ministerial and reduced parliamentary salaries.
It is therefore necessary to look at the pay increases that have been agreed for Members of Parliament. The resolution voted by Members of the other place on 3rd November provided for a staged increase. The first stage is 2.7 per cent. payable from 1st January 1994 and the second stage is a further 2.68 per cent. payable from 1st January 1995. The overall amount reflects the increases that have been received by specified grades of civil servants over the past two years, including the year of pay restraint when settlements were held to 1.5 per cent. but when Members of Parliament and office holders received nothing. The resolution also establishes a link (replacing a previous link) with pay settlements for Grades 5 to 7 in the Civil Service as the basis for increases in future. It is accordingly proposed that the same staged percentage increases should apply to the salaries of Ministers and other office holders in another place and that Ministers and office holders in this House should receive a similarly staged increase reflecting the cash value of the increases received by their counterparts in the other place.
In a Written Answer which I gave to the House on 25th November I set out in detail all the changes which we are proposing to the salaries of Ministers and paid office holders in this House and in the other place. The increases involve an increase in the overall pay bill for both Houses of £102,692 in 1994. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [41st Report from the Joint Committee 1992–93].—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having taken the trouble to go into this matter in a little more detail to explain the intricacies and the problems of it. He, I and many others in this House served in another place and for many years we have been bedevilled by the inability of parliamentarians to determine their own salary and by the criticisms they have received. The noble Lord the Leader of the House was quite right to point out that a formula was finally arrived at some years ago. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House also pointed out, some two years ago we accepted a pay freeze. That freeze was not part of a formula but was a self-denying ordinance by parliamentarians, Ministers and office holders. I do not believe, frankly, that we shall ever be completely free of criticism, whatever is done in this field. We on this side of the House recognise that the Government, as endorsed by another place, have tried their level best to be fair not merely to their economic policy but also to the Ministers and parliamentarians who are affected by these matters. We on this side of the House take a benign view of what the Minister said. However, the noble Lords the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip are grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the announcement he has just made. We, of course, have no pecuniary interest in this matter whatsoever as neither the Leader nor the Whip on our Benches are paid anything at all. This is not an example of the adage that where one pays peanuts one gets monkeys. Long ago when I was a member of the Top Salaries Review Body we discussed this matter at considerable length. I still regret the fact that the pay of parliamentarians has been linked to that of the Civil Service as there is no relationship whatsoever between the two professions. The job of a parliamentarian is sui generis if any job ever was. Speaking personally I have always believed that that linking was a mistake as it means that the pay of parliamentarians is the result of trade union negotiation. I do not believe that that is at all appropriate.
However, I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House stressed the fact that last year no parliamentarians or Ministers received any increase whatever. That is a point the media might note when they comment, as they did so unfavourably, on the fact that parliamentarians had accepted an increase in pay this year. I am glad the noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed that out and one hopes that the media will also notice it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the White Paper shows how low is the remuneration of Ministers, particularly junior Ministers, in this House. As my noble friend made clear, Ministers in another place also receive a parliamentary salary in addition to the figures given in the White Paper. But, of course, they do not do so in this House and I think many of us have found that particularly junior Ministers in this House—they are generally fairly youthful and at a stage in their lives when they experience rising expenses—are paid at a low level. I believe that one or two resignations of junior Ministers have been not altogether unconnected with that.
I hope therefore that when further consideration is given to this matter of ministerial salaries in this House—I trust my noble friend does not mind my reminding him of the salaries of junior Ministers again—the Government will consider awarding a fairly substantial increase in order to secure that those who serve this House and the Government as Ministers, particularly as junior Ministers, will be properly remunerated. It is certainly my impression that they are not fully remunerated at present.
I also ask my noble friend to answer a question which puzzles me a little. Under Part III of the order it appears that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is paid £9,000 a year more than the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Scotland is paid a similar amount more than the Solicitor-General. I am sure that there is an explanation, but simply looking at the White Paper that is a little surprising.
Lord Elton: My Lords, am I right in thinking that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right in one respect; namely, that Ministers in this House are disproportionately hard done by compared with Ministers in another place, and wrong in another respect in that I understood my noble friend to say that that was about to be rectified? If that is the case, it is a very important statement. A great many of your Lordships have served under a disadvantage for many years. That disadvantage continues in their pension rights when they retire. Therefore, those of us who have been through this mill will heartily applaud the decision of Her Majesty's Government to see that this House is treated fairly.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening statement. Perhaps I may ask him en passant whether it is his intention in the near future to tell the House about the new allocations of the money for opposition parties known as the Short money.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, undoubtedly these salaries will be commented upon by the press and others—perhaps unfavourably. I should like to draw attention to the fact that we pay the Prime Minister of this country £54,400 a year. Are noble Lords aware that the chief executive of my local authority is paid more than that? Indeed, the chief executives of many smaller authorities receive more than that. It is about time that we started looking at Ministers' salaries, particularly that of the Prime Minister, because in some minds the
432
value of the job (but not necessarily of the person) is reflected in the salary which is paid for that job. I urge the noble Lord the Leader of the House to take into account what I have said and the fact that the chief executive of a comparatively small local authority is paid some £6,000 per year more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in following up the point made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as an ordinary Back-Bencher perhaps I may bestow my congratulations on the continuing coalition between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. I respectfully draw attention to the fact that, taking the remuneration of members of the Government and of certain members of the Opposition together with the legitimate allowances to which they are entitled in the United Kingdom in respect of expenses, the total remuneration of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is still less than that of a European Member of Parliament who has much less responsibility.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, matters have improved a little since I first went to another place in 1962, when my salary was £1,750. As there was no help with secretarial or other expenses, out of that £1,750 I paid £750 immediately to my secretary and a large additional sum for postage, telephone, stationery and so on. We have moved on a little since then, but not a great deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made a comparison with the chief executive of a local authority. I returned from Washington last week where I visited the offices of Congressmen who employ 18 or 20 staff. The staff are paid for out of public revenue. I do not suggest that we go to those extremes. However, I believe that we still give legislators inadequate resources to do their jobs and to ensure that the actions of the Government are properly scrutinised and to do so on the basis of adequate knowledge. That means that they have to have the necessary back-up as well as the salaries that we are talking about today. I do not believe that we have yet reached the stage, particularly in this House, where that fact is recognised. No one in this House is entitled to assistance in order to employ secretarial assistance or research workers. To say that we are able to do so out of the miserable £30 a day which is allocated for such purposes is ridiculous. If one attended every single day when the House sits—which might be 150 days a year—then the total amount one is allocated for research and secretarial assistance would be £4,500. One could not employ a fourth of a worker for that amount of money.
This is a modest step in the right direction. The media, which are often quick to jump on increases paid to Members of either House, should be wary of criticising if they want the job to be done properly. If they do not want an effective parliament, then we should not give legislators any money, either in the form of remuneration or research assistance. But if the media want Parliament to scrutinise the actions of the executive effectively, they have to give us the tools to do the job.

433
It is a pity that last year salaries were frozen because that means that there is a certain amount of catching up to do. I cannot see how even the most niggardly taxpayer could take issue with the figures mentioned by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal—2.7 per cent. on 1st January 1994, and 2.68 per cent. on 1st January 1995.
The noble Lord mentioned that salaries are to be tied to Grades 5 to 7 in the Civil Service, which do not sound all that wonderful to me. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the noble Lord will say what sort of work is done by grades 5 to 7 of the Civil Service. I cannot believe that it could be a more responsible job than that of a Member of Parliament in either House.
This order is not an extravagant one. It does not commit the taxpayer to a great deal of additional expenditure which is not in the interests of the country. I hope that in taking note of what is being done today, the newspapers, radio and television, will have more sense than to say that a bad example is being set by this House.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps I may start by commenting on what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. He is right in several respects. He is certainly right in saying that the situation is a great deal better than it was several years ago.
With regard to allowances in another place for secretarial and research assistance, the amounts are higher than those which the Government recommended to the other place. Therefore I say that they are at least as generous as they should be if not more adequate than they should be. Nevertheless, I agree with what the noble Lord said about there being proper arrangements.
The parliamentary salary is equivalent to that of the Principal grade or Higher Executive Officer in the Civil Service. Those grades do responsible and important work; but, as has been implied, they are not the highest level of official with which we often have to deal. One of my late friends in the other place always used to reckon that when he spoke to the fifth senior person in the county architect's department in his constituency he was speaking to someone of his own level because they received roughly the same level of salary. That gives some indication of the position.
I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for what they said. The noble Baroness served on the Top Salaries Review Body—now I believe called the Senior Salaries Review Body. It was I who negotiated the original linkage in the House of Commons. The noble Baroness is right in this respect. It was not because it was the best way of doing it, but, frankly, it was the only way in which we could obtain reasonable increases for Members of Parliament because the right moment never seemed to arrive at which to make the level of increases that I am sure the noble Baroness would have recommended in her days with the Top Salaries Review Body.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked a question about the Law Officers. The explanation is straightforward. The Solicitor-General and Attorney-General in another place receive two-thirds of their parliamentary salaries which are not part of this order.
434
The Lord Advocate, being a Member of this House, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, not being a Member of Parliament, receive their total salaries as shown in the order. The Solicitor-General and Attorney-General also receive two-thirds of a Member of Parliament's salary in the House of Commons because they have constituency responsibilities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what happens when the Scottish Law Officers are in the House of Commons, as they sometimes are? Would they receive: the figure in the order or a reduced figure?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that they will receive a reduced figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, asked me about the Short money. I thought that, that issue had been settled. It is normally approved in another place in a debate. However, I shall need to check whether or not the debate has taken place.
I should add this. I had expected someone to raise this issue; it is not part of the order. There is outstanding the question of your Lordships' allowances which have not yet been agreed. That is because of the change in the salary structures and the allowances in the Civil Service. There has been some delay in getting the matter right. As your Lordships will quickly remind me even if I had forgotten myself, those allowances are backdated to 1st August as soon as they are agreed. I apologise for that delay.
Finally, perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. It was not a coalition decision. The Government take full responsibility for what they do. I am grateful that the Opposition agree, but they are not responsible for the decision; it is the Government's decision.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the disparity—it is a real hardship to junior Ministers in this House—be removed?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I apologise; my noble friend raised that point. As I sought to explain in my few remarks, the position is that there will now be the same cash increase to Lords' Ministers as their Commons equivalents receive, including the parliamentary increase. Thus, the disparity in cash terms will remain but it will not widen. Over the years it will become a percentage-less increase. Therefore, we have made a significant move because while there were percentage increases across the board the cash disparity became wider. The cash disparity will now remain the same.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he deal with the point that he did not wholly answer. Junior Ministers in this House are paid a very modest rate. Are the Government paying some attention to that factor?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I recognise the truth of what my friend says. Junior Ministers in the House of Lords in particular make a sacrifice to undertake the work. However, they know that when they undertake to do the work. The Government recognise that that is the position. It was in part recognition of that factor that the Government agreed to the change which was included in

435
the order. In future, the disparity will not be any wider. The moment for making major changes will arise, but it is not on the immediate horizon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Kurdish Minority in Turkey
3.24 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the protection of the Kurdish minority in Turkey.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first explain why this House and the Government have responsibility towards the minority of Kurds in Turkey. At the Moscow meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE —the continuing dialogue on human rights between all the states of Europe, east and west—the participants including Turkey agreed unanimously that,
"They categorically and irrevocably declare that the commitments undertaken in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned".
Therefore what happens to minorities anywhere in the CSCE region, and to the Kurds in Turkey in particular, is a matter for the UK Government. We have more of a locus to intervene on the plight of the Kurds in Europe than elsewhere in the region. At the CSCE's Warsaw meeting in September, the head of the human rights unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office expressed our anxiety about the persecution of the Kurds and the denial of their collective identity. I should like to thank the human rights section of the Foreign Office for the work that they are doing. I believe that it proves the wisdom of the change that was made not so long ago in setting up a separate human rights division to bring expertise to bear on the problems within the Foreign Office.
There are 14 million Kurds in Turkey, compared with 7 million in Iran, 4 million in Iraq, 1.5 million in Syria, 0.5 million in the former Soviet Union and no fewer than 1 million in exile, making a total of about 28 million. Your Lordships will understand that about half the Kurdish population of the world lives in Turkey, and of those, just under half—let us say 6 million—live in the south-east region of the country where they are in the majority of between 75 per cent. and 95 per cent. in the 13 provinces which are subject to emergency rule. The Kurds are the largest body of people in the world who do not have a country of their own.
Since 1984, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has been waging an armed struggle to liberate the Turkish Kurds from political control by Ankara. They want a Kurdish state, first in the Kurdish part of Turkey, but ultimately extending to the Kurdish areas of Iran, Iraq and Syria. That was promised to the Kurds by President Woodrow Wilson in 1918, and by the British and French Governments in a statement made on 7th November 1918, four days before the Armistice. It is of course the right of the Kurds to govern their own affairs,
436
as declared by the United Nations in Article 1 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The United Nations General Assembly has recognised the legitimacy of the armed struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination; for example, in Article 7 of Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14th December 1974. The General Assembly has further explicitly affirmed the distinction between international terrorism and the armed struggles against colonial and alien domination in Resolution 32/147 of 16th December 1977. Conflicts of this nature are also recognised in Article 1, paragraph 4, of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. It is therefore incorrect for the Foreign Office, and indeed the State Department in the United States, to regard the PKK as merely a terrorist organisation. In the absence of an internationally agreed definition of what constitutes a people within the meaning of the covenants, the claim by the Kurds to exercise the right of self-determination cannot be established legally. However, they possess all the attributes of a people—language, culture, history and institutions—and they clearly wish to be independent. The majority of the Kurds undoubtedly support the PKK, as the Parliamentary Human Rights Group found in three visits to the region over the past 18 months. That is not necessarily because people share the Marxist ideology of the PKK or look with favour on the attacks that it mounts on non-combatants. They see the PKK as the only means of achieving their liberation from Turkish oppression.
Britain's position is that self-determination, although a legal right under international law, is not governed by precise legal principles and we therefore apply state practice as the key issue—that is, the circumstances in which the right has been supported or denied by other states. In the cases of Bangladesh and Eritrea, the international community ultimately supported the people once they had achieved military victory against the dominating power. The policy that we have adopted therefore encourages peoples to use armed force, knowing that claims asserted by constitutional means will never be recognised. Would the Government be prepared to consider attempts to develop mechanisms for examining claims for self-determination within the UN system so that cases such as that of the Kurds might at least get a hearing? In the past, when this has been put to Ministers they have asked why states, which acceded to the UN Charter because of the provisions that it contained about territorial integrity, would agree to a proposal which threatened that principle. One answer could be that any hearing on a claim to self-determination might be conditional on a formal agreement to a cease-fire by the armed opposition group in question.
The Kurds resorted to armed struggle not only because of the attitude of the international community but also because they came up against the brick wall of the ideology of the Kemalist state. The constitution of Turkey declares the indivisible integrity of the Turkish state, its territory and nation. This is reflected in Article 125 of the penal code, which provides that any person who carries out any action intended to destroy the unity

437
of the Turkish state suffers a mandatory death penalty. The anti-terror law, which is really an anti-freedom of speech law, prohibits any kind of action aimed at changing the characteristics of the republic, damaging the indivisible unity of the state, on penalty of five years' imprisonment.
Many cases are brought under these provisions against people engaged in what we would regard as perfectly normal political activity. Helsinki Watch, for instance, has documented the legal constraints on freedom of expression. It has also described the murders of journalists, frivolous arrests, harassment and assaults on people engaged in producing and disseminating Kurdish newspapers. Even the newsboys are not immune. One 12 year-old who sold the paper Özgur Gündem was killed by a gunman in the street outside his home as his mother looked on. During our last visit to the region in October, the honourable Member for Woolwich and I interviewed three other boys who had been very severely wounded when assailants, using meat cleavers, had chopped at their heads, shoulders, arms and backs.
The Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the Kurdish region are under threat both legally and physically. Mehmet Sincar, MP, was shot dead in broad daylight on the street in Batman on 4th September, after 18 of the MPs had formally complained to the Inter-Parliamentary Union about death threats which had been made against them. In the same attack, Metin Özdemir, chairman of the Democracy Party in Batman, was also murdered and four other people were injured. When Leyla Zana, MP, went to pay her condolences to Mr. Sincar's family in Kiziltepe, she narrowly escaped death when she was in the house and a bomb was thrown at it and six people were injured. When we were in the region in October, the army burned down the house, in the village of Zengok, belonging. to Sirro Sakik, the Member of Parliament for Mus, with all its contents, and destroyed the harvest. His sister, brother and stepmother had fled into the forest and he had had no news of them for two days.
When Mrs. Ciller came into office as Prime Minister, she started with conciliatory words. On 30th June, in a speech which she made to the Turkish Parliament, she spoke of ending the state of emergency, ending the hated village guard system which forces Kurds to act as auxiliaries for the Turkish army, of the possibility of introducing Kurdish language radio and TV, of allowing Kurdish language mother tongue education—which does not exist in the region at the moment—and of producing an economic development plan for the region.
None of that has been done and no steps have been taken even towards producing legislation to implement those promises which she made. One has to conclude that. Mrs. Ciller is not really in charge. She heads a weak coalition, and she faces a possible challenge for the leadership of her party. But even if her position were far more secure in political terms, she would still not exercise control over the military in the Kurdish region. They are accountable to no civilian authority and the crimes that they commit against the people are not dealt
438
with by any court of law. They enjoy absolute immunity for the crimes that are committed and no official or member of the armed forces is ever arrested or charged with the attacks on civilians.
The armed challenge by the PKK has been met by a vicious campaign of indiscriminate violence against the people of the region as a whole. Villages and towns are bombarded with heavy weaponry, including German "panzers" mounting 47 millimetre cannon and by helicopters supplied by the United States, using cannon and mortar bombs which rain destruction on the people in the villages. Hundreds of villages have been cleared of all their inhabitants and put to the torch, with all their property. Unarmed men, women and children have been killed on the streets and burned to death in their houses, and thousands more have been injured.
The village of Lice, for example, was bombarded on 22nd October, killing an estimated 15 people and causing enormous damage to civilian property. Exact figures are not available for casualties because the village was sealed off from the outside world for a week after the attack. Even now, we have not received any definitive report from the local people. Over the past weekend a trade union delegation which sought to visit another village and film the results of its bombardment was arrested and detained by the Turkish military. That was the village of Biriki, which was visited by some members of the delegation of April 1992, of which I was a member, including Michael Feeney, Cardinal Hume's adviser on refugee affairs. Mr. Feeney and others witnessed the disinterment of the severely mutilated bodies of three men who had been dumped in an unmarked grave by the security forces. It was alleged by the local people that the men had been extrajudicially killed by roping them to armoured vehicles and dragging them along the ground.
The PKK also kill unarmed civilians, though sometimes the Turkish propaganda machine attempts to portray attacks on the village guards—a quisling militia recruited by the army—as attacks on non-combatants. Some of the attacks on village guards have resulted in the deaths of innocent women and children belonging to their families, however, and it is necessary to consider what steps can be taken to ensure that both sides in this vicious conflict adhere to the laws of war.
Unfortunately, Turkey has not signed Protocols 1 and 2 of the Geneva Conventions, one of which has to apply to this conflict, and it should be pressed to do so. In the meanwhile, both sides should be reminded of their obligations under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which provides that:
"persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely".
In particular, the conventions prohibit:
"violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture … taking of hostages … outrages upon personal dignity … executions without previous judgement".
Article 3 does not expressly prohibit attacks on civilian populations in non-international armed conflicts, but customary law does. The UN General Assembly recognised the customary principle of civilian immunity, and the complementary principle that warring parties are required to distinguish civilians from

439
combatants at all times in Resolution 2444 of December 1969. These principles are violated by the Turkish armed forces every day and by the PKK occasionally.
The Turkish authorities refer to individuals who are working for Kurdish rights as though they were equivalent to armed members of the PKK. It is clear from the Geneva Convention definitions that the term "civilians" includes all the peaceable population and even those who take part in hostilities without combatant status. An individual only forfeits his immunity from direct attack when he is actually taking part in hostilities. If he shares the views and objectives of the combatants, but does not himself bear arms, he is a civilian and there can be no valid excuse for imposing penalties on him without due process. In particular, the murders of MPs, journalists, local party officials and human rights activists, which are organised by the state, should be condemned. In the absence of domestic remedies for the families of the victims a thorough investigation of the killings should be made by the UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye. I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will support a request to the Government of Turkey to allow him to visit the Kurdish region for that purpose.
The International Committee of the Red Cross may offer its services to the parties to any conflict, and I believe that it may have done so in this instance without success. Will the Government press the Government of Turkey and the PKK to accept the good offices of the Red Cross, not only to stop the escalating violence against civilians, but also to examine the urgent need for humanitarian relief to the tens of thousands of non-combatants who have been burnt out of their homes and in some cases have been left without shelter or food in sub-zero temperatures?
We have a special obligation towards the Kurds of Turkey, because of our predominant role in the region in the early 1920s and because we have pledged our faith to the self-determination of the Kurdish people. We have a general obligation to them as members of the CSCE and the Council of Europe. We have an interest in the promotion of democracy and good government in Turkey, as a role model for the region as well as for the republics of the former Soviet central Asia region. All those factors, and our concern for human rights, point decisively to the need for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between the Turkish state and the Kurdish people on lines that will be acceptable to the Kurdish people. If Israel and the Palestinians can reach agreement on the first steps towards solving their problems, then surely Turkey and the Kurds can do the same. But for a peace process to succeed in Kurdistan it will take as much international diplomatic effort as it took in Palestine. I hope that in that process Britain will take the lead.
3.41 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing forward this Question at this particularly topical moment for the Kurds in Turkey. The debate is,
440
in effect, about the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. I shall not follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the rights and wrongs of the struggle between the Turkish Government and the PKK. I am not competent to do so. I am concerned, particularly at this time, with the role of what the noble Lord rightly called the suffering of the non-combatants.
The Turkish Government have intimated that they intend to demolish some 900 Kurdish villages bordering the area of Iraq and Iran, which is the Kurdish area, with the main intention, presumably, of frustrating the efforts of the PKK itself. I shall give a couple of instances. On 10th November, 950 Kurds were forcibly evicted from the village of Kursunlu. As usual, there were widespread allegations of torture, and there was a great deal of intimidation and suffering. Just a week ago, over the two days of 20th and 21st November, more than 200 people were evicted by the Turkish army from the village of Hassana. If the government carry out evictions in what they consider to be a lawful struggle against the PKK, surely they should provide food, shelter, accommodation and support for those evicted. But I understand that that is not the case.
Certainly, the formal procedures of the Turkish Government include compensation and alternative settlement for those evicted. But that does not happen in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about the role of the army. That role is certainly reminiscent, in my experience, of the position in other countries. For instance, some years ago, when I talked to the previous ambassador from Peru in London, he gave me the very clear impression that the democratically elected government in Peru did not have full control over the army. From what the noble Lord says, that seems to be equally true in Turkey today. The forced eviction is brought about with the non-combatants suffering threats, intimidation, ill-treatment, destruction of their property and torture.
The income of the villagers of Hassana arises from weaving on large looms which are permanently fixed to the floors of their houses. Therefore, when they are evicted their means of livelihood are left behind. They are thrown on the mercy of other people since their government do not help them.
Two threads of justification are put forward by the Turkish Government for such actions: first, to leave the PKK area isolated and, secondly, to punish villagers for giving food to the PKK. I believe that no possible blame can be attached to villagers who at gunpoint, themselves being unarmed, give food to people who demand it. I would recommend that as a policy. If people came to my front door waving weapons and demanding food I would give it to them myself. The villagers of Hassana have said: "We have been unable to resist and the Government has not helped us". I believe that no blame should be attached to those villagers.
An added issue arises in a village such as Hassana, in that it is predominantly a Christian village. It has one Syrian Orthodox church, one Roman Catholic church and one Assyrian Evangelical church. Those people are predominantly Christian and the Church in that area is very poor, for reasons that will be obvious in a Moslem country with the views and the constitution that Turkey

441
has. The Church has publicly stated that it does not have the resources to look after the 200 people who are thrown out into the cold by the Turkish army. There is nothing that it can do about it. There is clearly an element of religious persecution but it is primarily an ethnic one, against the Kurds.
I ask my noble friend Lady Chalker to consider two questions. First, will she endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about requesting the UN to send a rapporteur to investigate the torture, evictions, and all those problems, in the Kurdish region. I hope that the UN rapporteur will be permitted by the Turkish Government to visit. Obviously, the government do not want the UN to see what is going on there, but the best bet may be at least to press for that and then hope that the report will be published by the Secretary General after the visit. Secondly, will she agree to the Government pressing Turkey to put into practice the CSCE's Copenhagen Declaration, which Turkey has signed but is not fulfilling? That declaration confirms the rights of minorities, but Turkey does not permit the Kurds to exercise the rights to which it has agreed on paper. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should press the Turkish Government to implement that agreement in practice. Of course, we shall then need to check that that is being done.
Finally, perhaps I may add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in asking the Government to do their utmost in providing humanitarian aid for those people who are left out in the cold without shelter or support and who are dependent on anything that they can get. Their means of livelihood has been removed and they are living in sub-zero temperatures, to which we can find at least some relationship at the present juncture in London.

Northern Ireland: IRA/Government Communication
3.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
"With permission, I will make a statement about messages between the IRA leadership and the Government.
"There has for some years been a means of communication by which messages could be conveyed indirectly, between the Government and the IRA leadership. Clearly such a chain could only function if its secrecy was respected on both sides.
"At the end of February this year a message was received from the IRA leadership. It said:
'The conflict it; over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion for the volunteers because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender.
442
We cannot meet the Secretary of State's public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked'.
"That message came from Martin McGuinness. Madam Speaker I have placed in the Library and the Vote Office all consequent messages which HMG have received and despatched.
"The Government had a duty to respond to that message. I will read to the House the substantive response which, after an intermediate exchange, we despatched on 19th March. The text published yesterday was no more than instructions as to how this was to be transmitted. The message was in these terms:

'1. The importance of what has been said, the wish to take it seriously, and the influence of events on the ground, have been acknowledged. All of those involved share a responsibility to work to end the conflict. No one has a monopoly of suffering. There is a need for a healing process.

2. It is essential that there should be no deception on either side, and also that no deception should, through any misunderstanding, be seen where it is not intended. It is also essential that both sides have a clear and realistic understanding of what it is possible to achieve, so that neither side can in the future claim that it has been tricked.

3. The position of the British Government on dealing with those who espouse violence is clearly understood. This is why the envisaged sequence of events is important. We note that what is being sought at this stage is advice, and that any dialogue would follow an unannounced halt to violent activity. We confirm that if violence had genuinely been brought to an end, whether or not that fact had been announced, then dialogue could take place

4. It must be understood, though, that once a halt to activity became public, the British Government would have to acknowledge and defend its entry into dialogue. It would do so by pointing out that its agreement to exploratory dialogue about the possibility of an inclusive process had been giver. because—and only because—it had received a private assurance that organised violence had been brought to an end

5. The British Government has made clear that:
no political objective which is advocated by constitutional means alone could properly be excluded from discussion in the talks process; the commitment to return as much responsibility as possible to local politicians should be seen within a wider framework of stable relationships to be worked out with all concerned; new political arrangements would be designed to ensure that no legitimate group was excluded from eligibility to share in the exercise of this responsibility; in the event of a genuine and established ending of violence, the whole range of responses to it would inevitably be looked at afresh.

6. The British Government has no desire to inhibit or impede legitimate constitutional expression of any political opinion, or any input to the political process, and wants to see included in this process all main parties which have sufficiently shown they genuinely do not espouse violence. It has no blueprint. It wants an agreed accommodation, not an imposed settlement, arrived at through an inclusive process in which the parties are free agents.

7. The British Government does not have, and will not adopt, any prior objective of "ending of partition". The British Government cannot enter a talks process, or expect others to do so, with the purpose of achieving a predetermined outcome, whether the "ending of partition" or anything else. It has accepted that the eventual outcome of such a process could be a united Ireland, but only on the basis of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Should this be the eventual outcome of a peaceful democratic process, the British Government would bring forward legislation to implement the will of the people here. But unless the people of Northern Ireland come to express such a view, the British Government

443
will continue to uphold the union, seeking to ensure the good governance of Northern Ireland, in the interests of all its people, within the totality of relationships in these islands.

8. Evidence on the ground that any group had ceased violent activity would induce resulting reduction of security force activity. Were violence to end, the British Government's overall response in terms of security force activity on the ground would still have to take account of the overall threat. The threat posed by Republican and Loyalist groups which remained active would have to continue to be countered.

9. It is important to establish whether this provides a basis for the way forward. We are ready to answer specific questions or to give further explanation.'

"It is clear that this message was consistent with our declared policy; namely, that if such people wanted to enter into talks or negotiations with the Government they first had genuinely to end violence. Not just temporarily, but for good. If they did, and showed sufficiently that they meant it, we would not want, for our part, to continue to exclude them from political talks. That remains our policy.
"The IRA sent a reply on 10th May which did not constitute the unequivocal assurance of a genuine end to violence on which we had insisted. Clearly a temporary ceasefire would not do.
"Substantive contact was resumed on 2nd November. The IRA sent the following message:
'This problem cannot be solved by the Reynolds Spring situation, although they're part of it. You appear to have rejected the Hume Adams situation though they too are part of it.
Every day all the main players are looking for singular solutions. It can't be solved singularly. We offered the 10th May. You've rejected it. Now we can't even have dialogue to work out how a total end to all violence can come about. We believe that the country could be at the point of no return. In plain language please tell us through the link as a matter or urgency when you will open dialogue in the event of a total end to hostilities. We believe that if all the documents involved are put on the table—including your 9 paragrapher and our 10th May that we have the basis of an understanding.'
"Our reply was despatched on 5th November:

'1. Your message of 2 November is taken as being of the greatest importance and significance. The answer to the specific question you raise is given in paragraph 4 below.

2. We hold to what was said jointly and in public by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Brussels on 29 October. A copy of the Statement is annexed. There can be no departure from what is said there and in particular its statement that there could be no secret agreements or understandings between Governments and organisations supporting violence as a price for its cessation and its call on them to renounce for good the use of, or support for, violence. There can also be no departure from the constitutional guarantee that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the consent of a majority of its people.

3. It is the public and consistent position of the British Government that any dialogue could only follow a permanent end to violent activity.

4. You ask about the sequence of events in the event of a total end to hostilities. If, as you have offered, you were to give us an unequivocal assurance that violence has indeed been brought to a permanent end, and that accordingly Sinn Fein is now committed to political progress by peaceful and democratic means alone, we will make clear publicly our commitment to enter exploratory dialogue with you. Our public statement will make clear that, provided your private assurance is promptly confirmed publicly after our public statement and that events on the ground are fully consistent with this, a first meeting for exploratory dialogue will take place within a week of Parliament's return in January.

444

5. Exploratory dialogue will have the following purposes:

(i) to explore the basis upon which Sinn Fein would come to be admitted to an inclusive political talks process to which the British Government is committed but without anticipating the negotiations within that process;

(ii) to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able over a period to play the same part as the current constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland;

(iii) to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.

6. The attached Annex summarises the sequence of events and provides answers to the procedural questions concerning exploratory dialogue which have been raised.

7. If, in advance of our public statement, any public statement is made on your behalf which appears to us inconsistent with this basis for proceeding it would not be possible for us then to proceed.

8. If we received the necessary assurance, which you have offered, that violence has been brought to an end, we shall assume that you are assenting to the basis for proceeding explained in this note and its attachment.'

"The House will appreciate from what I have read out, and from the other messages when they have time to study them, that our main objective has been to reinforce and spell out in private our publicly stated positions.
"It is for the IRA and their supporters to explain why they have failed to deliver the promised ending of violence. They should do so at once. Murder in Northern Ireland is no more tolerable than murder anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the terrorists who must answer for the deaths, destruction and misery of the last 25 years.
"It lies therefore with the IRA, and with them alone, to end their inhuman crimes. It is for them and those who support and justify them to explain why they have wickedly failed to do that.
"I promise the House and the people of Northern Ireland that, for our part, we shall not cease our efforts to bring violence to a permanent end. As my right honourable and learned friend told the House on 18th November if we do not succeed on this occasion we shall keep exploring again and again the opportunities for peace. Peace, properly attained, is a prize worth risks.
"If a genuine end to violence is promised, the way would still be open for Sinn Fein to enter the political arena after a sufficient interval to demonstrate that they mean it. Our message of 5th November again spelt that out.
"The key to peace is in the hands of the IRA." That concludes the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement that was made in another place.
He will appreciate, as will the House, that it is difficult to understand precisely the sequence in which events happened unless one has access to the remainder of the documentation which I understand is being placed in the Library. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will confirm that that is so, and that what is being placed there is the totality of the documentary contact that there

445
was between the Government on the one hand and the IRA or Sinn Fein on the other. We need to know that the whole of the history has been revealed, particularly in view of what was said and what emerged during the past few days.
Secondly—again it is a question of detail—on page 5 of the Statement, paragraph 5 of the document of 19th March dispatched by the Government to the IRA in response to its request for advice, these words appear:
"The British Government has made clear that the commitment to return as much responsibility as possible to local politicians should be seen within a wider framework of stable relationships to be worked out with all concerned; new political arrangements would be designed to ensure that no legitimate group was excluded from eligibility to share in the exercise of this responsibility".
That presumably refers to the responsibility of local politicians within the,
"wider framework of stable relationships".
What do the Government mean by that? Are they envisaging new local constitutional arrangements for Ulster? Is it perhaps some new constitutional relationship between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom? In that paragraph are they questioning the whole union between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom? I saw those words only a few moments ago, as the noble Earl will appreciate, and I am bound to say that they raised my eyebrows somewhat.
What we have seen and what we have been told so far seems to reveal that there was a real possibility of a settlement following upon the initial approach of the IRA in February and the Government's response in March. However, somewhere along the line it appears to have gone wrong; I am not sure where or why. An extraordinarily long time appears to have elapsed between the receipt of a message and its answer either by the IRA on the one hand or the Government on the other.
The Government are right to take risks in the interests of peace. I do not believe that anybody in this House would question that; and certainly I, for my part, do not. However, they appear to have been somewhat inept and crass in their public disavowal of talks. I do not want to make too much of this point. It is precious near a negotiation; it is certainly a negotiation about how to start negotiating. Whether the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister can justify their public disavowal of what was going on in the terms that they disavowed it must be a matter for them to work out the precise semantic arguments which they will no doubt claim justified their unequivocal denial of what was clearly going on.
Perhaps more important than an inquest on the past is the question of where we go from here. How do the Government assess the possibilities? Is the peace process now firmly at an end as a result of the disclosures that took place? Have they brought it all to a shuddering halt? If what the IRA appears to have said on 2nd November was the position, it reveals that the goal of peace was almost within grasp—"We believe that the country could be at the point of no return. We cannot conduct dialogue to work out how a total end to all violence can come about". In plain language the IRA say, "Please tell us as a matter of urgency when you will
446
open dialogue in the event of a total end to hostilities?" If that represented the position of the IRA as recently as 2nd November, clearly something went wrong between that date and today.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is up to the IRA as though the Government played no part in what went on during the past six months. I conclude by asking one further question. The IRA are not the only players in this affair; there are the Unionists. There are not only the Unionist politicians, but also the Unionist paramilitary terrorist forces. Can the Government say whether there have been "non-talks" in respect of the other military participants in the terrible affairs in Northern Ireland? Is there another set of documentation going from the Government to the UVF which at some stage in the future we may read and where again peace may have been just within grasp?
This is much too important an issue to take party, points and I hope that I have not done so. But my overwhelming feeling on reading the Statement is an intense disappointment that something which looked as though it was attainable has not been attained. We are entitled to ask the Government for a clear Statement that this is all there is and that there is not more tucked away which will trickle out at an inopportune moment in the future. Further, how do the Government see the future? Is the situation totally dead or is there still a chance to bring peace to this unhappy part of our kingdom?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for reading the Statement of his right honourable and learned friend.
Before I address the substance of the Statement, I should like to raise the question of the messages and the text of the messages deposited in the Library. The noble Earl may or may not be aware that they were deposited in the Library quite recently. I am told by the Librarian that they were embargoed for 3.30 and then photocopies had to be made of them. I perhaps inform the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the matter. I have only just seen them. If the Government seek the understanding of the Whole House and, as the Secretary of State was able to announce on television yesterday that his intention was to deposit the documents in the Library. it would have been helpful for them to have been deposited there in time to inform your Lordships' discussion this afternoon.
As to the substance of the Statement, I suspect I speak for many of your Lordships when I say that I would have been far more surprised and shocked if there had been no contact with the IRA than by the news that there had. It would have been in my view genuinely disgraceful if there had been no informal back-channels by which messages could be passed. But we have to make a clear distinction—one that I know the Government are concerned to make—between the transmission of messages and substantive negotiations. That is the question that these messages raises—was that line crossed?
I certainly believe that no question of the Secretary of State's resignation can or should arise on these grounds. I say to your Lordships as someone involved in

447
Northern Ireland affairs that the task of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as those who have held the office know, is not an easy one. It is a veritable bed of nails which the present incumbent seems to bear with considerable fortitude. In my view, he should be of good cheer because anyone who is savaged in the space of 24 hours by Gerry Adams, Dr. Paisley and Mr. Nick Budgen must be doing something right. But doing something right is not the same as doing everything right. I think there are grounds for some concern.
Perhaps I may address myself to the question of the first message from the IRA, on which the Government's basic argument depends. I am curious that that message—the, if you like, founding or originating message—does not appear in the papers in the Library. Indeed, the Statement of the Secretary of State simply says "At the end of February". I ask the noble Earl, when he replies, to reassure us that the text of the message from the IRA which he read out in the Statement is the exact wording that was received from the IRA. Will he please tell us the date on which that was received?
There is also, of course, as many of your Lordships will be aware, the difficulty the Government have got themselves into by the vehemence of their denials of any informal talks. It is one thing to have informal back-channels of communication. It is quite another thing to use the kind of language that any discussion with the IRA would turn the Prime Minister's stomach. Does the noble Earl not agree that the Government have got themselves into some of their present troubles by not being more circumspect in the language they have used in denying the kind of talks which are bound to be surrounded in some secrecy?
Finally, I am unclear whether there was a meeting immediately after Warrington. If there was, I think that this is a matter of a genuine public interest. I have not yet had time to see what messages were being passed between the parties at that point but I hope that that would have given some very considerable pause to this process. I am not clear from my first reading that that was indeed the case.
But, having said that, I have a more fundamental reservation about what is now happening. It seems to me that there is a great danger that the spotlight has now moved on to the IRA as though the whole issue were one about the IRA. The Hume-Adams talks tended in that direction and the new emphasis given in the past few days by the revelation must make many ordinary people following the news believe that peace in some way depends upon the IRA. It cannot be said too often that peace in Northern Ireland depends on the Unionist and Nationalist communities coming to terms with each other. Anything which gives the Unionist community the excuse to say "No surrender" and to throw up its hands in horror sets that cause back. I believe that the Government would be well advised in their approach to the summit in Dublin with the Taioseach to try to get the agenda back on to the question of a political settlement, without which any "peace" can really be no more than an armed truce.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I wish to make one point very clear once again. As I have already intimated in the Statement, over the years approaches have at different times been made to us by people who believe that they have some influence with paramilitaries or who claim to be representing their views. It would have been completely irresponsible to ignore those approaches but we made it clear that we could have no talks or negotiations with anyone using or supporting violence, nor would we authorise anyone to have them on our behalf. That is absolutely the case.
With regard to the specific points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, first, I can say to him that there are no more documents. The record is complete since February 1993. The noble Lord quite rightly asked what are the prospects for peace henceforth. We very much hope that the process for securing peace or endeavouring to secure peace has not been halted, but it very much remains up to the terrorists to end their violence. That would make life and matters very different in Northern Ireland. Certainly there is no equivalent process as regards the Loyalists. We call on all paramilitaries at all times to halt their violence of their own accord. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the new arrangements referred to are those being discussed as part of the political talks process. That, I hope, is apparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that the copies of the messages were placed in the Library too late. I apologise to him on that score but I think the answer is that they took some time to compile together in order to see that the date sequence was correct and that the whole texts of the messages were recorded accurately.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his loyalty to my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State. It has been a difficult time for my right honourable and learned friend and he has at all times and on all occasions taken the line that is consistent with the Government's line that there will be no talks or discussions or negotiations until the terrorists have laid down their arms. I can also say to the noble Lord that the record will show that the line was not crossed between negotiation and providing explanation and also that the IRA's message of 22nd February should be in the set, of which he should have a copy, deposited in the Library. The noble Lord nods his head. If that is not the case, I apologise.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, there have always been contact men in Northern Ireland—Church leaders, ex-IRA men, do-gooders—submitting information to the Northern Ireland Office. You cannot stop them and you cannot ignore them. You have to wait and see what is the substance. But this time the contacts established a chain of communication and through this chain the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to Provisional Sinn Fein using government official bodies. In the meantime the high command of the Provisional IRA heeded not and carried on bombing and killing, but the government constantly stated in

449
Parliament that no talks or contacts were taking place. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in that regard deceived the House and the people.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to consider his position—that is a matter for his own conscience—but from my point of view he was on to the price of peace and that may well excuse him. The breach really now has to be bridged. We have to get the talks back on track. I thought that on this occasion there was real hope. The difficulty now is the question of trust in Her Majesty's Government because various parties involved in the talks are withdrawing that trust. Nevertheless, now all is out in the open and all the papers are on the table, let us hope that the next meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be used as a springboard for new progress. Can the Minister give an indication whether the talks are going to take place and if so, when, and what have the Government now in mind?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State has a very considerable conscience in all matters pertaining to Northern Ireland. He has always taken great care not to use the word "contact". That point has always been taken very much into account in discussions from the point of view of the context of the talks or discussions which will not take place until, and if, the paramilitaries have laid down their arms. I can tell the noble Lord that it is hoped that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will meet shortly in order to further these peace talks, both parties being adamant that they should happen.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, since the onset of the present murderous IRA campaign in 1970, I believe that successive Conservative and Labour governments have maintained contact with spokesmen for the IRA. Indeed, I know from experience that even under the Labour government, and when I was leader of the SDLP, contacts were taking place in an attempt to take the IRA away from violence. There were also people who were not elected politicians, but churchmen and people of all descriptions and from all walks of life, who tried to dissuade the IRA. I would certainly give my support. I would have absolutely no objection to what has been happening under the present Government for trying to maintain those contacts to see whether it is possible to bring violence to an end.
But I fully agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in that it is not within the power of the IRA to bring about a total cessation of violence in Northern Ireland. Anyone who saw the frightening pictures on our television screens of the arms haul that was found at Teesport will be under no illusion that there are not other people in Northern Ireland who are prepared to wage massive violence in support of their political position. Let us make no mistake: the IRA want concessions before they will call for a cessation of violence. If any concessions are made to their demands that will provoke murderous activity from the Unionist paramilitaries and the Loyalists. I
450
have no doubts or illusions that, had that shipment of arms arrived in East Belfast rather than where it was apprehended on Teesside, those arms would have been used not at some time in the far distant future, but certainly within the foreseeable future; namely, within weeks or months of the date of their arrival.
Therefore, I believe that in all the discussions which the Minister and the Government have with the IRA, they must relate only to one thing: that the IRA must call off their campaign of violence and that no concessions should be made to them for doing so. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, all the statements which we have read and heard recently have given the IRA a political prominence. They have bombed their way into the media of this country. I believe that the IRA have not changed one single iota from the days when they attacked and harassed me in Northern Ireland. Indeed, only this week an autobiography was published by a former colleague of mine in the SDLP, Paddy Devlin. He and John Hume tried in 1972 to prevail on the IRA to stop their campaign of violence. That was 21 years ago. He arrived at this conclusion:
"The breakdown of talks with the Provos was a salutary lesson for us in the SDLP, for it showed that the IRA was incapable of engaging in the political process. Their agenda was shrouded in historic myths no longer relevant; their demands were unrealistic and their attitudes were sectarian and unbending".
Nothing has changed since 1972.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear in his Guildhall speech that, if the IRA end violence for good, then, after a sufficient interval to ensure the permanence of their intent, Sinn Fein can enter the political arena as a democratic party and join the dialogue on the way ahead. In these circumstances it is up to the IRA to end that violence.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may say first to my noble friend that I hope that he will have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said for I could not find it in my heart to disagree with a word of it. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the same view.
Can my noble friend say a little more than he did about the chain of contact? I believe he said that, if its secrecy was exposed and its cover blown, then the chain would be broken. Can my noble friend say whether the chain is still in existence? If not, perhaps it would make things much more practical and clear if fax machines were to be used. I am sure that one of them would have to be on a mobile phone number, but nonetheless it might obviate the delays and misunderstandings of operating through intermediaries.
Secondly, can my noble friend say how many people have been murdered since the IRA expressed their desire to give up violence? Can he also say whether he has any understanding of whether the ending of all violence, in the vocabulary of the IRA, means that the security forces must lay down their arms? Can he say whether or not it is in any way conceivable that the question of an amnesty would arise? It would be helpful if that could be ruled out at this time.

451
My noble friend referred to authorised contacts. Can he say whether there have been any unauthorised contacts and, if so, what was their nature? Further, can he and the Secretary of State finally take on board that we understand that the House was not deceived when the Secretary of State said that there had been no talks in the mind of the Secretary of State, but that it might have deceived itself by assuming that no talks meant no contacts? In that sense does my noble friend understand that every single word of what he has said, and the messages passed by Her Majesty's Government to the IRA, will now be looked on with the most enormous care and with a great deal of doubt?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that a link to the Provisional movement has existed for a number of years under successive administrations and that the use made of the link has been at best intermittent. I do not propose now or later to reveal the nature of that link since that would obviously put lives at risk. As regards whether the chain has been broken, I do not know the answer to that at this moment. My noble friend asked how many people had been murdered in Northern Ireland since the atrocities started about a quarter of a century ago. The answer is approaching 3,000 people in Northern Ireland.
As regards the security forces laying down their arms, that would depend totally on the circumstances at the particular time. My noble friend also asked about amnesties. Certainly, the Government will not make any secret deals or arrangements with organisations supporting violence. We shall make no bargains for cessation of violence. The sentences given to those people convicted of terrorist offences in the United Kingdom are a matter for the courts. The arrangements for dealing with the subsequent release of sentenced prisoners are well known. There can be no question of waiving the criminal law for terrorists.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I rise merely to ask for elucidation. I take it that, whatever the noble Earl has said, there is no question of Her Majesty's forces laying down their arms in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is what I said.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one whose family has lived in that unhappy Province for a very long time and with an almost unbroken connection, may I ask my noble friend two questions? First, will he convey to my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister that 1 at least am 100 per cent. persuaded of their total integrity in this matter and very much regret the knee-jerk reactions of a person with somewhat violent opinions to the contrary? Secondly, must we not all remember that for the first time since the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland we now have a land frontier which is based upon a treaty which we have kept ever since it was made, and that we must not break off our contacts with the authorities on the other side of the land frontier as long as they respect the integrity of the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, certainly as long as they respect the integrity of the United Kingdom, as my noble and learned friend says. I shall convey to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State my noble and learned friend's total understanding of and agreement as to the integrity of the British Government at this time.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, may I welcome the Statement and say that this is far too serious a moment to speak of deceiving Parliament or to attempt to lay down preconditions for any negotiations that may eventually happen? Meanwhile, and in view of what has taken place in the past year, may I ask the Government to consider two methods of proceeding? The first would involve an independent mediator with sufficient staff and resources for his task; the alternative could be an independent and professionally structured process of conflict resolution.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this is not the time to debate the particular issues or suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raises. There have been many ideas and theories put forward for ceasing the violence in Northern Ireland, but I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and my noble friend, I reflect that nothing in Northern Ireland is simple and that there is a genius in the people of that Province for discovering complexity where simplicity is believed to exist. I think that we need to remember that the questions that we are now facing are actually very simple. First, should the Government have responded to the approach that was made in February? Clearly, it would have been verging on the criminal not to have done so. Secondly, should they have responded in the way that they did? I have not heard one word repeated here which was not already in the public domain as the Government's position. It cannot be described as "negotiation". We are sophisticated in the use of language in this house and I think that the country is, too. We know about "talks"; we know about "talks about talks"; and we know about "contacts". What have taken place have not been talks; they have not been talks about talks; it has been contact. In conclusion, it is remarkable to find in a politician such a combination of the robust and the sensitive as is to be found in the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I join my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in a complete endorsement of what he has done.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend for what he has said. It is quite apparent from what I have said this afternoon and from what has been said in the Statement that never at any time has any form of negotiation ever taken place.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me that there is no criticism to be made of the contact. However, I should like to ask my noble friend a question on this point. Is he aware that in 1922 the Irish Free State signed a treaty which it lodged with the League of Nations

453
acknowledging the international border of the United Kingdom? It then consequentially altered its constitution and claimed a province of the United Kingdom. Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams have the same long-term political goal—that is, a united Ireland. Had there been negotiations between Mr. Paisley and Mr. Adams, there would have been some point in them; but Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams actually want the same thing.
If we go on giving the united Ireland people cause for hope that they will get a united Ireland, all that we shall do is encourage the IRA, and we shall consequentially push into the corner the Unionist peoples of Northern Ireland. They may not appeal to us, and it is historically true that the English have been happier with the Southern peoples—they get drunk with them and go hunting with them and feel akin to them. There is the old adage that in the North, they like the flag and hate the race, while in the South, they hate the race and like the flag. If we go on pushing the Northern Irish people into a corner, we shall produce more reactive terrorism. It is a question not of weeks and months, but it is a question of not long before one of those ruddy container ships gets through. Thereupon, the Unionist people will be backed into a corner. They will be frightened and they will launch yet more murder and mayhem in Ireland.
The sooner that we say to the Republic of Ireland, "It is no interest of yours what happens in Northern Ireland. It is part of the United Kingdom", the better. It is no use Mr. Reynolds talking about Guildford or Scarborough. Belfast is just as much a part of the United Kingdom as Guildford or Scarborough. It is none of the Republic's business. If we give people encouragement to go on like that, the murder and mayhem will continue. The sooner we say that the Union is our business and nobody else's, the sooner peace will come to Northern Ireland; but Her Majesty's Ministers and the Opposition have not grasped that simple fact yet.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, all that I can say to my noble friend is that we are after two things. First, we are after an end to violence. Secondly, we are after a political settlement which is acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland. We are making our strongest endeavours to bring about both aspects.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that the overriding aim of the Provisional IRA is the creation, by fair means or foul, of an all-Ireland republic from which every trace of what we might describe as "Britishness" has been totally eliminated and, specifically, where everything relating to the British monarchy has been eliminated? The Provisional IRA is not interested in a compromise solution, which would be incompatible with these aims. Therefore, any truce which it may agree to enter into will not be genuinely directed at a compromise, but will be a cynical ploy to achieve a short-term strategic or tactical advantage.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is very difficult at times to know precisely what the IRA is about; but I hope that it is absolutely clear what the British Government are about.

Kurdish Minority in Turkey
4.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we move from one situation of violence to another in the valuable debate that was opened by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I want to start by thanking him not only for raising this issue on the Floor of the House but also for the very important role that he has fulfilled, and continues to fulfil, as chairman of the all-party Parliamentary Human Rights Group. He is tireless in his efforts not just for the Kurds but for people in many parts of the world, and those of different parties greatly welcome the trouble that he takes and the fact that from time to time he raises these issues in the House.
Since I am paying compliments, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord said about the decision that was taken about 18 months ago by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish a human rights division. That was a most important move. Many of us who are concerned with human rights issues find that department to be very helpful. I also welcome the sensitive and compassionate approach to this issue taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. His was a short but caring speech.
I have some sympathy with the trade union delegation to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebuty, referred. Its members were locked up for a number of hours. Some Members of your Lordships' House will know that I had a similar experience in July and I shall begin by getting it off my chest. I had travelled from Istanbul to Diyarbakir. I had driven for five hours to Iraq in order to visit the Kurds in northern Iraq. On 16th July I returned to Istanbul making the same gruelling journey. At about midnight that night I was grabbed by the Turkish police and taken to the police station. They knew that I was a Member of your Lordships' House, although obviously I was not impressing them. They also knew that I had been in touch with the British Consul because I had said that the British Consul would come to see me and that I would prefer to go to their police station when the consul was there. That did not impress them and, with three others, I was frogmarched to the police station. The others included two Iraqi Kurds and I was most concerned for their welfare. There was also a British journalist who it may be thought had a part in this situation because she suddenly appeared late at night wearing a tee-shirt which had printed on it the word "Kurdistan". It was that which sparked off the trouble.
It was not a happy occasion. I was held by the police for 16 hours in a small and dirty police station. I was given no food or drink. There was no place to sleep and I lay on a dirty floor. We were guarded throughout and spent some time with our hands out facing a wall unable to speak or to move. It was only after several hours that we were released and I was allowed to come back to Britain.
I have sympathy with the victims of the Turkish police, who can be difficult. I was not beaten but I suspect that the Kurds who were with me would have

455
had a much tougher time had they not been accompanied by a Member of the British Parliament. I received a fulsome apology from the Chief of Police once the circumstances of the case had been sorted out. The police had thought that we might be terrorists and it was in the atmosphere of terrorism that the situation occurred. I had returned from northern Iraq to Istanbul, making the five hour drive. During that journey the atmosphere was very tense and there were many tanks and gun positions. At the end of the day I discovered that 40 people had been killed during the previous week. That was the atmosphere in which the incident took place.
While I was in the police station I was approached by a member of the Foreign Office because there was interest in the press. I said, "No press. I make no comment". It seemed to me to be to the advantage of no one that some trouble should occur. My mission had been to Kurdistan. On my return I sent a report to the noble Baroness. She has to read many reports, even a lot from me, and therefore I do not ask her to comment upon it. However, it is right that we should see the situation of the Kurds in Turkey in the context of the whole plight of the Kurdish people and of our relationship with them.
In northern Iraq I saw Kurdish people who had been cruelly treated by Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of villages have been totally destroyed, together with their people where it has been possible to kill them. I saw the horrors of Halabja, which has been totally destroyed and where poisonous gas has been used. The people now suffer from the double embargo of the UN embargo against Iraq and Iraq's added embargo against the Kurds. Perhaps there will be other opportunities to raise the specific issues relating to the Kurds in northern Iraq.
However, we must see the situation as a whole. The Kurdish people are spread across five different countries including Iraq, Turkey and Iran where their circumstances are very bad. I have received many reports of great hardships suffered by the Kurdish people in Iran. There are smaller numbers in Syria and in Russia. Eventually, the whole future of the Kurdish people must be tackled by the world community.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to their rights. The Kurdish people are "a people". Western governments, after a treaty was signed by Turkey, Iraq and Great Britain on 5th June 1926, completed the process of redefining and drawing boundaries which makes them "a people" of minority in five different sovereign nations, most of which have little respect for human rights. Therefore, the situation is most unsatisfactory. Even though the British Government concerned was in office many decades ago, the British people have a responsibility to ensure that justice is eventually provided to these people. I recognise all the difficulties. When I was in Kurdistan I said to some people, "Your demands for instant recognition are quite unrealistic". One must persuade people who are suffering from misery to be realistic but that is not easy, as many of us know.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, one cannot get away from the fact that the International Covenants
456
on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have a common article. Article 1 declares:
"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
Of course, there are problems of deciding who are "a people" for the purpose of self-determination. That issue must be properly considered by the UN. There are many alternatives, all of which have relevance to the Kurds in Turkey.
It may well be that the United Nations may decide that the Trusteeship Council should be given a new role. It may be decided that there should be a commission for self-determination where definitions can be drawn and accepted and where claims can be considered and accorded. However, to allow the situation to continue forever would be an affront to the Kurdish people who have a history, a language and a tradition of their own. They are an entity but they are divided by totally unrealistic and, for them, unfair boundaries.
I do not suggest that they are the only people who have such a claim. The same applies in a more defined form to Tibet. The same applies to the people of East Timor and to Kashmir. Often such claims for self-determination should not be accepted. The thought that everyone who claimed independence should be granted it would mean that the whole world would be plunged into chaos. However, the thought that those who have an entitlement should be refused that forever would mean that we would perpetuate injustice.
In seeking to respond to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it is necessary for the House and the Minister—as of course she will—to put the plight of the Kurds in Turkey into its wider perspective. I do not ever tolerate violence. I would not put my signature to the actions of the PKK any more than I would to those of the IRA because I do not believe that violence can be accepted. But I know that the degree to which those people are subject to cruelty by the government under which they live is not tolerable to the rest of us. It is not tolerable to the world and it is not tolerable to the CSCE. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the way in which the problem has been analysed and reported on.
I felt a great deal of sympathy for the statement made by the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association when he said:
"This is a dirty war with no restrictions. The Turkish Government call it a war against terrorism, but in fact it is a war against the nation and people. Western governments should stop supplying the weapons for use against our people".
We have said that in relation to East Timor. There are many other places where arms are supplied by British and other Western governments which are used for the oppression of peoples. The chairman continued:
"We recommend that states reconsider their arms sales policies, with a view to imposing a total embargo on the sales of weapons and ammunition to Turkey, in the light of the onslaught on the Kurdish people".
I wish to associate myself also with the conclusions reached by the delegation led by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I hope that the Minister will look at those conclusions, one of which stated:

457
"We believe that the present wave of forced depopulation, military attacks on villages, and mass murders of Kurdish civilians by the armed forces, demands a much higher level of attention from the United Nations than it has received hitherto; that the Secretary-General's ideas on preventive diplomacy should come into play, and that the UN Rapporteurs on Torture and Extrajudicial Executions should conduct special investigations in the Kurdish region. We have also urged that our own and other CSCE Governments take steps to inform themselves about the crisis facing the Kurds".
The Kurds in Turkey face their own crisis. They know that they face a much larger crisis for Kurds who are associated with them across national frontiers. I hope that in her reply the Minister, who has a great care for human rights and for whom I have much respect, will present a broader approach to the problem, rather than merely answer the Question about the Kurds in Turkey.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Does he not give some credit at least to the Turkish Government for their efforts in a number of areas, particularly in the refugee camp for Kurds in Diyarbakir, which I also saw about a year ago? One must give credit and acknowledge that the subversive actions of the PKK in some of the refugee camps have thwarted the efforts which the Turkish Government have made from time to time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord had put his name down to speak so that he could have shared his experiences with us in a rather more detailed way than merely by putting a question to me.
I am reluctant to make a judgment on a situation on which I am not fully informed. When people are driven from their villages into refugee camps and their families are slaughtered and houses destroyed, one cannot expect a reasonable approach from the politicians who represent their interests. I do not tolerate or give my support to violence, but I say that it is to be expected. One type of behaviour by a government leads to a certain response from peoples; and we must understand that. Where the Turkish Government have shown restraint and understanding, I give them credit for that. But, in my view, they have not seriously sought to solve the problem of a people who are oppressed as a minority within the Turkish state.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thinking that we should have a general and wider debate on the situation of the Kurdish people in all the countries in which they find themselves. Today I join with others who have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the way in which he introduced this debate on the slightly narrower issue of the Kurdish minority in Turkey.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I have not been incarcerated in Turkey and I have yet to visit the Kurdish provinces of that country, although my son passed through them as a tourist a few years ago.
In the summer of 1988 I came to hear of Diyarbakir, Mus and Mardin because it was there that the Turkish Government put into refugee camps the Kurds from Northern Iraq who had fled from the genocide of
458
Saddam Hussein. We know that that exodus followed the poison gas attack on Halabja and the destruction or hundreds, if not thousands, of Kurdish villages.
It is relevant to recall that the Turkish authorities kept those bona fide refugees under harsh conditions and were extremely reluctant to give access to foreign diplomats or to accept help for the refugees through the, International Red Cross and Red Crescent. That may be a partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
More recently, a friend of mine who has visited the region on several occasions and who speaks the local languages, reported that the Turkish army and police were confiscating cassettes of Kurdish music. She also witnessed random arrests, the breaking-up of meetings and wanton firing by army vehicles at civilian houses. I hope that many of your Lordships saw a. recent BBC 2 film presented by Michael Ignatieff. That showed the violent repression of the traditional Kurdish New Year celebrations in the town or village of Cizre. That was repression by the Turkish army.
I wish to pay tribute to the reports of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group on its recent and earlier visits. I very much respect the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the observance of basic standards in an area which is easily disregarded or forgotten. The horror of Bosnia, Somalia, the Sudan, Kashmir and elsewhere should not make us oblivious to South-East Turkey; all the more so since Turkey is a member of NATO and the Council of Europe and has an association agreement with the European Community, which it aspires to join.
It is worth spending a few moments considering the background of the Kurds. There seems little doubt that they descend from the Medes, the partners in empire of the Persians, who so nearly overthrew classical Greece. The Kurds were the mountain people who fought so freely against the great army of Cyrus and later Roman expeditions. Later they found themselves squeezed between the superior power of the Ottoman and Persian empires.
In 1920, following World War I, as has been mentioned, the Treaty of Sevres provided for an independent commission to draw up a scheme of local autonomy for the predominantly Kurdish area of Anatolia. The Council of the League of Nations reserved for itself the right to grant full independence at a later stage. However, all of that came to nothing with the Treaty of Lausanne and there followed long years of struggle and suffering when the Kurdish population tried to resist the might of the new Turkish unitary state.
During those years—and indeed long after the Second World War—the official Turkish line was to deny that the Kurdish people even existed and to refer instead to mountain Turks. The separate and distinct language and culture of the Kurds was also denied and ignored. All official business had to be conducted in Turkish and attempts were made to prevent the use of Kurdish in public places. In a similar way, it was denied that members of the Alewite sect are Moslems, which they themselves claim to be.
In 1979, martial law was proclaimed in the Kurdish provinces. In April 1990, 11 years later and after

459
guerilla violence and military repression, Turkey passed an emergency regulation for the Kurdish region. That permitted forcible resettlement, closure of the press, suppression of trade union rights and immunity from prosecution for government forces. Those who refuse to join village militias, are liable to forcible resettlement and the destruction of their homes. The Minority Rights group concluded in its report dated August 1991:
"Repression is no solution … If Kurdish community needs are not addressed, defeated political groups will turn to urban warfare…. The international community has a responsibility to help find a balance between the legitimate sovereign requirements of governments (e.g. Turkey) and the right of their Kurdish communities to enjoy cultural expression and genuine control over their own affairs".
The forecast of urban war has been borne out, alas, in recent weeks, with attacks on Turkish property in many cities, including London.
I trust that that report, together with the longer Minority Rights Group Report No. 23 on the Kurds of 1989 and the report of the Kurdistan Committee to the 47th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission (which took place from January to March 1991) will be studied, not only by the Foreign Office but also by the Home Office. I urge that because the factual prose of the reports explains why there was a sudden influx into Britain of refugees from the Kurdish provinces of Turkey in the late 1980s. That flow of refugees is, as we know, now largely stopped by the imposition of visas and by the fining of air lines carrying passengers with incorrect documents. Even at this late stage, I once again urge Her Majesty's Government to allow the reuniting of those Kurdish families who already have one or more members in Britain. The seriousness of their cases has already been admitted by the granting of "exceptional leave to remain" here. The plight of the wives, children and dependants of those people is now desperate.
I turn now to the printed report of the Human Rights Group, drawn from both Houses of Parliament, which visited the Kurdish regions of Turkey between October 12th and 17th of this year. The first point to note is the unequivocal condemnation of war crimes and murders of non-combatants by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (known as the PKK). The group recommended that the International Committee of the Red Cross should persuade the PKK to observe the Geneva Conventions, which apply to all armed conflicts. The recommendation is made despite numerous violations of the convention by the Turkish Government. Therefore, there can be no question of support for terrorism.
The report itself makes grim reading. It points out the double effect of the Turkish constitution and the Anti-Terror Law which make any democratic action for change into treasonable and arrestable offences. The report deals with murder, attacks and arrests of members of the Turkish Parliament and the persecution of councillors and party workers of the Democracy Party and of the People's Labour Party. It examines the closure of newspapers disapproved of by the Turkish Government and the murders and attempted murders of proprietors, editors, journalists and human rights workers.
460
Many hundreds of villages in Turkey have already been depopulated by expelling or deporting their inhabitants. The report to the United Nations which I have already mentioned gives the names of villages cleared, and usually burnt or demolished, between January 1990 and January 1991. In the same period, it is worth noting that about 20 forests were burnt down by the Turkish Army.
The parliamentary report deals at some length with attacks on villages with extra-judicial killings, the generalised use of torture and the rape of arrested women. In one particular case, an independent witness saw three police officers sexually assaulting two women in Agri Police Station. Worse still, doctors and health workers have supervised or condoned torture or refused treatment to torture victims. On the other hand—and in defence of the medical profession—a named doctor is reported to have been imprisoned for 45 months for treating a wanted person, and a second doctor is now said to be in prison in Mus for treating an alleged guerilla. Perhaps I may reinforce the report's appeal to the British Medical Association. I trust that the BMA will persuade their Turkish colleagues to repudiate all forms of torture and that it will invite the Turkish Government to instruct all hospitals to accept all patients who may be in medical need.
The parliamentary report follows an earlier report by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on his visit to Turkey in April 1992. It adds to and confirms existing information from Helsinki Watch, Amnesty International, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It cannot be brushed aside, particularly in view of the number of eyewitnesses and next of kin from whom it obtained statements. We look forward to hearing the Government's response and also their attitude to the recent detention in Turkey of a delegation of British trade unionists.
The Question refers to,
"the protection of the Kurdish minority in Turkey".
In 1990, that minority was estimated at 10.8 million people, no less than 19 per cent. of the total population. It is, therefore, a very substantial minority. Action is possible and should be taken at many levels. The UN Security Council should be involved because of cross-border attacks from Syria and into and from Iraq. There is also the question of the head-waters and downstream flow of the Tigris and the Euphrates. A UN rapporteur—and here I agree with previous speakers—should be appointed for the human rights of all the Kurdish peoples in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Special consultative status at the UN should be provided for the Kurdish people. The UN Rapporteur on Torture should also be asked to investigate urgently all allegations of torture of Kurds, and of others, in Turkey.
The Council of Europe also has an interest because Turkey derogated in 1990 from Articles 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I ask: is that wide derogation still justifiable? The Council of Europe and the International Committee of the Red Cross should be asked to visit and report on all prisons and places of interrogation and detention in Turkey, starting with the south-eastern provinces. The

461
CSCE, which has also been mentioned today, now has a High Commissioner for Minorities. He should be asked to visit Turkey at the earliest opportunity. A substantial group of CSCE observers should be permanently deployed in the south-eastern provinces, which have known little peace in the past 70 years. Such action could only improve the human rights situation and help to obtain compliance with the Geneva convention.
Last but not least, Turkey is a member of NATO. All further supplies of arms and ammunition from NATO sources, including "trickle down" supplies from other NATO members, should be stopped until the Turkish forces adopt normal, civilised standards of conduct. I understand that Germany has already acted in this way. I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government what instructions they have given, and will give, to their representatives in each of the international fora I have just mentioned.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I, too, begin by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on all he does as chairman of the parliamentary human rights group. I have attended the meetings of that group, particularly when they have concerned the Kurds. There could be no one more sincere in carrying out his work. I shall suggest in my speech, however, that the noble Lord must not consider that every single one of his ducks is necessarily a swan. He should consider that there is perhaps another side to this matter that we should discuss. The noble Lord, with his authority in this matter, should address that other side.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned the plight of the Kurds across the world. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who rightly pointed out that there are now 28 million Kurds. They comprise the largest single group in the world who do not have their own country. I am just a tiny bit younger than the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Ennals, and I would say to them, with respect, that I am determined that within my own lifetime the Kurds will gain their own country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, the Kurds are descendants of the Medes. They have some 2,000 years of history. They are not a bunch of upstarts. Those of us who have had the privilege of meeting the Kurds, whether in Turkey, Iraq or Iran, will know only too well that they comprise a highly civilised, middle class, well educated, well ordered and decent people who deserve our support at every level and who deserve the support of every party in our Parliament.
The world's attention was drawn to the plight of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein when they fled his oppression and went into the hills. I believe that if one talks to Kurds in London now they will say that almost the best result of that action was the fact that the Kurds no longer have to explain what being a Kurd means. The Kurds have spent 2,000 years explaining what that means but it took the evil of Saddam Hussein to let us
462
all know who the Kurds are. Indeed they have friends in every part of the House. I hope I may dare to make a political point, in that it was our own Government and indeed our own Prime Minister who proposed the safe havens for which the Kurds in Iraq are so grateful.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that there is a subtle difference between the Kurds in Iraq and some Kurds —I emphasise the words "some Kurds"—in Turkey. I do not wish to initiate a debate or. that point but I would point out to the noble Lord that the Kurds in Iraq have 30,000 Peshmerga soldiers to defend their borders against. Saddam Hussein. However, never once has it been stated in any newspaper that a Kurd in Northern Iraq has disrupted life beyond the 36th Parallel. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not have come across such a comment.
Kurds in Iraq have told me again and again that, if they wished to, they could bring Baghdad to a standstill and they could reduce it to rubble. However, instead they want the whole world to view them as people who only defend that part of the land they believe is theirs and who never act in any other way.
I am worried when I read about Kurds in Turkey who have destroyed 44 schools. Of course I am referring to the PKK. There are 10 million Kurds in Turkey and I am sure the PKK constitutes a tiny group among them. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would be the first to condemn the IRA. I want him to condemn the tiny group I have just referred to and not the 99 per cent. of Kurds in Turkey who are decent and who deserve our support. However, sometimes one has to stand up and say, "Yes, I do support the Kurds but at no time will I have anything to do with terrorism of that sort". Surely nothing can be gained from razing 44 schools to the ground. That is certainly not a cause with which I would wish to be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to a document from the Minority Rights Group International. The document is written by David McDowall. It is clearly supportive of the Kurds but Mr. McDowall states:
"In 1990 the Kurdish question became a major domestic issue. Scores were reported killed in the PKK's spring offensive, and 44 schools destroyed".
I do not wish to exaggerate this matter. I accept that that is only one paragraph in a large document but I believe that in the position the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, holds it is his responsibility occasionally when he fights his cause to make it clear to all of us that he will have nothing to do with terrorism of any kind, whatever the cause. The Kurds in Iraq have been fighting for years to defend their borders but they would never go over those borders and they would never commit terrorism of any kind.
I have four questions for the Minister which I hope she will be able to answer. One matter in particular worries me greatly. I have only recently heard about this matter, which has been mentioned by a senior source, and I would like to hear her views on it. First, we have a new Turkish Prime Minister and we are of course aware that she has her own political problems at the moment but in 1982 the Turks passed a law which forbade the Kurds free discussion. The legal document that was passed in the Turkish Parliament mentioned the

463
"prevention of free discussion". Will the Minister say whether, when she next meets the Turkish Ambassador or the Turkish Prime Minister, she will make it very clear that those words should be removed from any legal document in the Turkish language? It cannot be right that 10 million Kurds in Turkey cannot even have free discussion. I hope she will leave the people she meets in no doubt that such behaviour is unacceptable for a member of NATO and for a nation that claims it wants one day to be part of the European Community.
Secondly, I return to the PKK issue. I cannot confirm my next statement, although it worries me sufficiently for me to raise it before noble Lords today. I hear that in London the PKK is extorting money from Turkish restaurateurs to promote its cause. Has the Minister heard this and is there any truth in it? If there is, will she tell us what is to be done about it?
Thirdly, is she aware—I am sure she is—of the success of the parliament in Erbil in Iraq, which is now almost autonomous in its running of what I call Iraqi Kurdistan? Fourthly, will she ask the Turkish Government to consider how that has worked? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned the problems of sanctions that are working against the interests of the Kurds in Iraq. But, despite that, they are running what we might call a district council with great competence and determination. It is elected, with observers from all over the world. After 18 months we do not read in our newspapers how it has failed and does not work. We read simply that if the Kurds were given a little more they would be even more successful. I return to the point that we are dealing with a middle-class, educated people. We are not dealing with a cause that has no hope. We are dealing with a cause which demands, and lam sure receives, the support of everyone in this House and in the country.
Finally, I ask the Minister when she thinks of Kurds to think of those Kurds in six nations who make up the total of 28 million. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, proudly supports the Kurds in Turkey and I support them in Iraq. We should think of them as one nation.
I say to the noble Lord who brought this matter to the attention of the House that he and I think about this problem every day, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Sometimes people have one image of a nation. They hear the word "Kurds" and they think of Saddam Hussein. I do not want anybody who is on the outer rim to hear the word "Kurds" and think of terrorism and of people being killed by them. I want them to hear the word "Kurds" and to think of a race which is not receiving a fair deal and to feel that it is our duty to do something about it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to think in those terms. I ask the Minister sitting on the Front Bench to do everything in her power to see that that happens.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this Question and will admire his energy and courage in visiting south-east Turkey under arduous conditions last month and producing so quickly such a detailed report
464
for the All-Party Group on Human Rights. What he has told us, together with the additional information provided by other noble Lords, has demonstrated vividly how serious is the breakdown of human rights in Turkey.
On cue, but quite independently, the experience of a group of trade unionists who were recently detained and then expelled from Turkey has emphasised that fact. As the debate on the Unstarred Question began I was talking on the telephone to a member of that delegation, Alan Herzman, who is a member of MSF. He and his fellow delegates are still severely emotionally shaken by their experiences. He tells me that the whole area gives the impression of an armed camp. The group visited the town of Batman, which has a population of 250,000. It is occupied by no fewer than 30,000 Turkish troops. Deaths occur every day. On a number of occasions the delegation heard bursts of automatic weapon fire.
Later the delegation went to the village of Birik, which a few days previously had been destroyed by the Turkish Army. When they got there they were met by a group of women who were screaming hysterically that they should keep away because they would be in danger of being shot by the army. As noble Lords will have seen, one member of the delegation picked up some of the ash and rubble from one of the destroyed houses.
Noble Lords will have read of the experience of one member of the group, Mary Broadbin, who, while she was waiting to board the aeroplane at Diyarbakir Airport, was intimidated by an armed policeman who came close to her and fired bullets from his weapon into the ground two feet in front of her, purely as an act of intimidation.
As many other noble Lords have demonstrated in their speeches, the Kurds have been denied nationhood. As a people they are remarkably resilient. They accept adversity, but they are not deterred from pursuing their claim for self-determination, however cruel and illegal the methods used against them by Turkey, Saddam Hussein or Iran.
Until I read the noble Lord's report I had not realised how repressive are the Turkish laws against those who call for normal internationally agreed rights for minority groups. Thus, under Article 3 of the Turkish constitution, any act or statement, whether oral or in writing, which can be held to undermine Turkey's unity becomes criminal. Even the mildest assertion of Kurdish nationalism may land a person in the courts or be used to justify armed attacks by the police or the military. As has been pointed out, the penal code is incredibly harsh. It provides for the death sentence against anybody who appears to speak against the unity of the Turkish state or who advocates the separation of part of that state. Imagine the entire Scottish National Party under sentence of death.
With laws like those and the suppression of the pro-Kurdish press, the extrajudicial killings, torture and the wholesale destruction of villages, it is hardly surprising that the PKK has become an armed opposition group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Archer, that PKK's treatment of village guards who are suspected of collaborating with the Turkish Army or police, even when they have been pressed into doing so,

465
is brutal and deserves condemnation. The same applies to the PKK's habit of taking hostages and destroying buildings and schools, and sometimes violent international activities. However, like other groups over time and throughout the world who believe that their cause is just and have despaired of receiving a fair hearing, they have taken to the mountains and to arms. However, it has to be said that they do their cause no good by carrying out summary executions without trial.
In March this year the PKK proclaimed a ceasefire, which held for about three months. During that time there was a diminution of the killing by both sides. Unfortunately no use was made of that opportunity and no negotiations took place.
I would like the noble Baroness to consider the best way in which the UK, as a member of NATO, can act in the role of honest broker in this dangerous and deteriorating situation. I have a few suggestions: first, if Turkey cannot be persuaded immediately to take a view more in line with the CSCE and United Nations' resolutions on the treatment of ethnic minorities, we may have to consider tougher and more coercive measures. Trade sanctions on a fellow member of NATO may seem difficult, and possibly unthinkable, particularly in the case of arms sanctions, since it is a military alliance. However, now that there is no immediate threat to western Europe from Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, we have seriously to consider whether we can continue to include in the NATO Alliance states whose human rights records fall below the standards which are common to the remainder of the alliance and are in accord with United Nations and CSCE principles.
Perhaps as a minor diversion from the Question, I may put this forward as a subject for consideration. Do we not need to rethink the whole purpose of NATO, which was set up as an organisation to resist possible aggressive and expansionist attacks by the Soviet Union? Because of its notoriously bad human rights record, not simply in relation to its Kurdish minority, many of us have been worried for a long time about including Turkey in NATO. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mrs. Cillar, put forward constructive suggestions to improve relationships with the Kurdish minority last June. The fact that she was overruled, presumably by the military group which holds power, suggests that democracy in Turkey is a facade largely put on to please us. It would seem right that Turkey should now be required to enter into a dialogue with its Kurdish minority, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, comprises one-fifth of the nation, end the repression of which we have heard details today, and allow free discussion of the Kurdish case both within and outside Turkey. Despite past favours by Turkey to us—I refer to the provision of NATO bases, putting its army at the disposal of NATO, and helping us in the Gulf War—we do not now need Turkey for our security, although of course we still need Turkish facilities to gain access to the Kurds in Iraq and friendly relationships with any nation are beneficial for all of us. But has the time not come for the United Kingdom and
466
the remainder of NATO to put pressure on Turkey to put its house in order? Not only the Kurds but the ordinary hard-pressed people of Turkey would thank us for that.
Finally, as a doctor, I was disturbed, as was the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to read in the report of the all-party group about the involvement or connivance of doctors in torture, and that doctors have been detained, arrested or even tortured themselves for treating guerrillas and PKK members. Particular mention was made of the case of Dr. Ilhan Diken, who was given a 45-month sentence. Dr. Tasci is still in Mus prison awaiting trial for giving medical treatment to an alleged guerrilla. Such action naturally makes doctors hesitant to treat those who could be held to have been wounded or tortured by the Turkish security forces.
In 1981 Islamic doctors issued the Declaration of Kuwait, which pledges the Islamic doctor,
"to be all the way an instrument of God's mercy, extending ray medical care to near and far, virtuous and sinner, and friend and enemy"—
a rule in line with our own Hippocratic Oath. The ethical committee of the BMA has received a copy of the report. I anticipate that it will be in touch with its Turkish opposite number. I hope that Her Majesty's Government too will take these further violations of basic human rights into account in their future dealings with Turkey.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords. I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on raising this important issue, and doing so on the basis of first-hand experience, visiting some parts of the region and meeting with some of those who are suffering in this tragic situation.
I speak with some diffidence, not having been able to see the situation for myself. However, I participate in this debate in your Lordships' House because the predicament of the Kurds in Turkey raises some fundamental issues on human rights. Moreover, sadly, it is possible to see many similarities between the suffering of the Kurds in Turkey and that of the Armenians, both historically and in the present day, with whose tragedy I have some familiarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has recounted today, and spelt out in great detail in his excellent report, some of the brutal policies inflicted by Turkey on the Kurds in recent times. There are, too, other sources which describe Turkey's acts of aggression, with the murder of tens of thousands of people, and the destruction of hundreds of villages. Since President Demirel reportedly recently declared that Turkey would wage a. "war of extermination" against all those defined as rebels, about 400,000 Kurds now fear that they are in imminent danger as their villages may be alleged to be supporting the PKK. Indeed many now believe that Turkey is about to seek a "final solution" of the Kurdish question.
The suffering of the Kurdish people has been beyond description. I shall add only a few more details and examples to those given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others. The attack on the village of Lice on 22nd October of this year involved the massacre of

467
civilians and the use of flamethrowers, with the destruction of hundreds of houses, according to the Belgian Dr. Geert van Moorter of Doctors for the Third World. Most of the 10,000 now homeless villagers have fled through the cold to seek refuge elsewhere, but they testify to the fact that the destruction of their town was carried out exclusively by Turkish military forces.
Such barbarities have been continuing for some time. For example, the United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992 described attacks by the Turkish army on towns and villages suspected of harbouring PKK terrorists. For example, the report gives a graphic and very disturbing account of attacks on the provincial town of Sirnak, with security forces firing on homes and shops for 44 hours, killing 14 civilians and forcing more than 20,000 people to flee their homes.
There is also great concern among some of the remaining Christians in Turkey that they are being caught in the cross-fire between the Turkish Government and the PKK, and the Turkish military forces' attempt to annihilate those they define as PKK supporters. As my noble friend Lord Brentford emphasised, the Christian village of Hassana was subjected to brutal deportations. On 4th November the mayor of that village was arrested and told to evacuate his people by 20th November. In an appeal for help to the authorities, he was just told by Turkish military personnel that he should obtain assistance from Churches in the West. Having seen the treatment meted out to other villages under threat, he and his people had no option but to leave. On 14th November the village elders pleaded: "The first snows of winters have already fallen and in less than a week we must abandon our homes, our livelihoods and our possessions with nowhere to go."
It is perhaps not irrelevant to note that at the beginning of the 1960s there were about 40,000 Christians in that area. The village of Hassana had Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, as my noble friend said. But on the eve of the latest government offensive, there were only 2,000 Christians left in the region. The people of Hassana were among those most committed to remaining in their homeland and had long resisted pressures to emigrate. In mid-November of this year, News Network International reported mounting anti-Christian sentiments in Turkey over the past four months. The NNI states:
"In the south-east, where more than 11,000 have been killed in the past decade, the intensified violence threatens to expel the region's tiny Syrian Orthodox Christian minority, whose heritage stretches back to the 4th century … according to a Turkish Human Rights Association (IHD) statement on October 7, a total of 720 villages in the south-east had been forcibly emptied by security forces in the past 2 years; by early November, Turkish newspapers and TV broadcasts were reporting that as many as 600–900 villages in PKK-dominated provinces of the south-east are being evacuated by security forces".
The Syrian community are not Turk, Kurd or Arab, but they are caught in the web of offensives between the PKK and government security forces and consequently are suffering mass deportations to the point of extinction from their ancient homeland.
468
Another very disturbing development related to this issue is the growth of the use of allegations of Armenian complicity with the PKK to whip up a growing wave of anti-Armenian feeling being generated throughout Turkey. Indeed, there are some rumoured allegations that the PKK leader is an Armenian. But although rumours abound, the Turkish daily news admitted on 11th November:
"that there seems to be no concrete evidence for such an (Armenian) connection in Ankara's hands".
Nevertheless, such rumours of PKK connections can lead to pretexts for aggression and hostility towards Armenians in Turkey and elsewhere. There are reports of a dozen violent attacks against Armenian churches and institutions in Istanbul.
Like my noble friend Lord Archer of Western-super-Mare, I hold no brief for terrorism or for terrorist acts of violence perpetrated by the PKK. But the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has addressed their predicament and their policies very well in his excellent speech. Whatever the nature of the conflict which has tragically developed between the Kurds and the Turkish Government, it cannot be outside the bounds of possibility to see Turkish behaviour towards its Kurdish people as part of a continuing trajectory of expulsion or annihilation of ethnic minorities from Turkey. That trajectory saw the death of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 and also of Turkey's Aramaic-speaking Christian population so that by 1918, Anatolian Turkey was virtually devoid of those minorities which had numbered over 2.5 million people.
Then in 1921, there followed the expulsion of Turkey's Greek population, so that the Kurds have been left as the only sizeable ethnic minority in Turkey capable of sustaining an identifiable, distinctive communal life. There are many sad similarities between the treatment being meted out to them now and that inflicted on the Armenians and other minorities in earlier years.
The question must therefore be asked whether the international community, and in particular, Her Majesty's Government, are doing enough to put pressure on Turkey to desist from its brutal policies. In so doing, I wish to raise a few questions. I apologise that I have not been able to give my noble friend more notice, but I was abroad last week and have given very short notice of the questions. First, I should be grateful if my noble friend could indicate now or at a later time by what authority Turkish armed forces undertook attacks on Kurdish people outside Turkish territory in Northern Iraq. As a member of NATO, Turkey presumably had to receive permission to undertake a military offensive in another sovereign state. How was this permission given, by whom and when?
Secondly, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether, since we are a member of NATO, she can reassure your Lordships that no British or NATO arms or money are being spent on Turkish attacks against Kurdish civilians?
Thirdly, could my noble friend the Minister indicate what is being provided in the form of humanitarian aid

469
for the Kurdish people suffering from these deportations and acts of aggression, and what is the policy of the Government towards the provision of aid to them?
Fourthly, is my noble friend able to say what steps the CSCE is taking to try to persuade Turkey to desist from the gross violations of human rights? More generally, how is the CSCE endeavouring to achieve a balance between the twin pillars on which it was founded—its commitment to the principle of territorial integrity and its commitment to the protection of human rights? It appears that so far there has tended to be a greater concern for commitment to the principle of territorial integrity than for the protection of human rights. There is a real danger that if this imbalance continues, it will be seen as a mandate for repressive regimes to discriminate against, or even to wage war upon, their minorities with impunity.
While appreciating the important role of the CSCE's Commissioner for Minorities in trying to prevent violence against minority groups and while appreciating the considerable success he has already had, I understand that it is outside his remit to address situations where violence has already occurred. That is understandable, but it seems to leave a vacuum, with some of the most vulnerable peoples exposed to brutality, without any kind of redress or mechanism of appeal. I understand that the Council of Europe may be considering some means of filling this vacuum, but I wonder whether my noble friend could give some idea of how the matter will be dealt with and how soon.
With regard to the European Community, the Turkish Government place a high priority on Turkey obtaining membership of the European Community. Can my noble friend indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the expansion of the EC to include Turkey and provide some assurances that the United Kingdom will oppose Turkish membership until such time as the rule of law prevails and human rights are adequately guaranteed in Turkey?
There is a grave fear in Armenia, where I was last week, that Turkey may be using the policy of a war of extermination of those Kurds it defines as rebels in order to attack Armenia itself, by alleging that it is harbouring Kurds. There is particular fear that Turkey may undertake a military offensive in the region of the Lachin corridor—that vital lifeline which links Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, without which Nagorno Karabakh could not survive. That would enable the Turks to achieve a military coup which would greatly help their friends, the Azeris, with their attempts to annihilate the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
In conclusion, I should just like to say that of course I understand that the West is keen to see Turkey become a bridge between East and West; that Turkey has strategic significance for NATO and western defence policy and is a significant source of trade for Britain. However, does that mean that we should mute our expressions of anxiety over well-documented and gross violations of human rights or not seek adequate mechanisms to protect very vulnerable groups, such as the Kurds, who are suffering from Turkey's brutal policies towards them, before it is too late and they go
470
the way of the Armenians in 1915, or the Greeks in 1921? Or is that bridge between West and East to be littered with even more corpses?
It is perhaps not irrelevant, as I finish, to recall in your Lordships' House this afternoon the report of the speech given in this House many years ago by Lord Bryce on 6th October 1915. Speaking of the Turkish massacre of the Armenians, he described in horrible detail the systematic massacres and deportations, with details which are grimly reminiscent of recent reports of similar brutality inflicted on the Kurds. As he drew to a conclusion, he said:
"I am sure we are all heartily agreed that every effort should be made that can be made to send help to the unfortunate survivors, hundreds of whom are daily perishing by want and disease."
He urged the public opinion in the world and especially neutral nations:
"Let them now tell the Turkish government that there are some things which the outraged opinion of the world will not tolerate."
I believe that the echoes of Lord Bryce's message speak today in your Lordships' House on behalf of the Kurds and I hope that they will not speak in vain.
5.48 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Avebury for initiating this debate. In the first seven months of this year four journalists were killed in Turkey. In southeast Turkey, one newspaper distributor and a newspaper vender were killed during the same period. The Turkish Government have made little effort to find and prosecute their killers and many other journalists, newspaper vendors and distributors have received death threats. Journalists who are part of what we may call the mainstream of the press are left alone, but journalists from Left-wing newspapers are frequently attacked, arrested or brought to trial. In south-east Turkey, journalists are particularly at risk.
Although the coalition government that came to power in November 1991 suggested that past restrictions on freedom of expression would be lifted, their actions have been extremely disappointing. More than that, it is clear that the Turkish Government are very keen to prevent knowledge of their strategy and tactics in south-east Turkey from reaching the outside world.
The repression of freedom of speech includes other, somewhat less brutal matters. In 1988, Edip Polat published his first book The Truth about Diyarbakir, a first-hand account of conditions suffered by mainly Kurdish political prisoners in the notorious military prison of that name. Its second edition, with a new foreword by the author, led to his imprisonment for six weeks and his eventual acquittal on charges of "making separatist propaganda".
In 1992 Edip Polat wrote a second book which described his trial for his first book. In December 1992 he was convicted under the same law—Article 142 of the Turkish penal code. He was sentenced to two years in gaol. He also received a record fine, which was imposed upon him and his publisher. The fine was later overruled by the court of appeal.

471
Polat's third book, Kurds and Kurdistan in the Language of Science, published in 1992, lists plants, insects and one mammal which contain references to Kurdistan in their Latin classifications. The book also gives the view of Turkish scientists on the use of such classifications and describes the uneasiness with which those classifications have been met in some academic circles in Turkey. For that, Polat was indicted and faced a prison term of up to five years and a fine of 50 million Turkish lira, which is about £4,270. The publisher and Dr. Ismail Besikci, who wrote the preface, were tried with the author. Polat and Besikci were acquitted on 2nd April. The court agreed that the book contained scientific content.
There are other similar cases which demonstrate beyond question the policy and practice of the Turkish Government to silence opposition to their policies and to prevent the truth from becoming known. It is interesting to note that some of the structures of a civilised society are still in place in Turkey. We have heard how terror subverts humanity, how some doctors have gone along with the terror and how some doctors are fighting it. It seems that the Turkish courts system still operates according to the rule of law.
I should also like to refer to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about the dual nature of the persecution. The noble Lord referred to the religious as well as the ethnic aspects of this terrible situation. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government agree that there is a need greatly to strengthen the Copenhagen Declaration, which encompasses both ethnic and religious minorities, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, to strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Human Rights?
Finally, I realise that although the Cold War is over, the area of south-eastern Europe and south-western Asia is in many parts facing an uncertain future. I can see that we need all the sturdy allies that we can get. I have to conclude that that need is the reason why so little pressure has been brought to bear on the Government of Turkey by the governments of western Europe.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I have travelled through Kurdistan half a dozen times in the past 25 years, and so consider myself one of that region's oldest friends in this House or the other place. As such, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury for putting down this Question today. I apologise for not being in the House when my noble friend rose to speak owing to the late arrival of my flight from Belfast.
I wish to refer for just a couple of minutes to one subject only; namely, the Treaty of Lausanne, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hylton. As he told noble Lords, although rather vague promises had been made to the Kurds in the preceding treaty of Sevres, which was never ratified, there was no mention whatsoever of them in the Treaty of Lausanne, which replaced it in 1923. Nonetheless, it is important that
472
noble Lords should remember that under that treaty very important civil rights were guaranteed to all minorities in Turkey. I quote from Article 38 of the treaty:
"The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
"All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals".
Article 39 says:
"All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.
"Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.
"No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.
"Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts".
That treaty was ratified in 1923. The principal signatories were the British and French Governments and their empires and the representatives of the Ottoman Empire, which was in the process of breaking up. I put it to noble Lords that that gives Britain, as one of the signatories, a duty to see that it is fulfilled. From the moment the treaty was signed, successive Turkish governments have totally disregarded those articles, and have denied all the most basic human rights to the unfortunate Kurdish people in their country. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give some assurance that, even at this late date, Britain can do something to support what was signed 70 years ago.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by echoing what has been said by many noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The House is grateful to him for drawing our attention to the situation in Kurdistan. Not for the first time has the noble Lord spoken for those who are denied a voice, or evoked the conscience of the international community on matters which it is all too easy to overlook because they are far away and out of sight.
I believe that there will be a time—I believe it will be in the lifetime of some noble Lords—when there will be a supranational authority that is as capable of enforcing a global consensus on human rights as the police and the law courts are of enforcing the civil rights of our citizens within our national borders. I believe that it will be accepted as as natural and unquestioned a part of the global community as our civil institutions are accepted in this country. Then one day it may occur to someone to write a history of how it came about. When that happens I am certain that there will be a chapter which recognises the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the Parliamentary Human Rights Group.
At the outset let me echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Ennals as to the benefits which I believe have flowed from the establishment of a Human Rights Division within the

473
Foreign Office. We all recognise the part that it has played. The House will particularly appreciate the fact that, in advance of this debate, we have been given the opportunity to read the report of the mission led by the noble Lord. As one who has participated in numerous missions of that kind, perhaps I may say that it is a model of what a report should be. It reports in detail the words of those to whom the members of the mission spoke. It carefully distinguishes fact from comment and provides a helpful and sensitive historical background on how the situation arose.
When we hear of the atrocities spoken of by a number of noble Lords today, it is easy to find ourselves tempted to say that they are unique. It would be some comfort if they were. But the kind of debate that we have had today is all too typical of many debates in your Lordships' House in which the noble Baronesses, Lady Chalker and Lady Cox, other noble Lords and I have participated. It falls into a tragically familiar pattern. A population with its own history and culture which seeks to assert its identity begins by claiming the right to decide questions affecting its own interests. The state in which it constitutes a minority responds without the understanding and sensitivity which might lead to an accommodation and the authorities find that what began as a claim to a limited series of rights has been transformed by their intransigence into a separatist movement among a whole people. By its very nature, a separatist movement is an attack upon the integrity of the state, which the state feels called upon to repress. If there is no lawful way of pursuing their objective, the separatists will be tempted to pursue it unlawfully. So repression leads to the politics of violence; the violence leads to yet more violent repression and then there is civil war.
Perhaps I may say at once to the noble Lord (and my namesake), Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, that I deplore, as he does, the unnecessary and mindless violence from some of the Kurdish groups. I believe that they do as little good for their cause as many other terrorists do for the causes which they purport to espouse.
In any armed conflict, unless the military authorities on each side are able and willing to maintain a high degree of discipline, frustrations will be vented on those who are nearest and most defenceless: the civilian population. One atrocity leads to reprisals, and reprisals lead to counter-reprisals. So it goes on. Your Lordships' House heard some references to that in another context earlier today.
It is a tragically familiar pattern in many parts of the world. In the case of the Kurds, history has added a number of factors which exacerbate that process. First, as my noble friend Lord Ennals reminded us, the Kurdish people are a minority in five (I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, said six) different countries, where they believe that they are entitled to a future as a single united people.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for interrupting him. Since Russia has broken up into several countries,
474
it is hard to express where the one and a half million Kurds in those countries now belong, and they are suffering an even greater problem in some ways.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was trying to do the arithmetic; but I fully understand his point. One thing on which we are certainly united is that they are the largest national group in the world which does not have nation-state status.
Secondly, as the report makes clear, modern Turkey emerged from the decay and final disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. It was not surprising that those who founded the new state and drafted the Constitution were concerned—perhaps "obsessed" would be a better word—with maintaining the unity of the new state and preventing further fragmentation.
The report refers to Article 3 of the constitution which declares that the Turkish state, its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity, and its language is Turkish. There was to be no political separatism, not even an assertion of a cultural identity. That was reflected in the penal provisions to which some noble Lords have alluded today. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, told us that there is repression of all expression of Kurdish nationalism in the area. The singing of a Kurdish song can be construed as:
"aiming at damaging the indivisible unity of the State".
That is a quotation from Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law.
On 12th October Amnesty International reported an increase in the number of arrests and proceedings against the press and publishing community. Amnesty referred to a military briefing in June announcing what it called "total struggle" against the Kurdish Workers' Party and calling on the press to report "in a spirit of unanimity" with the Government. We know that from cases like Recep Mavasli, who was indicted for issuing separatist propaganda, having been released only in 1991 after nine years of imprisonment and torture.
But it is equally clear, as some of your Lordships have pointed out, that even with the advantage of repressive laws on the statute book, the authorities are not content with gagging the press by the measures prescribed by law. There is the documentation to which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred from Human Rights Watch. The report contains a horrifying chapter on the beating-up of newsboys selling newspapers of which the authorities disapproved. There are many reports of murders of journalists, as the noble Lord mentioned a few moments ago, such as Fernap Tepe and Kamal Kilic. The authorities do not admit responsibility for those murders, but no one has been brought to justice.
Where there are systematic crimes—clearly they are systematic crimes—against individual victims, any government has a heavy obligation to bring the perpetrators to justice. I am bound to say that nothing that we have heard from the authorities indicates any burning concern on their part to do that.
As so often in this kind of situation, excesses on the one side invoke imitation from the other. The report recounts how, on the last day of the visit, the PKK

475
warned reporters from the Turkish media to leave the region because they said that what they were saying amounted to government propaganda. As the mission pointed out, the best hope of minimising atrocities would be to encourage journalists from all publications to visit the region and report without any inhibitions. Some will report with more regard to their prejudices than to the truth. That has always been the case. But daylight is a more discouraging atmosphere than darkness for deterring repression.
Caught in the middle of all this are the unhappy villagers, whose involvement is simply that they happen to live in the area where the fighting takes place. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke movingly of their plight. The military descend on a village which is believed, rightly or wrongly, to have been used as a shelter by insurgents. If they identify a target, they are not deterred from firing because civilians may be in the line of fire. We heard tragic stories of children killed in that way. Nor will they observe the safeguards of a proper trial if someone is suspected of having fired upon them.
All that is understandable in the heat of a military engagement. Those responsible for unleashing any war must know that it is not always possible to guarantee observance of the rules of law. But it behoves military commanders to maintain discipline among those whom they command. Where there have been breaches of discipline, they should bring the perpetrators to justice publicly so that the commanders' commitment to the rules can be seen. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, the military appear to be wholly beyond the control of the civil authorities and, in many cases of their own commanders.
A report of Amnesty International issued in July of this year gives one example that has already been referred to by some of your Lordships. It relates to the village of Ortasar and states,
"On 21 June several hundred soldiers and special team members entered the village… According to an account received by Amnesty International the soldiers began hitting the villagers with the butts of their weapons. Electric cables attached to armoured vehicles were used to give the villagers electric shocks, and cigarettes were stubbed out on them. Women and children were beaten. The villagers of Ortasar had refused to join the village guard militia".
Villagers are required to join the militia to fight the insurgents or they will be subjected to reprisals of that kind. That was reinforced on page 16 of the report. There is a mention by a farmer of the village of Kele, who said,
"On October 11 at about 1.30 pm we heard firing and saw a large column of armoured vehicles … The army gave us until Thursday to join the village guards, or we would be bombarded. We didn't join and the village was attacked, killing two people. The army said afterwards that 9 terrorists had been killed".
Perhaps one is bound to add, with the noble Lord, Lord Archer, that it is tragic that the PKK have adopted a campaign of counter-terror. Villages where people assist the military or join the militia are subject to reprisals. The villagers are the nuts in the nutcrackers. They are terrified to give assistance and terrified to refuse.
Yet again we find ourselves asking what, if anything, the international community can do to help. The report
476
makes clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned a moment ago, that we cannot dismiss the matter by saying that it is none of our business. Those who were responsible for the peace settlement with Turkey after the First World War clearly were not above sacrificing the aspirations of the Kurds to the political requirements of the moment. It is true that the Treaty of Lausanne recites the rights of minorities within Turkey; but there appears to have been no great international consensus to enforce that recitation at a later stage.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, for the second time I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may say that his remarks are just as true today. During the Gulf War, the Kurds in Iraq played their part in trying to bring down Saddam Hussein. President Bush and the United States did not back up the Kurds in Iraq after they had played their part.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord says. In fairness, there was a genuine difficulty. The forces acting in the Gulf War were acting on behalf of the United Nations and with its authority. They could not go beyond the authority bestowed upon them. However, I deplore the general absence within the international community of the concern which might have been shown in some quarters. It is true that even after years of reflection those who led the thinking of the international community declared in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
"All people have the right to self-determination".
There is not one word in regard to the criteria by which we decide who are the peoples who can exercise that right and, more particularly, what their remedy is to be.
The mission, in its report, makes a number of helpful recommendations which could well form the basis of the way forward. It cites the declaration of the CSCE at Copenhagen, affirming the right of national minorities,
"freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked whether the word "religious" was in that document. If that was his question, the answer is that it was.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I knew that the word was included. I was hoping for the whole declaration to be reinforced.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I certainly echo what the noble Lord said.
I was privileged to be in Copenhagen for some of the discussions. They were dealing, of course, not with a right of independence, but with rights that are exercisable within a state where the people in question constitute a minority. There is reason to believe that, if there was dialogue, even the PKK might settle for less than total independence. The mission recommends that the CSCE enlarge the powers of the High Commissioner for Minorities to entitle him to undertake fact-finding missions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I was somewhat surprised that he did not already have that power. If he does not, one would hope that that

477
recommendation will be acted upon, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, can assist us on that point when she replies. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us, it is clear that we have a declaration from the CSCE recognising responsibility for the international protection of minorities.
The mission recommends that the EC states should instruct their embassies in Turkey to visit the region. Whatever else we may say about the EC, it is clear that membership of it now entails more than merely economic obligations. It entails a commitment to civilised treatment of one's subjects. As I believe the noble Baroness reminded us. Turkey is at least an applicant for membership of the EC.
The mission suggests also that the UN might send a special representative to the region. Turning from governments to NGOs, it recommends that as many human rights NGOs as possible interest themselves to the extent of sending missions. I endorse that and look forward to hearing the views of the Government on that suggestion. Sending a mission will not be without its dangers. At the weekend we saw an example of that in the intimidation of the trade union delegation referred to by my noble friend Lord Rea. We heard from my noble friend Lord Ennals regarding his experience there.
It is clear that the visit of my noble friend Lord Ennals and the visit of the trade union delegation worried the authorities in Turkey. That is the purpose of sending a delegation. They knew that somebody cared and those who are the victims in the villages know that someone abroad is trying to establish some solidarity with them. I hope therefore that those who go to the regions on behalf of NGOs will be supported by their governments and that there will be insistence that their safety is regarded by the authorities as a matter of the highest importance.
It was also recommended that the UN rapporteur on extrajudicial execution, Mr. Ndiayo, make a study of the situation and ask the authorities to permit a representative to visit the region. I look forward to hearing that the Government will support that.
The mission recommends too that as many parliamentarians as possible visit Turkey, not only to inform themselves of what is happening in the region but in order to afford a degree of security to their fellow parliamentarians who are vulnerable to death threats, woundings and, as we know all too unhappily, assassinations. It recommends that the International Committee of the Red Cross should make contact with the leaders of the PKK urging them to respect the rights of non-combatants. It recommends that the BMA makes contact with the Turkish Medical Association to make representations on the need to provide treatment for people in custody, but particularly the victims of torture. I echo the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of my noble friend Lord Rea. I have a feeling that the Turkish Medical Association would welcome representations of that kind. I do not think that it would be embarrassed by them.
I should like from this Bench to endorse all those recommendations. It used to be accepted that the way in which a government treats its own subjects within the confines of the existing state is a matter between
478
government and governed and that any intervention by the rest of the world would be an invasion of national sovereignty. One of the earliest question-marks over that doctrine arose in the 19th century from the treatment by the Ottoman Empire of some of its minorities; and early in this century, as referred to by noble Lords, the massacre of the Armenians by the Young Turk Government was a further atrocity which awoke the conscience of the world. Turkey has the unenviable credit for stimulating the world community to action in defence of human rights.
Turkey is a member of a number of international organisations; for example, as my noble friend Lord Rea reminded us, of NATO. We may have to insist that membership of those organisations carries with it a responsibility for observing certain standards of civilised behaviour. I hope that in that context the Government will press the Government of Turkey to recognise its obligations under the Geneva. Convention, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. And perhaps, looking forward a little further into the future, we may give further consideration to the establishment of an international criminal court with jurisdiction to hear and, where appropriate, punish offences against internationally recognised codes of conduct.
Finally, I hope that the noble Baroness, when she replies, will indicate that the British Government will consider responding to the invitation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to reunite the families of Kurdish refugees—those who have already been accorded refugee status in this country.
That brings me back to where I began. The world is being driven by events to become less hypnotised by the sovereignty of the nation state and more prepared to recognise the mutual responsibilities of the human race. I hope that that message will go out from this House tonight. When the bell tolls for those about whose tragedies we have heard today, it tolls for us all.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I want to begin by thanking very sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and all noble Lords and noble friends who have spoken in the debate. l rarely remember such unanimity—maybe with a few small points of difference—on a subject which obviously concerns your Lordships' House and concerns governments all across Europe. I think that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, was saying just now is one of the clear unifying points among all nations which believe in democracy; that what is going on in Thrkey brings everyone down. That is why action must be taken.
It is easy to say that; it is far less easy to have it implemented. I am very sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his comments tonight, was seeking to advance the work that he has done for so many years in the most beneficial way for the ordinary Kurdish people, those civilians who are so sorely oppressed both by the PKK, on the one hand, and by the excesses of Turkish troops on the other.
Perhaps I may get one matter out of the way and then return to the main purpose of the Unstarred Question,

479
which was put down before the visit of the trade unionists, about which we have heard a great deal, this weekend. It is important that I should put the facts of that situation on the record. The party of British trade unionists very unwisely travelled to South-East Turkey last week, given that the region was under emergency law. There was a subtle difference between their visit and the visit of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, last July. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was in touch with the British Consul before he went. I had my eye very firmly on what was happening and I remember welcoming him back unscathed to the House thereafter.
Unfortunately, the trade unionists who went did so against the specific advice of the British Government to those who travel in Turkey. I quote from that advice:
"Do not go there"
referring to South-East Turkey, the emergency law area
"unless on essential business, in which case advise the British Embassy in Ankara or the British Consul in Istanbul of your travel plans in advance".
The group informed neither Her Majesty's Government nor the embassy or the consulate in Istanbul. I understand that the group's visit was organised by the Kurdish Solidarity Committee. It was accompanied by two journalists working for a pro-Kurdish newspaper (who were also detained). The group apparently wished to investigate reports that in their attacks on PKK terrorists the Turkish security forces evacuated villages. The group was detained by the security forces some distance from the main regional town, Diyarbakir, on Friday. The group was held overnight and released without charge on Saturday afternoon. The group has now returned to the United Kingdom.
On instructions, our British Ambassador in Ankara has asked the Turkish Government for a full explanation of this incident. He has asked that the relevant local authorities should be reminded that foreign nationals who are detained for whatever reason must be given early access to consular assistance. He has also reminded the Turkish authorities of the need for there to be full respect for all international human rights rules. I shall say no more about the visit. It has served to publicise a situation which we all find totally unacceptable, but it was unwise and it might have resulted in far more difficulty for the individuals involved without advancing the case of the ordinary Kurdish people about which your Lordships' House is so concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the action taken by Her Majesty's Government and defined by the noble Baroness. If one is seeking facts, the best thing is to work with the authorities, including our own authorities. I wish to make one point which I did not make in my speech. Although I had informed the British Consulate, and the British Consulate knew what was going on, the Turkish authorities refused to the British Consulate at 3 a.m. access to me and my colleagues. That was quite deplorable.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was aware of the failure of the Turkish authorities to give
480
access to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, by the consular authorities in the early hours of the morning. We have already made our views known on that. But the point that I simply make in the case of last weekend is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has made—while one would never be welcome by the Turkish authorities in South-East Turkey under the present circumstances, at least the British Embassy might be able to help if things went wrong. That is why prior guidance is helpful for all concerned.
A great deal has been said in this debate which, in one sense, is worthy of repetition, but as time is passing I shall try not to repeat things with which I agree. I agree so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said in his speech tonight. I do not believe that there is any difference between us. I shall look very carefully at what he said. We have to find a way of working together to resolve a very unacceptable situation.
My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare talked about the behaviour of the local Turkish authorities. I say to him and my noble friend Lady Cox that their behaviour has been quite inconsistent with a country seeking closer relationships and indeed membership of the European Community. We find it very difficult that a good and supportive member of NATO should behave in this way towards her own population. That is an essential problem with which not only Britain but all members of NATO must wrestle.
I believe that the late President of Turkey, Turgut Ozal, was arguably right to describe the situation in Turkey as going beyond the simple dimensions of terrorism and as,
"perhaps the most significant problem in the history of the Republic".
We have had many references to that history in the most interesting speeches tonight. I welcome this debate and the fact that the problem is being discussed not only here but that it is being discussed more openly in Turkey as a result of the pressure from fellow member countries on Turkey.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, told us, on his notable visit to the south-east region of Turkey he saw how the people there were caught up in the struggle between the Turkish security forces and the PKK. His most useful report details some of the worst abuses of human rights which continue to be committed by both sides.
Perhaps I may say a word here which echoes what my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare said about the PKK. They are involved in attacks on ordinary people as well as on Turkish military and government installations. They are involved in the ambush of security patrols which are actually not doing any harm. They are involved in many other brutal attacks on villages which are believed to be pro-government and which contain innocent civilians. The murder of teachers and government officials in the area is no excuse for the claims that they make. As your Lordships will know, there have been unexplained killings of many civilians, including local politicians and journalists, as a number of noble Lords mentioned. We

481
know that acts of torture have been carried out not only by government forces but also by the PKK. That is why there is such concern about the situation in the area.
In March this year the PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire. In return they wanted government recognition of the Kurdish identity and language, the release of political prisoners and a general amnesty for PKK members. I believe that in that they were seeking to push forward their efforts to achieve a change in the way in which all these matters are handled. It is very sad that that effort came to naught. There was initially a relatively peaceful period and we hoped that that would continue. But when the ceasefire broke down in June both sides blamed the other. As your Lordships have clearly stated, since then the confrontation in the south-east has deteriorated with the death toll in recent weeks reaching new peaks.
As my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare said, it would be a very good thing if something like the Iraq-Kurdistan parliament could be repeated in the Kurdish areas of Turkey. But at the moment I see little hope of that, which I find very sad. Nevertheless, where moderate Kurdish views can be expressed within a country then there is some chance that those people will get their rightful recognition. The difficulty is that those moderate Kurdish views are completely over-shadowed by the terrorist activity which is going on.
I must take this opportunity to condemn the recent fire-bombings of Turkish diplomatic and civilian properties in London and in a number of other European cities. It appears that these were carried out by supporters of the PKK. That organisation does not limit itself to attacks even on the Turkish authorities. As the report of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, showed in so many ways, and as noble Lords have declared tonight, civilians are attacked without provocation and without reason. Earlier this year the PKK attacked Western tourist targets in Turkey, seeking to undermine the income going into that country which the people of south-east Turkey need as much as anybody in terms of investment. I believe that these terrorist attacks show the kind of ruthless opponent against whom the moderates in the Turkish government are struggling. That makes it all the more difficult for those moderates.
In the debate several of your Lordships have spoken about Prime Minister Ciller of Turkey. But as we know well, she does not have a secure position. I believe that she is quite sincere in wishing to make an attempt to revise the 1982 law, but that may well not succeed. But I believe that in the international sphere we may be able to help. That is why we urge the Turkish Government to resolve their problems in the south-east. We urge them to do so in conformity with the norms of governmental behaviour which they have accepted in subscribing to various international conventions. We say to them that the clear evidence of human rights abuses by both sides is cause for justifiable concern by the international community.
In our debate we have heard a good deal about the need for self-determination. We have heard a good deal about CSCE, the United Nations and the Council of Europe. There are various reports and comments to
482
which I wish to turn now. The right to self-determination is important to UK foreign policy, but we always balance that alongside other principles such as the principle of the territorial integrity of states. There are various mechanisms within the UN which deal with the issue of self-determination. We believe that these are the mechanisms which should be enforced.
I shall not go into all the detail of the articles of the two basic human rights covenants, but they should be respected. I shall return to that matter in a moment. Turkey is not a state party to the covenants on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We believe it important that they should be. But we believe that while there are attempts to reach a peaceful and lasting solution on the issues in Turkey we do not support the idea that a group within a state or a minority automatically constitutes a people with a right to self-determination. Any suggestion that such a group might cede without the agreement of the state within which it exists goes against the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter. It is important to understand that clearly when we talk about self-determination.
My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare mentioned the Iraqi Kurdish Parliament and underlined the difficulty of any moderate Kurdish view being expressed in Turkey because it is automatically lumped together with all activity which is opposed to the Government. That is why we sincerely hope that elected representatives should be able to give non-violent expression to their beliefs even when they do not agree—as clearly they will not—with some members of the Turkish Government. We have seen promises from the Turkish Government of reforms aimed at greater democracy. I believe that this House and all members of the CSCE urge the Turkish Government to make early progress to achieve that because, if the moderate Kurdish view is allowed to be expressed peaceably in Turkey, the terrorists of the PKK will be isolated—and that is what will protect the civilians to a greater degree than anything else.
My noble friends Lord Brentford and Lady Cox raised the issue of the role of the CSCE in this awful situation and asked what we were trying to do to stop the violations of human rights. On behalf of the European Community and member states, the United Kingdom raised the issue of Turkey's compliance with its CSCE commitments at the Human Dimension Implementation Review meeting in Warsaw between 27th September and 15th October, which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned. Many states criticised Turkey in similar terms.
Although a number of mechanisms are available to the CSCE to investigate violations of Human Dimension commitments, they have not been much used. Some of the measures do not require consensus, so they could not be blocked by any single state. However, the Warsaw meeting, to which I referred, recognised that lack of action and recommended various measures to improve the monitoring of human rights. Most notably, it proposed that non-governmental organisations should be able to inform the CSCE's Office of

483
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of human rights violations, and that that office should have the right to pass on substantiated reports to the CSCE's political bodies, such as the Committee of Senior Officials, which could then decide on the follow-up action to be taken.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, recognised, there is a problem: CSCE provisions are not legally enforceable. Yes, they have a moral and political force, but nothing more and, as yet, there is no machinery to ensure that governments who sign up—those who signed up in Copenhagen and those who agreed to other CSCE declarations—actually give effect to or abide by them. There is, therefore, a further step that needs to be taken to rectify that shortcoming.
A number of your Lordships have called for the involvement of the CSCE's High Commissioner for Minorities in these matters. Although I am sympathetic to that idea, I must warn your Lordships that the High Commissioner's mandate precludes him from considering national minority issues even in situations involving organised acts of terrorism. However, given that the Kurdish problem is not only a national problem and that, as my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare has pointed out, it is happening in a number of countries, perhaps some way could be evolved to deal with the lack of a mandate in that respect.
The proposal to appoint a UN special rapporteur, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brentford and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is certainly a possibility because, within the UN system for protecting human rights, a special rapporteur can be appointed for an individual country. That should be done through the Commission on Human Rights. I hope that, if the commission is as concerned as we are at the reports which have been mentioned in your Lordships' House tonight, it will take the first usual step, which is to pass a resolution. As yet, there has been no such resolution on Turkey, but I am sure that, in the light of the Warsaw and Copenhagen meetings, it will not be long before such a resolution comes forward.
My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in their very interesting speeches, asked about national minorities. The House will be aware that the Council of Europe summit in Vienna on 8th and 9th October decided on four main areas to follow-up. The first was to draw up confidence-building measures aimed at increasing tolerance and understanding among peoples. The second was to offer help in negotiating and implementing treaties on matters concerning national minorities. The third was to draft a framework convention, setting out the principles which contracting states would commit themselves to respect in order to assure the protection of national minorities. The fourth was to begin work on a protocol complementing the European Convention on Human Rights in the cultural field with provisions guaranteeing individual rights, particularly for persons belonging to national minorities.
We shall continue, as a Government, to contribute fully to the work of the Council of Europe on national minorities because we recognise the urgency which
484
your Lordships have underlined so clearly in tonight's debate. We believe that measures to increase tolerance and mutual understanding must be at the heart of all efforts to solve national minority issues.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about signatories to the Geneva Conventions. I can assure him that not only does the UK uphold the provisions of Common Article 3, but that Turkey, as a state which is party to the Geneva Conventions, is bound to apply the provisions of Common Article 3 during non-international armed conflicts. There is absolutely no debate about where Turkey should stand on that matter. That is also something to be followed through after this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as well as—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, will she deal with the other question that I raised in this connection, which is whether the ICRC—
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am coming to that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry. I see that the Minister is coming to that point.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my next note was to raise the issue of the ICRC, of which both the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke. The UK has always supported the activities of the ICRC, which has a unique role to play here as the guardian of international humanitarian law—not only in upholding, but also in promoting the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. I believe that the ICRC's impartiality is not only well known and respected but permits it to act as an intermediary in a way that no other body can. I believe that its involvement as a protector of victims of armed conflicts is an important one. It is certainly one that I shall follow up.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to have to interrupt the Minister, but there is a secondary point. The ICRC might have a role to play in humanitarian relief operations for the many thousands of people who have been displaced from villages and who are now living without shelter or food in temperatures that are 5 degrees below zero, including those in the village that was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I had already made a note of that. I shall be following up the humanitarian issues which have been so clearly expressed in this debate and which we have questioned previously. I very much hope that help can be got through, but there must be some agreement in order to deliver that help in the area. We are somewhat too well experienced in trying to get assistance into areas and in being stopped from giving humanitarian assistance for me to be able to give the noble Lord a categorical assurance at this moment.
There is much more that can be said on this very vexed issue. But I can assure your Lordships that we are determined as Foreign Office Ministers and senior officials to continue to stress these points at each

485
opportunity when we meet our Turkish colleagues. Other western countries are doing the same. Most recently at the Turkey/EC Association Council in Brussels earlier this month European Union Ministers made clear to the Turkish Foreign Minister their collective anxiety that both sides in the conflict in the south-east should show respect for human rights.
The Turkish Government have made some efforts to improve matters. They passed a new law earlier this year to improve human rights provisions under domestic law. But the task remains to ensure that Turkish police in South-East Turkey abide by the code and that the tight against terrorism is conducted by security forces within the framework of proper respect for domestic and international human rights obligations. It was those issues about which your Lordships expressed such anxiety tonight.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this timely debate and discussion of a difficult issue. I am sure that it will serve to remind the Turkish authorities of the entirely legitimate anxieties in the UK and other western countries. It is appalling that large numbers of innocent
486
civilians find themselves caught up in this conflict, threatened by the PKK on the one side, and by the actions of the security forces on the other. We must make clear that moderate Kurdish views should be allowed to find expression within Turkey. That will strengthen the hand of the Turkish Government, in dealing with ruthless terrorists. We in the United Kingdom know that that is far from easy; but the police and the security forces engaged in the conflict in South-East Turkey must abide by the international standards of human rights. We must do all that we can to ensure that the Turkish Government respect human rights in every way.
I hope that a way can soon be found of bringing lasting peace to the region; one which encourages the Kurdish people in the south-east to find their democratic feet; to proceed by peaceful argument and to establish their rights within the Turkish state as a democratic force for good for their people. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
House adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.

  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CONVENTION: EDUCATION PROVISIONS
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CONVENTION: EDUCATION PROVISIONS
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 22nd NOVEMBER
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 22nd NOVEMBER
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  FAMILY PLANNING: UK FUNDING
  FAMILY PLANNING: UK FUNDING