Sitting of 14 April 1994

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

    UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Read a Second time, and committed.

    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Taxation
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much more in income tax and national insurance contributions would be paid by a married man on average earnings with two children under (a) the 1977–78 tax regime indexed to current prices and (b) the 1978–79 tax regime indexed to current prices, than under the present tax regime.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): If a married man with two children and on average earnings paid tax and national insurance contributions in 1994–95 on the basis of the 1977–78 tax regime indexed to current prices he would be £18 a week worse off; on the same basis, the 1978–79 regime would make him £13 a week worse off.
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which shows how much better off families have become under our tax policies. Would not any additional public spending above the Government's plans simply add to taxes? Will my hon. Friend confirm that nearly two weeks ago he wrote to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) asking him to confirm or deny the billions of pounds-worth of additional spending pledges that have been made by his Front-Bench colleagues? Has he received a reply yet?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that I wrote to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) drawing attention to the fact that many of his Front-Bench colleagues are travelling around the country promising that a Labour Government would spend extra taxpayers' money but that he himself has not made any
    402
    proposal to the House or to the country as regards how he intends to finance their spending plans. His position, and that of his party, is fundamentally dishonest.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister has got a cheek to talk about 1978–79 because since then the Government have had more than £100 billion-worth of tax revenue from North sea oil, about £50 billion of which finished up in the pockets of the richest 10 per cent. of people. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the answer to the present problems is not to inflict further hardship on ordinary people and pensioners but to take that £50 billion from the richest pockets and build a welfare state with it?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman neglects to mention the fact that since 1978–79 the man on average earnings has seen his take-home pay rise by £83 a week in real terms. That increase is the result of the Government's policies and has come about because the great majority of the British people, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, do not take his advice when it comes to critical issues concerning the future of this country.
    Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend agree that borrowing is in fact deferred taxation and that the previous Labour Government borrowed so much money that we had to use the taxes from 1979 to pay for it?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party believes that it can promise to spend extra money without having to finance that spending. That holds out the prospect that a Labour Government would borrow or mortgage future tax revenues in the hope that someone else would pick up the tab.
    Ms Harman: Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor wrote to me on 28 February saying:
    "Under the Conservatives living standards … will go on rising in the years to come"?
    Will the Minister admit that Treasury figures show that, because of the tax increases of £10 a week, living standards will fall? Why should anyone believe the Chancellor or any of his Treasury Ministers when they are clearly incapable of telling the truth about their own tax increases?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady cannot even get through a question without misleading people about the scale of the tax increases. The tax bills of the average household will increase this year, compared with the previous year and as a result of the two Budgets, by £5.75 a week. I shall answer other questions from the hon. Lady when she uses accurate figures in relation to the scale of the tax increases introduced last year.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to ensure that people keep as much as possible of what they earn and are able to decide their own expenditure, rather than following the principle, "What's yours is mine and what's mine's my own," which has always been the Labour party's policy in local and national government alike?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we shall do that for two reasons: first because it is right and, secondly, because it leads to a more successful economy and to the delivery of precisely the improved living standards that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor promised the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his future plans for extending the range of goods and services on which value added tax is charged.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The position remains as set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Paymaster General assure us that when the Chancellor and his Ministers next have a tax hike, it will not be in relation to VAT, especially on the printed word, children's clothing and food?
    Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The real threat to Britain's zero rates on food and all the other things that he listed comes from the socialist European manifesto, which supports qualified majority voting on tax matters, and would hand the decisions over to Brussels.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 1979 we stood on an election platform that included transferring taxation from direct to indirect taxes, and that that meant VAT? Have not we successfully fought the general elections since then on that basis? Even more important, we have demonstrated clearly that when take-home pay keeps increasing and people have the opportunity to spend, they are happy to pay VAT rather than direct tax.
    Sir John Cope: That is quite right.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Paymaster General now answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) asked? Will the Government give an undertaking not to extend VAT further, in view of the Chancellor's previous stated enthusiasm to do just that?
    Sir John Cope: I have explained exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question about handing over the decisions to Brussels. That is what the European manifesto would do—and, incidentally, what the Liberal Democrats' manifesto would do, too.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those on full retirement pensions and on income support are now receiving generous compensation for VAT on fuel—rather more generous than that demanded by the Opposition spokesman?
    Sir John Cope: Yes, indeed they are; it started at the beginning of this month.

    Treasury Revenues
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes there will be in revenue to the Treasury over the next 10 years as a result of the incapacity Bill and the Child Support Act 1991.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Focusing incapacity benefit on those genuinely incapable of work and requiring absent parents rather than the taxpayer to take responsibility for maintaining their children will save taxpayers at least £3 billion a year in the long term.
    Mr. Flynn: The Chief Secretary has not answered the question. Are not the two measures both Trojan horses, because hidden inside them are two massive tax hikes that will be paid for by the sick and by parents—£2 billion in new taxes every year? That is not child support or incapacity benefit but two Treasury support measures to pay for the Government's financial incapacity.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's question—
    Mr. Flynn: Answer the question.
    Mr. Portillo: I shall answer the question, but the question on the Order Paper asked not about taxation but about the incapacity Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is now talking about the taxation of incapacity benefit, of course that has revenue consequences. It has been the stated Government intention since 1981 to bring invalidity benefit into tax. The benefit is an income replacement benefit, comparable to unemployment benefit and retirement pension; both of those are taxed, and I do not believe that there is any dispute between the Government and the Opposition spokesmen over the idea that income replacement benefits should be taxed when they are in the hands of those who have the means to pay the tax on them.
    Mr. Congdon: In view of the enormous impact of Department of Social Security spending on public expenditure, and the fact that it has grown by 75 per cent. in real terms since 1979, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper to seek any possible way of reducing that enormous bill? Do not the measures outlined in the question represent a proper way of trying to ensure that we get better value for money from the enormous amount that we spend on social security benefits?
    Mr. PortilloMy hon. Friend is right. The important thing is to ensure that the moneys that we pay in benefits are concentrated on the people who need them. The state will not be able to afford to pay people who do not need benefits. Everybody knows that invalidity benefit has become broadly extended, and has gone much further than was intended when it was first created. The numbers on benefit have trebled over the past 15 years, while the nation has been becoming more healthy. Clearly the time has come to concentrate the benefit on those for whom it was intended—the people who are incapable of going to work.

    Growth
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further measures he proposes to increase the rate of growth in the economy.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The economic recovery continues to be robust and the Government's economic policy will ensure that it is sustainable.
    Mr. Trimble: I thank the Chancellor for his decision to publish the minutes of his meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England. May I refer him to references in the January and February minutes? In January, he said that the rate of growth had clearly not picked up and in February, he said that the advice that he was receiving from the Bank of England was excessively cautious or at least erred on the side of caution. May I assure him that his instincts on that matter are right, and suggest to him that he should back those instincts and take further measures to increase the

    405
    present inadequate rate of growth, rather than continuing to compromise on the basis of the poor advice that he is receiving?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is studying the minutes that I have published; he will be greatly enlightened by them, I am sure. I certainly published minutes which show the genuine discussion, at the end of which I reached agreement with the Governor. However, I naturally took my decision on interest rates because that is the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    The hon. Gentleman asks about the discussions in January and February—two months and three months ago. It is right to say that the Governor tends to start the discussions by taking a cautious view of the outlook for the inflation rate. That is what one would expect the Governor of the central bank to do. I was taking a cautious view of the outlook for growth and not relying solely on anecdote, which I think is sensible in the present circumstances. Since that time, an ever-increasing flow of information has shown that we are on course for low inflation and that the recovery is steadily strengthening. It is quite clear that I took the right judgment in the Budget in November and quite clear that I took the right decision on interest rates in February. We are well set to be the fastest growing economy in western Europe this year and the year after.
    Mr. Budgen: As the main forum between those who want increased growth and those who want to contain the future rate of inflation is the monthly meeting between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, may I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on publishing the minutes of the meetings? May I suggest that the way in which he has achieved that—by slow, steady, incremental change—is probably better than the statute that some of us proposed earlier in the year and certainly better than the move towards an independent central European bank which he has so often advocated?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend on the desirability of greater transparency of decisions on monetary policy. I am glad, too, that I am carrying his consent in the cautious, step-by-step approach that we have taken towards that transparency. However, I would take up his suggestion that there is a conflict between those who want low inflation and those who want lasting recovery. What is interesting about the discussions is that they confirm what ought to be reassuring to anybody with any common sense. Both the Governor and are talking about that essential balance between being safe on inflation and getting the right pace of recovery that will last. I hope that when people study these minutes and future minutes, we shall have a better quality of debate on these issues in the country.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor still believe, as he believed at the time of the February meeting, that there is a significant risk that his fiscal measures will slow the rate of recovery? What will minutes look like in about a year's time if there are significant inflationary pressures, if growth is not great enough to meet the Government's targets and if the Chancellor is arguing for a greater reduction in interest rates than the Government believe will be safe?
    Mr. Clarke: The February minutes go back to the time when someone took me up on a phrase that I used about the possibility of the fiscal squeeze checking the growth in
    406
    consumer expenditure. At that time, there was a lot of debate about whether consumer expenditure was picking up or falling down. Those things move on. I have had a meeting since then and we are all making our judgments now about the outlook for consumer expenditure, given the tax increases coming in. By the end of the year, I shall be making judgments and trying to perform the same balancing acts in the way that I have just described.
    I accept that it will be interesting about 12 months ahead to see how often the Governor of the Bank of England got it right and how often he got it wrong, how often the Chancellor got it right and how often he got it wrong and how often, occasionally, absolutely everybody got it wrong. By that time, we shall be moving into the necessary steps to keep us on course for steady recovery and low inflation.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent output figures were very encouraging indeed? Does he also agree that various socialist measures such as the social chapter would damage growth? Will he make that point time and again in the run-up to the Euro-elections?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In addition to the major economic policy decisions that I have just described, it is essential that we do everything to keep down British industry's costs and help our employers and businesses to make themselves competitive. At present, we have lower costs on top of wage costs than other European countries. By fighting away the social chapter, we ensure that we keep that competitive advantage. That is an absolutely key issue in the European elections.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given that in January the Chancellor said in public that recovery was becoming robust, whereas we now know that in private he was telling the Governor of the Bank of England that it was feeble; given that in February the Chancellor was telling us that a 0.25 per cent. interest rate cut was sufficient, whereas we now know that he was telling the Governor that twice as much was necessary; and given that by March the Chancellor was telling us that tax rises would not have a substantial impact on the recovery, whereas we now know that he expressed the fear in his words with the Governor that it would be substantial, how can the country ever trust the Chancellor, not only on tax but in anything he ever says about management of the economy?
    Mr. Clarke: That bizarre use of the minutes explains why in the past people have been so cautious about openness in these matters. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is a total misuse of all the accounts of the discussions that he has read. I have always spoken cautiously about the recovery. I have always stressed the need for it to be sustained. I have also always stressed the need to keep low inflation as a target. All the hon. Gentleman has ever said is, "Cut interest rates", "Cut interest rates" and "Cut interest rates." At times of boom and at times of recession, he would have caused recurrent financial crisis. He says nothing on tax, he says nothing on borrowing and he says nothing on supply-side measures. The possibility of the hon. Gentleman's taking responsibility in these matters would cause a serious crisis of confidence in the country and set back all the hopes of recovery that we are nurturing.

    Family Incomes
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the changes in interest rates since 1990 have had on the disposable income, after mortgage payments, of an average family with an average mortgage.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The halving of the mortgage rate since October 1990 has reduced interest payments on a typical £33,000 mortgage by about £160 a month.
    Mr. Wells: Does not that mean that, despite deliberately misleading statements by the Labour party and the whingeing and whining of the media and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the people of this country—poor, middle-income and rich alike—are better off under Conservative economic policies?
    Mr. Nelson: It does, indeed. My hon. Friend is on to a good point because it is not only the reduction in mortgage interest rates that has delivered higher net disposable income. Total disposable income for the average family with an average mortgage has increased by considerably more than the saving on mortgage payments—indeed, it has gone up £270 a month or 33 per cent. in just over three years.
    Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the disclosure of the minutes of the meetings between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. Is the Minister aware that those minutes disclose what is always a fact—in general terms, there will always be that difference between a Governor who wants high interest rates and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who we hope wants interest rates at a level that can sustain manufacturing industry? It is up to the Chancellor to keep pursuing that point.
    Mr. Nelson: Decisions on monetary policy lie firmly and safely in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. That is and will remain the position. As the Government conducting monetary policy, we have nothing to fear from transparency and clarity. Indeed, it is an act of some courage to be able occasionally to show that there are slight differences of opinion. That is a matter about which the markets will make their own decisions anyway. We have nothing to fear and everything to gain from greater clarity.

    Film Production
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the British film industry to discuss capital allowances and other tax incentives to encourage investment in film production.
    Mr. Nelson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had no recent meetings with representatives of the British film industry.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British film industry has a proud record of tremendous achievement and the potential to make a major contribution to the British economy? Does he further accept that there must be an appropriate fiscal regime to enable not only the film industry but manufacturing industry to make that contribution to the economy? Does
    408
    he agree that a review and reform of capital allowances would attract investment not only from this country but from overseas?
    Mr. Nelson: I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that the British film industry has a record of excellence, and there is a wealth of talent here which it can employ.
    My hon. Friend may be aware that changes introduced in 1992 for qualifying EC films provided for the immediate write-off of pre-production expenditure and one third per annum of production costs, and the reforms were welcomed by the industry. We are of course always prepared to look carefully at further proposals. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is conducting a wide-ranging review of the British film industry and we look forward to considering his findings.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that one helpful thing that he could do for the film industry would be to scrap the ludicrous Broadcasting Act 1990? Can he confirm that, since the passing of that Act, half the workers at ITV have lost their jobs while a small number of people have made an absolute fortune? Is it too much to hope for that the Government will put the interests of the programme makers and viewers first and make sure that the advertisers and money men take a back seat?
    Mr. Nelson: The Government give considerable weight to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, and they will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage in his review.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that there are certain special tax provisions that relate to television companies, as well as reliefs that relate to film companies, in this country. Those provisions were introduced by the Government to attract expertise and stars from abroad to film in this country and to contribute to our economy. There is no reason why that should not be the case in the television industry domestically, as well as in the international film industry. Both will prosper under the Government's measures.

    Key Industries
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will name the countries which have requested advice on (a) privatisation or (b) nationalisation of key industries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: Governments all over the world now favour privatisation over nationalisation. A very wide range of countries seek to share the United Kingdom's unparalleled privatisation expertise.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that countries around the world are creating free markets, reducing tariffs, abolishing regulations and privatising state-run companies because they know that such policies will lead to increased prosperity and freedom? Are not those countries following Britain's lead? Is not that free enterprise approach complete anathema to the socialists on the Opposition Benches? That is why, despite our current difficulties, the Opposition will stay exactly where they are.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. Countries in every corner of the world are following policies of competition, deregulation, privatisation, lower tariffs, free trade, free markets and political freedom. They believe that the United Kingdom's invented many of those concepts and has exported those concepts to them. There is no question of the United Kingdom being isolated within Europe—the United Kingdom is fighting every day to make sure that Europe, and the Labour party, is not isolated in the world against that trend.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Chief Secretary seriously telling the House that he is proud that the mines have been privatised? Does he think that that is a success story? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is currently meeting miners underground at the only remaining pit in Wales? Is that something of which he is proud? Will he now—even at this late stage—persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to tell the Coal Board to stop playing cat and mouse with the decent men and women whose livelihoods depend on that pit and to put that pit into the coal review procedure?
    Mr. Portillo: I am proud of every privatisation that has taken place. All the public services that have been privatised have become no less public—and the services have become a great deal better.
    In the past few months, the United Kingdom has been asked to give advice to Brazil, Chile, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Croatia, Gambia, Angola, Australia, Ecuador, Sweden, France, Singapore and New Zealand. I assume that North Korea and Cuba look to the Labour party for their advice.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Yesterday's announcement on interest rates will be widely seen as a possible further step towards the privatisation of the Bank of England. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the real danger that, if discussions and disagreements between the Chancellor and the Governor on interest rates are to become publicised within six weeks of the event, it will almost certainly have an unsettling effect on the bond, stock and currency markets?
    When such disputes become public, especially when one of the participants is arguing for an increase in interest rates, it could easily lead to an immediate collapse of the gilt market and a large inflow of hot money into sterling. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to me, that looks to be a speculator's charter like the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's views on the subject are known and I look forward to studying some of his speeches again. It is undoubtedly the case that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken a courageous decision by publishing those minutes. In the past 18 months, we have taken decisive steps forward in increasing transparency and the credibility of our monetary policy. That is necessary to give investors and business men confidence. The fact that such confidence exists is shown by the healthy inflow of funds and by the number of countries and companies willing to invest in Britain because they have confidence that monetary decisions here are taken for economic and not political reasons.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: When the French, Germans and Japanese ring him to ask how they can make their countries more like Conservative Britain, does the Chief Secretary draw to their attention the Public Accounts Committee
    410
    reports that followed each and every privatisation? Does he draw their attention to the fact that the PAC found that many of the privatisations were pump primed at the taxpayers' expense, that privatisations did not represent true value for money and that, in the case of the public utilities, the prices of electricity, gas, telephones and water have all increased ahead of inflation since 1979?
    Mr. Portillo: Most of the countries are well able to read the facts for themselves and have seen that prices have been falling in the former nationalised industries and standards of service rising. Quite honestly, if the French Minister who has been presented with a bill for FF 20 billion by Air France rang up, he would think that whatever we had done in this country was good value.
    Dr. Spink: Just to get it clear, can my right hon. Friend confirm that since privatisation in 1986, the price of domestic gas has fallen in real terms by 23 per cent. and that the price of electricity has fallen in the past two years by 6 per cent. and is set to fall again this year? Is not that good news for the economy and for domestic consumers?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right and his figures are extremely close to the ones that I have in front of me. Not only have prices been falling, but standards of service have been rising and the satisfaction of customers is the most decisive factor of all. When hon. Members comment today, as they sometimes do, about infrastructure in Britain they are not saying that the infrastructure of British Telecom and the gas, water and electricity industries is poor. Members of Parliament and my hon. Friends do not receive complaints about those industries because they are making the necessary capital investment and providing a good standard of service to their customers.

    Indirect Taxes
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning his plans to impose indirect taxes on air travel and most general insurance premiums.
    Sir John Cope: About 600 letters have been received by Ministers and officials and we have also met representatives of the industries concerned and other interests.
    Mr. Marshall: Why has air travel been singled out for that tax? How does the Minister justify such discrimination and what does he intend to do about the scandalous double taxation on a return journey involving Glasgow, London and Edinburgh or vice versa—a journey that many people make? Will he take steps to end that iniquitous and vindictive anomaly?
    Sir John Cope: We introduced the tax because, as my right hon. and learned Friend said in his Budget statement, taxation on air travel is low and it is therefore a suitable source from which to raise revenue. On the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, that is a matter which we shall have the opportunity to return to when we debate the Finance Bill on Report in the next few days. We also discussed it in some detail in the Standing Committee considering that Bill.

    Pay
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much real take-home pay has risen for a married man on average earnings with two children since 1979; by how much the same measure rose between 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings with two children has risen by around £83 since 1978–79; it rose by only £1.50 between 1973–74 and 1978–79. The policies that we have in place create the conditions for sustained recovery which means more jobs and higher living standards.
    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it means, if my mental arithmetic is right, that real take-home pay has increased each year on average something like 20 times faster under the present Government than under the last Labour Government? Does not that mean that the increase would have been absolutely impossible if we had to meet the bill for the extra £38 billion of public expenditure that was promised by the Opposition at the last election?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right but, with his typical fairness, he asked a question that was rather generous to the Labour party when he referred to its period of office. If one uses the examples of single people and married couples without children, their real take-home pay fell while Labour was in office, so even the generous comparison that my hon. Friend makes cannot be made at all for a large section of the population.
    Mr. Stevenson: Will the Chancellor accept that the real take-home pay to which he refers has been affected by the amount of money that is required for the common agricultural policy—for example, £28 per week is taken out of the take-home pay of the average family? It is estimated that an increase of some £6 billion will be required between 1992 and 1995 because of the agricultural policy. Will the Chancellor now give a commitment that that very effective indirect taxation on take-home pay will be resisted by the Government?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I agree to a large extent on the common agricultural policy and that we have committed ourselves to reforming it. We shall continue to do so and I very much trust that, as the tight constraints that now exist on the European budget begin to take effect, we will achieve more progress. While we seek to achieve that improvement in European conditions, however, we also seek to ensure that the costly and unhelpful provisions of the social chapter do not apply to this country, that we deregulate the circumstances in which business operates and that we make the single market work properly by giving it state aids. Unfortunately, no member of the Labour party gives us any support on those issues, which have a big effect on increasing jobs and prosperity.
    Mr. Duncan: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had the opportunity to study the impact on average earnings that would follow the imposition of a minimum wage as proposed by the Labour party? Does he agree with me that, ironically, if there were such a minimum wage one might see the statistics for average earnings going up simply because hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers would be thrown straight on to the dole?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, whose analysis is totally correct. Although members of the Labour Front-Bench team continue to say that they are in favour of a minimum wage, the more candid continue to concede that it would cost jobs. Unfortunately, as with everything else, the Labour party will not say what the minimum wage would be, so we can only guess at the scale of the damage that it would do to employment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Darling: Given that an increasing amount of take-home pay is being eaten up by value added tax, is the Chancellor aware that in 1979 the typical family paid £2.50 a week in VAT, whereas in 1994 the same family will pay £20 a week in VAT? Why should we believe a single word that he says when he promises not to increase the rate or scope of VAT again?
    Mr. Clarke: First, as I have already said, the average net take-home pay is up by £83 since 1978–79 and, as a lot of this bandying of figures tends to demonstrate, if real incomes go up people pay more tax. That is undoubtedly the case. The taxation that we are now imposing, however, is necessary in order to bring our borrowing under control and it will not affect the rising prosperity and continued growth of the economy in the medium term. As regards what we may impose VAT on in the future, that silly game is starting rather early before a November Budget and no doubt it will be played again between now and then, and I shall continue to say that I never give any advance undertakings on what may be in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, the biggest threat to zero rates, whatever anybody decides to do here, would come if the Labour party had its way, as set out in its European manifesto, and a majority vote in the European Parliament would decide whether we have zero rates.

    Pensioner Bond
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up of the pensioner guaranteed income bond.
    Mr. Nelson: I am delighted to report that more than 125,000 pensioners have bought the new guaranteed income bond, to a value of more than £1 billion. That is an excellent result for the initiative that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in the November Budget.
    Mr. Nicholls: I welcome that reply, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the introduction of that measure was prompted by the realisation that although falling interest rates were good for business and people at work, they could be very bad indeed for pensioners on fixed incomes? Does not that show that the Government do listen to the concerns of the pensioner community, and will my hon. Friend confirm that they will continue to do so?
    Mr. Nelson: Yes, I can so confirm on both accounts. For a long time, many of our elderly constituents had asked for a bond that would give them a guaranteed long-term fixed assured rate of return. We have delivered that and it has been extremely popular, as shown by the figures that I have given today. I am sure that its popularity will be maintained in the future.

    Tax Policies
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the impact that Government tax policies will have from the beginning of April on the economic well-being of the average family, with two children and one spouse on average male earnings.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that millions of weekly-paid workers on average earnings will today receive their first wage packet containing the delayed Budget tax increases, and that all of them will be able to see the sheer magnitude of the lies and deception that were fed to them by the Tory leadership at the last election? Does the Chancellor agree that no one with any intelligence will believe the word of a Treasury Minister on taxation, or anything else, in future?
    Mr. Clarke: At the last election we committed ourselves to sound economic policies producing growth, prosperity and more jobs, and we will deliver that. We committed ourselves to reducing taxes when it was "prudent" to do so, in the words of our manifesto. We have a tax-cutting record over our period of office compared with our predecessors and we have a tax-cutting destiny before us as the recovery strengthens, as and when it is sensible to resume our agenda. People know that we tax less than the Labour party because they know that the Labour party spends more than the Conservative party. Any objective consideration of the course of the present Government is wholly consistent with the successful delivery of our policies ever since 1979.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that far more households will be heavily burdened by the excessive council tax bills from Labour and Liberal councils than they are from anything that the Government and the Treasury will deliver through income tax bills?
    Mr. Clarke: Certainly, and when it comes to the credibility of the political parties, it is bizarre for the Opposition parties to go on as though they have suddenly discovered that they are tax-cutting parties after all, when they are about to defend the record of councils that, throughout the country, consistently produce greater expenditure and greater council tax bills for the equivalent properties in the councils that they control.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor now answer the question that my colleagues have asked about the extension of VAT beyond fuel? Will he confirm that he has personally voted for VAT on children's clothes? Will he confirm also that he has said that it is anomalous not to have VAT on food, on books and newspapers, on rail and bus fares? In the light of those statements, will he now give the House an unconditional assurance— [Interruption.] Given the contradiction in Government statements on VAT, will he now give the House an unconditional assurance that he will not extend VAT to other basic essentials?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so stuck for damaging quotations against me that he goes back to my voting record 21 or 22 years ago to cite a vote against me when I was on the losing side of the House and we
    414
    sought to impose VAT on children's shoes and children's clothing. Returning to more up-to-date material, I shall continue to say that I will give no advance hint one way or the other about my tax intentions at the Budget.
    If the hon. Gentleman already, in April, has to rely for a summer's campaigning on scares about VAT next November, he is in a desperate state. Why does not he say something about his tax and spending and borrowing plans—perhaps even something in defence of those high-spending local authorities putting everyone's council taxes up—rather than trying to raise those ridiculous scares?
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the average family these days has two, not one, wage earners because of the growth in the economy under Conservative management over the past decade, so that most families are miles better off than they were? Should not any increase in taxes be seen against the general growth in prosperity as a result of our policies?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. She has seen through the talk of the typical family, which Labour Members portray as a working man with a non-working wife and two children, with other circumstances that happen to suit the purpose of the questioner. That describes a tiny section of the population. A higher proportion of the population is in work than in any other major European economy. Average incomes are, in real terms, £83 more than they were when we came to power. My hon. Friend is right to put the present situation and future prospects in their right perspective.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my socialist-controlled council of Waltham Forest, which is now being investigated by the ombudsman for malpractice, set a council tax for band D of £587, supported by the Liberal party, whereas the Conservative group would have set one of more than £100 less? Does not that demonstrate clearly, first, that people pay in bands, not averages, secondly, that Conservative councils would cost people less and—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am determined that this should be Question Time, not speech time. I therefore appeal to all hon. Members for brisk questions and answers.
    The Prime Minister: Well, my hon. Friend is quite right. Whatever bands they may be concerned with, council tax payers will pay more under Labour and Liberal authorities than they would under any Conservative authority. I am sure that voters will note that on 5
    May.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is not it a scandal that, because of the changes that the Government have made in the health service, elderly people are being denied the right to hospital treatment on the ground of their age?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is either ill-informed or scaremongering. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said this morning, the reports to which the right hon. Lady refers, no doubt from this morning's "Today" programme, are wholly irresponsible. Neither patient in the BBC report had been refused treatment; both had been offered better options. It is utterly wrong of the right hon. Lady to raise the matter in that manner and to continue to cause needless anxiety to millions of people.
    Mrs. Beckett: What is scaring people is not what we are saying but what the Government are doing with the health service. The Prime Minister should know that people are being refused treatment because of what the British Medical Association calls the "undeniable fact" that there is now a two-tier health service. The GP of one of the people to whom the Prime Minister referred said:
    "Since contracts were introduced, this kind of predicament arises all the time."
    What is that but a two-tier health service?
    The Prime Minister: Despite the fact that the right hon. Lady has peddled an untruth and continues to do so, there is no policy—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister will reflect and I hope that he will withdraw that last remark.
    The Prime Minister: Despite the fact—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House.
    The Prime Minister: Despite the fact that what the right hon. Lady says is inaccurate and she has just been told so again—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do wish that the House would listen to the comments that are being made and not make such a row. I have asked the Prime Minister politely to reflect and I hope that he will withdraw what he said. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that if the House were to listen, it would hear him do that.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is aware, from what I said a few moments ago, that in both cases she has misled the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In neither instance was treatment withheld from those patients. In both instances, they were offered better treatment. I hope that the right hon. Lady will now withdraw the imputation of a few moments ago.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware that I have misled the House. Indeed, there is a letter from one of the hospitals concerned apologising for the way in which the patient in question was treated. That does not sound to me like something which did not happen.
    I ask the Prime Minister: why will he and his colleagues not recognise reality? Elderly people are being clobbered
    416
    by VAT on their gas and electricity and when they are ill they are being refused treatment in hospital. What has the Prime Minister got against the elderly?
    The Prime Minister: The fact that the right hon. Lady changed tack shows most clearly that she knows that she is wrong. Once again, the Labour party is needlessly alarming people, precisely as it did before the election by claiming that we would privatise the national health service. The Labour party will use any scare, at any time, for any reason, providing it believes that it will help its own party-political ambitions.
    Mr. Robathan: What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that taxpayers' money is not wasted on ludicrous pay-outs to former service women who joined the armed forces on the understanding that they would be obliged to leave should they become pregnant?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as he has raised the matter, I will ask my right and learned hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to examine it and report to me about it.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Prime Minister have any plans to visit Wolverhampton in the near future? If he has, I am sad to have to tell him that the good folk of Wolverhampton are completely brassed off with his Government's policies and, I am sad to say, with him. I have to ask the Prime Minister whether, if the local elections go badly for him, he will do the noble thing with his Government and resign.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman would want his constituents to know the truth about matters, so perhaps he might mention to them that, under this Government and the last few years of my predecessor's Government, unemployment in his constituency fell by 23 per cent. Perhaps he could tell his constituents that. Perhaps he could tell them that there is now no one waiting for more than two years for health service treatment as there once was. Perhaps he could tell them about the extra millions of pounds allocated to the health authority to help reduce waiting lists. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman carried some of those messages to his constituents in Wolverhampton at the next election he would no longer be here.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Labour party, where it is in office in local government, is to be judged on its record? Will he also agree with me that Manchester, under socialism, now owes nearly as much as El Salvador—a country which has been ravaged by 10 years of civil war?
    The Prime Minister: If the Labour party in local government is judged on its record it will not be in power any longer in local government.
    Mr. Keen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Keen: Is the Prime Minister not ashamed to appear to take so lightly the accusations that, in this year when we are specially remembering those who gave so much 50 years ago in the last war, because of the Government health reforms the people who made those sacrifices are now being denied the treatment that they so desperately need?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman says is wrong. Perhaps he might reflect that, although the elderly population has risen in numbers in England and Wales by about 9 per cent. since 1979, expenditure on elderly people has risen by approximately 40 per cent. over the same period. That is to accommodate the fact that more treatments are now available, better treatments are now available, waiting times are shorter and no one is denied proper treatment at any stage in the national health service.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Janice takes quite a lot of interest in this place and she would like to know whether it was a Conservative party that won the last four general elections, with a record 14 million votes in the last election? Could he also tell Janice whether it was a Conservative Government who imposed a higher rate of tax in 1978? Was it 40p? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Was it 60p? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Was it 70p? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Was it 90p? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Was it 98p? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] And if it was not a Conservative Government, was it that lot opposite?
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the answer is yes, and I think that my hon. Friend can safely tell Janice that.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency today issued a statement apologising for the fact that, as a result of the Government's obscene internal market policies, a 70-year-old man was denied treatment at that hospital? Is he inferring that the chief executive of the Royal Free is attempting to mislead the House and the country and is scaremongering?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell the House how many more patients the Royal Free has treated since the health service reforms. Perhaps she would like to do that and stop mis-stating matters.
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of doom, gloom and condemnation—the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—at the time of the Leyland DAF collapse a year or two ago? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful rebirth of the activities previously undertaken by that company? Is he aware of the considerable increase in axle sales from Scottish Stampings in my constituency of Ayr as a consequence?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of that and I think that it is extremely encouraging. It is part of what I believe to be a bright future for the Scottish economy. Equally, it shows how right we were to resist the demands from all the Opposition parties to spend extra money on Leyland DAF. They still have the same old interventionist, corporatist, 1960s policies. Leyland DAF has done far better without the sort of help that they would have forced down its throat.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read yesterday's report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the funding of political parties, particularly the minority report that starts on page 38? Is No. 10 Downing street still being used for Tory party fund-raising dinners? If so, is not that a misuse of public property?
    The Prime Minister: I use Downing street to meet business men in the same way as the Labour party used Downing street to meet the trade unions.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north Hertfordshire.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Letchworth Garden City on its 90th anniversary, which is currently being celebrated with a musical extravaganza called "Why Aren't We All Dancing?"? Does he agree that, with unemployment down by 13 per cent. in the last year, with house prices up by 4 per cent. and with a council tax half that of the neighbouring Labour-controlled Stevenage borough council, people in Letchworth and north Hertfordshire have every reason to be dancing—dancing on the Labour party in May and June?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case, and I have no doubt that that is what local people will do on 5 May.

Points of Order
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. We always have business questions at this stage.
Mr. Madden: It is related to Prime Minister's questions.
Madam Speaker: No.
Mr. Madden rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Madam Speaker: Order. We have a procedure whereby points of order always come after business questions. [Interruption.] Order. Will hon. Members, for goodness' sake, listen. The hon. Gentleman has been asked to resume his seat, and I ask him to do so. The procedure is always that business questions are a continuation of Question Time. Therefore, I take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will
be as follows:
MONDAY 18 APRIL—Second Reading of the Trade Marks Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order.
TUESDAY 19 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations.
THURSDAY 21 APRIL—Opposition Day (10th allotted day). There will be a debate on "Transport" on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 22 APRIL,—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 25 APRIL.—Until about Seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Motion on the Travellers' Allowances Order.
Motion on the HMSO Trading Fund (Amendment) Order.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 20 April to consider European Community document No. 4311/94 relating to the Court of Auditors special report No. 8/93 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco.
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for the Opposition day. Can he arrange an early debate on the Select Committee report on political party funding? In particular, will he arrange for a discussion of the requirement that
"illegally obtained money would not be acceptable and, if discovered to be so obtained, would be returned"?
There is a great deal of interest in the House and in the country in this matter, and an early debate would be appreciated.
Can the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for an early debate on the political independence of the civil service, particularly in the light of the letter from Mr. Bob Welch, of the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health, to other civil servants, in which he says:
"A continuing flow of positive messages about community care would pay political dividends at both local and national levels"?
It is not the function of the civil service to take part in party-political matters of this kind. An early debate would be appreciated.
Finally, will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a discussion of the Procedure Committee's report relating to parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders and the important constitutional principles that are involved?
Mr. Newton: On the question of a debate on the Select Committee report on party funding, which was published yesterday, it would be sensible, before further consideration, to study the report properly.

421
On the question of the letter from the social services officer, the hon. Gentleman will know that the social services chief inspector has said:
"I acknowledge that this letter concludes with an inappropriate paragraph. The author is in no doubt of his error."
I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
My colleagues and I are carefully studying the Select Committee on Procedure's proposed procedures in respect of deregulation orders, and I am sure that it will in due course be appropriate to advert to them in debate—not least in debates during the remaining stages of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend make yet another attempt next week to encourage a sensible attitude by the Opposition to reforming the House along the lines of the Jopling report? Is he aware that it is wanted by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that the way in which we conduct our affairs is regarded by the outside world with derision?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right when he says that our ways are regarded by many people outside, and quite a number inside, as somewhat strange at times—although they are a good deal less strange than in earlier years when my hon. Friend and I were in the House. My hon. Friend will know and appreciate that I am much concerned to make the progress that he seeks. He knows also of the difficulties and that I will do anything that I can to overcome them.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers at the Department of the Environment explain at the earliest opportunity what is happening about the overdue submission to Europe on natural dispersion areas and the possible downgrading of pollution clean-up plans for beaches, which are of considerable concern around the country? I understand that a list has been prepared, but that the House is not yet aware of it.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a substantive answer immediately, but I will draw his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is due to answer questions in the House next Wednesday.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the amount of time that the House devotes to foreign affairs? Can he say when we shall debate the Balkans?
Mr. Newton: I cannot at the moment tell my hon. Friend—to whom I have paid tribute on a number of occasions for his interest in those matters—when there will next be an opportunity for such a debate, but I will certainly bear his implicit request in mind.
Mr. David Clelland: The Leader of the House will have noted that during Prime Minister's questions the issue of council tax was raised several times. May the House debate that subject at an early date, to seek further clarification? For example, are the Leader of the House and his colleagues aware that if Gateshead and Newcastle councils had been given the same level of Government support as Tory-controlled Westminster, they could not only have charged substantially less council tax but given back their band D council tax payers up to
422
£1,000, while still providing the same levels of service? Does not that demonstrate that council tax statistics, like unemployment statistics, are yet another Tory fiddle?
Mr. Newton: In view of the way that things have been going, there is a strong temptation to provide time for such a debate. I thought that the debate had been brought to a decisive and crisp conclusion by Mr. Peter Kellner in The Sunday Times, with his brisk comment:
"The fact is, Gummer is right and Straw is wrong."
Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. Friend share my disdain at last night's attempt by BBC television to present the D-day celebrations as some kind of European election stunt? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If he does, will he find time for an early debate on media standards, so that the House can remind the BBC that the date of European elections is fixed by Europe, D-day is a fixed date in history, many brave and elderly ex-service men and women are looking forward to those celebrations and that such creative reporting can only damage the BBC's reputation?
Mr. Newton: I did not see that programme, but it is obvious from the response of hon. Members on both sides of the House that my hon. Friend's remarks enjoy a good deal of sympathy. I hope that they will be studied with care by those at whom they were directed.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great alarm and despondency generated by stories emanating from Europe that access by Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets will be accelerated from the time agreed when Spain and Portugal joined the European Community? Since that would appear directly to contradict the promise given by Ministers before they entered negotiations, may we have an early statement or, even better, a proper debate to examine thoroughly exactly what is happening?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of recent comments by the chairman of Ford Europe to the effect that his British plants were overtaking the Germans in cost efficiency for the first time, may we have a debate on the increasing competitiveness of our manufacturing industry so that we may discuss not only that but the effects of the social chapter and Labour's taxation policies on all corporations in this country, which have been estimated by the head of the CBI as increasing business taxation by no less than 25 per cent. from present levels?
Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend makes an attractive case for a debate, which I will certainly bear in mind. He made some very valid points about the increasing attractions of this country—over a long period now-for manufacturing and in other investment, reflected in the number of Japanese, American and, indeed, German decisions to bring their money here.
Ms Dawn Primarolo: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate next week on age discrimination in the national health service? Will he bear in mind the fact that the evidence today, which gives clear indications of age discrimination, has not been brought to

423
the attention of either the Department of Health or the Prime Minister? Therefore, an urgent debate to clarify that matter and prevent it is the best way forward.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago. I will not repeat that, but just make the point, in addition to the points that he made about the very large increase in expenditure on people over retirement age, which is much larger than the increase in their number, that people over 65 in England make up only 16 per cent. of the population, but enjoy about 40 per cent.—some £6 billion —of hospital and community health expenditure.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and make a statement about junior hospital doctors, in the light of the tragic death of my constituent, Dr. Alan Massie, at the age of 27? He was a talented and able young doctor, the son of George and Margaret Massie of Byrons Lane, Macclesfield, and died on 31 January of this year at Warrington district general hospital. Clearly, the pressure on junior hospital doctors —the number of hours that they are still expected to work—is too great. Action needs to be taken.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the first thing that I should do—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—is to join in offering our sympathy to Dr. Massie's family and friends. He was clearly a very dedicated young man. I understand why my hon. Friend raised the question, but we do not yet know quite why he died. It would be wrong to speculate before we know more about the facts. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend has made very clear her commitment to reducing junior doctors' hours, and is working with the profession on the so-called new deal and its timetable.
Mr. George Foulkes: May we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for the Environment, because the Scottish Office announced this morning that it will be illegal for the new water quangos that are to be set up in Scotland to disconnect domestic consumers? Should not that also apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, where, as I understand it, more than 50,000 people have had vital water supplies disconnected?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am bound to make the point that I spent quite a lot of time in the small hours of this morning listening to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—though not, I think, to the hon. Gentleman—protesting mightily about things being the same in Scotland as in England.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend knows of my excellent Chesham chamber of trade, which has its finger on the pulse of small and medium-size businesses. In the light of its representations to me, there stands on the Order Paper early-day motion 912 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), myself and 275 other hon. Members from both sides of the House.
[That this House welcomes the publication of the consultation paper Late Payment of Commercial Debt, as
424
announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement; notes the negative impact which late payment of commercial debt has on the job creation potential of in particular, smaller businesses; recognises the importance of the small business sector in generating growth in the United Kingdom economy; and believes that the only effective solution to the problem of late payment of business debts is the implementation of a statutory right to interest on overdue commercial debts.]
I ask for an urgent debate on the right to statutory interest on commercial debt, particularly for small and medium-size businesses, as the recovery will come from them. At the moment, they are struggling because of late payment from larger organisations. Will my 'right hon. Friend please press for an urgent debate on that subject?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend expresses a concern which is not confined to her constituency. She will, of course, know that the Government have instituted a consultation process on this very matter and I think that perhaps the appropriate time for further debate is after that process has been completed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement next week to clarify his understanding of surrender and the cessation of violence for good and to state whether the Northern Ireland Office has in mind an amnesty to allow people to hand in their weapons to show their good faith in going forward for peace?
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's question properly to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, but it is my understanding that his remarks in no way sought to go beyond what has already been said about the joint declaration.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time, if not next week then as soon as possible, for a debate on the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on the funding of political parties? I believe that the vast majority of taxpayers will agree that taxpayers should not fund political parties, but that we should go to the electorate ourselves to raise those funds. Would not they also be interested in the direct and disturbing link between the trade union movement, which provides more than half the money spent by the Labour party, and the fact that it has one third of the votes in the election of the leader of the Labour party and two thirds of the votes at the Labour party conference?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some very good points which would command widespread support. However, as for a debate, I cannot at this stage add to what I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) at the outset of our exchanges.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we to suppose that the first that the right hon. Gentleman knew about the statement by Scottish Ministers on water disconnections was what my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said just now? Did the right hon. Gentleman know what had been said?
Mr. Newton: I am rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's surprise, but the straightforward answer to his question is that I had not seen a copy of what Scottish Ministers said this morning.
Mr. Richard Tracey: With the local elections pressing hard upon us, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important considerations for the electors to bear in mind is the very high level of debt facing many local authorities, the interest payments on which are the reason why so many Labour and Liberal councils are having to levy much higher council taxes than Conservative councils? Will he find time for a statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on local authority debts so that the public are well aware of which authorities have the highest debts?
Mr. Newton: I am happy to say that one of our great national newspapers has this morning published a substantial chart showing exactly that. I hope that it will be widely studied, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will do his best to extend the spread of that information.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and on the fact that the Prime Minister's responses to the allegations are not satisfactory? People in the category in question—I am one of them—will be concerned about what is happening to elderly people in the health service. The least that the Government can offer is for the Secretary of State for Health to explain the position and verify the statement made from the Government Benches.
Mr. Newton: I had resisted simply repeating points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had made, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend made it clear that neither patient in the BBC report had been refused treatment and that both had been offered better options.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the principles of GP fundholding, because even if one were to accept the Opposition's argument that there is a two-tier system, the logical course would be for all patients to be raised to the top tier? Would not such a debate show that only the Conservatives are willing to trust GPs to know how to spend money in the best interests of patients—rather than the bureaucrats whom the Labour party would rather trust?
Mr. Newton: Understandably, with his professional expertise, my hon. Friend makes a good point. It is up to doctors and other clinicians to make decisions about patient treatment, taking account of a variety of factors, and no doubt that is what happened in the case concerned.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1007?
[That this House questions the NVQ system of training certification in conditions of fraud by training agents; notes that TECs simply do not have the resources to ensure that quality standards in training are fully maintained; believes that a verification procedure, over which TECs seem to have no control, and where the national examination boards are dependent on the honesty of training agents, invites widespread abuse; believes that a system of remunerating training agents on the basis of performance payments invites fraud; notes that Cumbria TEC spends more resources on financial checks than the funds provided by the Department of Employment for this purpose; notes that the
426
system of priorities adopted by Cumbria TEC is acknow-ledged by training providers nationally; and believes that despite the work of Cumbria TEC and others with national organisations, such as NCVQ, to create watertight systems for training administration the quality of training in this country is being gravely undermined by a number of training organisations who are prepared to go to any length to cheat the taxpayer.]
May we debate that motion, especially in the light of the fact that I have here a business administration level two NVQ provided by a training company in west Cumbria for one of my constituents who was never trained by that company? The document is one of a number of fraudulent certificates sponsored by that company. We should debate such matters, because many of us believe fraud of that nature is happening in industrial training throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Council for Vocational Qualifications requires awarding bodies to maintain appropriate standards in the awarding of NVQs. He made serious allegations, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will want to ensure that they are appropriately investigated.
Mr. Peter Luff: Has my right hon. Friend had a request from the Labour party to use one of its Supply days to discuss its education policies, which advocate, among other things, the abolition of the assisted places scheme, which helps about 30,000 children from less well-off families to attend excellent schools such as the Alice Ottley school, the Royal grammar school and the King's school in my constituency of Worcester?
Mr. Newton: I am receiving from my hon. Friends a steady stream of tempting suggestions for debates. My hon. Friend's suggestion is tempting, because there is much else in what the Opposition say about education that could do with being more fully exposed on the Floor of the House.
Mr. John McAllion: Following this morning's announcement that the Scottish Office will introduce legislative proposals to give a legal guarantee against water disconnections in Scotland, will there be time next week for the Prime Minister to make a statement on whether he and the rest of the Cabinet were aware at the time that that commitment had been given? That would also allow him to give a commitment to the House that, as there is to be a legal guarantee against the barbarism of water disconnections in Scotland, the same protection and legal guarantee will given to our fellow citizens in England and Wales.
Mr. Newton: I made a couple of comments on that matter earlier, and I am not in a position to add to them now.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) for a debate next week on borrowing in local government, especially in London boroughs, centring on the borough of Ealing, where between 1986 and 1990 the members of the Labour administration, loonies as they all are, borrowed £2,000 per head for every man, woman and

427
child in Ealing? That has meant heavy debts for all future generations, and the facts should be brought out before the House, so I ask for an urgent debate.
Mr. Newton: That is a re-run of a previous tempting request, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, too.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Leader of the House will be aware that, yet again, the sitting of European Standing Committee B scheduled for next week has been cancelled without reference to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Will the right hon. Gentleman please urgently investigate why, at the behest of Members on either Front Bench, that happens without reference to the people who attend week in, week out?
Mr. Newton: Yes.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a request from either the Liberal or the Labour party for a Supply day debate on those parties' European manifesto policies, which would lead to the possibility of our veto being removed? That could jeopardise, among other things, this country's £3 billion rebate negotiated at Fontainebleau. If he has not been asked, will he consider such a request anyway so that the general British public can be crystal clear about what Opposition policies would mean?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I have not had such a request and it seems somewhat unlikely that I shall receive such a request from the Opposition Front Bench. Should I receive such a request, I would consider it warmly.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the burgeoning growth of quangos under this Government? Such quangos are often characterised by sleaze and corruption and leave many taxpayers bewildered and angry over why so much of their money is being paid to friends, cronies and political allies of quango middle managers. Will he arrange for an early debate so that those matters may be brought to his attention and to the attention of the Government as a whole?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept the broad generalisations that the hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, many of the bodies to which he refers have been greatly improving the service that people have been receiving in various ways. I certainly have no intention of providing time for an early debate of the kind that he suggests.
Mr. Gary Streeter: May I add my voice to those calling for a debate on the council tax to enable the Liberal Democrats to explain in the Chamber how on earth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] None of them appears to be in the Chamber at the moment. May we have that debate so that the Liberal Democrats may explain how, with inflation at only 2.4 per cent., Liberal-controlled Devon county council has increased its council tax by 8.8 per cent. in the current year? The debate would enable us to take a view on whether the Liberal Democrats spend other people's money as though it is going out of fashion.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made some good points. If I may say, if the hon. Member concerned does not mind his comment from a sedentary position being quoted, I have been provided with a good answer by the Labour Deputy Chief Whip: the first requirement is to get any Liberals at all in the Chamber.
Dr. John Reid: Is the Leader of the House aware of reports that have been received over the past few hours that two American helicopters have been shot down in northern Iraq, possibly by the Iraqis, and with the possible loss of life of 12 United Nations officials? In view of the seriousness of that incident and of its implications, should not time be made available today either for a debate or a statement, so that we may0020find out from the Government what discussions are taking place about a potential response? Is not the event serious enough to merit that, especially as most hon. Members will be leaving the House tonight and not returning until Monday? Most hon. Members would agree that there is every likelihood of some military response, which would occur without the House having debated the matter.
Mr. Newton: Certainly, the reported incidents to which the hon. Gentleman refers are of some considerable seriousness. The correct serious response for me to make is to draw his remarks immediately to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend consider the way in which the 20 Supply days are allocated among the Opposition parties? Given the decision of 42 Opposition Members to vote against the Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill last night, only two months after 53 of them called for a mass socialist commitment to massive public spending, many of us are interested in an opportunity to debate the views of the real Labour party.
Mr. Newton: There is a gathering number of strange decisions in the voting patterns of the Opposition, and my hon. Friend has referred to two of them. We could well use some explanation, but it would be a triumph of hope over experience to expect to get it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on the role of Select Committees in the light of the decision in the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee after its study of political funding over 13 months and after visiting three countries? The majority report disregarded 95 per cent. of the evidence with which it was provided, probably because of political views, rather than reporting that evidence, as Select Committees should, for the benefit of the House and the country. Is not it a matter of the greatest urgency that we inspect and investigate the allegation, which any fair-minded person would conclude from that report, that the Conservative party is funded by criminal and other immoral organisations?
Mr. Newton: That is bordering on the scandalous in terms of remarks made on the Floor of the House. Perhaps more to the point in terms of the proprieties of the House, it seemed to be a substantial attack on the integrity of a Select Committee and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his remarks.
Mr. David Shaw: May we have an urgent statement by the Home Secretary on the number of Labour councillors and former Labour councillors who are now in gaol in this country, and how much that is costing the nation's taxpayers?
Mr. Newton: I will alert my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that he has been given an advance indication of a question that he may be asked next Thursday.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1004, which has been signed by more than 50 hon. Members on both sides of the House, condemning the outrageous treatment by the Greek Government of former King Constantine and his family?
[That this House condemns the declared intention of the Greek Government to destroy the rights of former King Constantine of the Hellenes as a Greek citizen, by removing his citizenship and his passport, by appropriating his property without compensation including his family graveyard, through use of edicts imposed by the colonel dictators, and by denying him his basic human right of recourse to the courts of his own country to challenge the validity of these edicts and laws.]
Is not it totally wrong to treat anyone, whether a king or a commoner, like that—a person who has lived in this country with his family since his exile? The Greek Government propose to take their passports away and remove their citizenship, to appropriate their property without compensation and, above all—and worst of all—to infringe their basic human right to take the problem and their complaints to their courts.
Mr. Newton: I have seen the hon. and learned Gentleman's early-day motion. Indeed, I have read it with care and noted what it says. He will understand, however, that it is a matter for the Greek authorities and the former king. I am sure that they will also take note and consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a further statement about the coal industry and the continuing closure of pits with specific reference to Tower colliery, where miners in south Wales decided last week to continue to fight to keep the colliery open? British Coal management then decided to use various devious means—they threatened to close the pit completely, to take it out of the colliery review procedure and then to put it back again, and they then said that they would continue production—to confuse the miners with the clear intention of trying to get them to reverse their vote. In view of all that, will the Leader of the House ensure that the President of the Board of Trade makes a statement here and keeps the pits open in Britain? We do not have enough pits as it is. But one thing is certain—the last pit in south Wales is worth fighting for.
Mr. Newton: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that sounds like a rather tendentious account of affairs. Of course, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, together with the request for a statement.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Leader of the House recall that he, together with his Cabinet colleagues, endorsed the concept that there should be transparency in all negotiations within the Councils of the European
430
Union? In that context, why has there not been a statement on the Fisheries Council meeting on 12 April, or the opportunity to debate the matter? Will we have to wait until the normal fisheries debate in November, or will we have an early clear statement or debate on issues such as relative stability, historic rights which appear to be sold out and the policing of the Spanish armada, which will now have access to the North sea? That is a matter of great concern to people in my area whose livelihoods depend on the catching and processing of fish.
Mr. Newton: Obviously, I understand why the hon. Lady has raised that question; indeed, some of my hon. Friends raised related matters yesterday afternoon. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will wish to make things as clear as she can to the hon. Lady at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Nick Ainger: May I emphasise again to the Leader of the House the need for a statement or debate on the future of the fishing industry, particularly with regard to the treaty of accession and its implications, not only for the North sea and the Scottish fishing industry but for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the south-west of England? It is an important issue. I hope that, because three Members of Parliament have raised the issue today, the Leader of the House will impress on the Minister of Agriculture the urgency of the situation and the need for a full statement and debate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I mean it when I say that I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the concerns expressed from various parts of the House, as she was made aware of the concerns expressed from the Government Benches yesterday.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I suspect from his evidence that the Leader of the House will agree that the recent report from the Information Committee could significantly improve the way in which hon. Members give service to their constituencies and the way in which they perform their duties within the House. Will he arrange for an early debate on that report, which is supported by a large number of hon. Members from all parties?
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, look at the matter. It is an important report and the House must consider, when judging it, whether the relevant expenditure is appropriate. Some important issues are involved and, of course, I understand that they need to be debated. I cannot make an immediate promise about when.
Mr. Peter Hain: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motions 874—
[That this House, recalling the Times report of 22nd January 1986 that a Conservative Minister, the honourable Member for North Wiltshire, had heavy losses paid for by parties within Lloyd's and believing that honourable Members should not be given beneficial treatment unavailable to their constituents driven to destitution, bankruptcy and even suicide by similar losses, condemns the decision of at least 12 honourable Members to refuse to disclose their membership on Lloyd's syndicates in the 1994 Register of Members' Interests which, by keeping secret their liabilities, alarms those both inside and outside this House that another special arrangement is being made to alleviate the

431
liabilities of honourable Members alone, therefore avoiding possible bankruptcies and subsequent by-elections; and believes that, because of their refusal, information from Lloyd's Blue Books and the independent Chatset League tables estimating potential Lloyd's losses, using the average premium per member of each syndicate in the absence of a disclosed figure, should be revealed showing combined losses of over £6 million for the honourable Member for Holland with Boston, the honourable Member for Finchley, the honourable Member for Romsey and Waterside, the Right honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the honourable Member for North Norfolk, the Right honourable Member for Wirral West, the honourable Member for Stroud, the honourable Member for North Wiltshire, the honourable Member for South Hams, the honourable Member for Bosworth and the honourable Member for Weston-Super-Mare.]
and 894 and 1008 standing in my name, and may I ask for an early debate on Lloyd's?
Is the Leader of the House aware of the calculation by a former Lloyd's underwriter that 51 Conservative Members who have been investors with Lloyd's have losses of £22 million, and that these may be being paid by retrospective stop loss policies, by drawing on Lloyd's central funds and by the Members' agencies in a way that is not the case for other external names, who face destitution and bankruptcy and have even committed suicide? Surely we need an urgent Government statement on the matter, or at least a proper inquiry.
Mr. Newton: I am obviously aware of the early-day motions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am frankly reluctant to commit myself to what he wants in view of the way in which—in my judgment—he has been conducting himself in relation to the matters.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Leader of House accept that the meeting of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development in May this year is a vital and, indeed, historic occasion? The commission is, of course, the prime mechanism for enabling the countries of the world to confront the grave environmental crisis which faces us all. It has been receiving reports from all the signatories of Agenda 21, and there scarcely could be a more important subject. May we please have a debate on that meeting, either before or after it takes place?
Mr. Newton: We showed our commitment to environmental policies and our willingness to have debates in the House when possible and appropriate at the time of the Rio summit. In that spirit, I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said, although I cannot make a promise to him this afternoon.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in a way which you felt was unparliamentary. At your request, the right hon. Gentleman rephrased his earlier
432
point. However, I think that the record will show that the Prime Minister did not withdraw his unparliamentary remark and did not apologise for it. I respectfully ask you, Madam Speaker, to check the record and to ask the Prime Minister formally to withdraw his remark and to apologise for it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Is it related to the previous point of order?
Mr. Shaw: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.
Mr. Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. On the issue of lies about the national health service, of which we are getting an increasing—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) raised a quite correct point of order. If the point of order from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) relates to that, I will hear it. However, we are not concerned with lies about the NHS. We are concerned about the point of order, and the hon. Gentleman's point of order must relate to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing an hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Shaw: My concern relates to the ability of an hon. Member—whether he is the Prime Minister or a Back Bencher—to say, where a clear lie has been stated in the House, that a lie has been stated without in any way wishing to be derogatory about the person who may have made the statement.
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member looks carefully, he may be able, under certain circumstances, to put down a substantive motion.
Several hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on this. I have captured the spirit of the House on this matter from the point of order of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
Of course, I heard clearly the Prime Minister's remarks which, I have to say, I felt were unparliamentary. However, it is for me to decide whether the rephrasing that he offered was acceptable and I deemed that it was acceptable.
In any event, I should like to remind the entire House—this relates to Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers—of the very wise words of "Erskine May":
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
All Members—both Front Bench and Back Bench, however long they have been here and whether or not they are new Members who came here at the last election—should remember those fine words. Let us conduct ourselves in that spirit in future.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It does not relate to the previous point of order, does it? That has been dealt with.
Mr. Winnick: I want to ask you a question, on a point of order. I have heard you, like your predecessors, ask hon. Members who used expressions that are not allowed in this Chamber to withdraw them immediately. You have insisted on that. Does not the same apply to the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a good parliamentarian. I dealt with the point of order raised by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and have firmly made my views known in the House on a number of occasions. I shall take no further points of order on the matter, which has been dealt with. I will, of course, listen to any other points of order.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On an entirely different point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time, is it in order for a Prime Minister to cast a slur on a member of another place? I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Labour Prime Ministers' use of No. 10 Downing street for fund-raising purposes.
434
Ought that to be drawn to the attention of Lord Callaghan, because there might be great resentment at the insinuation that the noble Lord acted improperly?
Mr. Shaw: He did not say that.
Madam Speaker: I heard very clearly what was said at Prime Minister's Question Time. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report in Hansard where he will see very clearly what happened.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the new flexibility in the rules, can we have a retrospective ruling on the eight separate occasions on which I ran into difficulties with the Speaker—only once with you, Madam Speaker—and wipe the slate clean?
Madam Speaker: I try to wipe the slate clean on each occasion. That is why the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I are such good friends today—[Laughter]—so far, but there is some time to go before the end of the day.

Opposition Day
  9TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Family Policy
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.12 pm
    Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
    That this House, in this the International Year of the Family, condemns the failure of the Conservative Government to bring forward policies which give real and lasting support and encouragement to families; notes with alarm the damage to family life resulting from Government policies over the last 15 years which have produced substantial high levels of long-term unemployment, undermined health, education and housing services, increased the tax burden on ordinary families despite Government promises to the contrary, widened the gap between rich and poor, contributed to the significant increase in the incidence of marital breakdown, and threatened family security as a result of soaring crime rates; and calls on the Government to develop as a matter of urgency a comprehensive family policy which invests in training and job creation, extends welfare services, particularly pre-school provision, and meets the targets of the International Year of the Family and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
    I welcome the opportunity to open this debate on family policy, although it is a pity that Ministers did not feel strongly enough about the issue to raise it themselves at an earlier date. After all, we are already one quarter of the way through the year, which has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of the Family—a year in which we are encouraged to make this a more family-friendly country and to develop policies to that end.
    Perhaps I should not be surprised by the Government's slow reaction. The Secretary of State might need more time to ease herself into her new tagged-on role—how did No. 10 describe it?—
    "with responsibility for the family".
    Despite all the ministerial rhetoric—much of which struck me as hypocritical, sickening and ill-judged—the "back to basics" fiasco and the subsequent squirming of prominent representatives of the Conservative party, the Government do not have a coherent family policy.
    As we can judge from the Government amendment, they are prepared to sacrifice support in the names of independence and offering choice, but that is appropriate only when families feel that they have a choice.
    In the circumstances, the Secretary of State's new responsibilities can be seen only as a reflection of Government public relations panic. Who better to reassure us of the Government's good intentions towards families than the Minister who made the remarkable claim that she shopped in Marks and Spencer earlier than the rest of us to avoid the embarrassment of being mobbed by crowds congratulating her on the running of the health service?
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Cheap and nasty.
    Miss Lestor: I do not find Marks and Spencer cheap. I find it very good quality, but rather expensive.
    I have no doubt that the Minister's rhetoric will be confidently delivered, coming from someone whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), writing in the Evening Standard last night, described as
    436
    "living in a fantasy world, a world of her own, with its own language, its own culture and now its own bizarre customs and practices."
    The reference, by the way, was to a visit made by the Secretary of State for Health to a new general practice clinic in Dulwich. The timing of the visit was switched at the last moment so that the Minister could avoid any unpleasant demonstrations—clearly, not Marks and Spencer customers.
    But even Tory Ministers cannot run away from the truth for ever. For the past 15 years, the Conservative party has consistently undermined families. Policy after policy has chiselled away at the optimism of families, withdrawn hope for their future and that of their children, sapped the confidence of individuals to cope. In their place has come fear—fear of crime in our streets, of repossession of homes, of homelessness itself, of bankruptcy of small businesses, redundancy and unemployment, and of the ever-increasing tax burden on ordinary people. The social impact of all these influences on young people who are robbed of hope before they reach adulthood is reflected in increasing alienation. I am surprised that so many cope and emerge as good citizens.
    People are distressed by the sight of young homeless beggars on our streets, a sight that I never saw in my childhood. They are appalled by the knowledge that sick people are treated on trolleys in hospital corridors, wondering whether that will be their fate too. They are frightened by the prospect that, with incapacity and old age, will come bills that eat into their hard-earned savings. Yet only two years ago the Prime Minister boasted of his ambition to bring about an economic climate in which wealth would flow down from generation to generation. Increasingly, elderly people find their savings swallowed up by care charges or nursing home fees.
    These are inescapable facts. The Secretary of State for Health will no doubt try to dismiss them as anecdotal evidence, but I can tell her that they are genuine fears and experiences shared by millions of people. They are more meaningful and true to people's lives than any of the carefully selected figures supplied by Government Departments.
    The Conservative philosophy on families is quite straightforward. What have they to offer? Independence, opportunity and choice, they say.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Lady is talking about making policies clear. Will she make it clear what the Labour party's policy is on child benefit? Does she agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that child benefit should be scrapped? On 14 December 1993, he was quoted in the Daily Express as saying that scrapping child benefit was an option that ought to be looked at.
    Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman must ask my hon. Friend. I have not seen that statement. If he asks me what my view is, I am a believer in and supporter of universal child benefit. I always have been, and I always will be.
    Mr. Thurnham: What about policy?
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to explain to hon. Members on the Government Benches that, unlike them, we do not make up policy on the cuff of our shirt sleeves, and that the difference between a Back-Bench Member,

    437
    however distinguished, voicing his own opinion on social security benefits and the Front-Bench team of the Labour party announcing an agreed policy is considerable.
    Miss Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was asked what my views were, and I have given them. I have made them perfectly public and will continue to do so. I am a supporter of universal child benefit.
    Before I was so uncharmingly interrupted, I was saying that Conservative policy on families is straightforward. Conservatives say that they have independence, opportunity and choice. But where are the "dramatic" improvements in living standards mentioned in the Government's amendment? Where are the opportunities that empower families? What are the choices? The amendment is a blatant attempt by the Government to offload their share of responsibility. That attitude places an extraordinary burden on individuals. It is an act of extreme irresponsibility; of moral and social cowardice by the Government.
    Small wonder that the Government have no family policy—in its place, a rag-bag of unrelated legislation and guidelines; requirements on local government to pick up the pieces without the resources to make a good job of it; and an enthusiasm by the Government to blame anyone who falls short of the ideal. It is always someone else's responsibility—someone else's problem—as I will show.
    To listen to some Ministers, we might be forgiven for thinking that it was not the Conservative party that brought in the socially damaging poll tax, bungled our entry into the exchange rate mechanism, with disastrous results, or fundamentally undermined local government, health and education services. The worst failings are now presented by Government spin doctors as the failings of individual Ministers who resign, are sacked or, in the remarkable case of the current Chancellor, are given the chance to collect a full set of departmental disasters. Let us hope that he learns from his experiences.
    That approach to scapegoating individuals when Government policies go wrong is followed through right along the line. Juvenile crime? The fault of individual parents. Under-achieving at school? The teachers' fault. Teenage pregnancy? Moral lassitude by young girls anxious to get a council house. Let us not overlook the lasting impact of the swinging sixties—they have been brought in as well. You name it, they will find something or someone else to take the blame. It is a simple approach, but it is not a very honest one.
    Mr. Tim Devlin: Who does the hon. Lady blame for poor educational standards if it is riot the teachers?
    Miss Lestor: The Government have been in power for 15 years. During that time, as the Government have said themselves, an increasing number of young people leaving school have had educational difficulties. There is no one else to blame but the Government. The overwhelming majority of children in our schools now have experienced no other Government than the current one. I blame the Government for the lack of educational opportunity in our schools.
    The absence of a co-ordinated approach to family-friendly policies, the absence of a commitment to developing a network of preventative support services to families and their individual members, leaves a huge policy gap.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentlemen will have the chance to make their own speeches.
    Mr. Streeter rose—
    Miss Lestor: I think that I have been very generous in giving way.
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Lady has only given way twice.
    Miss Lestor: The evening is young. If the juvenile lead over there wants to get up, I will let him.
    Mr. Streeter: I should like to introduce the hon. Lady to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has just entered the Chamber, who is a Front-Bench spokesman on social security—not, as the hon. Lady said, a Back Bencher. He wants to reform child benefit; she wants it to stay as it is. What is the Labour party's policy on child benefit?
    Miss Lestor: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting his women muddled up. I was asked what my views were on universal child benefits. I said that I believed in them. I do believe in them. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Let him tell us."] With great respect, and the affection that I have for my hon. Friend, it is not his debate. It is mine, and I am making my speech. Therefore, I will not ask him to get up and participate in the debate.
    Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should we adjourn for 10 minutes while hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench discuss what their policy is?
    Madam Speaker: That is one of the most frivolous points of order that I have ever heard.
    Miss Lestor: I happen to believe that families matter. I happen to believe that children matter. Conservative Members are showing the country at large how little they care about children and about families. If they could see the stupid grins on their faces, which will be on their television screens, they might like to take notice of the fact that many of the people whom we are here to represent are suffering under the Government, and that their children are suffering. I hope to hear from some Conservative Members positive policies to do something about it.
    No doubt the Secretary of State for Health will refer to the major advances made as a result of the Children Act 1989. I and all of us were great supporters of the Children Act. What a pity, however, that such a potential for good should be undermined by lack of appropriate funding. Unfortunately, many of the safeguards in the Children Act 1989, particularly those aspects dealing with preventive work, have been underfunded, as any social services department will confirm.
    It is no surprise that a Government so dominated by short termism should be panicked into producing over-the-top, ineffective and inappropriate statements. Media reactions to social issues say more about the ignorance of Ministers and their superficial grasp of the issues than anything else.
    The International Year of the Family presents us with a golden opportunity to take stock of how effectively the Government support families. The organisation co-ordinating events during this year has identified three main areas of concern, which I commend to Ministers: families

    439
    and work; families, poverty and resources; and families and relationships. They are, of course, closely interlinked and require cross-departmental responses.
    On the issue of families and work, one of the most important changes in employment trends over the past 20 years has been the rise in the number of two-earner families, from 43 per cent. of families with children in 1973 to 60 per cent. of families in 1993. That has come about partly by choice and partly by necessity. In only a minority of cases do both parents work full time. Indeed, only 14 per cent. of mothers have a full-time job.
    Lone mothers are more likely to work full time than women in two-parent families, partly because they lose pound for pound of income support against earnings of more than £15 a week. They are therefore less likely to follow the more usual pattern of a mother easing her way back into work first through a part-time job.
    Mothers, particularly lone mothers, cannot win with this Government. If they are lone parents on income support, they must go out to work. If they fail to find adequate child care and, in extreme cases, wrongly leave their children unattended, they are treated as monsters rather than having their needs attended to.
    If they return to the labour market to enhance their children's living standards and opportunities and increase choice for them, and their children get into difficulties, as many children do through no fault of working parents, the first person to be blamed will be the mother. Women need and deserve a change in attitude by the Government. Most parents work hard to be good parents; most mothers work hard to be good mothers, and that should be recognised.
    But how do the Government help parents to combine the need to earn with their responsibility as parents? There is little publicly funded child care in this country. Indeed, our record is among the worst in Europe. Local authorities provide day care facilities for less than 2 per cent. of our under-threes and, in the main, those precious places are allocated to children already identified as in need. That leaves private provision, which, being expensive, rules out low-wage workers. It is patchy and not always appropriate.
    In 1991, for example, only 1 per cent. of families with children under five used workplace nurseries. One option that is becoming increasingly popular is the admission of young children into reception classes at primary schools. Children as young as just four are expected to cope with school life in what I regard as an inappropriate setting. That is nothing more than a back-door attempt to disguise the lack of proper nursery education. If we are to take children into school at the age of four, they should be taken into proper nursery classes, not given nursery education on the cheap.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is the hon. Lady not aware that, for small children under the age of five, we need a diversity of provision at the pre-school stage? At that stage, 90 per cent. of children under the age of five do have some sort of highly effective provision.
    Miss Lestor: The hon. Lady has the honour of having talked out the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) dealing with the provision of nursery education and special needs. I am glad that she is a convert to the belief that we need, as I was about to say, a variety of provision for our under-fives. It
    440
    is hypocritical to take children into school at the age of four and then not allow them to have proper nursery education, when we all believe—the Government have said this—that nursery education is good for children up to the age of five.
    All the research shows that nursery education is good for children. Nobody in this House disputes that. All children need it. Not only does it encourage their social and educational development—[Interruption.] Does the Minister want me to give way?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As she has said that all children need nursery education, is she committing her party to providing nursery education for every child? Is she committing herself to the funding of such education? If so, how much will it cost, and by what means is she going to raise the money?
    Miss Lestor: I will answer that question, because it is an interesting one. But we could do with some clarification from the Conservatives on this point, because the Prime Minister says one thing and the Secretary of State for Education says something else. I am totally bewildered. Our policy at the last election—which will continue to the next election—was that we will provide nursery education for all children over the age of three whose parents want such education for their children. That is our policy. Is the hon. Lady happy with that?
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
    Miss Lestor: No, I am not giving way again.
    We all agree that nursery education and a variety of pre-school provision is good for our children. It also allows problems within families to be identified quickly and allows the needs of those families to be met at a very early stage. It should be an essential part of any strategy which aims not only to promote and provide educational opportunity—children need educational stimulation early in their lives—but also to aid in the detection of abuse, neglect, special needs and family problems. The Government know this to be true.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather sickening that those such as Tory Members who have the financial means and can give their children every advantage—and rightly so—should resent the provision of nursery and pre—school groups and take every opportunity to try to challenge us about where the money will come from? If their children can be looked after properly, why should the large majority of children, many of whom are being brought up in the most difficult circumstances, not be looked after also?
    Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend knows that he and I agree about this matter. Not all mothers want to work; nor should they, if they do not wish to. But their children, too, benefit from attendance at pre-school nurseries and from participation in other activities. This is a service for children and should not be dependent on the working status of their parents. A Government committed to a family policy would have full employment as a goal.
    Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
    Miss Lestor: I will not give way again; I have given way on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman is not as persuasive as my hon. Friend, but if he keeps it up, who knows, I may give way.
    Mr. Heald: The Select Committee on Employment has heard evidence that half the women who work and who have young children would like to see the establishment of workplace nurseries and would use them. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have given tax relief in that area. At the moment she is talking about the position of non-workers, but on the question of promoting workplace nurseries, what more would she or the Labour party do to encourage them than has been done already?
    Miss Lestor: I think that the whole question of workplace nurseries and the way they fit in with the needs of young children should be looked at very closely. Many people would welcome them. We want a complete survey of what is taking place in pre-school education, because many children's needs are not being met. I know what the Select Committee has said, and I am very interested in it. But we do not make policy standing at the Dispatch Box or on the hoof.
    Ms Hilary Armstrong rose—
    Miss Lestor: I will go on for a few moments, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
    As I have said, a Government committed to a family policy would have full employment as a goal because that is what many families need. The poverty and demoralisation of families living with unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, cannot be overstressed. Hopelessness and lack of self-esteem are experienced in almost equal measure by parents and children alike.
    One quarter of Britain's children are living in poverty today—many of them in families headed by a lone parent. In the vast majority of cases, this is not by choice: the parents started off in a stable relationship, and things went wrong. After a decade and a half of Tory government, 5.5 million people are in receipt of income support—the minimum safety net benefit—which amounts to more than £8.75 million. In 1979, there were 2.8 million people receiving the equivalent supplementary benefit. This country not only has the highest rate of poverty among the better-off countries in the Economic Union, but has also managed to achieve the sharpest rise in poverty throughout the European Union—what a record of achievement.
    Predictably, families with children and pensioners form—
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Lestor: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. She has already interrupted me. She had a chance to have a go at me on television, but did not take advantage of it. She had better keep quiet for a little while.
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Lady has been here long enough to know the rules.
    Miss Lestor: Predictably, as we all know, families with children and pensioners form the majority of those living in poverty in this country. If someone is in full-time employment but on a low wage, he or she is poor; if
    442
    someone is caring for a child with a disability, he or she is at greater risk of poverty because of the need to provide full-time care. According to the International Year of the Family Organisation, in 1989, 32 per cent. of people who were caring for a child with a disability had no earners in the family, compared with 18 per cent. of the general family population.
    Poverty has increased dramatically under the Tories, as have homeless families. During the 1980s, the number of homeless families with children rose by 46 per cent. We run the risk of a return to the days when children were taken into care because their parents were without a home—a concern raised by the Department of the Environment in its recent paper on access to local authority and housing association tenancies.
    There is a real fear that is shared by the Children's Society, among others. If, as a result of Government dictate, housing departments no longer have a responsibility to provide accommodation for those families, local authority social services will be hard put to keep families together, with appalling consequences. I urge the Minister to raise the matter with her colleagues at the earliest opportunity.
    The International Year of the Family Organisation says that educational failure is directly linked to poverty. It says that, in 1991, one in five 21-year-olds were innumerate, and one in seven were illiterate. Those are young people who spent all their school lives under a Tory Government. The introduction of testing is not the answer. The Government must tackle the problem and target resources to lift families out of poverty, widen access to pre-school provision and educational opportunities after the statutory school leaving age, and improve the status of parents.
    A start could be made on that policy by the Minister giving some advice to her colleagues about the derogatory language they use when referring to parental status and the skills of others. I was disgusted by the way in which Ministers fell over themselves last year to scapegoat parents, particularly lone mothers.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security referred to his "little list" of young ladies who became pregnant deliberately to jump the housing queue. What a shock he must have received when his theory was blown out of the gutter by the Government's own research. Who could forget the notorious visit of the Secretary of State for Wales to the St. Mellon's estate in Cardiff? He professed himself profoundly shocked by the squalor and deprivation, and laid most of the blame at the door of lone mothers.
    I too have visited St. Mellon's estate. I found the poverty shocking, but I was also struck with admiration for the way in which that much-reviled community was working to help families and individuals. What a pity that the Secretary of State was unable to recognise the obvious sense of community that runs through that estate and did not encourage the efforts and obvious achievements of the residents. I suspect that such an approach would not have fitted in with his pre-ordained view, but I hope that he has reconsidered the subject.
    This is a significant month for families. Since 1979, the Conservative party—the party of the family—has been promising to reduce taxation. It has lied. Conservative taxation policy has hit ordinary families hardest, while giving huge tax handouts to the already rich. Over the next two years, the typical family will pay £1,330 more in tax

    443
    —the biggest tax hike in history. Yet people earning more than £64,000 a year will pay less tax from this month than they did in 1979.
    The Treasury's own figures show that, from this month, a married couple on average earnings and with two children will be left with £331.76 a year less in take-home pay or real disposable income. This time next year, another £85.80 will go in the next phase of Tory tax increases. This month, national insurance contributions will rise from 9 per cent. to 10 per cen—an increase that will hit the low-paid even harder than the increase in the basic rate of income tax, as it impacts on every pound they earn over £57 a week, whereas an increase in the basic rate of income tax does not affect earnings of less than £124 a week. Four hundred thousand low-paid workers will now pay tax for the first time as a direct result of the Government's decision to freeze personal allowances for two years running.
    Following the imposition of VAT on electricity and gas bills, a typical family is set this year to pay 5.8 per cent. of its income on VAT. That represents an increase of more than £600 on the 1978–79 figure, at today's prices. VAT on fuel bills is set to reach record levels, yet it hits hardest those who can least afford to pay.
    According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the poorest households spend 13 per cent. of their income on fuel, while the richest spend only 2 per cent. The Government's compensation scheme is tragically inadequate. The 50p a week for pensioners is only half of what is needed to compensate them.
    Mr. Brandreth rose—
    Miss Lestor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time I shall do so for any Conservative Member.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that she is now touching upon her central dilemma? She is deploring tax increases only moments after having told us that she wishes to guarantee education for every three-year-old. The Government have increased from 43 per cent. to 53 per cent. the number of under-fives in maintained nursery education. How does the hon. Lady square the anomaly? She says that she does not want to tax more, yet she wants to spend more. Does she not see that taxation and spending are one and the same thing?
    Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman has got himself into a little difficulty.
    What is the trouble about the Government's taxation policy? First, Ministers told people that they would not increase taxation, but promptly did so. Secondly, people who are least able to pay have to contribute more than those who are able to pay. That is the contradiction. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if money is needed he look towards those who have done so very well under the Conservative Government as a result of tax handouts and all sorts of other benefits.
    Mr. Max Madden: And writing off debts.
    Miss Lestor: Yes, just as my hon. Friend says.
    From this October, we shall all have to pay an extra 2.5 per cent. for home, car and travel insurance. Again, people
    444
    living in Britain's poorest areas will be hardest hit. They already pay seven times more in home insurance premiums than families in better-off areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) cited the family living in central Liverpool who will face a bill of up to £540 for a standard £30,000 contents insurance, whereas a family in Congleton may pay as little as £77. Later this year, the Liverpool family will face an insurance tax of £16.20, whereas for the family in Congleton the figure will be just £2.30.
    In November, the Government will bring in an air passenger tax, which will put an extra £5 on the cost of all holiday flights in Europe, and £10 on the cost of flights elsewhere. This is another typically unfair Tory tax. As a flat rate tax, it hits ordinary families hardest. There are exceptions, however, and these illustrate a point that has been made. Those lucky enough to use executive or private jets will all be exempt.
    In the meantime, tax abuses are ignored. A prime example is tax relief on executive share options. Last year, the average chief executive received £620,000 in share options. Thousands of pounds of this is tax-free. That is where the money is. Incidentally, I should like to draw attention to an item of news in The Daily Telegraph last week. This revealed that six privatised PowerGen directors cashed in £3.5 million-worth of share options over a four-day period. Their profit would pay the VAT on the fuel bills of 70,000 families this year. That is the contradiction.
    Without a doubt, the gap between rich and poor has steadily widened under the Tories. The gap between top and bottom wage earners is wider than it has been for more than 100 years—since records began. What an achievement. When Labour left power, those earning an average of £6,000 a year—the lowest 20 per cent.—paid less tax as a percentage of their income than did any other group. Now they pay more as a percentage of their income.
    The Tories have broken their promises on taxation because their economic policy has failed miserably. Since 1979, the amount of North sea oil and gas revenues received and wasted by the Tories is the equivalent of every family in the country giving the Government £5,000. It costs £9,000 a year in lost taxes and benefits to keep someone on the unemployment register. Unemployment now costs every taxpayer £20 a week.
    What a waste of money, and what a waste of human resources. The knock-on effect of long-term unemployment on all the members of families should never be underestimated. One child in every four is now growing up in poverty, yet is surrounded at every turn by the trappings of a wealthy society which measures the value of an individual by his or her possessions.
    According to the National Children's Home, the National Children's Bureau and the voluntary agencies, the number of children receiving free school meals has gone up, but, with the removal of nutritional standards in schools, their contribution to a healthy diet is now very variable. We are told that one out of every nine children goes to school without breakfast. One in six does not have a cooked evening meal. More and more rely on junk fast food to fill them up, with the consequent threat of heart disease in middle age.
    We see the return of childhood illnesses and diseases which are associated primarily with extremes of poverty and which most of us thought we had left behind—for example, rickets resulting from malnutrition. The number

    445
    of reported cases of dysentery has increased by 10 per cent. since water privatisation. The number of water disconnections has rocketed in the same period. In 1973, Thames Water cut off 850 households, compared with 61 in 1991–92.
    Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): It's being so cheerful keeps you going.
    Miss Lestor: The Government Whip says that it is being so cheerful that keeps me going. I am not cheerful about what I see happening to children and families. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is something to be cheerful about, it is little wonder that the Government are fading as they are.
    Health visitors are reporting rising levels of diarrhoea, nappy rash and thrush as a result of poor hygiene. If hon. Members can sit back and be complacent because this does not happen to their children, I can only say that they are not fit to be in government. I see these things day in and day out. I talk to health visitors, and I know what is going on.
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—
    Miss Lestor: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady, who does not represent the sort of children I am talking about.
    These are not remarkable coincidences; they are the direct result of the Government's years of neglect of families. The strains on individuals as a result are enormous.
    This leads me to the third aspect of the International Year of the Family—families and relationships. As we all know, parents are the greatest influence on the child's development, yet the Government do little to encourage good parenting practice. Instead, Ministers confine themselves to blaming poor parenting for all social ills, whether school truancy, juvenile offending or under-age sexual activity.
    I realise that this issue concerns some Members on all sides of the House, and I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for their work in setting up the all-party parliamentary group on parenting, which was launched a week or two ago. This is something that ought to be spread to a much greater extent throughout the country.
    It is difficult being a parent. Parenting skills do not arrive with the baby; they have to be learned. Good parenting comes from a blend of love, the best of one's own childhood experiences and support. That is what is lacking. Much is therefore left to chance. We should be providing today's children—tomorrow's parents—with the chance to consider the responsibilities of parenthood before they take that important decision.
    It is also important to remind young people that they do not have to make this choice until they feel ready. We spend enormous sums of money teaching skills in other areas of adult life: why not this one? I believe that preparation for parenthood should be part of the core curriculum, and I commend the recent "Education for Parenthood" pack produced by the Children's Society.
    The broad issue of sex education and educating children for life is a classic example of the need for closer co-operation between Ministers. In "The Health of the Nation", the Secretary of State set targets for the reduction in teenage pregnancies, but how is that to be achieved? Not
    446
    by opting out of sex education in schools, closing down family planning clinics or refusing to answer children's questions on sex, health and relationships.
    The panic that arose following publicity over an incident in a Leeds school recently was typical of the Government's failure to think issues through. The same newspapers that some weeks previously covered their front pages, for any child to see, with the most explicit details of an actress's alleged expertise in oral sex were up in arms at disclosures by a nurse. What a surprisingly shockable lot journalists are.
    The Secretary of State for Education reacted strongly, if predictably, and one Health Minister ordered the pulping of a sex education publication aimed at young people. If young people are denied the knowledge they need, how are the targets set in "The Health of the Nation" to be met? That is another urgent co-ordinating job for the Secretary of State, wearing her "responsibility for the family" hat. The Government must get their act together and agree a positive policy towards families, in whatever shape they come. Government Departments must talk to one another.
    All families are in some sort of need. Most need confidence to get on with their lives, raise their children and contribute positively to society. That comes from the secure knowledge that the Government of the day understand and appreciate the problems that all families face from time to time, and from the knowledge that there are no nasty surprises around the corner—no hidden tax bombshells, for example, to throw finely judged budgets off course.
    Families need to be sure that there is in place a flourishing welfare state that not only provides a safety net for people in difficulty but strives to set standards and to help people achieve them. Families need access to a range of support services flexible enough to meet their individual family needs—whether that is help with caring for elderly or infirm relatives, or conciliation advice when relationships break down. Families need to know that cost will not be a barrier to good-quality, accessible services.
    Families need to feel that they are in active partnership with the Government, based on mutual understanding and respect. This Government are clearly failing to face up to their proper share of responsibility.
    In a radio interview yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health said that she did not know whether she had been handed a poisoned chalice. Her job, she said, was to co-ordinate policies, because different Ministers hold different pieces of the jigsaw. That is the problem. I have some advice for her. Solving jigsaws takes time and thought, and one does not solve them by forcing the wrong pieces together in a hurry. At the end, there will be gaps with nothing to fill them—just as there are policy gaps today.
    The Secretary of State frequently takes the opportunity to remind us how well qualified she is to speak on these matters—her pre-parliamentary training and experience fits her for the role. She may even take the opportunity to do so today.
    On this side of the House, we also have well qualified people—former teachers, social workers, ex-directors and deputy directors of social services, nursery school teachers, people who have fostered children and so on. The difference between them and Conservative Members—and often, I suspect, the right hon. Lady—is that they have learnt from their experiences and know the real world.

    447
    I hope that the Secretary of State will prove today that she has not forgotten her experiences and training, and that she can relate it to the real world. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for the right hon. Lady to present, after 15 years of Tory rule, a co-ordinated family policy that takes on board the needs of all families. Families deserve such concern.
    4.53 pm
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the International Year of the Family and urges the Government to continue to pursue policies which ensure that the family remains the cornerstone of society; recognises that what families most want is independence, opportunity and choice and congratulates the Government on its economic and social policies which have led to dramatic increases in living standards and health, rewarded enterprise and endeavour and given families greater power over their own lives; welcomes practical measures such as the child care disregard announced in the Budget; and believes that the best way to support families is to assert the authority and responsibility of the family itself while providing help for families where it is most needed.'.
    I welcome this opportunity to debate family issues. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) mentioned the International Year of the Family, and she will know that the Government are an enthusiastic and practical supporter of the year. I am particularly looking forward to 15 May, which the United Nations has designated as International Day of the Family. The hon. Lady and I were with the British committee for the launch of the year, and it was a very constructive and productive event—although during much of the hon. Lady's speech she appeared to have a somewhat different day in May in mind. Nevertheless, I congratulate her on the choice of subject for this debate. I hope that she will not be disappointed if I do not allow my remarks to degenerate into a stream of vituperative personal abuse aimed at her and her colleagues; the subject is too serious for that.
    As the House knows, I have been given the role of speaking for the Government on family issues. It is also appropriate that I respond to this debate given that my Department's health and social services responsibilities touch on all members of the family, often at the most critical points of their lives. The House may be less familiar with the fact that I also answer for the Registrar-General who records all births, deaths and marriages.
    The hon. Member for Eccles lays at the Government's door every single social ill affecting modern society. I find that curious given that the subject of this debate—the family—is fundamentally a private institution. There is no recognition of that in the Labour party motion, just a call for more public spending. Labour's answer to every problem remains the general application of someone else's cheque book—not an approach that would survive long in any family. In today's debate the hon. Lady may already have got herself into some difficulties with other Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) believes that progress could not be made until growth allowed it. We have already debated disagreements with the hon. Member for Glasgow,
    448
    Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) over the possible scrapping of child benefit. But I shall not enter further into Labour party internal disputes.
    The Labour party prescribes more state intervention and spending as the knee-jerk cure for every ill. That is scarcely surprising from a party whose funding, constitution and philosophy is dominated by organised labour and the man at work. Labour is unable to focus on the needs of the family at home. Labour will not accept that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences. The proper role of the family is to provide the learning and the stable, loving environment where that responsibility is mastered and turned to good effect.
    Before dwelling on what divides us, we should acknowledge the substantial degree of cross-party support for some of the Government's most important family policies. That support was evident recently when I unveiled the Government's White Paper on adoption. When I first joined the Department, the hon. Member for Eccles called to see me on the vexed subject of trans-racial adoption and expressed her resentment of the politically correct attitudes to be found in that particular regard.
    The hon. Lady may also have forgotten that, when the Children Act 1989 was introduced, personal social services saw a 15 per cent. increase in spending to make sure that its provisions were properly funded. We reproduced the central tenets of that legislation in our adoption policies, and that was widely welcomed on both sides of the House, as were the underlying principles of our community care reforms, which aim at caring for elderly and vulnerable people in privacy and dignity and, wherever possible, at home—close to their families and friends.
    I understand that Labour has given its broad support for the Lord Chancellor's consultative proposals for reshaping divorce and mediation. In all the discussion in the House about the Child Support Agency, not one right hon. or hon. Member has, as far as I know, demurred from the principle that responsibilities begin with parents and must remain with parents.
    The policies introduced by this Government constitute a far-reaching body of enlightened social reform that places families at its heart. Their uniting principle is the family as a force for social and moral good.
    In adoption policy, we make it clear that prejudicial views about the age, race or social class of potential parents should not come before what is best for the child. Children need families, not text book theories. In the Children Act 1989, the presumption is that children thrive with their parents. Together with our strong support for the UN convention on the rights of the child, that shows our deep commitment to the rights of children within the family. Any intervention that breaks that family relationship should be undertaken only if the needs of the child absolutely justify it.
    Since the 1989 Act came into force, the number of children taken into care by local authorities under court orders has fallen nearly 50 per cent. The House should recognise, as the Government do, the contribution of social workers, often in awesomely difficult circumstances, in making the implementation of the Act such a success.
    The Child Support Act stresses the ongoing responsibility of parents, even after divorce or separation. It rejects the cynical assumption that the state should pick up the pieces, and the taxpayer the bill, where the individual cannot be bothered. But there is an underlying tension between the

    449
    family and the state—not one that I would expect the Labour party to understand or recognise. In his book, "The Subversive Family", Ferdinand Mount spoke of the family as,
    "a last ditch from which to resist the state."
    The family is the most powerful and venerable institution in the land. It predates churches, monarchies—even Parliaments. Long before legislators took to pronouncing on family values, the family was already transmitting those values down through the generations. Trying to substitute the state for the role of the family risks undermining the authority of the family itself and eroding the vital social cohesion that it provides.
    Mr. George Stevenson: How does the Secretary of State equate the record increases in taxation that the Government are imposing on the average family with her contention that the Government seek to reduce the tensions within families? Is not it a fact that those massive and record increases, which are bound to hit hardest those on the lowest incomes, will increase rather than decrease the tensions in families?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, the Labour party misunderstands and misrepresents the situation. I think that most families would understand without great difficulty that the real take-home pay today of a man on average earnings has risen by more than £80 a week compared with the figure in 1979. [Interruption.] We can expect an onslaught from the Labour party: Opposition Members will not want me to inform the House that the figure rose by £1.60 in the years during which they were in power. The comparison between £80 a week and £1.60 a week speaks for itself. Families will certainly know which party will support their interests most strongly. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Is the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) seeking to intervene? If he is, he should do it in the normal way.
    Mr. Derek EnrightI apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Mrs. Bottomley rose —
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the Labour party had won the previous general election, it would have added more than £38 billion to the tax take, on top of the tax increases that are now going through? That would have been a much greater burden on family life in this country than anything that people are likely to face under the Conservative party.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The British public well understand that the Labour party raises taxes out of conviction. We have seen only today a string of further spending pledges. No doubt the debate will rage far and wide in the Labour party as to how account is to be given for the commitments that the hon. Member for Eccles gave today. I can assure her that we have taken note of the spending pledges to which she has already committed herself.
    The hon. Lady argued, predictably, that what has happened in the years since 1979 has undermined the family; she is wrong. On the contrary, it was the post-war decades before 1979, with their insidious cancerous extension of the state into every nook and cranny of our lives, that were so damaging to the family. Those were the
    450
    years when, despite the noble intentions of the welfare state, dependency gained the upper hand over independence, freedom and choice. The House will have noted that, when the hon. Lady referred to independence, freedom and choice, she did so with a certain sneer in her approach to those concepts.
    It was in those same years that fashionable nostrums in education, housing and law and order took hold. Non-judgmental, permissive values undermined respect for the values of responsibility, community and self-help—the very values that families had honed and passed on down the centuries. It is in those years that we can trace the origins of so much extra family breakdown and the erosion of respect for order and law.
    Mr. Devlin: The Opposition do not care, either.
    Mrs. Bottomley: And they do not care, either.
    Such trends have, regrettably, continued in the 1980s and 1990s. They have been a phenomenon shared to a greater or lesser extent by comparable developed countries over that period. The social changes that brought them about are complex. Unfortunately, many lie beyond the power of Parliament to reverse. But what Governments can do is to provide the right environment to support and strengthen families and uphold their independence from the state. It is here that Conservative Governments since 1979 have made the decisive break from their predecessors.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given our broad agreement that the state should not take the place of the family, and the Secretary of State's concern about the dependency culture, how worried is she that a record number of families with children are totally dependent on the state for income, and that the dependency culture has increased during the past 15 years?
    Mr. Alan Duncan: A good argument for the Child Support Agency.
    Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend rightly says, that is a good argument for the CSA. It is also a good argument for the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget in terms of assistance with child care, and, indeed, for the dramatic improvements in family credit—whereas around 80,000 people benefited when the Labour party was in power around 500,000 people benefit now. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) seems to be engaged in a running commentary.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Conservative Members are familiar with the fact that, when Labour Members have no arguments, they either make a dreadful noise or start saying that the figures have been fiddled; we always know that we are home and dry when that is their response.
    We have made a great number of changes to improve the situation for families. We have opened the doors to opportunity and enterprise, which gave families the chance to assert their independence and strength. Socialism nationalised choice, taking it away from individuals and families. We gave it back. Some 1.4 million families have been able to buy their homes under our right-to-buy policy—1.4 million families freed from the serfdom of the state and able to experience the independence and responsibility of home ownership; the tenants of Labour local authorities

    451
    in particular found the tyranny, patronising attitude and lack of concern quite deplorable. That is something about which I know a great deal.
    To its shame, the Labour party fought us at every stage. More powers to families meant less power to the baronies of the Labour movement and to the trade unions and municipal socialists. We know why the Labour party fought so hard to avoid the sale of council houses: it thought that, when people were in them, they were within its power. Those who used to see the difficulties that people faced in getting their council houses repaired by some Labour local authorities will know exactly why it thought that.
    We still see today how entrenched is Labour's opposition to genuine independence and choice for families. In education, for example, the Labour party has opposed, and continues to oppose, every single measure that gives parents more choice, more influence and more control over their children's schooling. The Labour party opposed the right that we gave parents to choose their children's schools. It opposed grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. It opposed testing. It carps at and criticises the publication of school performance tables, which give parents the information that they need to make informed choices.
    The Labour party may claim to support the family, but what families want is information and influence over their children's schooling. They do not want to be frozen out. They want to participate. They want to be involved. They want information. But the Labour party resists every single measure that we pass that gives families power.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that the money for city technology colleges could have provided many more pre-school education places for the under-fives? She raised a point about housing, which I think represents one way in which the state can support family life. Does she agree that the question that we should ask is how many families are in adequate housing, regardless of the ownership of those houses? Is not it a tragedy that, when commenting on housing, she seeks to make political points about home ownership and ignores the very real fact that more families now live in disgraceful and appalling housing than at any time since the second world war? What support are the Government going to give to get people out of housing misery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Presumably, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) will now not feel the need to make a speech in her own right to start denigrating city technology colleges as always. The Opposition hate choice, diversity and variety, and that is why the public have no confidence in them. The public realise that the Opposition believe that they always know best. The Opposition never trust the people; that is why they deplore every opportunity that empowers the public and families and offers diversity. I shall in a moment deal with the points about child care that the hon. Member for Yardley raised.
    In the health service, family doctors are being empowered through GP fundholding. True to form, the Labour party opposes the scheme and does so with a
    452
    vehemence that can only foreshadow an ignominious U-turn in two or three years' time when it realises that the argument is lost.
    It is an instinctive part of human nature to want to live an independent life and to provide for one's own family. Our economic and taxation policies since 1979 have supported that instinct.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Catholic bishops' social conference has placed at the door of current Government policies the problems experienced by families and difficulties of criminality? Has the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), made her aware of it, or is that hon. Lady very selective in the Catholic policies that she accepts?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I fear that I shall have to deal with that point in more detail later. However, to attribute criminality to the Government is exactly the approach that the Opposition always pursue. Criminals are responsible for criminal behaviour. One matter on which I warmly support the hon. Member for Eccles is on the significance of parenting and parents' ongoing responsibility to control as well as to care for their children.
    As I was saying, our economic and taxation policies since 1979 have supported the family instinct to want to live an independent life—a fact that the Opposition clearly fail to understand. The Opposition believe that families want to be dictated to and to be under the control of the Labour party. Fortunately, families have supported our party in the past four general elections.
    Our policies have encouraged and rewarded individual enterprise and endeavour. We have reduced tax rates on income and savings to promote incentives, to encourage saving and to ensure that wealth, as well as values and traditions, can be passed down the generations. The Labour party denounces that as the so-called "greedy society".
    We remember how, suddenly in the late-1980s, all the social problems which for years the Labour party had been telling us were caused by people not having enough money appeared to be caused by people having too much money. Today, as the hon. Member for Eccles reminded us, we are back to the poverty argument. We do not need economists to tell us where we are in the economic cycle—one has only to read the latest Labour speech on the causes of crime.
    The hon. Lady might like to read what her noble Friend Baroness Dean said when introducing a recent debate on the family in another place:
    "poverty is not just about a lack of money; it is also about a lack of opportunity".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 February 1994; Vol. 552, c. 637]
    Because the Government have pursued economic policies of opportunity and enterprise, families are substantially better off than they were in 1979. The income of the average family has increased by 35 per cent. ahead of inflation. Moreover, the increase extends to a large number of people on below-average incomes.
    On another key measure—the ownership of household goods—it is also clear that the picture painted by the Opposition is highly selective. Seven out of 10 of the poorest 10 per cent. of families by income now have central heating, compared with four in 10 when the Opposition were in power. Half have cars, compared with

    453
    40 per cent. in 1979, and 60 per cent. have videos. Again, the sneering and scoffing of the Opposition shows just how out of touch they are with what really matters to people.
    The advances to which I have referred are mirrored by improvements in health. The hon. Member for Eccles was rather wise to avoid too much discussion about health because there is clear evidence of improvements in the health of all people in our society since our party has been in power—especially since the successful implementation of our NHS reforms. Life expectancy is greater by about two years than it was a decade ago. The rate of infant mortality has halved since 1979 and is now at its lowest ever level; it has fallen in all social classes and in all regions and, although it remains higher in social classes 4 and 5 than in others, the gap has narrowed significantly in the past 12 years.
    More than 90 per cent. of children are now immunised against the major childhood diseases, which is a stunning achievement. I am sure that the House will recall the Opposition opposing the introduction of payments for immunisation targets. They said that the targets were too high and too heroic and that they should be lower in inner-city areas. That is the Opposition's two-tier health service—lower targets in the inner cities. We would have none of it: we said that to help the inner cities we would introduce deprivation payments so that GPs there would have extra assistance. As a result, childhood diseases have dropped to their lowest ever levels, saving lives and sparing thousands of children the fear of hospital treatment. I remind the House that much of the credit for that lies with the incentive payments introduced under the GP contract.
    The best way to improve the well-being and the living standards of families is to make it more worth while for those who can and want to work to do so. Most parents —couples and lone parents—do not want to be dependent on benefit, locked into what can be a hopeless cycle of despair. Poverty occurs when the state drives out opportunity. Prosperity means breaking free—wanting to work, wanting to provide for oneself and one's family and wanting to put something back into society rather than merely taking out.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the striking points to emerge from the press conference was—
    Mr. George Howarth: Reading.
    Mr. Heald: I am about to quote. The press conference dealt with the first year of the operation of the Child Support Agency. Kate Lister from Newbury is reported as saying that the CSA had allowed her
    "to get off benefit and into a part-time job for the first time in six years."
    It had enabled her to escape the benefit trap and have choice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that the Opposition, who talk so glibly about the rights of women, are not prepared to back the agency all the way down the line?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly support the views expressed by my hon. Friend. The Child Support Agency provides a much greater opportunity for women to live independently and is yet another aspect of the Government's success in recognising their need to do so.
    The twin aims of the Government's social security reforms have been to target help on those most in need and
    454
    to ensure that the system retains incentives for individuals to break out of the unemployment and poverty traps. The Government have sought to help parents who are less well off to take jobs. Family credit, which I have already mentioned, is currently paid to 500,000 families and ensures that low-income families with children are better off in work. On average, families are £23 a week better off on family credit than on income support.
    All parties welcomed the announcement in the Budget that we shall provide additional assistance with child care costs from this October. One hundred and fifty thousand low-income families will benefit. It is a telling contrast: while the Government pursue practical policies, the Labour party's answer is a statutory minimum wage which would force families out of work.
    The Labour party criticises the Government's record on child care because it cares only about public provision—it edits the independent and voluntary sectors out of the figures.
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows that there are good Labour local authorities, such as North Tyneside, which, far from believing in only one means of child care provision, have invested in a superb system that has attracted money from the public sector and which the Government themselves have used. I understand that at least eight Departments now provide creches. Such authorities have increased the quality of care available for the children of parents who cannot afford it by using imaginatively and creatively money from employers and the parents who can afford it. That is a superb example of what can be done to give children and their families opportunities and to raise standards, without additional cost to the taxpayer.
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is encouraging to think that there are glimmers of hope in the Labour party from time to time. It is all a question of partnership, and it cannot be put at the feet of central Government to solve all ills. The key is partnership, diversity and choice, as my honourable and splendid Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said when she made that point so well. She also said that 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in England now attend some form of pre-school education or other group provision. That is one of the best records in Europe.

    There has been a steady and welcome growth in private and voluntary day nursery provision. The intervention by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) revealed that there are glimmers of hope that perhaps here, as with the sale of council houses—and, I predict, with GP fundholding—it is possible in the fullness of time for the dinosaur's tail to twitch, and for change to take place.
    The Government encourage the private and voluntary sectors, as well as individuals, to provide a variety of services that give parents choice. Parents, employers, the churches, voluntary bodies and the private sector should all play an active part. We help national organisations such as the Pre-School Playgroups Association, the National Childminding Association and Kids Clubs network to provide services for their members. Such organisations not only provide care for children but give confidence to parents.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should not be over-zealous in interpreting the Children Act 1989 so that voluntary organisations such as the scouts do not suddenly find artificial difficulties placed in their way?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. The Children Act, which has been a great success in protecting and safeguarding children, has been so zealously implemented by some local authorities that people providing voluntary and private child care have been oppressively treated. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), when he was a Minister, did much to relieve people from some of the oppressive interpretations of the regulations under the Act, and now we hope to stop many such activities—certainly those organised by the scouts, guides and some of the other organised youth movements—from being controlled by that Act.
    Child care is not the only way of helping parents to reconcile work and family responsibilities. The true family-friendly employer will consider a whole package of measures—child care, career breaks, flexible working and job sharing. I am pleased that in the national health service —one of the largest employers of women not only in this country but in the world—we are setting a good example. The NHS was one of the first employers to sign up for Opportunity 2000, and we are showing a lead in giving women more opportunities to develop their careers while discharging their family commitments. That is the right way. Progress is made not by Government edict but by employers realising that it is enlightened self-interest to be able to accommodate women who wish to give time to their families and their domestic responsibilities.
    The hon. Member for Eccles spoke about nursery schooling. Well over half of all three and four-year-olds are now in state-funded nursery education, as opposed to just over 40 per cent. 10 years ago. Our long-term ambition is to widen access and choice, as and when we can afford to do so. We shall consider a range of options to achieve that ambition, concentrating on our key goals of quality, diversity and choice.
    Parenting is a difficult as well as a rewarding task. I agree with the hon. Lady about that. The ability to be a good parent does not always come automatically.
    Mr. David Nicholson: There is no doubt that in due course the Child Support Agency will achieve a number of the objectives that my right hon. Friend has laid down, including those that she mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). However, is she aware that in the shorter term there will be a number of difficulties within families, caused by the work of the CSA, and will she convey that to her colleagues in the Department of Social Security? For example, there will be tensions between separated parents who might otherwise have preserved reasonable relations, and there may be more contests over child custody. Will my right hon. Friend convey those concerns to her colleagues in the DSS?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I take my hon. Friend's point, and of course I shall pass on his comments. Any new system will have a number of teething problems and any responsible Government will take time to adjust to them. However, the principle that fathers should have a continuing financial responsibility for their children is right, and I welcome the establishment of the agency.
    456
    I was talking about the difficulties faced by parents. Many parents, young and old, often need help from family and friends, from neighbours, from teachers and sometimes from professionals. Sometimes they are crying out for help and advice. One of the benefits of an aging population is that we should increasingly be able to look to grandparents and older members of the community to support the younger members in bringing up their children. It is encouraging that, according to a recent survey, 69 per cent. of older people in the United Kingdom have contact with their families at least once a week.
    Let us not forget that the roles can be reversed, too. There are at present about 6 million informal carers in Britain, looking after elderly or disabled relations. In our community care reforms we took care to recognise their invaluable role and to support them in it.
    The voluntary sector and the churches can and do play a role in helping parents to cope with their responsibilities. The Government support organisations such as Homestart and Newpin, which do such valuable work. We recognise befriending by volunteers, some of whom have overcome parenting difficulties in their own families. Other organisations set up self-help groups of parents.
    The common element is the voluntary approach. We have a rich source of altruism in our society. Such effort provides the sort of practical help that can often prevent family breakdown. I welcomed a visit this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to talk about parenting, and to mark the establishment of the new all-party group.
    One of the most persistent and persuasive advocates of community help to improve the quality of parenting has been my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Joseph. I was pleased to see that, despite his illness, he returned with characteristic gusto to that theme in a recent debate in the other place.
    We need good parents and high-quality parenting to ensure that the values of the family and the values of society are passed on. Children need stable family relationships to help them develop into responsible and law-abiding citizens. Parents must provide children with warmth and security. But they must also provide boundaries—control as well as care. They must give their children a sense of order and predictability.
    Parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously must face the consequences of their children's behaviour. In reviewing community-based sentences, we shall assess ways of strengthening parental involvement. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will introduce the new parental bind-over, which will give the courts power to make parents responsible for ensuring that their child complies with any community sentence.
    It is the duty of parents to instil in their children respect for the values of our society. But those messages must also come from beyond the family. For example, many people are rightly concerned about the pernicious effect of violent videos falling into children's hands. The welcome measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary earlier this week will provide extra safeguards, and tough penalties for those who expose children to video violence.
    When young offenders commit crimes they should not be rewarded with holidays abroad or mountain bikes at the taxpayer's expense.
    Schools should support parents in teaching children to tell right from wrong. The spiritual and moral development

    457
    of children in schools is no less important than academic achievement. I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for all that he has done to establish the moral and ethical climate in schools. He is right to stress that sex education should be taught within a clear moral framework. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health was right to withdraw from circulation the Health Education Authority's "Pocket Guide to Sex". Ensuring effective sex education is vital in helping to meet "The Health of the Nation" targets on under-aged pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. However, there must also be a proper emphasis on stable relationships and individual responsibility.
    The Government's commitment to the family as the cornerstone of our society is unshakeable. That commitment is founded on two convictions: first, the family is the essential source of love and respect between individuals and of their development as citizens. Secondly, family relationships and family values are and must be essentially private. The public interest is to support the family, not to substitute or to undermine it. The Government's fundamental duty is to provide a legislative framework that underpins family relationships. Our programme of enlightened family law reform—the Children Act 1989, the adoption White Paper, our proposals on divorce law and mediation—does just that. Our reform of public services in health and community care, in education, in housing and in social security has put families in the driving seat. Above all, we must acknowledge and respect the privacy of family life and reinforce parental responsibility.
    Our policies work to support families. No other institution is as important to our society or as important to our future. Families want independence. They want opportunity. They want choice. Our belief in those principles makes us the party of the family and of their hopes and ambitions. We trust the family and we trust the people. That is why the electors have trusted us in the past four elections and that is why they will be right to do so again.
    5.31 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the debate on family policy because I am sure that we would all agree that some of the most critical issues on policy agendas affect the family, whether we are concerned with the young or the old. Throughout the country, some important debates, often led by voluntary organisations, are going on about family policy. Members of Parliament would do well to listen—I emphasise listen—to those debates, because the quality of them is often high.
    The other point that we should make is that we are not alone in the world in having to worry about such issues. Certainly throughout the western world, many of the trends that now affect the policy agenda are apparent and we have much to learn about positive and negative aspects from experience elsewhere. I hope that we use the opportunity of the International Year of the Family to have a serious and not a merely partisan debate about those questions.
    There are three themes with which we should concern ourselves. One is that we should be interested in both the strengths and the insecurities of families. We often stress the negative aspects of family life, often because they pose the most critical policy challenges. Let us also emphasise the strengths, on which the Secretary of State touched. We
    458
    often talk of aging in a negative and an agist way, but the fact that more and more of our children are growing up in three or four-generation families represents a strength. The fact that my three children grew up partly cared for by their grandparents as well their parents represents a strength which earlier generations were denied.
    We need to learn far more, not only about the nuclear family of parents and children but about the dynamics of the three and the four-generation family, and even the five-generation family, which one occasionally meets, so that we understand the patterns of help and care in families in both directions—from young to old and from old to young. If one were to ask what is the most important child care agency in the country, it would not be those that readily come to mind. Rather, it would be the grandparent and, one must say, usually the grandmother. Let us remember the strengths and play to those strengths, because we neglect strength at our peril. One of the reasons why community care is so important to put into practice and not only into words is that it represents a strength if only we were to recognise it.
    Secondly, we should try to discuss not only the rights of families but the responsibilities. Most of us, our citizens and our parents want to take on responsibilities and duties as well as to be able to exercise rights when necessary. That is why, in all the difficult debates about child support and the Child Support Act 1991, it is so important to get it right. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the practice of the Child Support Agency because we care deeply—not only in words but in sentiment—about the principle of parental responsibility. If we were to lose that parental responsibility and if it were overthrown, it would be a major loss to our generation.
    Thirdly, let us also consider the association between the family and the wider society—not only the state, the private sector and the voluntary sector—and let us think about the partnerships that we need between the family and the state. If one is sensible, the argument is not about either the family playing all the roles in education, health and care, or the state doing so, but about necessary partnerships. If one has learnt anything from research and experience, it is that, often, issues such as education and health depend far more on the family than on formal services. Building partnerships is crucial.
    At the moment, three major forces cause family instability. Although I have already noted that we should recognise the strengths, I hope that the House will forgive me if I focus on the instabilities, because it is important that we get those issues right.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Before the hon. Gentleman talks about instability, may I point out that when I made an intervention about the Child Support Agency, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—I think that it was him—referred to travel costs. On that point, where we may be agreed, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the CSA is in some cases making it difficult for absent fathers to visit their children? The other day, a constituent of mine, who is resident in Taunton, told me that his family had moved to Leicester and that he faced considerable difficulty in funding regular visits to his children.
    Mr. Wicks: It is not for me to grapple with the details of that issue, but I recognise that there are a number of factors, such as housing where the house has been made over to the mother, which somehow need to be recognised

    459
    in the formula. I recognise that is difficult, but experience in Australia may help us. Travel costs are another difficult issue. Although I do not want to become too diverted on the issue of child support because the family policy debate is wider than that, I am bound to say that, while we should recognise different costs that the "absent" parent has to pay, the costs of bringing up his own children should be near the top of the list and not near the bottom—a factor that we forget.
    I am concerned that, in the difficult debate on child support, the crucial voice at the moment, which is the silent voice, is often that of the lone mother with her children. We hear from men and sometimes from second wives but, at present, it is a male-dominated debate. Unless Parliament is wise enough to listen hard to the voices that are not shouting, we shall make mistakes. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) quoted one lone mother who spoke at a recent press conference and gave her perspective of child support. I was pleased that I had the opportunity to chair that press conference, because some of us are trying to listen to those voices and construct a more considerate debate on child support. We can get it right and there are lessons to be learned from overseas.
    I wanted to talk about the forces causing insecurity, of which there are several. One is family breakdown, to use that term as shorthand. Most hon. Members recognise that the social revolution of the family, which is affecting our society—all societies of which I know in Europe, as well as societies in the Antipodes, North America and so on —is not a bloodless revolution. I do not know whether some have felt that it may have been a bloodless revolution in the 1960s but it is not today. There are many victims and most of those victims—not all—are women and children. It is time to put women and children first in the debate. We know of the trends and that increasing numbers of our children are born outside wedlock. I am not saying that that is a negative factor, but I am giving it as a demographic fact. Some children are born to cohabiting parents, while some are born to the group that we often refer to as single, unmarried mothers.
    We need to understand the trends. I was struck by the fact that the Secretary of State reminded us that her Department is responsible for the collection of official statistics. We need to be aware that our official statistics —they tend to register things like marriage and divorce —are increasingly not capturing the full family picture because those who cohabit do not have to register; I am not advocating that they should. Cohabiting parents with children whose relationships break up are not captured in the official statistics. We must recognise, and the Government must recognise, that the official data are capturing an increasing proportion of the dynamic family change, and much of the research is taking place in our universities.
    We know that probably one in four young children—I suspect that that may be an understatement—will have before they reach the age of 16 parents who divorce. We should not imagine that that trend has something to do with a specific period in our history, such as the 1960s or whatever decade we are against this week. It is happening around the world. We must recognise that the forces are complex and fundamental. That does not mean that we always give in to them. We try to resist some of them.
    460
    The trend means that more of our children are living in one-parent families. There are different groups of one-parent families, and some are more insecure than others. The research that I have seen, and the experience that I have gained, suggests that we should not leap to simple conclusions about the issue. Poverty must be a factor. It would be absurd and partisan in the worst sense for anyone to deny that. Seven out of 10 one-parent families draw income support. None of us can be happy about that—the families are not happy about it.
    Some of the insecurities that are associated with such families are not simply about poverty. The research evidence on educational attainment, the fact that some children in one-parent families leave home early and the fact that some girls form cohabiting relationships very early and become pregnant very young suggests that we are dealing with a more complex interaction between material, social and psychological things which we would do well to consider wisely—and perhaps more wisely than some of us would sometimes like to. That is important. About 2 million of our children are in one-parent families. We need not to attack or condemn but to understand what is happening. We must rigorously examine the evidence if we are to make wise judgments about social policy.
    Mr. Streeter: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and enjoying it because it is a thoughtful contribution. The hon. Gentleman is studiously avoiding making any value judgment at all about the statistics that he is bringing to the House—I am not saying that that is right or wrong. Does he agree that unless we can say that marriage is a good thing and in most cases two parents are better than one for raising children, and unless we can make value judgments, we cannot find a way through to provide solutions?
    Mr. Wicks: I wanted, perhaps unwisely, to give some evidence and facts because I know that it is often a tradition in the House that facts should not get in the way of a good argument. Sometimes, facts make one more thoughtful about a particular argument. If necessary, I apologise for presenting some trends and facts.
    I am sure that most of us agree that, wherever possible, if children can be brought up by two loving parents who stay together—many people would say married but they can be unmarried—they benefit from birth until young adulthood. That is good, and it must be right. However, we must be humble enough to recognise that not all marriages can be successful, and many people suffer from divorce. If we were wiser about those things, we would recognise that all of those experiences exist around all the powerful tables of our land, whether Cabinet tables or shadow Cabinet tables. We should draw on those experiences and make wise judgments about them. That is as far as I would go on a value judgment.
    We all have a vested interest in recognising that many of our children are living in a range of family circumstances. We talk about one-parent families, and I have done so. One in 10 of our children—that is about the right proportion—are living in step-families or reconstituted families. There are issues in those situations that need to be discussed, but we often neglect them. Sometimes, the official data do not give us enough guidance on those issues.
    Lady Olga Maitland: On the subject of broken families, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it takes two

    461
    for a family to break up and that the deserted wife is the victim of the husband or the partner who has disappeared, so that today we should be putting more emphasis on teaching young men responsibility?
    Mr. David Nicholson: Sometimes it is the other way round.
    Mr. Wicks: The hon. Lady is talking to the young man —the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson)—beside her. Later, I shall talk about some of the implications for parenthood which I think are important.
    Obviously, there is so much blood and thunder in any relationship breakdown that it is often unwise for a Member of Parliament to make a judgment about who is at fault or whether the concept of fault is a valuable one. All I am saying is that breakdown is occurring in all walks of life and in some of the most senior families in the land. We draw lessons from that but we do not rush to judge and suggest that changing that social tide will be easy.
    When I was at the Family Policy Studies Centre, where I spent 10 years of my life, we produced an estimate which sums up the force of some of the trends. By the end of the century only 50 per cent. of British children will experience what many of us might regard as conventional family life—in other words, being born to parents who are married to one another. They will also experience until their late teens living with a mum and dad who are still, hopefully, happily married to one another. By 2000, that will be the experience of only one in two—50 per cent. —of our children because of the rise in out-of-wedlock births, one-parent families, divorce and reconstituted families.
    Family life is very complex. We may make our own judgments about it, but I hope that some of those judgments will be tough-minded ones when it comes to policy. I also hope that the milk of human kindness will be apparent in our debates. On some platforms, that substance does not always seem to be in great supply.
    Family breakdown is one force of family insecurity. Another force is economic insecurity. We must accept that as a fact—if I may talk about facts once again. Recently, I asked a parliamentary question about the number of children living in families where the family head was unemployed. The answer was 1 million. Furthermore, a proportion of those children have family heads who have been out of work for some time. That is a major force for family insecurity. The two things combined are important. If many of us had the benefit of growing up in secure families in terms of happily married parents and also in families where parents were in work, we benefited from a double stability.
    Too many of our children have neither the security of a strong family nor the economic security of at least one parent in full-time work. When we get so worried about the issues of crime, drugs and video nasties, it does not surprise me that there are indicators of social malaise and that family security and economic security is no longer present.
    Mr. George Howarth: I was reluctant to intervene on my hon. Friend's speech because it is certainly having a powerful and educational effect. One point that I have observed from my constituency, which flows out of what my hon. Friend is saying, is that when men—I am not saying this in any way to make a value judgment—do not have an economic role in the family, women often take an
    462
    utterly rational decision that, while they want a family, it is not necessarily a family in which a man has any sort of place. That has all sorts of consequences, not least of which is that men who find themselves in that position do not have the security and the responsibilities that go with being a parent in a family. That is an equally worrying trend.
    Mr. Wicks: There is an issue now about the role of part of a generation of young men which should concern us. I recall that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has made some comments about that too. Often in family debates, the focus is on women. I sometimes think that we would begin to get things right if we began to talk about boys and men also within the family.
    One of the revolutions which we need to cope with within the family changes that I have been I discussing is not just that in the thinking of the Government or of other institutions but that in the thinking of men within the family. I do not say that in a silly anti-men way. There are some serious and difficult issues here for boys and men.
    I talked about the economic insecurities of unemployment. One of the ironies is that when we need to grapple with the family of unemployment, there are other issues about the family of almost over-employment, or what I would call the over-active or over-busy family. That is one where the two parents are both in work while, at the same time, bringing in the bread to pay the rent or mortgage. They are also becoming parents and bringing up their youngest children. Given that we live for 80 or so years, there is something remarkably absurd about the way in which we attempt to pack so much into a relatively short time.
    The pressures around the typical dual-worker family must be allowed for in policy. Otherwise, there will not be enough time to devote to bringing up children. Work pressures are the third theme in family insecurity.
    Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman refers to dual-working families. Does he agree that what is harmful to children is not so much having working parents but that they come from a broken home where they are not number one to any particular parent? Is not that far more harmful to the child?
    Mr. Wicks: It may well be, but I am not trying to cast aspersions on the fact that a parent—whether the father or mother—goes out to work. I am trying to prepare the ground for an argument that policy issues about work and the family and the need for family-friendly employment policies must be among the agenda issues that we should be discussing.
    We can have fun with one another across the Floor of the House about where the money will come from and about spending commitments. As a Back Bencher, I can make billions of pounds of spending commitments and no one will care. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who speaks for the Opposition on Treasury matters, is looking rather aghast—I was obviously jesting.
    Clearly if in the future we have to spend billions of pounds of public money on the consequences of family breakdown and family insecurity, none of us will ever be able to put into practice our social priorities. At the moment, we are spending billions of pounds not on a family policy, but on a family breakdown policy. We spend

    463
    billions because too many of our families with children are dependent on income support or even—because of low wages—on family credit.
    I am not sure that a rise in the numbers on family credit is always something to boast about, but we do spend billions on it. If one makes the link—I do not see why it is so controversial, because there is now evidence—between lawlessness, disorder and the rising crime rate and economic insecurity, it means that a good proportion of our lawlessness and disorder budget is now being spent on the consequences of breakdowns of different kinds. Much of the work of social services departments and health agencies, and too much of the time and trouble taken by education authorities, will relate to some of the family change issues which we are trying to discuss sensibly today.
    It is not that we have not got the money to spend, but that we are spending much at the moment on what I call a family breakdown service, or services of different kinds. The challenge, which is not an easy one to grapple with, is how we divert those resources from family breakdown to what I would call family investment.
    I shall mention briefly ideas about the policy agenda that we should be discussing. At the end of last year, I published a paper called "Putting families first: a 10 point policy agenda". That is not to say that there are only 10 points, or that I necessarily got them right, but I was trying to encourage some debate. I will summaries the issues now.
    First, we will all agree that we must invest in care because if the family is about anything, it is about providing care for the young and, increasingly, for the old as well. How are we to invest more in care and play to the strengths that are apparent in many families? We must start at the beginning with the youngest—the under-fives. We must start to grapple—a little late in our social history—with how we provide nursery education and other forms of care for the youngest.
    I do not believe that we want a uniform state service. Parents come in all shapes and sizes, children have different needs and parents must make their own judgments about child care. We need a range of services —statutory, voluntary and private, and also nursery and other forms of education to provide that care.
    We must also remember that, in this age of the extended family, much of our debate now must be about carers. I do not know whether Ministers will be able to respond on this matter at the end of the debate. We know now about the impact that the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992 has had on providing extra care for carers. That provides much of the rhetoric on the issue and is one of its key objectives.
    Do we have evidence now as to whether the carers of the eldest and those with disabilities are now—in practice and not just in words—receiving more services? I have not seen the evidence in my constituency, but I would be interested to know of any objective material. The most important community care service—one that is sometimes taken too much for granted and is given just a pat on the back in speeches—is the family. It is far more important than the Departments of Health and of Social Security.
    The second subject on the policy agenda is parental support, to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam
    464
    (Lady Olga Maitland) referred. When one buys a motor car, one gets a handbook which tells all about the car. I do not understand it much myself, but the handbook will explain how the machine works and what to do if things go wrong. One can join the Automobile Association or the Royal Automobile Club and get advice about motor cars. We take children and parenting less seriously than the motor car. There is not as much support for parents as there is for people who drive motor cars.
    The agenda is about the work and family issues that we have been discussing. Given that workers have the annoying habit of being mothers and fathers, and given also that many workers are also carers of elderly people —another part of the debate that often we do not recognise —how are we to recognise the dual functions of the worker-carer? Are employers, trade unions and Government Departments trying to foster policies and practices that allow for that?
    It must be worrying that probably the major reason that women are forced to leave their jobs before retirement age, although I have seen no recent evidence, is to care for an elder. It often would be better if they were enabled to stay in work as well as providing a caring role because of support from their employer and from the social services.
    What about the preparation for parenthood in schools? What is the role there, and are we taking that seriously enough? Given the rates of teenage pregnancies, we are clearly making some mistakes.
    I sometimes feel also that there might be a gap in provision during early childhood. When one has a baby, one gets support in the first weeks and months from the health authorities. Later, when the child goes to school, there is support from the education authorities. Is there a gap somewhere in the middle where parents sometimes do not get support from the wider welfare state? If there is a gap, who should bridge it? Inevitably, the fact that we have departmentalism, with education and health authorities, may not enable us to bridge that gap.
    What about guidance counselling? Many marriages run into difficulties, and parents face problems. Do we have the right mixture of guidance and counselling? Is it true—as I have heard—that there is a waiting list for Relate and for other guidance services? Does that make any sense? A marriage in trouble cannot wait very long for good advice.
    There is also divorce law reform, which raises important issues. I hope that we will soon get on with a divorce law reform that will put children first. Too often, divorce is a battle between adults behaving in an infantile manner, championed by their lawyers. The children are often neglected. Yet although most parents who divorce have children under the age of 16—each year 160,000 children under 16 have mums and dads who divorce—their voices and concerns are often not heard in court.
    We should consider the Law Commission's proposal, which is discussed in the Green Paper, whereby there would be a cooling-off period of a year, in which the court would have to be satisfied that the best welfare of the children had been considered before allowing the divorce. Such a reform would require more services, such as mediation and counselling, but if we can provide that it will be another important step.
    A third point on a policy agenda must be rebuilding economic security and independence. I asked the Secretary of State whether she was worried that more of our children than ever before live in families dependent on income

    465
    support—yet another of those facts. If I am wrong about that, I hope that someone will correct me, but if it is true it must give rise to concern.
    At a time of increasing worry about the dependency culture it is ironic that more of our families are caught in it. When constituents ask me for a better council flat or access to the social fund I often do not consider that the families are the ideal epitome of the welfare state in action. They often live in poor council housing on income support and have to have dealings with the social services department. It is the reverse of the welfare state in action and I see it as the dependency culture. What employment and social policies do we need to build and rebuild economic security for our families?
    Fourthly, we need a proper policy and programme for young people. It is heartbreaking to come across young people who have struggled hard at school for qualifications, with greater or lesser success, but who simply become unemployed. In 1993, 22 per cent., or more than one fifth, of our 16 to 19-year-olds were unemployed.
    Equally heartbreaking is the fact that 40 per cent. of teenagers who were out of work in 1989 were still unemployed two years later. We are making a mistake when young adults start off unemployed—my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) touched on that—and we should not be surprised that things go wrong. We should also not be surprised that, when a crisis affects a generation of young men, it has implications for women.
    Surely we can do something about the fact that in 1990, 115,000 teenage girls became pregnant and that most of the pregnancies were certainly unplanned. The consequences are a horrifically high abortion rate and a large proportion of young, single, unmarried mothers, who start their adult lives in the worst possible circumstances. I believe that we can do something about those things.
    Surely Britain needs a strategy for family policy. Many European countries grappled with such a policy generations ago and it is time that we caught up. Britain is undergoing a social revolution. The changes in families are substantial. I am not being partisan, but we are handling the changes badly. Because of our failure to develop a family policy and strategy, there are many victims. Families now come in all shapes and sizes. Yes, it is a cliché, but it is true to say that they are our most precious resource. I do not believe that we are investing enough in them. It is not about more spending commitments but about the issue that I touched on and how we move resources from a family breakdown service to a policy that invests in families, children and those who care for our old people.
    We are dealing with one of the most important matters that the House will consider this year. I hope that we can discuss it seriously or at least as seriously as it is being discussed by voluntary groups and other organisations outside the House in the International Year of the Family. Surely it is time to put families first.
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The speech by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) was well informed. In his work for the Family Policy Study Centre he did much outside the House to provide information and lines of thought on policy to those directly concerned with families.
    466
    Perhaps the kindest thing that I can say about the first speech in the debate is that the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has a good reputation as her party's spokesman for children. If she and her hon. Friend the Member for s
    Croydon, North-West shared a place on the Opposition Front Bench, with the hon. Gentleman speaking for families, it might help the Labour party to have a two-pronged approach to such issues.
    Many hon. Members present today will have missed the speech that I made on 17 December 1982, when I promoted a debate on the family—[Interruption.] I commend the speech, but I warn hon. Members that it took an hour to make. The issues are the same now as they were then. If we could have a two-day debate every year on the various aspects of family policy targets we might find that the House would speak with a degree of authority and purpose.
    Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend suggests that we should have a two-day debate. Is it not extraordinary that when we have only an afternoon debate hardly any Opposition Members are present? Throughout this debate there have been more Conservative than Opposition Members present, yet this is supposed to be an Opposition debate. If the Opposition cannot fill their Benches for their own debates for one afternoon, how could they possibly fill them for a two-day debate?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not know what makes my hon. Friend think that he might tempt me into saying anything party political, but if he tries hard he might succeed.
    The purpose of my earlier remark was that if we set targets we can then talk about the approaches that are likely to help people to achieve a reduction in avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap and improve their well-being.
    One can make the obvious point—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did, and I was delighted to hear her speech—that the Labour party's institutions are basically built around the representation of people at work. However, that is not exclusively the case, and I pay tribute to a miners' leader in the 1930s, William Straker from Northumberland, who stressed the importance of introducing family allowances, in support of Eleanor Rathbone's long-term campaign for some sort of family endowment.
    It is also true that the Conservative party, at its best, is built around the representation of people's family and household interests, which to some extent include their work interests, but also include solidarity between the generations, if I may be allowed to use another European expression from the year of social action.
    If we were to set targets to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap we would find it easy to reach an agreement across the Chamber, in the same way as we did when targets were set for reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. We asked what the problem was, what could be done about it and whether it was feasible to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries by one third by 2000.
    During the past 25 years and the past 100 years there have been significant medical advances. In the first 75 years they came mainly from the plumbers, and in the past 25 years mainly from the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, nurses, health visitors and the like. There have also been significant economic advances during the past 25 years and the past 100 years for various reasons.

    467
    Have there been significant social advantages in the past 25 years? In some areas there have been, but not nearly enough. How many young people will commit a serious crime for the first time this week—a crime for which, if they were caught and convicted, they might be sent to gaol for six months or more? The answer is about 2,000—or 100,000 in a year. To put it differently, one third of men have already been convicted of a serious offence by the time they reach the age of 30.
    Smoking is not a crime, but it is highly undesirable. Between 3,000 and 5,000 young people will take up smoking this week—this week, last week and next week. When the issue is discussed in the press we read only about tobacco advertising and how far it should be controlled. I have no arguments for continuing the promotion of tobacco—there are some arguments against banning it—but if it would make a difference of between 1 per cent. and 5 per cent., and if a child's parents' smoking makes a 250 per cent. difference and their not disapproving makes a difference of almost 700 per cent., how can we engage those people who might be in the Press Gallery or in broadcasting studios in focusing on the issues that matter most?
    Other hon. Members properly and sensitively mentioned unwanted pregnancies. Of those people who are sexually active this week, 6,000 will contribute to a conception which will end in an abortion during the next two or three months. It was 6,000 last week and it will be 6,000 this week and next. To put it bluntly, we ought to be able to halve that number during a period of about a year and a half just by overcoming people's ignorance, apathy, embarrassment, shyness, activity or whatever. But we should give them the choices. I pay tribute to Lord Deedes, who came to my constituency to talk to people. He went into various newsagents and came across what I would describe as a "child mother" of seventeen and a half, caring for a child. He talked to her about her relationship with the father of the child, with her parents and with her community.
    It crossed my mind that if that young mother went into a school assembly to talk about the sense of responsibility in caring for her child, it would do a great deal more for the young people listening to her, not as she preached about behaviour but as she described her sense of responsibility for a new birth and for a relationship between hearts that goes on until one heart stops beating. Such a sense of responsibility is far more likely to reduce the number of unwanted conceptions than almost any preaching by any politician or by many others.
    I do not want to disregard the role of the churches and other faith communities. When Geoffrey Finsberg responded as Minister to the 1982 debate, he spoke about the importance of trying to be with people at all stages of their lives, and our churches, chapels, temples, mosques and synagogues do a great deal of that.
    A former Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, spoke in his book "Christianity and Social Order" of the importance of the intermediate group, which we could characterise as being part of our parish system. It is our membership of trade unions with the volunteer shop stewards and others. It is our membership of parish groups of one kind or another, whether it is the Baptists, the Anglicans or the Catholics or whatever else it may be,
    468
    where we can be with people who know what it means to give comfort and support when things go wrong. Things do not always go wrong because of people's actions.
    Death comes to us all. Each of us will be told at some stage that a parent has died, a spouse is dying or a child is seriously ill. Nothing can be worse than that, so let us be open about these trials and tribulations.
    If we take the purpose of politics as being to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap, there is a role for the state and for local authorities and for many other groups, but the biggest influence of all, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put it, is what happens within the closest relationships.
    Let us consider the research reports. The Plowden report into primary education in 1967 showed that the biggest influence on the success of a child's primary education was not the kind of school it went to or the school's approach, whether modern or old-fashioned, but the interest and support that the parents gave. And it does not have to be parents who are well educated themselves.
    We could perhaps learn more from some parts of our immigrant communities, Chinese or Asian or people from the Caribbean such as Neville and Doreen Lawrence, the parents of Stephen Lawrence who was tragically murdered in my constituency. If people like that could have five minutes on television every week to explain how they are bringing their children up, and what sort of standards they want for them, it would be helpful.
    Many of us whose families may have been in these islands for the past 14 generations, to borrow a phrase, have learned something about dedication to the interests of those to whom they feel responsible.
    Let us consider also the two reports on child health—the Black report and the Court report. It may be going too far back in time for some hon. Members, but those reports showed that what matters is what parents and families do and what they are able to do.
    Without getting too far into polysyllabic sludge, facilitating matters, asking people to make choices, asking them their aspirations and ambitions, giving them time for reflection, allows their actions to match their ambitions and enables them to recognise that, when things go wrong, forgiveness and allowing people to start again are better than condemnation.
    Any teacher, certainly some of mine, any tutor at university, certainly one of mine, and probably people in my own household, should know perfectly well that I am aware when I get things wrong. Giving that encouragement to go on and get them right next time or the time after that does matter.
    Think of the transformations in people: commentators in newspapers nowadays may say that when they were young and independent and trendy they watched some David Bailey film, or whatever it was, in the late 1960s and they discovered where the Kings road was in Chelsea, but that now they have changed their minds as they approach 45 or 50 and they begin to believe that perhaps we ought to have the kind of control as well as the care that my right hon. Friend spoke about.
    What we need is the kind of continuity of common sense that comes from what I believe was described by Lady Thatcher or by my right hon. Friend as the impact of streetwise grannies.
    In my constituency there are some estates where the amount of public money spent on housing has been dramatically high and where the outsides of people's

    469
    homes often look like Beirut on a bad day in the middle of the Lebanese civil war. When we consider that young people have managed to create so much destruction, we are bound to ask what can make a difference.
    The answer may be the equivalent of parish constables. If so, I hope that they will be 40 to 60-year-old grandmothers who have lived there for some time, who know the people, their parents, their uncles and aunts and who have some link with the primary schools.
    I would make this suggestion to the Lord Chancellor. In any estate of more than 2,000 people there should be a requirement for people from the estate to be some of the local magistrates. The magistrates should not consist solely of grand ladies or gentlemen from the Labour movement, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats or whoever else coming in. Where two or three thousand are gathered together one ought to be able to find some who can go in for the disposal of those who are brought up for delinquency or for persistent vandalism or for being out of control.
    I go a stage further. I welcome the references to the work of the Children's Society with which I served before I became a junior Minister. It found that, by putting a half-trained social worker into an unoccupied flat with a kettle and a washing machine, many parents could come together and meet for the first time.
    What are the social interactions on some of these estates of ours? When I was first elected in south-east London, part of my constituency had 5,000 people put there by a benign local authority. The estate was two-thirds the size of Arundel but it had no pub, no post office, no church or chapel, no policeman and nowhere to work within a mile and a half. Then one wonders why the community does not work and does not even exist.
    The National Council of Voluntary Organisations, then called the National Council of Social Service, in the 1930s had the village hall movement which began providing the kind of place where people could meet and do the kind of things naturally together that they might do in a village in Surrey but that they do not do quite so often on the Middle Park estate, the Page estate, the Sherard estate, the Woolwich Common estate or any of the other estates in my constituency.
    People are the same and their ambitions are the same. The disadvantage of stress and handicap that we wish to avoid is often a result of alienation or, in some cases, anomie as well. It is important to get people involved together with their children, no matter whether it is a single-parent family, or one with two parents or a reconstituted family with step-parents. It is trying to give people fuller lives and a greater sense of achievement that matters.
    One expert in family policy told me that the problem was not one of people experiencing failure but that some people have never experienced success. Give them a pat on the back for having done well with their children.
    I pay tribute to the author of the first book on family policy in this country, Margaret Wynn, who since then has carried on the work with her husband Arthur—even though both are now in their eighties—of looking at the things that make a difference.
    If people knew the simple things that they could do and which would make a difference, we would have a transformation in well-being. One does not change society by a few extraordinary people doing a few extraordinary things occasionally but by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people doing ordinary things often. The parallel
    470
    with driving drawn by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West was important. One need not know the lot to be able effectively to do most of the things that parents can reasonably achieve.
    When I was involved in reducing drink driving—or in helping others to reduce it as I pretty soon cut it out myself —I learned that most of our information comes from the mass media: radio, television, newspapers and magazines. I also learned the importance of trying to work out where in the family life cycle people were most at risk. Perhaps I may use drink driving as an example. I do not want to build too much on it, but it is a good illustration.
    In 1986 young men were twice as likely to drink and drive as their fathers. Now they are half as likely to do so. There has been a dramatic transformation in which the young people have done better, and the reason is clear. Most people over the age of 25 do not know what kind of radio most young people listen to. I conventionally asked which was the most popular radio station in the country, to which the answer for many years has been Radio 1. If I ask where it can be found on the dial, most people do not know that it is between 97 and 99 FM. Is it better to hear a public service message from a 44-year-old Minister, as I then was, or from a 58-year-old disc jockey presenting news and current affairs to young people in a programme called "Rhythm and Booze"? The answer is that the 58-year-old disc jockey wins every time.
    Let us consider the importance within the M25 area of Kiss FM. One million young people a week listen to 100 FM. When one can ring up on the radio and have an exchange anonymously, when one can overcome embarrassment and ask the questions that matter most to one at the time about relationships or family formation, I believe that an audience will begin to react in a good way.
    Fifteen years ago we missed out most discussion about business in public discussions and our broadcasting media. We had the Financial Times, The Times business news and 15 minutes a day on the radio, when no one was listening. That began to change because working life became integrated into public discussion and we learned a lot from that. Let us do the same with family policy issues.
    Let us bring the family life cycle and the family perspective into account, and let us do it because of the numbers involved. If there are 7 million to 8 million live births a year in this country, that is about 1.5 million parents—more than 2 million people involved, at every stage in every year, half of them for the first time. If we have nearly two children per household, the second child may benefit from the experience of the experimentation of the first. If those 2 million people are this year for the first time involved in being an under-two or under-five or in a secondary school transfer or puberty or in learning to drive or in becoming sexually active for the first time, all those things deserve more than simply being concentrated in the agony columns or in condemnation when people spot some statistic saying that x or y proportion have been involved in this or that type of behaviour.
    If we can bring together in Parliament or in our media —both matter—more people who are able to speak with a degree of experience, confidence and humility, we can make a transformation.
    One of the reasons why it is important that, 70 or 80 years after women got the unrestricted vote, we ought to try to increase the percentage of women Members of the House of Commons from 8 or 9 per cent. to 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent. is that we will move away from the caricature

    471
    of the Conservative family campaign, which makes it sound as though sex is something to be confined to a small corner of people's lives, and that having responsibility for elderly people or children is something to be spoken about only in big, bold letters in print in books, rather than as an ordinary part of a discussion such as this. I say that with modesty, seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is present.
    We would be better informed about all those subjects if there were more people in this place who were able to say what our right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Angela Rumbold) said during one debate before she became Minister. She said that she was fed up with men in this place telling her what to do with her body. One would bring more reality into discussion of those issues and the country would benefit.
    I make a plea to the business managers and to the Opposition. Instead of having the general debate that we are having today, which I welcome, or the type of debate that we had on 17 December 1982, we could pick out three or four issues and over two days have four debates about the ways in which we could effectively tackle crime, for example, in addition to what we do with the police and the prisons—which is important, but which is not the answer.
    We can do the same in relation to education and in relation to the problem of unwanted conceptions—not that every unwanted conception leads to an unwanted child.
    We can pick out the influence of tax allowances or expenditure over life cycles and the ways in which one can begin to integrate benefits so that more people get the chance of becoming taxpayers instead of having to rely on income support when they do not choose to do so.
    We can make the House start performing more effectively for families as they are, as much as for what they would want to be. It would deal with aspirations that matter most to people. I suspect that each side of the House has a contribution to make and we are only just starting.
    6.23 pm
    Mrs. Diana Maddock: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate in the International Year of the Family. I shall speak about a group that I believe is neglected too often in political debate—middle-income families. Those are the families that I met when campaigning in my by-election, and whom I continue to meet. They are people who work hard, who pay their taxes and who play by the rules, and they want a good start for their children in quality schools, and to live in safe communities.
    It is appropriate that the Labour party has chosen the family as a subject for debate. My experience is that the Conservative Government have launched one of the most sustained attacks on middle-income families in British history. The Government have broken their promises not to increase taxes, and imposed a range of new taxes, which, when combined, will hit middle-income families hardest. In addition, they have created a tax system which is much more unfair to middle and low-income families.
    Lady Olga Maitland: On the subject of tax hikes, does the hon. Lady agree that the local authorities with the highest council tax are Liberal-controlled and Labour-controlled local authorities?
    Mrs. Maddock: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, and suggest that it would have been helpful if she had been at our press conference this morning. She would perhaps have got the true figures. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has heard them as much as I have.
    The Government have failed to combat crime effectively. They have promised to do something about the fear of crime, yet there has been an increase. They have slapped an expensive tax on insurance. That is what people need to feel secure, as crime is increasing.
    The Government have failed to boost nursery education and child care, and promises to students have been broken.
    The Government have made a stream of broken promises on tax increases and families. What did the Conservatives promise at the 1992 general election? A lower tax burden. That was what John Major promised on 15 March 1992.
    Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Maddock: I will give way in a moment. We were promised lower income tax. We were told in the Conservative manifesto of 1992:
    "We will make further progress towards a basic Income Tax rate of 20p."
    We were told by John Major:
    "I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mrs. Maddock: The Prime Minister also promised—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Chair judges what is in order and what is not in order.
    Mrs. Maddock: I realise that this is not comfortable for Conservative Members, but it is true. We were also promised no extensions to VAT.
    Mr. Mans rose—
    Mrs. Maddock: I will give way in a moment.
    If there was ever something that the Prime Minister said that he wished that he had never said, it must be that famous phrase:
    "We have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT".
    Every one of those promises was broken in the two 1993 Budgets.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will relate that to family policy, because that is the debate this evening.
    Mrs. Maddock: In fact, 95 per cent. of families are affected by the tax changes introduced in the November 1993 Budget. Instead of the lower taxes that they promised, the Government are hitting middle-income families with higher—
    Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Maddock: I will give way in a moment.
    The Government are hitting middle-income families with higher national insurance contributions. There has also been, along with all the other increases not phased in, restrictions in the value of personal tax allowances for married couples. That is Liberal Democrat policy and we have been attacked for it by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Maddock: I will give way in a moment.
    Mr. Mans: The hon. Lady has not given way in a moment.
    Mrs. Maddock: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient, I will allow him to have a say in a moment.
    We have had cuts in mortgage interest tax relief—another policy that we put forward and on which we were attacked, and on which the Government will not come clean. When asked whether they will phase out mortgage interest tax relief completely, they will not admit it properly. VAT has been imposed on fuel. All those things are affecting families in my community.
    Mr. Mans: So that the record is put straight, will the hon. Lady tell the House about the figures announced at the press conference this morning and the fact that the Liberal Democrats spend more local authority money and tax people more? Will she explain her party's proposal for an energy tax and the fact that they would increase income tax?
    Mrs. Maddock: I should be in danger of going off the subject of families if I answered absolutely every question. On the press conference this morning—I dare say that this will cause some amusement—our taxes were in the middle when it came to spending by local authorities.
    The Institute of Fiscal Studies found that the November 1993 Budget cut after-tax household incomes by an average of 3.5 per cent. But the middle-income families are hit hardest by the Government's tax changes.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Maddock: I shall give way later.
    The institute has shown that middle-income bands face the largest proportion of cuts in after-tax income and that working couples, most of whom are middle-income households, are the biggest losers. Couples with two children and earning between £215 and £390 a week will lose, on average, 4.15 to 4.2 per cent. of their after-tax income—between £9 and £16 a week. The highest earning tenth of the population will lose more than 3 per cent. of their after-tax income, which is less than the average. The poorest tenth will lose 2.3 per cent. of their income.
    Even the Government's figures show that a family with one earner and two children and a projected £20,000-plus a year will pay more than an extra £22 a week in income tax in 1995 and more than £12 extra from this April.
    The House of Commons Library figures show that a family with two children and one breadwinner, on average earnings of nearly £20,000, with a mortgage of more than £30,000 and interest rates of 8 per cent., will lose £1.85 on the married couple's allowance; £2.24 in mortgage income tax relief; 34p as a result of the freezing of personal allowances; £3.17 as a result of the rise in national insurance to 10 per cent.; 38p as a result of the wider 20p band; and £1.13 once VAT is added to their fuel bills. In addition, their extra insurance tax will amount to 35p.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Lady agree that the most important factor for any family, whether middle income or not, is to have a stable economy, low interest rates and low inflation? We now have a reduced mortgage rate and the lowest interest rates in the whole of Europe, so what is she complaining about?
    Mrs. Maddock: I agree that a stable economy is most important, which is why my party supports an independent central bank to achieve just that.
    The Conservatives have made the tax system much more unfair to middle-income and poor families. The number of taxpayers paying the top rate of tax has increased by 28 per cent. between 1973–7493 and 1973–7495. That means that 500,000 taxpayers will have been dragged into the higher rate of tax, despite falling incomes during the recession brought about by this Government. A rate of 40 per cent. tax is paid on earnings above £27,000, which is only 1.5 times the average earnings.
    Even worse, people earning £23,400 a year face a lower income tax combined with national insurance rate than people earning £7,000. That is extremely unfair, but it is not new to us. We have seen that it is part of the long-term Conservative programme. It is like Robin Hood in reverse —the Government rob the poor and give to the rich.
    The Institute of Fiscal Studies has found that all the tax changes between 1985 and 1995 will make the tax system much less progressive. [Interruption.] I regret that Conservative Members find it so amusing that all our constituents are suffering because of their tax proposals.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Maddock: I shall give way in a moment.
    The poorest 10 per cent. will have lost on average £3 a week and the richest will have lost £30 a week. But the unemployed with children will have suffered most. We have already heard about the fall in mortgage interest rates, but Conservative Members do not tell us that those rates were far too high in the first place. They were so high because they were pushed up by an economy that had been caused to overheat by one of their Chancellors.
    Mr. Willetts: I invite the hon. Lady to contribute to the spirit of this debate by saying something about families. Or is it the Liberal Democrats' view that all that can be said about families can be said by a tax accountant?
    Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because, like me, he has a family, that the most important thing is trying to keep that family. The Conservatives' tax changes are important to families because the stresses and strains caused by money are a great cause of family break-up. We have heard some good speeches by other hon. Members this afternoon about the strains and stresses on families. It is important that people feel financially secure. I doubt whether the family of any hon. Member in the Chamber has not had money problems that have caused stress. Even if it did not involve their own personal finances, it may have involved those of their children or parents. We have heard much about carers today. I make no apologies for discussing the Government's tax changes, which are hitting families in my constituency.
    In drawing up our proposals on taxation, the Liberal Democrats' primary object was that everyone should contribute according to his or her ability to pay and that no one should be asked to pay more than he or she can afford. We want a system with two higher rate bands rather than smaller jumps, and a first higher rate that starts at an income level significantly above the present 40 per cent. rate. Most important, the top rate should be charged only on very high incomes.

    475
    Mortgage interest tax relief is neither fair nor progressive and should be phased out. It distorts the market and favours buying rather than renting. We welcome the fact that the Government will phase out mortgage income tax relief, but when I asked the Minister in the Finance Bill Standing Committee what the Conservative proposals were and whether the Government had a long-term policy of phasing it out, he would not come clean. My party has been perfectly honest about our policy on that matter.
    Liberal Democrats propose also that housing benefit should cover mortgage interest as well as rents. That would help people in providing housing, another matter that has been discussed today, which is particularly important to families. If a family does not have a decent home, tremendous strains and stresses are placed on it.
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady referred to a very interesting proposal to extend housing benefit to cover mortgage as well as rent. Can the hon. Lady tell us exactly how much it will cost and exactly how the Liberal Democrats propose to raise the money to pay for it?
    Mrs. Maddock: The proposal—which we call housing cost relief—has been around for a number of years. I cannot tell the hon. Lady at the moment exactly how much it would cost. I doubt very much whether she could stand up and tell me what housing costs at the moment. The important point is that if mortgage income tax relief were phased out, there would be extra money which, under our proposal, would be distributed more fairly so that people received help according to their housing need. That is the whole basis of the proposal.
    We also want to see the married couple's allowance phased out. Again, the Government have not come clean about what will happen about that allowance in the future or even what families can expect to happen next year.
    Crime and the fear of crime have increased markedly under this Government. Despite more than 60 pieces of criminal justice legislation, reported crime has doubled since 1979. If we look at the impact on middle-income families, we see alarming statistics.
    Burglary is more likely to be suffered by a middle-income C 1 group than any other group and, according to a 1993 survey, 35 per cent. of the group had been victims of burglary. That compared to a rate of 33 per cent. for the whole sample. Home Office figures show that burglary and car crime has been the largest contributor to the increase in crime in the past 20 years. The average cost of goods stolen in each burglary is about £1,210. It is the middle-income families who are suffering from the dramatic rise in burglaries.
    There has been not only a rise in the number of burglaries and other crimes, but an accompanying rise in the fear of crime. Despite all the rhetoric that we have heard from the Conservatives, the fear of crime has increased dramatically. The results of a MORI poll asking families how they feel about this issue are very revealing. More than three quarters of the people surveyed fear having their home—where families live—burgled. That compares with three fifths of people in 1987.
    More than half the people surveyed fear having their home—where families live—or their possessions vandalised. Half the people surveyed fear being mugged, compared with only one third in 1987. Some 80 per cent.
    476
    of people surveyed fear some form of theft. I am inundated with letters from elderly people, in particular—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you noticed that the more worried Conservative Members are about losing their seats, the ruder they are to new Members who are trying to make a contribution to the debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening attentively to the debate and there have been sedentary interventions from both sides of the Chamber.—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is now interrupting the Chair. I should be most grateful if he would listen—
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if all hon. Members would listen to the Chair.
    Mrs. Maddock: I am fairly used to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) interrupting. I think that she faces a big threat from the Liberal Democrats on her doorstep and she tends to get rather hysterical when I appear on the television or when I am in the Chamber. She points and waves at me regularly.
    I return to the issue of broken promises in the area of crime. The Conservatives promised in their manifesto to give the police the support and resources that they needed. That is what families in my constituency wanted, but it is not what they got. Chief constables requested extra officers in 1993 and 1994, but the Government gave them none. The Government have refused to allocate any more funding to policing. But families in my constituency want to see more police on their streets.
    As if the crime statistics are not enough, families are now being taxed on that crime through the insurance premium tax. At the same time as the Government are changing the tax regime, they are imposing an extra tax on crime on families in my constituency. Some 16 million households—85 per cent. of all households—will pay that tax.
    The Chancellor believes that it will cost a typical family about 35p per week, but his calculation is not based on a total annual premium. Many families might pay £600 for motor, home contents and building insurance—all the things which help to make families feel secure in their homes—and one insurance company has claimed that an annual figure of £1,000 for motor, home contents and building insurance is much more realistic.
    Some estimates of the annual cost for the average family run as high as £50 per week—that is equivalent to 1p in the pound in income tax. The typical house and car insurance bill for a family living in a three-bedroom semi and driving a 1666 cc car obviously varies from region to region, but we can expect it to be between £800 and £1,000.
    These are taxes on essential household items which most families have very little choice about whether they should buy. Families have very little control over the premium level. If one is unfortunate enough to live in an inner-city area, one may not even be able to get any insurance on which to be taxed.
    The Association of British Insurers has predicted that the costs of insurance will need to be passed on to policyholders. One insurance specialist has warned that the

    477
    tax will inevitably lead to a considerable increase in the number of under-insured or uninsured. That is of considerable concern to many families in my constituency.
    Mr. James Clappison: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as I was riot in the Chamber when she began her speech. I apologise for that. I should like to ask the hon. Lady a question about her party's policy arising out of what she said about crime and street crime. Could she confirm whether her party has under active consideration the legalisation of prostitution, with state brothels, and an equalised age of consent for boys and girls? These issues concern many families and are relevant to what the hon. Lady said about street crime.
    Mrs. Maddock: I can confirm that at our annual spring conference in Cardiff we debated what is a very important issue for us all. We in no way said that we wanted state brothels. We looked at the issue and put forward proposals to try to regulate prostitution in a way that is helpful for families.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Families—the hon. Lady must be joking.
    Mrs. Maddock: If one is unfortunate enough to live in an area where one's children are accosted in the street—as used to happen in my city of Southampton—one knows that something has to be done in those areas to try to stop it. It is not pleasant to live among prostitution and we have tried to face the issues and put forward a series of proposals. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, I can ensure that he receives a copy of our proposals.
    I can categorically assure the hon. Member that we are not about funding state brothels. We are merely trying to tackle a problem which, as he says quite correctly, is of great interest—although some of his hon. Friends do not seem to think so—to people who live in inner-city areas and whose children are accosted on the streets.
    We have heard a lot of rhetoric about education from the Conservative party. We have seen lots of legislation and a stream of Education Ministers. But we believe that the Conservatives have failed Britain's families by failing to make the essential investment in education that is needed to ensure a good future for our children.
    There are places in nursery education for just 35 to 40 per cent. of children between the ages of three and five years. Five years is the compulsory school age and that is why my figures may not be exactly the same as others which were quoted earlier. This compares not at all favourably with a rate of 95 per cent. in Belgium and France and 85 per cent. in Italy and Denmark. Britain is ahead of just one European Union country in the provision of nursery education—Portugal.
    I was pleased today to hear support for nursery education from Conservative Members. It is important that our children get a good start. We have seen studies that have proved that giving children a good start saves much time later when they grow up and become young people.
    I can remember clearly that, when I was a councillor in Southampton, I was told that I was left wing and subversive because I was promoting nursery education. It was not just me; other councillors were also involved. I do not know whether the suggestions are still on the shelves of Tory Central Office, but that is where they came from. I am extremely heartened that all hon. Members can now
    478
    agree that nursery education is important and we should invest in it because it will be of great benefit to our families, not just now, but in later years.
    I know that the Prime Minister continues to say that nursery education will be a priority for the Government, but the Secretary of State for Education continues to deny that the resources will be available. I hope that today the Secretary of State for Health, who has given us her commitment in her new role of co-ordinating family policies for the Conservative party, will be able to convince the Secretary of State for Education of the need to fund nursery education.
    Parents and families in my community are also concerned at the dreadful state of repair of some of our schools. There is a tremendous backlog—£7.6 billion needs to be spent to make the buildings safe and fit for our schoolchildren. My constituents are also worried that there are not enough teachers in the schools. There are 11 per cent. fewer teaching staff now than in 1980, but 82 per cent. more students.
    With members of my county council and another local Member of Parliament, I recently went to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). We were concerned that there was not enough funding for education in Dorset. We were also worried about how to fund the teachers' pay rise. We were sent away with the message that schools would have to have larger classes.
    The parents of children in my constituency do not want them to be in larger classes. We know—I know as a teacher —that large classes do not provide the best start. An important factor in helping children to get the best start is to teach them to read. It is impossible to give a class of 40 five-year-olds that sort of good start. I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will do her best to obtain a financial commitment for her support for nursery education.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Maddock: I shall give way in a moment.
    Mr. Don Foster: It will be interesting to hear the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on nursery education.
    Mrs. Maddock: I am sure that the hon. Lady will make a good point and I shall give way in a moment as I have an idea of what she might be going to say, and I probably have an answer for her.
    I have children who are almost grown up—one will be leaving home and going to college. Another great worry for parents is how to support their children through further education. That worry causes tremendous strain. The Government have cut grants by 10 per cent. and raised loans by 44 per cent., which is another broken promise. During debates on the student loans legislation, Baroness Blatch promised that that would not happen.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way now, as we would otherwise be rushing on to other matters. I wish to return to the subject of nursery education. Has she calculated how much the nursery education that she envisages will cost the country in terms of income tax? Why has she made no reference to the importance of raising standards in schools, which is what parents want?
    Mrs. Maddock: We have been perfectly clear—we made it clear in the last general election and have done so ever since—that we realise that one has to pay to obtain the standards that Liberal Democrats believe should exist in education. I have been in public meetings and have spoken to people in my constituency about that subject, and people agree with the Liberal Democrats. When we asked them how we should pay for those standards and said that it would mean paying more in income tax, people said that they would be prepared to do that. We have calculated that our proposals will cost 1 p of income tax. That has always been our commitment and remains our commitment.
    There have been a variety of speeches today about family policy. My speech is not a comfortable one for the Government, but it involves the issues that my constituents come to talk to me about. The families that I see in my surgeries and those I talk to on the streets raise those issues. Once again, we have heard much rhetoric from the Government. We have had a serious debate, as well as Back-Bench games. People outside the House are not fooled. The electorate live in the real world and understand only too well what is happening to their families and the finances that affect their families.
    I started by talking about families in my constituency —families who want to work hard, pay their taxes and live by the rules. Those families want their children to have a good start in good-quality educational establishments and they want to be able to live in safe communities. I hope that today's debate will result in a little less rhetoric from the Government, and a little more action and fewer attacks on the economic base of our families.
    6.56 pm
    Mr. David Willetts: It is a great privilege for me to be the first Conservative Member to speak who is not a member of the Bottomley family. So far, they seem to have taken on the massed ranks of the Opposition single-handed, and to have managed very well.
    One of the surprises of the debate has been that, although the motion was tabled by the Labour party, when hon. Members had the opportunity to speak, only one Labour Member seemed keen to contribute, compared to seven Conservative Members. No doubt the Labour Whips have been around the Tea Rooms trying to haul in a few extra contributors. It seems an odd way for the Labour party to approach a debate for which it called.
    The starting point for the debate has to be something on which all Members of the House can agree: the importance of the family as an institution. That importance goes beyond the financial and economic matters covered by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), important though they might be.
    I do not know how many hon. Members have seen the moving film "Schindler's List". One of the most interesting findings of the research done on those Germans who tried to help and rescue Jews in Nazi Germany was that many of them shared an important characteristic—many came from particularly close and stable family backgrounds. There seemed to be a connection between the moral strength on which they drew in those times, and a stable and clear family upbringing. In the debate, we must try to stray beyond financial and economic matters.
    Although, as always, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made a most interesting and thought-provoking speech, it is a pity that, despite his
    480
    manifest learning and expertise on the subject, he tiptoed around the fact that there is a clear moral and cultural consensus in this country. It is a consensus that upholds certain basic propositions: for example, that it is better for children to be brought up by both parents if at all possible —we know that it is difficult to live up to that principle in practice.
    We all know the pressures that families are under, and it is certainly not for us glibly to criticise people who find that proposition difficult to sustain in practice. We know the pressures that membership of the House of Commons places on family life due to the bizarre hours that hon. Members work. However, if we do not feel that we can even speak of such things nowadays, we do a disservice to the cause of the family, which hon. Members from both sides of the House claim to support.
    There was another disappointment in the contribution of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). It is clear that, in her opinion, all family problems are caused by the Government, and all solutions involve the expenditure of more public money. That is a particularly odd position for the Labour party to adopt at the moment, given that it is trying to present itself as the party that does not believe in high taxes.
    Some rather expensive spending commitments were made during the hon. Lady's speech. We heard a commitment to nursery education and a commitment to child benefit that seemed to me to be inconsistent with the Labour party's attempt to give the impression that it would be tough on spending, and therefore able to hold taxes down.
    But, in addition, what we heard today failed to recognise the complexity of the changes that are taking place in family life. The hon. Lady referred, for example, to homelessness, particularly among 16 to 18-year-olds. This is undoubtedly a problem. It is easy to talk about changes in the benefit rules, but rather more tricky when one reflects on the family circumstances of many of the young people who, tragically, are homeless.
    What is the crucial connection between many of these personal tragedies? It is that the people come from broken homes. Often, after marital breakdown, the mother takes on the responsibility of looking after the children. In many cases of relationships arising from mothers' taking new boy friends, the young people are not able to get on with the new man in the household. That theme lies behind much youth homelessness nowadays. It does not do any good to approach such social problems simply as matters to be explained with reference to the technicalities of the social security system.
    Mr. Frank Field: If the hon. Gentleman were to talk to homeless people in the Strand, they would confirm what he has just said. However, if he were to continue the conversation, he would learn that most of those who sleep rough come from households where people have no work, no prospect of training and no benefit. The new man in the house has an incentive to expel and to be nasty to the old family.
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to his normally rich understanding of social problems. This is not simply a financial matter. We are talking about something that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West raised, but did not pursue as I hoped he would—reconstituted families. I am perfectly happy to accept that

    481
    we Conservatives, in our preoccupation with some questions concerning single parents, have in many ways ignored the even more difficult questions that arise from reconstituted families.
    Mr. Field: I was not denying the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, I was adding to it. If he thinks that there has been such misrepresentation of the facts, let him join me in doing a survey in the Strand. That would show who is right.
    Mr. Willetts: I have often pursued these matters with the hon. Gentleman, and I am always happy to do so. I greatly enjoyed serving under his chairmanship on the Select Committee on Social Security. However, the experience on which I am drawing is based not only on conversations with people in London but also on my contacts with people in the constituency of Havant.
    I wish to refer to a social problem which is discussed glibly but which, with deeper digging, reveals the complexity of the forces at work. I refer to child abuse. It appears that there is more child abuse now than there was in the past. Some left-wing pundits leap at this as a very convenient opportunity to claim that the traditional family is an oppressive institution from which people need to be rescued.
    The evidence suggests that by far the greatest likelihood of child abuse is to be found in the home where there is a non-natural parent—the new man in the relationship. Because there are many more children living in reconstituted families, we appear to be experiencing an increase in child abuse.
    But what do we find? We are presented with a left-wing agenda claiming that this is an example of how the family is an inherently dangerous institution. Pressure is put on social workers to go round investigating apparent cases of child abuse, often hysterically exaggerated. In fact, the most serious attacks on the family in the 1980s have occurred in places such as Middlesbrough and Orkney. These were launched by social workers who had fallen prey to this particularly pernicious doctrine.
    Mr. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend admit that a constructive comment at the Easter conference of the National Union of Teachers was that many teachers, even in that union, feel that they were wrongly accused of child abuse? To a certain extent, perhaps, this can be interpreted as the sad reaping of the preaching of political correctness.
    Mr. Willetts: Many good public servants in the educational world and elsewhere face this new and serious threat. Sadly, that is something that we must all recognise.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Would the hon. Gentleman, before pursuing this nonsense any further, care to say which Opposition spokesman has ever said that the family is a dangerous institution which is inimical to the interests of children?
    Mr. Willetts: I shall be very happy to cite people writing from a left-wing perspective on family policy. Such people have seized on cases such as that of Jasmine Beckford and presented them as examples of the failure of the family, without digging into the real circumstances. [Interruption.] In response to the hon. Lady's invitation, I shall try to find some quotations to support my point.
    482
    Beatrix Campbell is a well-known left-wing commentator on the family. I quote from her book "Unofficial Secrets: Child Sex Abuse":
    "The ghost of dead children—Jasmine Beckford, Tyra Henry and Kimberley Carlile …—smiled out from the newspapers … it all seems to vindicate Thatcherism's scorn for the busy-body welfare state. But not quite: these children died within the family, the institution sanctified by Thatcherism."
    Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have to make the point that the hon. Gentleman must realise that the Labour party is not responsible for the entire spectrum of left-wing opinion in this country. I asked him specifically to quote a view expressed by an official Labour spokesperson. He has clearly failed to do so. Let him stop trying to smear the Labour party.
    Mr. Willetts: It is precisely the tide of left-wing opinion that I am talking about.
    However, I want to move on to another topic, and one that is equally misunderstood—child care. We are all aware of the obvious attractions of appealing for more provision for child care. We all know of the pressures on families where both parents work. It is necessary to arrange child care, and that is often expensive. But before the Labour party rushes headlong to advocate more state expenditure in this area, it should bear two factors in mind.
    If provision were to benefit mostly two-earner families, its impact on income distribution would not be to help poor people. We can be confident that, by and large, families headed by a two-earner couple are unlikely to be at the bottom end of the income scale. The risk behind the pressures that are building up for public expenditure in this area is the invention of another spending programme that grows and grows and grows—a programme financed by taxes often borne by people with modest incomes but, in general, benefiting affluent two-earner families.
    There is a second risk, which was illustrated in the fascinating speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West—the fact that much child care in this country is informal. Many people like to argue that it is informal only for want of something better—faute de mieux—that everyone would like to buy institutional child care but, sadly, have to settle for in-laws or grandparents.
    The situation is not quite like that. Many people have a preference for that arrangement. Many grandparents enjoy contributing to the family, and in many neighbourhoods a host of voluntary arrangements are made, such as, "You look after our children today, and we'll look after yours tomorrow."
    The trouble with state child care provision and finance is that it distorts provision patterns and starts favouring formal, institutionalised paid arrangements as against the informal and non-institutional. People may be tempted into the most absurd manipulations of the system, such as invoicing their grandparents to claim a child care voucher.
    Alternatively, those who have already made arrangements that admittedly may be haphazard, imperfect and painfully negotiated may feel, on discovering that a big public expenditure programme has been introduced, that they are somehow fools for having made arrangements that do not fit within the new parameters of provision. We should consider those risks before espousing the popular cause of state child care provision. I hope that Labour Members will reflect before making another expensive public expenditure commitment.

    483
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was right to say that families struggle with child care costs, but the danger of focusing on the demand side of the equation—finance—is that the supply side is ignored. How can we encourage more provision?
    There is a sad history of heavy-handed and excessive regulation, which makes it difficult for people who want to establish child care facilities. It would be interesting to know what approach Labour councils in London or elsewhere take to planning applications from people who want to set up a private nursery or day care centre. They need not be just for the well-off.
    Arrangements can be made whereby some places are reserved for the children of parents with modest incomes, which could be paid for by the council or in other ways. It is difficult to obtain planning consent from many councils because of change of use, and an attitude to private provision that leads councils to being hostile when they should be encouraging.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Children Act 1989 encouraged some local authorities to be over-zealous in regulating child care providers.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware of a case in my constituency in which the Liberal-controlled council insisted that a child carer sign an agreement not to discipline or smack a child in her care? When she refused, she was banned—but took the council to the High Court and won.
    Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that case, which illustrates the problem of heavy-handed regulation of a diversity of child care providers.
    The rhetoric of offering high-quality care for everyone is something that politicians of all parties find tempting, but introducing over-ambitious regulatory standards means that, in practice, some child care providers go out of business. Instead of provision that may not be perfect, more young children are left on their own without any child care.
    We should examine whether reasonable if not perfect child care providers, nursery groups and playgroups are finding it more difficult to provide services because of the burden of the Children Act 1989. That significant problem ought to be addressed as part of the Government's deregulation initiative.
    Another difficult problem is the connection between single parenthood, unemployment levels in some inner-city areas and crime levels. Some connections are too obvious to mention, and one that has not been made in this debate is that relating to young men aged 15 to 25, who often find it difficult to find jobs. If one's partner does not have a job, he will bring less to the marriage or relationship. Such young men often become involved in petty crime—and who wants to marry or enter into a stable relationship with someone who is involved in petty or more serious crime?
    The task of taking a 15-year-old male from a family environment and shifting him, so that, at the age of 25, he is in a new stable family and in employment, is one that this country seems to have found more difficult since the
    484
    war. The transition from the parental home to a home that one has created oneself has become more difficult to negotiate.
    The reasons are more complicated than simply unemployment levels, and the problem grew during the boom years of the 1980s. Hon. Members who now tell us that there is a link between unemployment, recession and crime were telling us a few years ago that the brash, vulgar materialism of the 1980s was the explanation for rising crime. We are told in the good years that a boom produces crime, and in the bad years that a recession does so.
    The challenge is to make it more possible for young men to manage the transition from their own family home to creating a new family home. We can help them only if we are prepared to lay down simple, credible and coherent rules of the road. We do not need to sermonise or to lose contact with the pressures that those young men are under —but we ought to tell them that they should not drop out of school, because their chances of holding down a job successfully later will be much worse; warn that they should not become involved in petty crime; and draw their attention to the fact that the family is a civilising influence.
    The single most important reason given by young men for giving up crime is that they are in a stable relationship with a woman who does not want them to carry on committing crimes. Putting aside all other factors—such as employment, unemployment, income and social background—young men who are married are less likely to engage in crime than young men who are not. Marriage is a civilising influence. The debate is not solely captured by the financial and economic arguments that preoccupy Labour.
    Many people choose nowadays not to marry, or to marry only at the point when they are bringing children into the world. We all understand some of the reasons for that social change. One particularly worrying aspect of what sociologists call consensual unions—partnerships in which there is no formal marriage contract—is that many of the men and women in such relationships, but particularly women, exaggerate their rights.
    Research shows that women believe that they have the same rights as married persons to future claims to their partner's income, and men assume that they have the same right of access to their children, when those rights accrue only in the legal institution of marriage. One of the dilemmas that we will face in future is how to handle that.
    There are two ways to go about it. The first is to say that those people have taken a perfectly reasonable decision in not wishing to take part in the legal institution called marriage. Who are we to try to impose on them the legal obligations that come with it? If we go down that route, the people who are in those consensual unions need to understand the limited legal framework that would surround them.
    The second way to go is, in effect, to extend marriage to people who have not gone through a ceremony and decided to enter into it as a legal institution. That is what Sweden has done. Sweden is misunderstood as an example of how marriage will change in future. The point about Sweden is not that everybody has opted out of marriage, but that the state decided that everybody who lives together is to be treated as married.
    There is no way in which one can opt out of marriage in Sweden. If one settles down with someone and has lived with them for a certain period, all the legal rights and responsibilities, which we in this country associate with

    485
    part of the legal institution of marriage, are applied to that person anyway by the state. The point about Sweden is the opposite to that normally assumed. Virtually everyone in Sweden who is living with someone is, for the purposes of British law, married.
    We have not begun to confront that dilemma. But, one way or the other, we will have to go down that path. The extraordinary level of misunderstanding on the subject by people who are in those non-legally married partnerships is a worrying indicator of how things may go in future.
    7.20 pm
    Ms Mildred Gordon: I am glad that, at last, we are getting down to discussing what we mean by "family" when talking about family policy, because stereotype families have changed very much in the past decade. The old stereotype family is now a minority. Only 25 per cent. of children are living with parents where both adults are either married or cohabiting.
    Since the 1980s, people have begun to change their lives a great deal. Many women with children live on their own out of choice. Increasingly, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned, couples reject legal marriage, even when there are children. Four out of 10 marriages —no doubt entered into with high hopes—sadly end in divorce.
    There are now many single-parent families. In fact, 21 per cent. of all families are single-parent families. The vast majority of them are headed by women, but, nevertheless, they are families just as much as families where two adults are living with their children.
    There are also many extended families, with complicated relationships—half-brothers and half-sisters, step-brothers and step-sisters, stepmothers and stepfathers. Where the relationships are harmonious, that can work very well and be a supportive system for the children, but the Child Support Act 1991 has done more to create conflict and discord between such families than anything that has happened in the past decade.
    The Child Support Agency shows little regard for the needs of stepchildren and second wives. In some cases, as a result of its rigid formula, violence has been created against the parent with care. In others, faced with impossible financial demands, the absent parent has been in despair—even suicides have taken place.
    Conflict has been created between the first and second wives and their families, and between the second wives and their partners, over such financial arrangements. The children suffer. The insecurity that is brought about when formerly harmonious relationships are disrupted shows in bed wetting by the children, and in other signs of tension and trauma.
    Obviously, the old system of maintenance for children did not work too well and there were many defaulters, but the rigid formula of the CSA, as was mentioned in the debate on that matter, does not work to the benefit of families. We need family courts which can do more than consider access to children where the parents are separated, and can decide on the financial arrangements, with a flexible approach that really takes into account all the factors and needs of those families. The more people the CSA reaches out to, the more damage it will do. It has become a very bad feature in disrupting the lives of families in this country.
    486
    Government policies are pulling women in two directions. A number of Ministers have attacked women and blamed them for juvenile crime, because, they say, they are not spending enough time, care and attention on their families. On the other hand, Ministers are telling women to get off income support and go out to work.
    The Secretary of State gave some very spurious figures about family income. She did not take into account the changing value of money when mentioning those figures. When I started work, £3 a week was a very good wage, on which one could live well. Now, one needs £300 a week to live at the same level. The bare figures can give a very wrong impression.
    What is absolutely certain is that families can no longer live on one salary. Women are having to go out to work to make ends meet—even women with very young children, despite the difficulty and expense that this entails. It costs about £90 a week for a place in a nursery for a child under five.
    Women are replacing men in the work force, at lower wages and in part-time jobs. Eight out of nine jobs created recently have gone to women; they are mainly part time and low paid—the kind that were covered by the wages councils which have now been abolished. The protection in those jobs has been removed by the Government. Women are being given one-day and one-week contracts, which are absolutely disgraceful and which take away their rights to holiday pay, their maternity rights, their pension rights and their rights to reasonable notice.
    That means that there is no stability for their family. Those women do not know from one week to the next whether they will earn money. That is bad for them, their children and the relationships of the whole family. It is not that women are seeking little jobs for pin money, but that only little jobs are available.
    One feature of the Government's time in office has been perpetual and rising mass unemployment. As a child, I knew the terrible effect that it had on my sister, my mother and me when my father had a period of unemployment. Now, men, women and youths are experiencing years of unemployment. Some of these youths have never had a job since leaving school.
    I do not think that Conservative Members really understand this. If they do, the smirks on their faces during many a speech in the Chamber tonight and on other occasions show that they have no sympathy with what it is like to be unemployed, not to have enough money to last to the end of the week, to be really afraid of the future and to live from hand to mouth.
    I know what it is like, from the cases that come to my surgery, from the people who come in and cry on a Friday because they do not have enough money to last them through to the weekend. We have to give them a few pounds, because it is too late on a Friday night to get them help immediately. I know what it is like. I know what they suffer. I know the terrible and frightening effect that it has on their children and on their self-confidence throughout the rest of their lives.
    The 1991 census revealed a dreadful picture of child poverty and lone parent poverty. The situation has deteriorated dreadfully since the Conservatives have been in power. For millions of families, "back to basics" is back to nowhere.
    In 1973–7491, 13.5 million people were living in poverty —24 per cent. of the population. In 1979, the figure was 9 per cent. That was bad enough, but the increase is colossal.

    487
    Some 9.6 million adults are living in poverty—one in four. More disgracefully, 3.9 million children are living in poverty. That is taking poverty at a level below 50 per cent. of the net national average wage. It accounts for 31 per cent. of all children in Britain.
    The figure is even higher if we take a wider definition of poverty, as a situation in which one cannot keep up with one's peers; for example, when one cannot go on school outings or have the equipment that one needs at school or the same entertainments as one's peers.
    It is a tragedy that such a large percentage of our children live in poverty. Sixty per cent. of lone parents live in poverty, and one in five of all families with dependent children are lone-parent families. The difference between the lives of those children and those whose families have a good income and good homes and live in security is enormous—they are different worlds.
    Of course it is true that well-housed families are not necessarily happy families. Child abuse has been mentioned, and it is a subject on which the curtain is only just being lifted. We need to discuss seriously what society can do about it. It is rife in all classes of society.
    In addition, we all need to learn to respect children's rights. That is a whole new chapter that needs to be investigated. We must listen to what children say, and learn to treat them as people, rather than as objects which we can order around as we fancy.
    Overcrowding is another issue to be considered when we debate the family. If any Conservative Members would like to listen in on my surgeries on a Friday night in Tower Hamlets, they are welcome to do so. They might learn something about a slice of the life of families living in misery because of overcrowding. They might learn that some have been on the housing waiting list for years, and that their children are brought into conflict with one another because they are sharing bedrooms when it is clearly unsuitable for them to do so. Family members are breathing down each other's necks because of a lack of space—
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Gordon: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Lady has already intervened more than once, and has tried to interrupt continuously. She should make her own speech.
    Bad housing is a source of misery and disruption for families in inner-city areas. The blame for increasingly bad housing lies at the Government's door, because, until this year, they refused to allow money earned from the right-to-buy policy to be used for repairs, and have deliberately brought council house building to an absolute halt. Families need the affordable rented housing, which only councils have been able to provide. The shortage of housing is now creating misery and destroying family life in inner-city areas.
    The Government are creating an ever greater divide between families who have a good standard of living and the huge number who are struggling to give their children a decent start in life. All Government social policies—on housing, health and education—are increasingly elitist, and poorer families are getting a bad deal.
    The poorest are suffering the greatest blows from increased indirect taxation and cuts in the money available for nurseries and day centres, for social services and for
    488
    carers. Care in the community is underfunded and people are not receiving the care and help that is needed for the elderly members of their families. The only hope for families in my constituency and elsewhere across the country is a change of Government.
    7.33 pm
    Mr. Tim Devlin: I shall bring the House back to the motion on the Order Paper, which relates to whether the Government have a comprehensive family policy. The debate has strayed rather wide. Indeed, if we were to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), we could be discussing issues such as defence on the ground that we need to consider whether families are properly defended against missile attacks from other countries. However, I shall concentrate on where the Government and the family interface, which means considering whether the Government have a comprehensive family policy or whether they are putting together the necessary components of such a policy.
    It would be correct to commend the Government on undertaking a comprehensive review of the law relating to children and families. That review is evidence of the priority which our party, through its statements at party conferences and in the House, has attached to the family and to children in particular.
    The review started with the work done in preparing the Children Act 1989, which had substantial cross-party support. The Act reviewed and improved all aspects of public and private child care law. On the private side, it overhauled the outmoded custody and access system and gave us instead a range of flexible new orders dealing with residence, contact, other specific issues and prohibitive steps, which allowed the courts to deal flexibly and individually with the range of issues arising from a child's upbringing. The idea was to move away from regarding the child almost as a chattel and to concentrate instead on narrowing any specific areas of dispute.
    On the public side, the Children Act reviewed the provisions governing state intervention in child care to reflect a better balance between child protection and parents' rights. For example, the Act introduced the "assist and befriend" order which allowed children and parents to be given social work help while concentrating on letting the child stay at home. It also reviewed the emergency protection provisions and replaced the despised place of safety order, which had caused so much trouble in my constituency in 1987, with the shorter and more flexible emergency protection order.
    Equally important, the Act meant that cases relating to children were brought together under a concurrent jurisdiction in the courts—replacing the old fragmented and confused system—with hard cases being transferred to higher civil courts and simpler cases being dealt with by magistrates. That concentrates the valuable resources of the higher courts on those cases which really need them and, with the new specialist judiciary, introduced a framework for a family court about which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) feels so strongly.
    Following the Children Act, the Government introduced the Child Support Act 1991 which established the Child Support Agency. Despite its bad press and unpopularity, the Act offers two main benefits which are worth defending and on which I believe that there is

    489
    substantial cross-party consensus. First, it removes a large tranche of maintenance cases from the courts, thus saving valuable court time and resources. Secondly, it emphasises the idea that all fathers should be made to face their parental responsibilities rather than leaving the state to provide, as so many do.
    Perhaps what now needs to be done is to concentrate the energies of the regional agencies on tracking down more fathers who pay nothing at all at the moment. There has already been some success in that respect. We should also ensure that the needs of second families are properly taken into account.
    In dealing with child care and maintenance under the two Acts it is crucial to dissociate the two concepts of access and maintenance. It is important to move away from the myth that maintenance is related to access and vice versa. The two are not at all related, although many fathers seem to think that they should be. The message that needs to be put across is that access and maintenance are both for the benefit of the child, whose interests are at all times paramount. That concept is written into both Acts. To link the two would mean facing the possibility of depriving the child of one or the other.
    As part of the ongoing review, the law on adoption has been reviewed and recommendations made for reform in the White Paper entitled "Adoption: The Future", which was published in November 1993. The Government will make the law more explicit by insisting that the first duty in adoption is to the child. The White Paper makes it clear that children are best brought up in stable and loving families and reinforces a strong presumption in favour of adoption by married couples.
    We must emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said in a superb speech, that we cannot skirt around the moral issues relating to the family; we have to face them and say that some circumstances are preferable to others, regardless of the fact that it is not always possible to achieve them.
    Guidance issued by the Government on adoption will stress that parents who want to adopt should be judged by the care and affection that they can offer the child. The age, race, social class or other characteristics of potential parents should not count above the interests of the child. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) supported that view in meetings with the Secretary of State.
    Several questions remain outstanding. With divorce, what are we to do about couples who have no ancillary issues to resolve and no areas of dispute, and a firm idea of what each wants from the divorce? Do we still make them go through the process? How do we avoid allowing a spouse who may not want a divorce to lengthen the proceedings by refusing to settle ancillary issues? Will the courts simply step in and settle matters for them, rather as happened in the old system, after the process has been set up?
    How are we to avoid the charge that the new proposals on divorce make it too easy? The Law Commission has recommended that the present acrimonious system be replaced by a process divorce. People enter at one end with a ground of irretrievable breakdown and then spend a determinate time—that is one of the issues to be agreed —during which they may reflect. During that time the parties will be expected to reach agreement on ancillary issues and child care, and to bring the decisions back to the court for an order when the decree absolute is issued.
    490
    The period of reflection leaves room for fitting conciliation into the process, although it is not clear whether it could be made compulsory, even if there were enough conciliation services to go round. The aim is to make divorce a process of consensus and negotiation rather than one involving set-date watersheds that leave all the other business to be bashed out painfully afterwards. The ancillary issues would be part of the process itself, which would build in an incentive to reach agreement.
    The law on divorce has remained untouched since the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which was something of an unsatisfactory compromise. At that time people could not agree whether to remove fault altogether, so it was decided that fault should disappear from the grounds, leaving the sole ground as irretrievable breakdown. However, breakdown had to be evidenced by one of five factors—two years' separation with consent, five years' separation without consent, desertion, adultery or unreasonable behaviour. Two of those factors are fault related, so that that let fault in by the back door and led to the resultant acrimony that is often so obvious, and on which I do not need to elaborate.
    I sometimes think that if young people in this country spent as much time planning their marriages as they spend planning their weddings, their marriages might go a great deal better and we should not have such a high divorce rate. As I said in Committee on what was then the Children Bill, we must also consider what is the correct age at which people should enter marriage. The statistics show that the younger people are when they get married the more likely they are to be divorced before the age of 24.
    Before I entered this place, when I was working as an accountant, I interviewed a 22-year-old bookkeeper who had been divorced twice. She had married first at 16, and been divorced at 19; then she married again at 19 and was divorced at 21. She had had a child in each marriage and no doubt she is now having great fun negotiating with the Child Support Agency. That person had entered into marriage, an institution which ought to be taken extremely seriously and solemnly, probably with little idea of what it might entail and little background training as to what to expect. She had then found that marriage did not meet her very high expectations.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Havant spoke of the question as to which route we should take on the status of marriage. Should we say that marriage enhances one's privileges and gives one a special legal status, or should we say that every couple living together will automatically be treated as though they were married? That will be one of the big questions for the 1990s and the beginning of the next century.
    In my surgery I hear all too often, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, people saying that they live with their common-law wives or common-law husbands and assuming that that provides some solid status, backed by legal sanction, that will provide them with a range of privileges or rights in any future breakdown. They seem to think that their relationship is as stable as if it were sanctified by the full legal status.
    I believe that we should consider emphasising the fact that marriage is the clearly preferred state in which to bring up children, and that we should therefore put together a package of enhancements such as tax privileges, so that people will more readily enter a formal contract published

    491
    before the world rather than allowing their lives to drift through a series of relationships without taking on in their own minds the real consequences of what they are doing.
    When we think about the future of divorce, we must consider first whether both marriage and divorce are too easy. We must also think about what steps we can take to de-lawyer the process. Should we do anything to make couples share lawyers? Personally, I do not believe that that is a good proposal, because there would be a clear conflict of interest, but there is much to be said for turning divorce into more of an independent conciliation and arbitration rather than a legal battle in which both sides up the ante, and one side often attempts to punish the other by making the litigation as difficult as possible.
    I do not want to widen my speech far beyond the law on children and families, except to say that in a review of the Government's comprehensive family policy one must mention child benefit. That was a manifesto commitment, and it currently stands at £10.20 a week for the first child and £8.25 for other children. The Government have also introduced targeted help through family credit, and from October 1994 working parents will be allowed to offset £40 a week in child care costs. About 150,000 families will gain from that.
    However, we are moving into a new period in which we shall have to examine the whole range of benefits. I do not wish to make party political points, and it is encouraging that much of the family legislation of the past has been relatively non-partisan. My experience during the passage of the Children Act showed me that there were broad swathes of policy making where both sides could agree on many of the details.
    It is interesting to note, however, that the Labour party is now undertaking an internal debate on the future of child benefit, other universal benefits and all the benefits that affect families. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is quoted in the Daily Express of 14 December as having said:
    "It's quite clear scrapping Child Benefit is an option that ought to be looked at".
    The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), too, has said that improved child care and job opportunities might be
    "a much better way to lift a child out of poverty than actually providing its mother with a small cash handout".
    The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has often chided the Labour party for being insufficiently socialist, suggested in The Independent on Sunday on 5 December that perhaps Labour should think about offering child benefit in "alternative forms", one of which might involve clawing back child benefit through the tax system from better-off families.
    To make a broader point, despite the fact that the Opposition have arranged for a debate on improvements in family policy, no Opposition Member can say anything about how the Labour party would improve provision for the family. As we know from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), there are no clear or firm spending pledges at present. On 26 January, on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, the hon. Gentleman was asked specifically about the commitment to nursery education. He replied:
    "We will spend what we can afford to spend and only as growth allows … I have said there are no manifesto commitments at this stage … there is no commitment to spend money on anything".
    492
    The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said something similar when she said that we in Britain should be aiming for a target. She said that we should be careful that we do not involve ourselves in too many spending pledges, but that we should be aiming for a target of providing nursery education to all children from the age of four, which would give every three-year-old and four-year-old a chance of a place in a nursery school.
    We must look beyond the broad range of criticisms that the Labour party put in its motion. It is clear that, were Labour Members in charge, they would tax families more, eradicate choice in education, oppose making parents responsible for their children's criminal acts and perhaps even withdraw child benefit. I believe that I am in a position to commend the Government on their fine record of supporting the family over the past years and I look forward to much more legislation, especially on divorce, to further strength in the family. I do not see any Opposition Member tonight who would improve on that situation.
    7.51 pm
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: We have heard a great deal of scaremongering from Conservative Members, epitomised by the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). We do not need to go in for scaremongering, as Labour Members may simply point to the facts.
    Many of us criticise the media—newspapers and television—usually justly, so it is only fair to point out that, now and again, something of real value appears in the press. I shall refer to an article in The Guardian on 10 March which concerns the subjects with which we are dealing. It is headed "A psalm for Sally-Ann". The article is about an anonymous baby who was found in a bag on a charity clothing dump. It is headed:
    "As she was buried she became a symbol for all the unknown children who are victims of the new poverty."
    She was found on a Salvation Army dump, so they called the baby Sally-Ann, although, of course, she could not be officially named because no parent was known. She was buried in Sutton Coldfield cemetery. I do not whether it is always the case, but in Sutton Coldfield cemetery there is a little rectangle of lawn behind a hedge which is the public plot for babies whose parents cannot afford their funerals. The article continues:
    "The granite tombstone at the head of the plot says: In Loving Memory of All Our Babies. On the wall over the flower bed is a collection of 12 plaques with the names of the children who are buried there."
    The child in question had no name, but she was also buried there. In times gone by, people such as my grandmother were afraid that they would not have money to pay for their own funerals. I find it absolutely sickening that we have to make provision in 1994 for the burial of babies whose parents cannot afford to pay. The article describes the life which the baby and its mother may have had if the baby had not been abandoned. It describes in detail the sort of housing conditions which are commonly suffered by so many people. It states that the National Children's Bureau reported in the past year that one in every 25 children in Britain lived in a home that was officially condemned as unfit for human habitation. If there is one thing which has a bigger effect than anything else on a family and its capacity to survive, it is its home.
    It was pointed out earlier that a good home and a good income do not necessarily bring happiness and that there are other factors involved, which is absolutely true.

    493
    However, one thing is certain: a bad home, bad living conditions, overcrowding, dampness, vermin, lack of a home, or lack of space to live or space to play make it much more likely that there will be stress, unhappiness and misery.
    It is the fate of one in 25 children to live in a place condemned as unfit for human habitation. That is the tip of a much bigger iceberg, since many of the remaining 25 are living in totally unsuitable conditions. In the borough of Preston in my constituency, 6,000 homes are unfit for human habitation, but they are inhabited. I see the smirks, the inattention and the general attitude of contempt from Conservative Members. That is because they know that neither they nor anybody belonging to them will ever live in such conditions.
    Housing is important, but so is money. The article points out that, if Sally-Ann's mother was not working, she might have been able to beg £100 maternity payment from the ruins of the welfare state—from the social fund. That would have been nowhere near enough to pay for clothing, a cot, a bed, a buggy and all the other props of motherhood. If she had had more than £500 saved, she would not. even have been entitled to that sum.
    Up to 1988, there was a grant available for people on supplementary benefit. The equivalent of that 1988 figure, even two years ago, would have been £188, not the £100 which was and still is available. A good £200 is needed to treat those poor mothers as well—or as badly—as they were treated in 1988, let alone as they were treated when we had a more civilised Government.
    Five years ago, one fifth of children born in Great Britain could be regarded as born into poverty. Now one third are in that position. If Sally-Ann's mother had lived in a flat with a private landlord, she would probably have had trouble. She would have had trouble wherever she had lived because the standard rule is no pets and no children. That has been so all my life. One could not get rooms from a private landlord if one had a baby when I had young children. It is true to say that that is almost a standard rule. The article continues:
    "If she tried to move she would have had problems with the rent. When they"—
    the Government—
    "changed the rules in April 1988, a million people lost their right to Housing Benefit and five million others had it cut. If she had trouble heating her home, she would simply have gone cold."
    Sally-Ann's mother would not have been likely to be disconnected; she would have had to disconnect herself because, as the article states:
    "Electricity and gas companies now routinely install meters in the homes of poor families: if they have no cash, they have no heat."
    That saves everybody the embarrassment of disconnection. The article continues:
    "In Birmingham alone, some 600 people die each year from winter hardship … If Sally-Ann's mother had had the confidence to inquire, she would have discovered that a single mother with two children is supposed to survive on Income Support of £88.65 a week. The Child Poverty Action Group has worked out that she would need £23.08 more than that each week to break even."
    The Select Committee on Health undertook an inquiry into maternity services and maternity matters, and published a report in March 1992. Part of the report dealt with the absolutely bizarre fact that there is age discrimination in pregnancies—16 and 17-year-old pregnant girls are treated infinitely worse by the state than women of 25 and over; even if 16 and 17-year-olds have no job and no income, they do not have the same
    494
    entitlement to benefit as they would have if they were older. Presumably, they and their babies-to-be can live on nothing.
    The Government's answer is that 16 and 17-year-olds should be provided for by their parents and they should be on one of the training schemes. However, the Government do not explain why those who run the training schemes should be interested in providing training for a girl who will have to pack it in within a few months of being given a place. If we are serious about the way in which we treat 16 and 17-year-old pregnant girls, we should not start by trying to shove them into a few months of totally irrelevant training, which no one wants to give them anyway. We should give them understanding and education to help them cope with the job that they will have to do in caring for the baby.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, such education should start early. Education for parenthood for both sexes should start in school and be part of the core curriculum. I do not believe that we can talk about having a sensible curriculum that ignores the most important roles that all of us as human beings must undertake. I am concerned about the treatment of young pregnant girls.
    When I read the article about the anonymous baby abandoned on the charity dump, it struck me that it is possible that her unfortunate mother is a 16 or 17-year-old with no rights, no entitlements and no sympathy, who is expected to prove to the Department of Social Security not that she is pregnant and suffering hardship but that she is suffering severe hardship.
    Mr. Michael Bates: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Wise: No, I will not give way.
    Mr. Bates: Why not?
    Mrs. Wise: Tory Members have chosen to make a mockery of part of this debate and I will not conspire with them to do that. I have important points to make. I shall make those points and then sit down, and they can make their own speeches.
    The article in The Guardian says:
    "The price of a child is now too high for many mothers to pay. The National Council for One Parent Families says that financial hardship has become the overwhelming reason why mothers ask for their children to be adopted, even though their own wish would be to keep them; and senior social workers speak of 'a new market in working class babies for middle class parents'. Others are pushed into abortion."
    I am in favour of the right for women to choose to have a pregnancy terminated, but I abhor a society that causes such pressure and stress as effectively to drive women into taking what I believe is a desperate step. I am pro choice; I am not pro abortion. We should take note of the fact that
    "advice workers at Marie Stopes clinics say that the recession has seen a surge in women trying to terminate pregnancies because they don't have the money or the security to cope with a child."
    Those are the sorts of problems that people who are overwhelmingly represented by Labour Members are facing. The answer is not found in Government policies at present. The Government's policies are characterised by an overwhelming feature—the increase and intensification of inequality.
    Inequality is the enemy of social justice. I want not a levelling down, as the Government may say, but a levelling up. I want people to be treated fairly. I want undue financial

    495
    stress and housing shortage removed from families. I want us not to have to face what I regularly face in my surgeries —young women looking old beyond their years who have children with them. It is routine. They nearly always say of at least one of their children, "Little Tommy has asthma". I am surprised if I come across a child in many areas in my constituency who does not have asthma or some other respiratory problem.
    We need measures that seek to elevate the importance of children to us. We want parents to regard their children as the most important things in their lives. As a society, we should regard children as the most important beings, and they should be at the front of the queue when resources are being given out, not at the end.
    Mr. Bates rose—
    Mrs. Wise: I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State for Health, but she did not give way.
    Mr. Bates: Set an example.
    Mrs. Wise: I cannot set an example to the Secretary of State; she has already spoken and she is not here to hear the debate. If she were here, perhaps I would set her a good example. As it is, I shall do to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) what the Secretary of State did to me—ignore him.
    There has been some reference to education. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State what advice I should give to the parents and teachers in the primary school nearest to the place where I live.
    Frenchwood primary school is a well-managed, good school. However, despite its good management, it is financially stressed and will lose one teacher, with the result that children aged about six may be taught in mixed-age classes. It is not beneficial for children to be taught in mixed-age classes, especially when it is not being done for educational reasons but simply because the school is losing one teacher. I have chosen that example because it is not a particularly dramatic one.
    Many schools are losing more than one teacher. Many children are facing worse problems at school than being taught in a mixed-age class. Many of the schools facing more dramatic problems have suffered greatly from the cuts in section 11 funding. Some schools in my constituency are losing several teachers because of the Government's cuts in section 11 funding. I do not in any way blame the county council, which is the unfortunate agent for passing on the cuts.
    Tory Members are good at blaming parents. Sometimes parents are to blame. I may be somewhat puritanical; I am conventional in many ways in my approach. I believe that it is best to have a two-parent family. I believe in stable relationships, although I know that that cannot always happen. I know that many people are driven beyond endurance. During my surgeries, I sometimes marvel that the suicide rate is not higher. It is no good simply lecturing people or setting up a counsel of perfection. It is easier to blame parents than it is to help them, and it is cheaper.
    I do not want to blame parents. I want to educate parents and to encourage them to accept their responsibilities. Children should be a joy to their parents, and I want to help to bring that about. Childhood should be a joyful,
    496
    constructive and pleasurable part of life, but, for many children, childhood is a burden and for many parents children are burdens. That is an obscenity.
    We should not blame parents; we should be helping them. I want not so much blame, and a lot more resources. All kinds of resources—educational, financial and housing —should be made available for the children of our society to bring them to the front of the queue. We should not let them languish at the back, as they do now.
    8.10 pm
    Mr. Gary Streeter: It was a great pity that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) did not give way to any of my hon. Friends who tried to intervene. One would have liked to have asked her many questions in a speech that, quite frankly, was more fantasy than fact.
    I am pleased to take part in this debate about the family. I believe that the family is vital to the future well-being of our nation. By that, I mean that we should seek to have as the ideal, goal or target the traditional nuclear family, with one man and one woman for life with children. That is the optimum target, and I will talk later about what happens when that cannot be achieved. It should remain our target and goal and it is not an optional extra. It is at the heart of our society.
    An urgent task lies ahead of us during the next few years —to restore to the centre and the heart of our nation the place of the traditional family unit, which has been so eroded in the past 30 years. Having listened to some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends and, I am bound to say, one excellent speech from the Opposition, from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—
    Mr. Bates: It was not the last speech, that is for sure.
    Mr. Streeter: No, it was not the last speech. I would like to think that there is a common cause emerging and that there is a fresh recognition of the vitality and the essence of family life in 1990s Britain.
    The family is important for three crucial reasons. The relationship between a husband and wife, or between long-term partners, is one of mutual support and fellowship. They share problems and joys, and, in that long-term relationship, fulfilment in all sorts of ways can be found. Furthermore, traditionally, financial support can be found in that structure and it is within the framework of a strong and stable family unit that children are best raised.
    Is it not a pity that in this day and age we appear to have lost the sense of the importance of raising children? How refreshing it is to come across young people who feel a calling to be a mother or a father and who understand that it is a vital task. How often we turn our backs on that and look down on the importance of being a good parent.
    If there is one evil in our society at the moment, it has little to do with poverty or Government policies, as Opposition Members would have us believe. The evil in our midst is poor and neglectful parenting. I would be the first to admit that that could come from two parents as well as from one. How it upsets me when I go to the supermarket—that seems to be where one mainly encounters it—to hear the way in which some parents talk to their children. I saw a lady at the weekend who was talking to her three or four-year-old son in Tesco. She was cuffing him around the ear and saying, "You're stupid."

    497
    That child will grow up 15 years later believing that. Poor parenting shapes the character and personality of our children.
    It is within the family context that we learn self-esteem, because others value us. Our parents value us and we therefore learn to value ourselves and it is in the first formative years that children learn so many important lessons. Another reason why families are so important is that they are the vehicle or forum through which we can care for one another in sickness or infirmity, whether that involves a husband and wife, parents and children or brother and sister. The family unit is a vital instrument of care in modern Britain.
    Some people believe that the traditional family was just a choice that we made at some stage of history, or that it is just an optional extra that we can now replace. Some seem to believe that the state can replace the family and that it does not matter that relationships between people are breaking down or that parents are less and less likely to bring up their children with values.
    Mr. George Howarth: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps name the people who believe that family institutions should be replaced by the state?
    Mr. Streeter: It is abundantly obvious that, during the past 30 years, we have suffered at the hands of left-wing ideology. [Interruption.] Oh yes. That teaches us that we can no longer support the argument in favour of the traditional family. It says that it is perfectly all right to have children brought up by lesbian or gay couples. That made hon. Members suddenly go very quiet. The left-wing ideology states that single parents are as good as two parents. That has been thrust down our throats, and how we have suffered as a result. There is no substitute for a strong family. The state cannot deliver the vital responsibilities of mutual support, affection and good parenting. They must be done by the family.
    The debate is extremely important. For far too long the tail has wagged the dog in terms of social policy. For the past 30 years, we have been frightened to speak out and make value judgments for fear of upsetting minority groups or being accused of discriminating against those groups. It is time for the vast majority of people who believe in families and who aspire to strong and stable relationships to stand up and be counted.
    It saddens me greatly that, in my daughter's class at a good grammar school in Plymouth—the school is known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—half the children no longer live, at the age of 13, with their natural father or natural mother. What kind of society are we breeding?
    Family breakdown has serious consequences. It affects personal security, and we know that it affects the security of children. We know now that, although many single parents are doing an excellent job of raising their children, bringing up children is best done by two people who share problems and encourage each other when one is tired of disciplining. That is a tiresome and difficult thing to do and it is difficult to achieve a consistency of discipline. The breakdown of families undermines the disciplining of our young people.
    Enormous social costs flow from family breakdown. We have already heard of the billions of pounds that have been spent on housing. Is it not odd that the number of houses in this country since 1979 has increased
    498
    substantially, and yet still we are told that there are not enough? That is because households are splitting at a far greater rate.
    We must take a long and hard look at where we are going with social policy. Can it be right that, no matter how people choose to live, the state will always come behind with a cheque book and a bucket and spade to clean up the mess? Should not we be saying that there is an optimum way of living and that there are targets that we should set? As a society we should encourage people to live in a responsible manner. That is what most people want.
    Is the constant drip of family breakdown irreversible? Can we do nothing about it? Can we say that the family does not really matter and was just one style of living which was right then but not now? I should like to think that we will not go down that route and that we will say that the family is important and should be our target. Let us find ways to make it work.
    We can give more support to families than they have been given during the past 30 years in three key ways. If hon. Members would like to learn more of my views they can read the speech that I made in this place on 3 December, which was 22 minutes long. I shall not speak for that long tonight. I am not one of those who say that economics are not important. We can support the family economically. I am also not one of those who say that poverty is not important or that unemployment is not a factor because it is, but it is one of many.
    Ms Jean Corston: I am pleased to acknowledge the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman places on poverty. Is he aware that it is clear from answers to my parliamentary questions during the past year that 5.7 million families with children now have a lower disposable income than they had in 1979? It is all very well for him to go on about morality—we all want children to be brought up properly—but does he agree that that does not pay the gas bill?
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making me aware of her views. Every sector of our society is better off than it was 15 years ago and that is an unmistakeable fact. The benefit and welfare system that is supporting people is vastly superior to the one that we had 15 years ago and she cannot escape that fact. Poverty and unemployment are factors in family breakdown, but they are only two of many.
    Because economics are important, I pay tribute to the way in which the Government have steered our economy during the past two years, so that interest rates are low and inflation is low and is staying low. Those are vital ingredients for the future of families. Unemployment is decreasing at an encouraging rate—a factor that I am sure that Opposition Members welcome. The Government are getting the economic framework right and that is an important foundation stone for getting the family right in the years ahead.
    Secondly, I am convinced that when most people are 17, 18, 20 or 21 they aspire to a long-term relationship and a home and family of their own. That is the main aspiration of the overwhelming majority and we must find ways to help them to achieve it. The Government were successful in helping people to achieve the aspiration of their own homes in the 1980s. Let us build on that success in the

    499
    1990s and find ways to help young people to achieve their deeper aspirations to build long-term relationships and to raise a stable and secure family.
    We can do much more by teaching in schools the principles of parenting, being a spouse and relationships. Many of us picked those up at home. I am fortunate to come from a close and loving family, but I know that that is not everyone's experience. We used to assume that such things were passed on naturally from generation to generation and learnt from the role models and framework created for us by our parents, but principles can be extracted and taught in schools and we must think about that more seriously.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that we can and should counsel young people who are on the threshold of marriage. Too many people rush into marriage, for all sorts of understandable reasons, when they have not sat down and thought through the real responsibilities involved. Counselling young people on the threshold of marriage would be a great help. Who should do the counselling? Should it be local authority social workers? I would say not. A vast army of people have enjoyed secure and strong marriages, learnt the principles of being a parent, a husband or a wife and know what it is like to run a house effectively and pay their way, not spending more than they get. Those are the people who should be counsellors. We can call on the voluntary sector and people with experience and a heart to give to counsel young people. I want more pre-marriage counselling schemes to be made available.
    On the question of support for the family, more help must be given when a marriage is in difficulties. I know that from my experience at the church in Plymouth where my wife and I are members. We have been involved in the lives of many young people who have gone through marital difficulties. Sometimes, just a little experienced advice here, some help there and the opportunity to talk things through is immensely helpful and can get people through a difficult period.
    Who should give such help? It should be not some of the professional people employed by local authorities but people with experience. I know one social worker in Plymouth who has made an utter mess of her life. Her children run wild on the streets—one is into drugs and the other is the worst-behaved child at her school. However, that lady is a social worker and she tells other families how to bring up their children and make their families work. That is wrong. The people who have experience of getting it right and who have gone through problems and come out the other side should teach our young people, rather than professional social workers who have often ruined their lives and will only drag others down with them.
    Finally, we need a fiscal and financial framework that will encourage marriage. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) explained the dichotomy—should we say that marriage is the way that we want to go or that any sort of mutual cohabitation is acceptable? The majority of people believe that marriage is an important institution. We should dust it off, make it important and put it at the centre once again.
    I want future Budgets to take more care to encourage young people to get married and to encourage married couples. I want our fiscal policy to support husbands and
    500
    wives, encourage them to stay together and make it more beneficial for people to be married than for them to live together or as single people. Enormous social benefits would flow from such a fiscal policy. Where the family has broken down and been eroded, the state has rushed in with all its solutions and panaceas, none of which has worked. The state may need to be rolled back before the family can walk forward. If the state is always there doing it, what incentive is there for families to get their act together again? We may have to be bold and allow the state to take a step backwards.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having the courtesy to give way. The Child Support Agency is one of the greatest advances that we have made in rolling back the frontier of dependency and making people realise their responsibilities. Is it not the case that by reinforcing the parent's financial responsibility for the child, which is life-long, we may also be reinforcing their moral and spiritual responsibilities towards their children?
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for that intervention, with which I whole-heartedly agree. The Child Support Agency is becoming increasingly popular among women who have not received proper maintenance payments from the fathers of their children. Also, people are beginning to think far more seriously before they split up and to consider whether they can afford it. The CSA is causing people to think about the implications and consequences of their choices. That is no bad thing and it is to be welcomed warmly.
    I am afraid to say that it has taken us 30 years to reach the present situation, with family breakdown so evident around us. There is no overnight solution. It may take us another 30 years to get back to the situation where the family is at the centre of our society and where it is the cornerstone on which our country is built, but I am confident that, under Conservative leadership over that period of time, we will arrive.
    8.29 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Tonight's debate has contributed to our understanding of the depth and strength of mother love. So many Conservative Members have drawn attention to the fact that they themselves were brought up by loving mothers that it demonstrates to me that there is no end to the generosity of the love of mothers. I find the hon. Members somewhat unlovable.
    The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), among others, may have been exposed to Aldous Huxley at too early an age and been frightened by him. Hon. Members described a ludicrous, science fiction kind of world in which the Labour party is supposed to advocate that the state should run families and that mothers and fathers should not look after their children. Where hon. Members get such nonsense from, they have not explained, but it is the kind of stupid diversion that comes from Tory central office and prevents them from addressing themselves to the issues in front of us.
    It is not our case that the Tories are responsible for every ill that befalls humankind. What we are saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and others have already said, is that there are many ills that beset families in respect of which it is the duty of the state

    501
    and of local government to help rather than to hinder those families. It is the Government's gross inadequacy on those counts that we are addressing tonight.
    Take, for example, the case of a 10-year-old boy who I know of in Glasgow. Conservative Members talk about freedom of choice and independence for families. What freedom or independence can that particular child have when his father happens to be a drunkard and his mother is so chronically depressed that she cannot stir herself to make sure that he gets to school? The boy is looking after his younger brothers and sisters and carrying a load of responsibility that is far too great for his years. His parents love their little boy but, for whatever reasons, are simply not up to the task of looking after him at present. For that child to have any hope for his future—any hope of an education or of respite or of the chance of a life of his own —he has to depend on the education and social work departments, and on the state itself to vote the cash and the care to helping him and children like him. His is no isolated case; similar cases can be found throughout the land.
    The Secretary of State described what she regards as the success of what I would call the Government's meddling with the national health service. She is no doubt not terribly well briefed on such matters as they apply in Scotland, but I wonder what she would make of a few recent events in Scotland that give a very different picture of how the state of the NHS affects families today. At Glasgow royal infirmary, cleaners and porters have had their wages cut to levels that applied four years ago because of compulsory competitive tendering. What possible benefit can that bring their children? Perhaps those people's families do not matter to the Tories.
    Let us look at patients in hospitals. During the past week, it has emerged that people are leaving Scottish hospitals less well nourished than they were when they went in because of the contracting arrangements to provide food in hospitals. If, after going in for an operation, a patient recovers and is ready to eat and hungry before the catering system is ready to provide food, the nurses are no longer permitted to cook him or her a light meal in the ward kitchen. People can spend 24 hours without a bite to eat as a consequence of such cost-cutting exercises.
    Dr. Sandy Macara of the British Medical Association last Sunday condemned forcefully the two-tier system of health care. Is he lying or scaremongering? The consultants at Raigmore hospital are condemning the way in which things are run down, yet the chairman of the trust has the cheek to condemn them. Who knows more, about running the health service—the doctors doing the work or some part-time chairman of a trust appointed by the Secretary of State?
    What does the Secretary of State think of second and third-generation unemployment? What is that doing for families? As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) asked, when families are endlessly living on benefits with no sign of ever getting work, what can it possibly do for them? They live in unfit damp housing, which causes asthma and bronchitis. At every single surgery that I hold in Maryhill, I see families whose children have asthma or bronchitis. We heard all that described by one Conservative Member as something that does not happen. I wonder what world he is living in. Such things may not happen in his constituency but they happen in many of ours. In their 15 years in office, the Government have made draconian cuts in housing support grant and in borrowing
    502
    consents, making it far more difficult for local authorities to do something about improving the state of the housing in which those families live.
    The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) talked about what might be done to make run-down estates more civilised places in which to live. He suggested that grannies could form some kind of control. What sort of world does that hon. Gentleman live in? The grannies in these estates are not old, white-haired ladies; they are women in their thirties and forties, some of whom might even have jobs themselves. Many of the problems that we are discussing relate to single mothers who are struggling to look after children, with fathers absent for all sorts of reasons. It is those very mothers whom Ministers condemned and attacked at the infamous Tory party conference last October.
    A minute ago, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton argued that the Child Support Agency helps mothers. That is news to us. The Child Support Agency could be more accurately described as the Treasury support agency. The money is collected from the fathers but it does not go into the pockets of the mothers to help them look after their children.
    At present, the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is in Committee. The Government have chosen to embark on a local government Bill instead of on a long-awaited Children Bill for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles was very much involved in the proceedings on the Children Bill for England and Wales, which were successfully concluded five years ago. What we have now is a decision by Scottish Tory Ministers. I do not blame English Tory Members—hon. Members from shires south of Scotland; they may not even know that this is happening. But Scottish Ministers have chosen to introduce a Scottish local government Bill that no one in Scotland wants and to do nothing at all about badly needed legislation for children in Scotland.
    We need legislation to take account of children who are in care and who are leaving care at 16, homeless, without a job, without training, without income support and ending up in the famous cardboard boxes. We have not heard tonight in the entire debate what solution the Government offer. Those children cannot be sent back to their families because many have no families. Those I have mentioned have left care at the age of 16.
    There are many other aspects of the matter that we want to look at in such a Bill—children at risk of abuse, children with disabilities, children whose needs of all descriptions or whose deeds bring them before our children's panels. Instead of updating and reforming our legislation by means of a new Bill for children, the Government are taking no action whatever; there was nothing in the Queen's Speech and there is apparently no timetable for such legislation.
    Reference has been made to nursery places. If the Prime Minister now favours nursery places, why has he still done nothing about them? A Conservative Member asked earlier what it would cost, no doubt thinking smartly that this was a challenge to the Labour party on its cost commitments. Let me point out one thing: whatever it would cost would be more than repaid by the development of young children's socialisation, helping them to develop a sense of responsibility and consideration for others, and the saving of the millions of pounds currently wasted on vandalism. All these sums together could well exceed the cost of running nursery schools. It was the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) who wanted to

    503
    know what such education would cost. I think that she meant that she wanted a society in which those people who are well enough off to pay can afford to have all the care that they wish for for their children while the rest are allowed to go hang.
    In many cases, well-off people are not caring, loving families—they are the upper-middle classes, many of whom send their children away at ridiculously young ages. They tell other people to look after their children and take that responsibility off their hands; they can pay for it to be done. That is the type of society that the Conservatives want. That has been Tory policy through the ages, and it shows no sign of changing tonight.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. David Amess: It has been an interesting debate so far, but I have not heard any hon. Member describe an easily achievable solution to the problems that we face in family life today.
    I utterly condemn the disgraceful motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, because a close reading reveals that it describes precisely the results of the nonsense that went on in the 1960s and the 1970s, the consequences of which we are reaping today. I am optimistic about our future because I do not anticipate that our children, born in the 1980s and 1990s, will suffer in the way that those people born in the 1960s and 1970s have. That is why I entirely support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Ms Corston: The hon. Gentleman made a point just now about the number of children who were living—I am sorry, I have lost my thread.
    Mr. Amess: I was referring to the children born in the 1960s and 1970s.
    Ms Corston: If that is the case, why have Conservative Members supported the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which provides for the locking-up of children who were born after the Government came to power?
    Mr. Amess: I entirely accept the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and I will discuss that point shortly when I mention the efforts that are being made to protect law-abiding citizens from those young people. I will not forget the point.
    I very much support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which says that the Government will continue to support policies
    "which ensure that the family remains the cornerstone of society",
    because I believe that when the family thrives, society thrives.
    Let me first make two partisan points. In doing so, I shall refer to both the socialist parties. First, it is simply not good enough for a Liberal Democrat Member to participate in the debate and make a blatant propaganda speech. Whenever one gives the alliance power, it breaks the promises that it made in that propaganda. I am reminded of the position of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) when she fought and won the by-election for Christchurch. She went round the constituency, complaining about crime and saying that we needed more bobbies
    504
    on the beat. Now alliance-controlled Hampshire county council is cutting the number of policemen on the beat, and I could go further.
    Mrs. Maddock rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give way, because his remarks already seem to me rather far from the debate.
    Mr. Amess: Your point is well made, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The second partisan point that I want to make is about the Labour party.
    During the week's break over Easter I was listening to LBC—an excellent radio station—and I clearly heard an Opposition spokesman who has responsibility for London saying that it was disgraceful that the Government were not allowing time for a debate on the increase in prescription charges. I am sure that many members of the general public who were listening thought that that was, indeed, a disgraceful thing to do, because the interviewer did not explain that the Opposition are allocated a number of days when they can choose a subject. At that time I had not received notification from my Whip saying that the subject of today's debate would be the family. We all know only too well that it was a cheap point. I welcome the debate today on the family, but it is less than honest to pretend that the Opposition could not choose on another occasion to have a debate on prescription charges if they seriously wanted to make the point. The Conservative Benches have been far better populated during this debate than have the Opposition Benches. That is worth noting if the Opposition care so much about the subject.
    I much regret that the hon. Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) have left the Chamber. They made what I regard as two old-fashioned socialist points. I resent, as a Conservative Member, being patronised and lectured by socialists and told that all Conservative Members have privileged backgrounds. It was suggested that we have all led a sheltered life, that we all have pots of money, that we do not hold surgeries and that we do not listen to people's problems.
    As I look round the Chamber, I notice that I am the only east ender present. I spent the first three decades of my life in the east end of London and I am very proud of my background—hardly a privileged one. We lived in a terraced house with no bathroom, an outside toilet and a tin bath, but none of my experiences made me a socialist; they made me a Conservative. The way in which the hon. Members for Bow and Poplar and for Preston lectured Conservative Members, saying that they believed that they had the panacea for the working class, was a disgrace. All Labour Members do is to grind people lower in their esteem. When I lived in Newham we had a Labour Government, a Labour Greater London council member and a rotten Labour council, so I take no lectures from socialists about the working class and the solutions to our problems.
    I represent the constituency of Basildon, where I am proud to say that the latest statistics show that we have the greatest number of central heating appliances in the country. Many of my constituents come from the east end of London. When I lived in the east end of London, family life was wonderful. It was a close-knit community. We

    505
    helped one another and it is true that we did not bother to lock our doors at night. There was always a lady in the road if someone was going to give birth and we looked after our mums, our dads and our grandparents. All that has changed. It is not for me now to look to the past, but I very much believe, speaking about family life, that the state can never be, and never should be, a substitute for the family. It is all about individual responsibility, and I believe that there is a serious problem as regards parenting.
    Being a parent is an enormous responsibility. I very much regret the current trend—the popularity of transient relationships. I take my hat off to the women who are abused and abandoned, primarily by men, and I cannot understand how anyone who has fathered a child can turn his back on his own flesh and blood, never want to see the child and never want to support the child. Surely all Members of Parliament will condemn that type of activity.
    Now I come to the argument that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) made when I referred to the 1960s and 1970s. It is all about what I call unsocial behaviour. Recently, I launched a campaign in my constituency. I thought that the media were being less than helpful to the Conservative party, so I decided to make speeches on milk crates with a loudhailer to my constituents. I have to say that they have been very well received. I drew a large crowd two weeks ago, and at the precise point at which I reached the subject of yobs, one appeared. Many of my constituents are pleased about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. They badly need the protection that it will give them. I wanted to demonstrate to my constituents that the law is there to be enforced and that those yobs need to be caught.
    I went and confronted the yobs and, on one particular estate in Crudens, I managed to find six such individuals making people's lives hell—smashing windows and doing disgusting things of which I am sure no hon. Member would approve. What do we do with those children? Do we say that the problems date back to the 1960s and 1970s? Do we say that all those children come from broken homes and we cannot possibly restrain them from the general public? Having spoken to them, I know that no one in the House could have coped with the language and violence that they demonstrated towards me. People badly need protecting.
    I much regret the present divorce rate. When I first came to the House, we introduced a measure to make divorce easier. As a new Member of Parliament who is not a lawyer, I tried to intervene, but there was all-party agreement on making divorce easier. Often, women come to my constituency surgery and say, "We had no idea that it was so easy to get divorced." That measure badly needs to be looked at again because marriage is an enormous responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) talked about the age at which people can get married. Figures show that those who get married at 16 are more likely to divorce. I am sure that a number of hon. Members married at 16 and have been happily married ever since, but statistics prove that such marriages are more likely to fail. I am preaching not marriage but stability in relationships—men and women sticking together and looking after their children.
    Finally, I am astonished at the House's attitude over a number of years on abortion, embryo research and sex selection. Over a period, we have taken legislative decisions that have undermined family life and cheapened life itself. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister came to my
    506
    constituency and opened a gynaecology ward in a new maternity hospital in Basildon. We took him down to the special baby-care unit where he saw tiny babies and witnessed at first hand the emotion felt by women who wanted the hospital to do everything that it could to keep those tiny babies alive.
    The hon. Members for Preston and for Bow and Poplar, who are both here, discussed abortion. In the Carlisle baby case in 1987, a baby was born alive after a failed abortion and lived for three hours with no medical support. But we heard no sympathy whatever from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Preston said that she agreed that we should help people not to have abortions; if I follow her logic, she is in favour of life. I agree with her. The idea that this House feels that it is okay for that shoddy little clinic in north London to con people in selecting the sex of their babies is a disgrace.
    I introduced a 10-minute rule Bill that was defeated by 80 votes and I was told in an intervention that I should wait until the Committee had reported on sex selection. That Committee did report and decided that it would not legalise sex selection in clinics. Since then, one of the partners in the clinic went in for sex selection and the child turned out to be the wrong sex. As we all know, mother nature gives people a 50-50 chance of having a boy or girl, so to con people and take money from them is a disgrace. A little while ago, I appeared on a television programme with a doctor running the clinic. One of his patients, whom he had wound up to attack me, said that she had five boys and wanted a girl. She said that it would be nice to have a girl because girls could be taught to clean and cook. That says it all.
    I hope that the whole House will encourage young people and children in every sense. Let us unite behind the family, and society as a whole will benefit.
    8.55 pm
    Mr. George Howarth: I should like to make two brief points about the last two speeches by Conservative Members—the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess). It is difficult to believe that the two hon. Members could be so wrong about so much, but what I find really disturbing is that they seem sincerely to believe what they say. That is cause for a great deal of concern.
    I do not want to enter the wider political debate because my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and the motion on the order paper have made the wider political case effectively. I participate in the debate because the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), which were both thoughtful and not politically partisan, raised some important issues.
    First, there must be, as most people acknowledge in different ways, an economic dimension to how families are developing in the latter part of the 20th century in this country and elsewhere. That should not be ignored. J.K. Galbraith, the distinguished and world-respected economist, made an interesting point about how societies in the United States and Britain are becoming what he calls "two thirds-one third societies". By that, he means that two thirds of society do quite well—they find employment, often well paid, but, more importantly, they do better out of non-targeted, non-means-tested state benefits and state-provided services than the one third who tend to get,

    507
    if any job at all, the worst paid jobs and the worst service provision in terms of education and other areas of social policy.
    Society in the United States seems to have reached a point where all but a few of those in that one third of society can never break out of it. The system seems closed, so that those who are born into that one third are unable to break out into a profession, higher education or the escape route that my generation had—the apprenticeship. All those opportunities seem to have gone.
    Unless we can break the cycle and start doing something about the problem, we shall face real problems in the future. I do not know where this trend will lead and I do not intend to make any apocalyptic predictions about where it will lead, but it is very worrying, for reasons to which I shall refer in a moment.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman not therefore welcome the introduction of the new apprenticeship scheme, which will help 150,000 young people to enter apprenticeships in this country at a cost of £2.25 billion over the next three years?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall go on to talk more specifically about apprenticeship schemes, their consequences and the opportunities that exist today in a few moments, but I will do it in my own way and in my own time.
    I want to contrast the experiences today of people in that one-third of society with my own experiences as one who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. I was a teenager and in my twenties in the 1970s. I have checked how old the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is, and I think that only three years divide us, but I think that he was growing up in a different country from the one in which I grew up in the 1960s.
    The first point I make is that, far from my development being governed by some extreme left-wing ideology which pointed me in some direction or other, I was not aware that the teachers in the schools that I attended had any ideology whatsoever. They were just teachers who got on with their jobs. It seems to me that in the last decade or so the Government have done more to politicise the education system than was ever the case in the 1960s or 1970s.
    My second point is that there was some security about being young during that time. I presume that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me about that. I was brought up on a council estate: I do not say that in any boastful way—it is just a fact of my life. My father was a skilled worker and my mother was an office worker. At no point in my teenage years did I have any expectation that at the end of my schooling and my time at technical college I would not have a job.
    Now, however, large numbers of young men, in particular, in my constituency are growing up in the almost certain knowledge that when they finish their schooling they will not have a job. This is not because they have done badly at school or because there is something congenitally wrong with them which makes them unfit for work, but because there simply is no employment in my part of the world. There is nothing to lead them to believe that at the end of their education they will find employment.
    One may make whatever political or value judgments one likes about that, but it has profound implications on a
    508
    number of issues, not the least of which are family relationships and the development of the family in the 1990s and towards the end of the century.
    Everything that my generation did in areas such as mine was conditioned by the fact that we were brought up and lived during a time which, far from stifling people's aspirations and oppressing them with the dead hand of the state, was a time of rising expectations. The belief was that every year things would get a little better. It was thought that if one left school and entered further or higher education things would improve; people had career prospects. That is simply not the case any more in areas such as the one that I represent.
    I raise that point in the context of discussing the family because a lot has been said in the last 12 months to two years about single or lone-parent families. All sorts of reasons have been given for this phenomenon: young women trying to jump the council housing waiting queue was one and access to social security which would allegedly give unmarried women or those without a permanent partner a better life style was another. I reject those reasons. I believe that many young women in my constituency and elsewhere have made a rational decision to be single parents. The decision is not based on whether it will help them to get a council house or flat or on some detailed knowledge of what social security benefits they will be entitled to claim. It is based on the change in the economic role of men in areas such as mine.
    I do not say that in any judgemental way, but once men cease to be the economic providers within a family—I do not necessarily say that that was a good thing, it was simply what happened in my generation—many women have to make a rational decision. If they want to have a family, they have to decide whether being permanently linked in some way, through marriage or some other means, with the fathers of their children will enhance their lives or those of their children. Many arguments could be, and have been, put forward as to the social consequences and the importance of fathers in the lives of children, and I accept those arguments, but sometimes women make a fairly rational decision that men are no longer necessary in their lives.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at that interesting point. Does he not agree that we want to encourage marriage because it provides for the father and mother to give a commitment to the child, and that the lack of that commitment creates a problem? If the couple do not marry, it means that the father escapes and never feels the bonding. That is the great difficulty today.
    Mr. Howarth: Personally, I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) that the ideal situation is for children to be in a stable family relationship, with two parents and proper care. I am married and I think that marriage is a good institution, but I do not condemn anyone who chooses to live with a partner or to do something else: that is a personal choice, and I do not think that it is the most important point for our debate.
    I want to talk about the changing nature of the family. My circumstances suit me and, I hope, my family. My observation has shown that the diversity of relationships among my constituents and all over the country seems to suit them. People decide for themselves about their relationships, by rational means or otherwise.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howarth: No, I have given way once to the hon. Lady. I know that the hon. Lady is hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that her contribution will be illuminating, or at least amusing.
    It does not seem to me to be the job of the House or of any individual Member of the House to describe what the right state of affairs is for every individual in every set of circumstances. It is strange that the Government and their supporters, who make so much of their support for the individual, always make that support conditional on certain stereotypical conditions, such as a particular sort of family and relationship with children. It seems strange that Government support for the individual is always predicated on the idea that that individual should be part of a family set-up of which they approve, rather than all individuals.
    Young women often decide for rational reasons that they want to have children, but do not want a man involved in the family relationship. The man may have a continuing role, but he will not be a resident in the same household. At the end of that chain we are left with thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of young men in this country who no longer have a role in the family. They may not have worked out properly where they fit into society. They often remain living with their mother—without responsibility and without access to work. I am not making judgments about that lifestyle, but where does it lead? What self-esteem, ambition and expectations can those young men have when the one thing that they might have expected to experience—fatherhood—becomes a purely biological function and they have no continuing role in the family?
    I am not making value judgments but, in that spirit, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West raised a number of interesting issues. He mentioned the demographic trends, and what is happening within society and within families. If we insist—as some Conservative Members do—on using debates such as today's as a yah-boo exercise in lobbing hand grenades across the Chamber, we shall not progress. In five or 10 years' time, the two thirds-one third society that I mentioned will still be intact. It will be a closed society, with large numbers of people excluded from any sort of expectation or ambition for the rest of their lives. Subsequent generations will be in exactly the same position.
    Given that the future is unpredictable and we do not know where it is all leading, we should try not to have a sloganised debate which simply suits the ideology and sloganising of one party or another. We should seriously consider the effects of the changes, not just on social policy, but on those individuals who no longer have the rising expectations and ambitions for themselves and their families that we had in the 1960s and 1970s. We must get to the stage of being able to look rationally at these problems, think about where they are leading us and try to bend social policy and legislation in such a way that people are helped on the basis of their actual situation rather than some imagined past—presumably the 1950s—when everything was rosy and nothing ever went wrong. Things simply were not like that, and re-inventing history will not serve the. Government or the House of Commons. Least of all will it serve people outside.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: We are having a very interesting debate. To that extent, I congratulate the Opposition on their choice of subject and on their timing. I heard only on Tuesday that the debate was to take place. I do not know what inspired the Opposition. Perhaps they saw the photograph of the Bottomley family on the Isle of Wight. Certainly the Bottomleys led the debate off very well.
    Nothing is more important to the future of this country than the way in which our children are brought up. The rearing of children is absolutely central to the matters that we are discussing. Having congratulated the Opposition on their timing, I should perhaps declare an interest in that just before one o'clock in the morning of Wednesday 30 March I became a grandfather. I was very relieved that the birth did not take place 60 minutes earlier, as my grandson's name is Jack Jones and 29 March happens to be the birthday of another Jack Jones. I should not like a grandson of mine to be thought of as having been named after a trade union leader.
    This has been a strange debate. It is supposed to be an Opposition day, but we do not seem to be learning very much about Opposition policies. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who led off, seemed to be uncertain about statements on child benefit made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). She said that she did not know anything about them. But surely child benefit is absolutely central to the Opposition's thinking.
    Then there was the extraordinary intervention of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who promptly demoted her hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, describing him as a Back Bencher. I became very worried when the hon. Gentleman came in and sat on one of the Back Benches for a while. My fear was that he had actually been demoted, and I put forward the idea that we might adjourn while the Opposition Front Bench sorted itself out.
    The greatest interest in the debate and the greatest speech content has come from the Conservative side. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who is not in the Chamber at present, was very modest. When he quoted the left winger Beatrix Campbell he might have said that he was reading from one of his own excellent pamphlets—"Happy Families?" published by the Centre for Policy Studies, of which he used to be the director. My hon. Friend recently wrote another interesting pamphlet, called "The Family". I recommend both publications to my hon. Friends.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her appointment as Minister for the family. This is something to which I have been looking forward for a very long time. It provides us with an opportunity for better co-ordination of both Government policy, and the local application of policy through the various agencies. There is a great need for better co-ordination of the services provided locally. I am thinking of what is done by social service bodies, education authorities and Home Office agencies such as the police and the probation service. My right hon. Friend said that responsibility begins with parents and must remain with them. That is exactly right, and it is a concept which our policies support.
    Opposition Members have referred to the need for funding. The most important funding for a family is the

    511
    money that they have in their pockets. Under the Conservative Government, the take-home pay of a couple on average earnings, with two children, has increased by 40 per cent. The corresponding figure for the period of the last Labour Government was only 0.6 per cent. Thus, under our policies there has been a substantial increase in one of the most central resources available to any family—the amount of money they have to spend. Family credit has been a successful innovation, and is the best way to help both people in work and those who are not to take up employment and better themselves in that way.
    I was amazed that Labour opposed the Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill last night, because they did not oppose its Second Reading.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: We did not oppose its Third Reading.
    Mr. Thurnham: There certainly seemed to be an enormous number of votes last night, with constant opposition by Labour Members that kept us here until half-past 2 in the morning. Labour Members certainly opposed large slices of that Bill, if not its Third Reading. They certainly did not give the impression that they supported it. When we considered the Criminal Justice Act 1991, Labour did not support the proposal for parents to appear with their children in court. That shows a lack of understanding by the Opposition of the need for parental responsibility.
    I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Tuesday to discuss the need for more effective parenting. I hope that a consequence of my right hon. Friend's becoming the Minister with responsibility for the family will be a White Paper entitled "Effective Parenting", presenting a new strategy to direct the future pattern of child development. Only by placing real responsibility back into parenting will we succeed in solving problems at source and achieving lasting improvements. Family intervention and support services, residential facilities and the general gamut of expenses that accompany troubled and troublesome children and their families are expensive and can be seen as a bottomless economic pit.
    Parenting is a job and, like any other vocational skill, it can be taught in theory and by practice. We should no longer allow young adults to drift into the task of parenting with minimal training and support, only to express surprise and outrage later when such ill-prepared people fail at it. Ensuring that parents carry first-line responsibility for their children should be seen in the spirit of preventive medicine, and that concept must be fully explored.
    Available strategies range from the educational to the punitive. Parenting courses should be widely available, and an increase in nursery school provision should be accompanied by an insistence on much greater parental involvement in a child's total schooling.
    Parents should be brought to task for their child's misdemeanours. In the final analysis, punitive measures can be taken against parents of children who constantly commit misdemeanours. I do not see why courts cannot sentence parents to a parenting course if they are clearly seen to have failed. Instead of merely imposing fines, the money should be spent on educating parents in the basics of bringing up children.
    512
    Utilising the energy and resources of those concerned would not be expensive but cost-effective in the long term. All preventive medicine requires some investment. In the case of children who never had a fair start in life, the consequences of a lack of investment may prove too dire to contemplate. All society must play its part, but, in particular, leading agencies, media, educational institutions and existing support agencies could be brought together to produce a strategy for the future aimed at effective parenting.
    Those issues have been well explored at meetings of the all-party parliamentary group for children. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mrs. Golding), vice-chairman with me of that group, is in her place. On 3 February, the group was addressed by Professor John Pearce of Nottingham and Mike Roberts, Welsh regional manager of the Children's Society, and others, who made clear the need for greater co-ordination between different agency local services. Mike Roberts said that the Children's Society would like an interdepartmental agency, to ensure an integrated approach at national and local level. I did not hear that point made strongly by the Opposition, whose debate this is. I am surprised that they have not made clear how they would like services better integrated locally. In my constituency, it is plain that much more needs to be done.
    I welcome the new all-party parliamentary group on parenting, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on the part that he played in bringing that about. Its formation emphasises the need for greater attention to the subject. I pressed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the need for more co-ordinated action in that area last year, because when one looks at the routes that children can take, it is clear that if they go into special schools for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children, it can be just a quirk of fate which path they go down, whether the education route—placement within an establishment for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties—or the social services route, for example, children who are placed via care orders into a community home system. There should not be such a random element to it.
    There is also the danger of budget sweeping whereby education authorities leave the problem to social services, and vice versa. That cannot produce an effective continuum of provision and certainly cannot be seen as cost effective. There is a great need for much better cohesion and co-ordination of services at a local level. I feel that the appointment of my right hon. Friend as the Minister with responsibility for the family provides the opportunity for us to have that more co-ordinated approach to these matters.
    When knocking on doors in Bolton during the 11 years that I have been in the constituency, the top issue has always been law and order. When one gets down to it, juvenile delinquency is nearly always the principal cause of local concern. How we bring up our children is seen to be the most important issue on the doorstep, but does not always seem to be so when one is addressing bureaucrats in the town hall, or even—dare I say so—different Government Departments here in London.
    There is a need to co-ordinate those services much better so that the most important task that we face—how we bring our children up—is addressed much more fully, both here and locally. That is why I welcome the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime

    513
    Minister. I am quite sure that, when the House divides shortly, there will be no question but that we will support his amendment, and that we shall vote against the claptrap and rubbish contained in the Opposition's amendment, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said, harks back to the failed policies of previous years.
    We should look forward now to the opportunities that are in front of us, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State here to give us the co-ordination that, perhaps, has not been fully evident before. I look forward to the presentation of a White Paper entitled "Effective Parenting", which will spell it out for us to follow through.
    9.23 pm
    Lady Olga Maitland: The conclusion from the debate is that we have indeed become a selfish society. The lesson that we have learnt today is that, when we are talking about the family, we should look at it from the point of view of the child. It seems to be that, for far too long, adults have been saying, "I do not want to get married", as though they had the right to make that decision when there is a child at stake. What about the child's rights? Does not that child have a right to a stable home and two committed parents, who, in my view, can remain tied with that bond only if they are married? I fear that the children are buffeted around. We have been told for years by trendy liberals that children are not affected by marriage breakdown—as though they are trying to excuse themselves from a difficulty. Child psychiatrists now acknowledge that the opposite is the case.
    The scale of marriage breakdowns and their effect on children is worth bearing in mind. Every year, 150,000 children are the victims of marriage breakdown. They feel that they have been abandoned, whether it is right or wrong. Certainly, if the father goes, the child's security goes. I find that, whatever level of society one is looking at—it does not matter what income group—those children feel that no one parent is responsible to them, particularly if their parents then remarry and start other families. Therefore, we understand why those children become disturbed, fail to prosper in school, fail to maintain the same pace with their studies and, in some cases, turn to crime—perhaps as a way of drawing attention to themselves. One sadness is that, at a very early age, they start their own sexual relationships with the opposite sex and start the vicious cycle all over again by producing another infant. I agree with the suggestion that has already been made that we should place far more emphasis on teaching parental responsibility. That should be taught right through school.
    I am very disturbed about the quality of sex education in schools. Far too often, it is moral-free and value-free and teaches children the mechanics of sex but not about moral responsibility to the infant that could follow. It is disturbing that the Family Planning Association, a much-respected organisation, issued workbooks of the type that I have here. They barely mention marriage and, if they do, it is almost dismissively. That will not do. If we want stability for our children, we have to provide a framework in which they can understand that, if one has a relationship, one must prepare for parenthood properly and that being capable of a physical relationship does not mean that one has to have a child when ill prepared for it.
    Furthermore, our children need a proper spiritual and
    514
    religious education. It is worrying that so many local education authorities are still not complying with the requirement to produce a new model syllabus for religious studies. They are still failing the Education Reform Act 1988 which states that religious education should, in the main, be Christian. Sadly, children are having foisted on them a cultural mish-mash which is secular rather than spiritual. I am sorry that the Archbishop of Canterbury is spending too much time behaving like an unelected politician instead of paying attention to the spiritual growth of our young people.
    We should also be paying attention to our children's role models. Although I greatly admire the vast majority of teachers and would follow them any day, there are still too many of them who do not provide the right role models. They turn up at school scruffily dressed in jeans, T-shirts and trainers.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It has apparently been proved this week that videos can have a great deal of influence on children and that role models are important. However, does she not think that her remarks are rather sweeping? I hesitate to mention them, but does she think that the royal family provide a proper role model for family life? What about politicians?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the restrictions on what we can say in the Chamber.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about video nasties and I congratulate the Government on having the imagination and energy to want to ban them from our homes when children are around.
    It is time to put children first and to adapt our concerns to their interests. It is time for adults—men and women—to stop being self-indulgent at the expense of real commitment. I congratulate the Government for setting up the Child Support Agency to remind fathers that they, too, have a responsibility to their children. A child is for life, not just for the one night that a man spent with a woman.
    It is appropriate that we should be discussing the family and I am only sorry that the Opposition failed to tell us what they believe to be a proper family policy. Why did they not mention the fact that such a policy should be child centred?
    9.29 pm
    Mrs. Llin Golding: I am pleased that the quality of the debate has been so high, and I thank especially my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), for Preston (Mrs. Wise), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) for their thoughtful contributions.
    Unfortunately, the shallow response of the Secretary of State merely underlined the truth of our motion, which highlights the Government's failure to produce policies that will give real, lasting support and encouragement to families. Nothing that the right hon. Lady said gives me hope that the Government intend to give full support to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which talks of the necessary protection and assistance for the family, and of giving special safeguards and care to the child. That will be a bitter disappointment to many of us.
    Back home, although people rarely talk to me about foreign affairs or politics in general, they always talk to me

    515
    about their families—their worries and concerns, as well as their hopes and aspirations. For them, to have a happy and secure family is one of the most important things in life. That means many things—good health, a happy home, youngsters doing well, and the security to cope with whatever life can bring.
    Some people can cope well, and that is a blessing. However, because of 15 years of Tory government, many—an increasing number, unfortunately—are under considerable stress and strain, and need help and support to see them through. Many people are on very low wages, and others are impoverished because they fall just outside entitlement for income support.
    People living on inadequate pensions have a hard time of it, faced as they are with worrying water rates and increased fuel bills. Others suffer because of bad housing conditions. Overcrowding has always made a happy family life extremely difficult; it certainly makes study almost impossible for children. People in those conditions desperately ask to move, but that is made difficult by the long council house waiting lists, the increases in housing association rents and the prohibitive deposits and rents required in the private sector.
    Whatever the difficulties may be, those people want to be good parents, but they find that the job of being a good parent in this day and age is not easy. Rightly, people blame the Government for many of the difficulties they face. They know at first hand the truth of our motion. By making things harder for them, the Government are undermining family life.
    Our people want security, but under the Conservative Government they get instead the uncertainty of short-term contracts and part-time low-paid jobs—or even worse, unemployment. Both high unemployment and uncertainty about jobs have done great social damage. Why do Ministers appear not to understand the anxiety that unemployment brings, or its impact on family life?
    Worry about future security brings enormous stress, causing problems both inside and outside the home. When families have geared themselves to two incomes it is difficult to cope when one partner loses a job. There is not only worry about money—although heaven knows, that is bad enough. Imagine the devastation caused by a mortgage repossession. Moreover, a job gives people—especially men—their status. However untrue it may be, men believe that they cannot be respected if they are not the breadwinners.
    It is not only the unemployed who suffer from the failure to provide jobs. Unemployment is one of the causes of the higher taxes that will hit families so hard in the coming years. When I listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I understand why people switch off from politics. He smiles and tells people that the enormous additional burdens which he has imposed on them are overstated. Overstated? It is not possible to exaggerate the worry and the anxiety that so many people experience about what they have to cut from their family budgets. His reaction, like the rest of this miserable Tory Government, is to blame someone else.
    Let us consider the Government's record. They preach greed and decry community responsibility, and then wonder why parents, schools and youth groups find it difficult to teach youngsters to have respect for and
    516
    responsibility to each other. The Government refuse to let councils build and put the blame for the housing shortage on single parents. They create homelessness and dire poverty among the young and make life even more difficult for those people by refusing them any entitlement to benefits.
    They wreck the national health service and expect carers to pick up the pieces. They undermine the work of teachers, producing chaos in our education system, and say that parents should intervene more in the classroom. They fail to provide our youngsters with work, status or hope, and having done nothing to reduce the underlying cause of crime, they float the idea of punishing the parents for the crimes of the children.
    What I cannot understand is why the Government fail to understand that children and young people learn as they live. Given our present conditions, we are bound to be cursed by some who are doomed to be violent and maladjusted. Given Ministers' attitudes, against all common-sense advice, we are lucky that there are not more such people. The Government make a mess of the funding of the social security system and introduce the Child Support Agency in a way which brings so much suffering and hardship.
    The Government's response to the break-up of families is so typical of their whole approach to life—to wield a big stick indiscriminately, to cause misery and not to alleviate the problems. A true family support agency would be concerned with the funding of such services as Relate—marriage guidance—which offers help and support to families. It would ensure that, in the case of a breakdown, the rights and welfare of all children, mothers, fathers and grandparents would be respected, and it would ensure that serious consideration was given to problems of violence in the home.
    The Government have a lot to answer for. Their problem is that they are so remote and so isolated from the real world. They should listen carefully to the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who, in arguing for a comprehensive family policy, not only shows great compassion but adopts a practical approach. She is close to the many voluntary agencies which do such a marvellous job in the country. The Government would do well to listen to them as carefully as she does.
    My hon. Friend explained how the United Nations has highlighted this year as the International Year of the Family and set out its themes: families and work, families, poverty and resources and families and relationships. I echo her demands that the Government do better and meet the targets.
    We are fortunate in Britain in already having such organisations as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which is dedicated to combating the neglect and maltreatment of children. In that pursuit, it has the total support of the public, who are horrified at the growing evidence of suffering among children because of violence, sexual abuse and criminal neglect—the desertion of children and leaving them home alone. The public long for an end to glue sniffing, juvenile drunkenness, drug addiction, truancy, and children running away from home and roaming the streets. Indeed, all such behaviour leads to juvenile crime, violence and vandalism.
    The tragic misery that stems from bullying in schools has been highlighted in recent months. We need to do much more to prevent it. The NSPCC has proposed that there is someone in each school—not a teacher—to whom

    517
    young people can talk about their problems. Will the Minister give her support to that constructive idea, which I understand has already been taken up by some schools? Will she tell us how she will put the public's minds at rest on those other important issues?
    In developing policies, I hope that the Government will take advantage of the important initiative that was taken recently by the all-party parliamentary group for children, of which I am the vice-chairman. A grant given generously by the Gulbenkian Foundation to enable the National Children's Bureau to service the all-party group made it possible to discover what a wide range of organisations thought were the most important issues affecting children that should be brought to the attention of Parliament. That has proved a most valuable exercise.
    It is essential that the Minister should, as we have done, study most carefully the replies of the 160 associations and organisations which responded. Among them, she will find constructive proposals on a wide range of subjects, including childhood care and education, special needs, families and neighbourhoods, children from overseas, poverty, unemployment, young offenders, mental health, disability aids, care proceedings, residential care, foster care, adoption, child abuse and criminal proceedings.
    The Government cannot afford to ignore, as they appear to have done, the vast practical experience that those organisations can give. The application of a bit of common sense in the spending of our money could help to solve many of our problems.
    I have talked much about children. Before I conclude, I shall mention that families need fathers. It is distressing to hear from time to time from men who have great love for their children but who find it difficult through no fault of their own to get access to them. It should not be possible for a woman to spite a former partner by making access difficult. Families need fathers, and we need to strengthen the Children Act 1989 to protect their rights. At the same time, we should acknowledge the importance of grandparents and strengthen their rights of access.
    In the short time available, I have been able to touch on only a small number of issues. Labour's message is clear: Parliament must ensure that families are able to prosper and to live secure and contented lives. We must give our people adequate shelter, warmth and protection from harm. We believe that our senior citizens should live out their lives in tranquillity, and that our children are entitled to better care. It is our responsibility to give them hope for the future. We should not fail them.
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will appreciate that one of your main tasks is to protect the lives of hon. Members in the exercise of their duties. As I speak, the health, safety and life of one hon. Member is in jeopardy; I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
    This morning, I went down to the Tower colliery with my hon. Friend. She went into the drift mine. I understand that she is now surrounded by eight managers and people from the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, who have shepherded her into a cold zone. She is being denied food, water and clothing.
    The miners have been told that if they supply her with food, clothing or water, they will face disciplinary action and dismissal. That is putting my hon. Friend's health and
    518
    life at risk. [Interruption.] I hear some mumbling. I am astonished that there should be mumbling on an issue of such gravity.
    My point of order is that, before a Government Department and a publicly owned industry conspire to injure or kill a Member of the House, the Minister should come to the House and call off the people who are creating that extraordinary havoc before some great damage is done, in which case tomorrow we will not get abusive and silly comments from Tory Members who are speaking in complete ignorance of the facts.
    Madam Speaker: My responsibility is for Members of Parliament who are engaged in their duties. I am not aware of the situation which the hon. Gentleman describes, and of course I must take his word on what he says in the House. I will have inquiries made right away.
    Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter to the best of my ability. I had not heard of the situation before, and all I can do is give an undertaking to the House that I will have a look at the matter as soon as I can.
    Mrs. Wise: Briefly, I understand the point that you make regarding hon. Members being engaged in their duties. My point is that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley is engaged in her duties. The threatened pit is in her constituency, and she is attempting to represent her constituents.
    Madam Speaker: That point is not in dispute. I have just said that I am concerned about hon. Members who are engaged in parliamentary duties. I have given an undertaking. I have not heard about the matter before, and I will have it examined as soon as I am able to leave the Chair.
    9.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe)rose—
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I seem to have another point of order.
    Mrs. Mahon: This is a slightly different point of order from those raised by my hon. Friends. This afternoon, during questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I asked a question of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I said at that time that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley had gone down into the drift to meet miners and to discuss the serious position in which the Coal Board has put them.
    I urged the Chief Secretary to contact his colleagues and see whether something could be done about the situation. Since then, the situation has got serious, and I am concerned for the welfare—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I was in the Chair this afternoon, and I clearly heard the question that the hon. Lady put to the Chief Secretary and the answer which he gave. It is a point of order for me. I dealt with the points which have been raised this evening, and I will carry out the undertaking which I have given the House.
    Miss Widdecombe: In the short time which the Opposition have kindly left me, I shall not be able to address every issue which was raised in the debate.
    I will say that one of the things which I found most offensive was the difference in attitude on the part of the Opposition towards people who get written up in The Guardian because they are in difficult circumstances, and hon. Members on my side of House who pointed to the difficult circumstances in which they grew up. I was disgusted by the sneering attitude which was displayed towards my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) when he described the conditions in which he grew up.
    When the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) mentioned conditions in her constituency—under, I may point out, a Labour council which is responsible for housing conditions in her constituency—a great moral issue seemed suddenly to have arisen. That attitude shows that there is no real concern on the Opposition Benches, and that point of view was reinforced by the numbers of Opposition Members who have been present during the debate.
    I turn first to the speech made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on the subject of a coherent policy. All I can say is that, although she demanded a coherent policy several times in her speech, she evinced not one single policy—coherent or otherwise—or said what the Labour party would do. She did evince strong confusion about what her own Front-Bench colleagues think.
    She did not appear to be aware, for example, that the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security has said that there was a case to examine child benefit, and to examine whether its continuation was justified. She did not know that and she continued to commit the Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Government?"]—the Labour party—to child benefit. Nor did she appear to be aware that the shadow Chancellor had said that, although the Labour party was committed to nursery education, it could be made available only "as growth allowed". She said that nursery education would be made available—no conditions, no qualifications—to every child whose parents wanted it.
    If that is her understanding of her party's point of view, it is not surprising that Opposition Members are confused, that they have no coherent policy, and that they have to hide behind what they perceive as the inadequacies in our policies. They are not inadequacies.
    For example, the Opposition said that pensioners' savings will no longer enable them to buy places in residential homes. They kindly neglected to mention that, in the 1970s under their Government, pensioners' savings were so wiped out by inflation that they could hardly buy a meal, let alone a place in a residential home. They completely missed out the role played by community care in supplying a support network for elderly people to enable them to stay in their homes, looked after by their families if that is what they and the elderly people choose.
    In Opposition Members' speeches tonight there was an amazing lack of emphasis on a caring role in respect of the elderly, as opposed to children.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Like that in Lilley's speech.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for the prompting. The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the speech by my
    520
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Conservative party conference, and said that he had scapegoated lone parents. She asked whether he did not realise that many lone parents find themselves in such a position against their will and deserve support. I shall quote from my right hon. Friend's speech:
    "Many find themselves lone parents against their will and they deserve our support."
    The hon. Member for Eccles then made a terrific play of the economic situation, and how families would be taxed more. I find that a crying impudence from a party that went into the last election promising to make every family in the land poorer as a result of its tax policies.
    The hon. Member for Eccles said that the Conservative party had betrayed families because of the results of unemployment. She omitted to point out that the Labour party threatens families with a loss of up to 2 million breadwinners because of its minimum wage policy. She poured scorn on and belittled part-time work. She does not appear to understand that such work, in which we take the lead in Europe, enables families to combine work and care at home in the way they choose. She shows scant respect for women who want to work in the home, and ignored them in her speech.
    How can the hon. Member for Eccles come here and talk about support for the family when the Opposition consistently opposed the right to buy and the spread of home ownership? Families need decent homes, and we have enabled families to buy decent homes. The Opposition believe that the only homes that families deserve are those which have the state as landlord.
    The hon. Member mentioned education policies for the family, yet she comes from a party that denied choice to those who cannot afford to buy education and opposed grant-maintained schools and the very important right of families who have no professional background and limited means of making their own assessment to receive information about how well their child's school is serving that child. Labour Members have opposed the right of families to know how well the child is doing. They have no policy for a child from a deprived family to have its progress monitored regularly and to enable the parents to learn the results.
    The hon. Member talked about family responsibilities, yet her party opposed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which requires parents to be responsible for their children's criminal acts.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
    Miss Widdecombe: No. If the hon. Gentleman wanted me to give way, the House should not have been detained by bogus points of order from the Labour party.
    Labour Members talk about protecting the breadwinner when they support strikes, when they support secondary picketing and when they support disruption of breadwinning.
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is speaking.
    Miss Widdecombe: May I also say, just in case—
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue this. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way at the moment. Is that right?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes: thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am not giving way at all.
    Apart from the posturings and the blatherings of the Labour party, we were treated tonight to an amazing speech by the spokeswoman of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It is worth pointing out, since she is so concerned with middle-income families and how badly they are affected by crime, that she too abstained from voting on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill last night.
    It is worth pointing out too, since she was so concerned about education, that her party also does not believe in choice of schools, that it opposes opting out, and that it also opposed the right to buy. Her party also threatens breadwinners through its complete adherence to the social chapter, come what may.
    The Labour party offers families the state: the state as educator, the state as landlord and the state as dictator in family and personal affairs. It offers the state up front. The Liberal Democrats offer the state by stealth. Neither party offers a policy for the family.
    It is the Conservatives who have consistently shown themselves to be the party of the family and the Government for the family. It is the Conservative Government who have presided over a situation in which average earnings for a typical family, with one earner and two children, have gone up 40 per cent. since 1979. It is worth reflecting that, between 1974 and 1979, they went up not by 40 per cent. but by hardly 3 per cent.
    It is this party which has made sure that those who want to own their own homes can do so, and now, with a reduction in mortgage rates and record low interest rates, we find that the average family with a typical mortgage is 30 per cent. better off after tax and mortgage payments. [Interruption.] Shall I say it again in case Opposition Members did not hear it? The average family is better off after mortgage and tax by 30 per cent. That is what the party of the family has brought about.
    It is we who have introduced carers' benefits. It is we who have introduced flexible work patterns. It is we who have promoted part-time work. It is we who introduced independent taxation for women. It is we who have promoted policies which have led to low inflation and greater stability of expectation. It is we who have protected the poorest families. It was we who introduced the first comprehensive in-work benefit in the form of family credit.
    It is we who support the right of families to choose their own schools. It is we who, at the same time, say that families should be respected and that we should respect individuals' choices and not dictate from the state. It is we who say also that families must be responsible for their own actions, and that means the actions of younger, dependent members.
    It is we who introduced the comprehensive Children Act 1989. It is we who introduced the Child Support Act 1991. Whatever abuse we have received about that tonight, the essence of the Child Support Act is simple—that children are for life. If hon. Members scorn that message, they scorn the fundamental ambitions and fundamental views of every family.
    The Labour party's policies on the family, and indeed the Liberal Democrats', are straightforward: to take us back to the dark ages. [Interruption.] The Labour party is
    522
    the dark ages, and I know that it will stay in the dark of opposition, not only for the past 15 years, but for the next 15 years, and every family in the land will be grateful.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 290.

    Division No. 211]

    [10.00

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Foulkes, George

    Ainger, Nick

    Fraser, John

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Allen, Graham

    Galloway, George

    Alton, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Garrett, John

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    George, Bruce

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Gerrard, Neil

    Ashton, Joe

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Austin-Walker, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barron, Kevin

    Gordon, Mildred

    Battle, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    Benton, Joe

    Gunnell, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hain, Peter

    Berry, Roger

    Hanson, David

    Betts, Clive

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Boateng, Paul

    Harvey, Nick

    Bradley, Keith

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Henderson, Doug

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Heppell, John

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

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Burden, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Byers, Stephen

    Hoey, Kate

    Caborn, Richard

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Home Robertson, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hutton, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Ingram, Adam

    Clelland, David

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cox, Tom

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Keen, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Darling, Alistair

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davidson, Ian

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Denham, John

    Lewis, Terry

    Dewar, Donald

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dixon, Don

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dobson, Frank

    McAllion, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dowd, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McFall, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McKelvey, William

    Enright, Derek

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Etherington, Bill

    McLeish, Henry

    Fatchett, Derek

    McMaster, Gordon

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fisher, Mark

    McWilliam, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Madden, Max

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    523

    Mahon, Alice

    Rogers, Allan

    Marek, Dr John

    Rooker, Jeff

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Martlew, Eric

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Meacher, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Meale, Alan

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Michael, Alun

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Short, Clare

    Milburn, Alan

    Simpson, Alan

    Miller, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

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

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Soley, Clive

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Mudie, George

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Paul

    Stevenson, George

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Stott, Roger

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Straw, Jack

    O'Hara, Edward

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Olner, William

    Turner, Dennis

    O'Neill, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Parry, Robert

    Walley, Joan

    Patchett, Terry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pike, Peter L.

    Welsh, Andrew

    Pope, Greg

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wilson, Brian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Winnick, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Wise, Audrey

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Worthington, Tony

    Radice, Giles

    Wray, Jimmy

    Randall, Stuart

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Raynsford, Nick

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Reid, Dr John

    Rendel, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mr. John Spellar and

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Alexander, Richard

    Brazier, Julian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bright, Graham

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Amess, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Ancram, Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Burns, Simon

    Ashby, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Butcher, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Baldry, Tony

    Carttiss, Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cash, William

    Bates, Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Batiste, Spencer

    Clappison, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Colvin, Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Congdon, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Conway, Derek

    Booth, Hartley

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Boswell, Tim

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bowden, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Bowis, John

    Cran, James

    524

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

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Key, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Devlin, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Knox, Sir David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dunn, Bob

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Elletson, Harold

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Faber, David

    Lidington, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lord, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Luff, Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Maclean, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Madel, Sir David

    Gallie, Phil

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Malone, Gerald

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Garnier, Edward

    Marland, Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Marlow, Tony

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mates, Michael

    Gorst, John

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mills, Iain

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hague, William

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Needham, Richard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hannam, Sir John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Harris, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Norris, Steve

    Hayes, Jerry

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heald, Oliver

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Ottaway, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Page, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Paice, James

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Pawsey, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jessel, Toby

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    525

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

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

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Tredinnick, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Trend, Michael

    Shersby, Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Sims, Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Viggers, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Soames, Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Watts, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sproat, Iain

    Whitney, Ray

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Whittingdale, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Steen, Anthony

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Stephen, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan

    Willetts, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilshire, David

    Sumberg, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Sykes, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thomason, Roy

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mr. Andrew Mackay.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the International Year of the Family and urges the Government to continue to pursue policies which ensure that the family remains the cornerstone of society; recognises that what families most want is independence, opportunity and choice and congratulates the Government on its economic and social policies which have led to dramatic increases in living standards and health, rewarded enterprise and endeavour and given families greater power over their own lives; welcomes practical measures such as the childcare disregard announced in the Budget; and believes that the best way to support families is to assert the authority and responsibility of the family itself while providing help for families where it is most needed.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us are concerned about our colleague the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who, I think you are aware, is down Tower colliery in her constituency. She is being denied access to food and water, and is being deliberately kept in a cold area of the pit. I know that she elected to go down the pit voluntarily, but there is no reason why she should be treated in this way. We would be grateful if you would make some inquiries to make sure that she is treated properly while she is down the Tower colliery.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has taken action that any other citizen might take. She has not been delegated by the House to take that action. In fact, the hon. Lady has elected to take the action herself and there is nothing that I, as Speaker of the House of Commons, can do.

Matrix Churchill Employees (Scott Inquiry)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I put it to you, respectfully, that Members of the House are not in the same position as anyone else if they are engaged in action in their own constituency. We pass Sessional Orders stating that it is a high crime and misdemeanour for anyone to interfere with witnesses to the House.
If I were a Member of Parliament in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) —with the closure of the pit—I might think it right to go there to talk to the people in the pit about the circumstances for which they have a responsibility. With great respect, Madam Speaker, will you consider carefully the possibility that, in protecting my hon. Friend, you are protecting the people who sent her—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The pit is being closed by the Coal Board, which is threatening the workers with a cut, and my hon. Friend is down, doing a job. I believe that the issue concerns evidence that she might wish to bring to the House next week, in which case my hon. Friend will not only be a Member of Parliament, but someone trying to bring information before the House.
Madam Speaker: We cannot claim privileges for ourselves when we are not involved in the proceedings of Parliament. However much sympathy we might have with the hon. Lady, she has chosen to take the action herself. As Speaker, I cannot take any action at this time in that respect.
We are taking time out of the Adjournment debate, and I call Mr. Jim Cunningham.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is not carrying out parliamentary duties in the House, but a Government Department is responsible for British Coal—surely such a Department is responsible to the House and there is a chain of command. If you, Madam Speaker, are saying to hon. Members that a Department can turn a blind eye to an instruction from the chairman of the Coal Board that an hon. Member's life should be put in jeopardy, it seems that Parliament is treating itself with grave contempt.
Madam Speaker: I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that all of us—citizens or Members of Parliament—have to obey the law. The hon. Lady has chosen to take the action herself. If a Minister wishes to intervene, it is for him or her to do so. As Speaker of the House, the points of order are for me, and I have answered them correctly under the procedures of the House.
10.17 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I have asked for the Adjournment debate tonight because I felt I should draw the attention of the House to one or two injustices that the work force of Matrix Churchill believe that they have suffered.
The first injustice, as the work force perceive it, is that, with the exception of their representatives, everyone else associated with the collapse of the company has been

527
allowed to give evidence. The work force and the people in Coventry will not, and they cannot understand how, if the Scott inquiry is to arrive at a just conclusion in relation to events, the participants—the work force—cannot be allowed to give evidence. Towards that end, I have corresponded with the Prime Minister, one of the Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and Lord Scott. The issue has gone backwards and forwards, but a decision on it has not been taken.
It is an absolute scandal that people in senior Government positions, who gave the House undertakings that there would be no constraints on the Scott inquiry, have created a situation in which there have been de facto constraints. Thus, there are serious doubts about whether the work force will get justice from the inquiry.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Having followed all that my hon. Friend has done on behalf of the ex-employees of Matrix Churchill, I congratulate him on initiating this important debate. Can he tell us exactly what reasons have been given for the refusal to receive representations from the ex-workers? This is at the heart of the problem.
Mr. Cunningham: The Prime Minister said that Lord Scott had adequate power and that he could decide whether the work force should give evidence. Lord Scott, on the other hand, claimed that it was a matter for the Government. It will be remembered that I raised this matter at Prime Minister's Question Time.
When we had further correspondence with Lord Scott as a result of the Prime Minister's letter, he was taking a different tack. He said that he did not have adequate resources, but, at the same time, made the point that the inquiry might go in a totally different direction. So there has been a subtle change. I wonder whether there has been a degree of collusion. I say that as I must be perfectly frank in the interests of the individuals concerned.
I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry, but the British people, and in particular the people of Coventry, are entitled to know exactly what shenanigans have been going on between the Prime Minister, Lord Scott and the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and I, together with other Coventry Members, gave the Department of Trade and Industry a list of 10 points and asked that they be looked at. We have not received a report or any indication of whether those issues are being investigated. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no comment. That, too, makes us wonder exactly what has been happening.
Let us look at the dramatic effects on the ex-employees. Some of them have had difficulty finding jobs; some have had marriage problems; and it is alleged—I have not yet been able to verify the allegation—that one person has committed suicide. The people concerned feel that if they had been allowed to give evidence at the inquiry they could have cleared their name. There is an old saying: "You can take everything in life from me, but if you take my integrity I have nothing." This issue rankles very strongly with the work force.
The other Coventry Members and I have had a series of meetings with the workers. It emerges that they have experienced other problems. For example, some months
528
ago there were difficulties concerning redundancy payments; there are outstanding issues in relation to pension payments; and there are unresolved matters concerning disposal of the company's assets.
In my view, the labour force has not been given satisfactory answers on those matters. That being the case, hon. Members—especially those representing Coventry constituencies—expect some pretty clear answers tonight. The issues must not be fudged. The management is listened to, and Ministers have been allowed to clear their names at the inquiry, but the labour force and its representatives have been denied such an opportunity. That is the reason for some fundamental questions. On what may the labour force be able to shed light that the Government do not want to know about? What does it know that the inquiry does not want to look at? Hon. Members probably realise that the labour force is becoming highly suspicious about the Government's motives in relation to all these issues.
It was suggested that Customs and Excise was responsible, but no doubt it would argue that it was observing the law. How could the work force sue the Customs and Excise? Even if they were to embark on that action, it would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to get the Customs to court. I cannot think of any precedent when anyone has taken Customs and Excise to court on a major issue and won.
Mr. John Butcher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Adjournment debate and thank him for allowing me to intervene—I shall not abuse the opportunity.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that Matrix Churchill's 600 employees have not had their day to make their point. They are the real casualties of this sorry affair, but have not had a chance to make their case.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Customs and Excise investigation. He will know, as those who used to work for the company know, that there was a chance that the Iraqi shareholding could have been bought out and that the company had ambitious plans to proceed from that point. Unfortunately, the Customs investigation blew away that opportunity.
Given that Lord Justice Scott can define his own guidelines and was given the broadest possible remit to consider any information he wishes, the House should at the very least ask him to comment in his conclusions on the chain of events that unhappily resulted in the receivers going in and only a small number of Matrix Churchill's former workers being re-employed by the rump of that company, brigaded into another organisation. The hon. Gentleman—I hope that he is my hon. Friend in this matter —hit on a moot point in mentioning that aspect of the sequence of events.
Mr. Cunningham: I much appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) who, together with Labour Members representing Coventry constituencies, attended numerous meetings to reach a resolution to the problems that I outlined.
A claim for compensation of about £6 million against, I believe, the Iraqis has been submitted to the United Nations, but there is no mention of using some of that money to compensate the work force. That, again, is a little bit of chicanery. No one has taken the work force into account or considers the trauma they have suffered, but

529
somebody has submitted a claim and will do very well out of it, thank you very much. Somebody is exploiting the situation.
I share the hope of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West that Lord Scott will comment and will listen to those who represent Matrix Churchill's former work force. On one or two occasions, I sought a meeting with Lord Scott to clarify the situation regarding the evidence that ex-employees and their representatives could give. He rejected my offer, and I find it fairly strange that he refused to meet a Member of Parliament representing a major city which has been badly affected by the affair.
A further tragedy is that the British machine tool industry has once again been hit and its industrial base further eroded.
I hope that the Minister will give straight answers, and that he will consider instituting a separate inquiry into the issues that I have raised.
10.28 pm
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this Adjournment debate, which is most important to the people of Coventry. There has been much talk for a considerable time about the issues surrounding the Matrix Churchill affair, which is at the centre of high political controversy. What people have not been talking about or been prepared to put on the table is the plight of the 600 employees of Matrix Churchill.
Matrix Churchill, as it has come to be known, was part of the machine tool heritage of Coventry. The employees of that industry—Coventry is a manufacturing city—were, in many ways, the cream with regard to the employment situation there. They were looked up to by their colleagues and comrades. They were top of the pile of manufacturing and blue collar workers. It is a proud tradition in our city which involved not only Coventry Machine Gauge and Tool, which Matrix Churchill originally was, but Alfred Herbert, Whickman and many other companies. Those people are the victims.
When we talk about justice, there are two sides to it. Up to now, people have concentrated—I hope that they continue to do so—on ensuring that justice prevails for the people who were clearly culpable with the collapse of Matrix Churchill. There is no doubt whatever that Ministers knew exactly what that company was doing, and what it was supplying, over a very long time. The Scott inquiry has proved that beyond all doubt.
Yet at a time when that company was in a position to be bought out from Iraqi ownership, and when it had a successful future, the Government allowed a Customs and Excise inquiry to go ahead, which resulted directly in the collapse of that company, in the very real danger of three of its executives going to prison, and in 600 highly skilled people in Coventry losing their jobs. There is no doubt that they have lost not only their jobs, but a lot of money, and have lost on their pension entitlement.
The other side of justice is ensuring that the victims are properly looked after and properly compensated. Two things need to happen as a result of the Scott inquiry. The first is that the perpetrators of that crime—that is what it is —should be rooted out and appropriately punished, removed from office or whatever other action is appropriate. We know who they are. That was clearly found out by the inquiry.
530
The second requirement is that the Government pick up their responsibilities. Up to now, the Government have said that the redundant work force of Matrix Churchill have received their statutory redundancy entitlement. That is their position and there is nothing else. Those people have lost an awful lot of money. They have suffered frozen pensions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East said, a claim is being submitted to the United Nations for compensation from the Iraqi Government. But that will be dealt with along the usual lines of the dissolving of companies. The work force will wind up the bottom of the queue, behind the banks, behind the other people who have a call on that company's assets, and will probably receive nothing out of it. If the Government were clearly culpable in the collapse of that company, they should accept their responsibility and be prepared to compensate the work force. I hope that we get an agreement in principle from the Minister tonight that they will be prepared to do that.
10.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): First, I acknowledge the deep importance of this matter to the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), as has been shown tonight by their attendance and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), all of whom have bearings on this case in their constituencies.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said and accept that the matter is important to the people of Coventry whom he and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) represent. Many hon. Members have made representations to the Government on the matter, including the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. Some of the comments tonight have been rather unfortunate in the way in which they have tried to prejudge and draw conclusions from the inquiry that was set up by the Prime Minister. Anyone who draws early conclusions without waiting for the publication of Lord Justice Scott's report does no credit to his case and will not take the argument any further forward.
The hon. Gentleman has attempted to show that the Government should pay some form of compensation above the usual redundancy payments to ex-employees. He has suggested that the already broad terms of reference of the Scott inquiry should be amended to allow Lord Justice Scott to look into this matter. Failing that, he wants us to set up possibly another inquiry to consider the additional compensation of former employees. What he has failed to clarify is any substantive case for such an inquiry.
I think that it would be useful if I first outlined some of the background to this issue. It will help us all to appreciate the real reasons for the collapse of Matrix Churchill and may help hon. Members to understand why, after careful consideration, the Government believe that there is no argument for further compensation to ex-employees.
Matrix Churchill was formerly owned by the Iraqi-controlled Technology Development Group, which I shall refer to as TDG. The flagrant violation of sovereign rights by Saddam Hussein when he ordered his troops to

531
march into Kuwait demanded, and got, a strong and speedy diplomatic response from the entire international community. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not deny that we imposed sanctions on Iraq and Kuwait, in line with the rest of the United Nations, in response to a mandatory Security Council resolution. If he accepts that —I should be astonished if he did not, because the rest of his party certainly accepted sanctions at the time—he might start to understand some of the reasons why Matrix Churchill ultimately collapsed and might appreciate the efforts that the Government made on the company's behalf.
As I have said already, through TDG, Matrix Churchill was under Iraqi control. With the imposition of sanctions on Iraq and Kuwait, Matrix Churchill found itself in a difficult position. For a start, the company was over-reliant on the Iraqi market. With that market closed to it, and a downturn facing the machine tools industry as a whole, Matrix Churchill was trying to find new orders at what can only be described as a very bad time. However, before we hear calls from the Opposition Benches that that made Matrix Churchill's case extraordinary, let me refer back to my previous point about UN sanctions.
I do not recall any disquiet in the House over the imposition of sanctions. In imposing sanctions, we accept that our national trade can be, and is, affected. That is the price of upholding our international obligations in order to safeguard our national interest. I strongly believe that industry accepts that, too.
Matrix Churchill relied too heavily on one market. I am afraid that it is as simple as that. It did not suffer any more restrictions than any other company in the same position. The hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on that and on the fact that, being an Iraqi-controlled company, Matrix Churchill could have been closed with effect from 9 August 1990. The UN Security Council resolution prohibited the delivery of goods to any person connected with Iraq or Kuwait.
In August and September of 1990, my officials made their priority the regularising of the position of the many Kuwaiti companies—
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am reluctant to give way and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. There were points of order which have left me with a very short time to reply to the debate. What I am saying is important and I want to get it on the record to be fair to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I ask him not to press me to give way.
Mr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: Oh, very well.
Mr. Cunningham: The Minister is making the assumption that the employees were somehow involved in the company's decisions about contracts. That is not so, but we are not trying to defend what did or did not happen in relation to Iraq—we are trying to defend the employees and they were not party to the contract.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman cannot divorce the elements of the issue as easily as that.
No attempt was made to close Matrix Churchill. When, in the autumn, the Iraqi directors of TDG came to talk to
532
officials about the possibility of disposing of Iraqi control, it was agreed that the supply of goods to Matrix Churchill would be licensed provided efforts were made to dispose of the Iraqi shareholding.
I believe that it was the Iraqi directors' original intention to sell the firm to the management. However, after learning that they were actually free to sell it to anyone, provided that it took the company completely out of Iraqi control, I understand that they talked to other potential purchasers. The details of those discussions were matters for TDG and Matrix Churchill, not for the Government, but, as the House knows, TDG eventually chose to sell the company to Automation Investment. The subsequent operation and receivership of Matrix Churchill is, I suggest, a matter for Automation Investment, not the Government.
The hon. Gentleman has rather mischievously attempted to draw a connection between the independent Customs prosecution of three former Matrix Churchill directors and the fortunes of the company. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of the prosecution case. That is a matter properly before Lord Justice Scott, and not one on which it would be appropriate for me to express my views at this stage.
Instead, I shall point out the assistance that the Government have already given to the former employees. We have fully met our obligations to them. The Department of Employment has met the statutory redundancy payments and, under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, has met other debts owed by the company to the employees. I am talking primarily about arrears of pay, holiday pay and payments in lieu of notice. In all, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware —he has already had much correspondence with the Government on the subject—the Government have made payments of more than £950,000 to the former employees.
Help has not been restricted to monetary assistance. The Department of Employment has a raft of programmes to assist unemployed workers to find new jobs. Every former employee is entitled to participate in those programmes and, as the economy continues to recover, I am sure that they will start benefiting from having done so.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government should amend the terms of reference of the inquiry so that Lord Justice Scott could look into the matter of compensation for the former employees. May I remind him that the inquiry already enjoys broad terms of reference, which enable Lord Justice Scott to consult the Government if he feels that they are insufficiently wide to enable him to conduct his inquiry adequately. However, he has not sought to do so. I suggest, therefore, that it would not be necessary or helpful to delay the inquiry by taking it into a new area. That would serve only to delay the report, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to do.
I fail to see any sense in the suggestion that a separate inquiry should be convened to take up the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It remains totally unclear on what basis compensation could be sought, as should be abundantly apparent to him. Given that fact—and it would be hard to dispute it—there is no basis for instituting an inquiry.
I shall now draw the attention of the House to several key points. Matrix Churchill's exposure to the Iraqi market was a matter of its own commercial making. Of course, the company was affected by sanctions. I do not dispute that. But so, too, were other companies. Many of them survived,

533
through remaining competitive and finding new markets. Regrettably some, such as Matrix Churchill, did not. That is not the fault of Government and it does not demand compensation.
Secondly, Lord Justice Scott has not suggested that he wants to examine the issue. Finally, and critically, no argument has been advanced as to why compensation should be paid. No one doubts that the position in which the former employees of Matrix Churchill find themselves is unfortunate.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister is missing a key issue. If the intervention of Customs and Excise in any way prevented a management buy-out that was on the cards, and that intervention resulted from some incompetence—that is a separate issue, which the Scott inquiry can consider—that should affect the outcome. If there was any incompetence about the way in which Departments failed to pass to each other information about what they knew, the Government are culpable. The Minister seems to be saying that there should be no investigation into whether that occurred. He is thus simply dismissing what could be a rightful and necessary claim by the workers of Matrix Churchill.
Mr. McLoughlin: I shall not repeat what I said earlier, but I dealt with that question when I was talking about Customs and Excise. The matter is properly before Lord Justice Scott, and is not one on which it would be appropriate for me to express views.
Companies can go under if they are not competitive and if they do not find markets. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry has been talking to industry and emphasising competitiveness. The debate has served to underline that point, but it has failed to find any reason why the Government should pay compensation. I suggest that that is because there is no reason.
I do not dispute the difficulties that some of the former employees of Matrix Churchill have encountered. But that is not necessarily a reason for changing the rules by which we have always abided. Indeed, we have followed the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which was introduced by the Labour Government. I do not believe that a sufficient case has been made for a separate inquiry. But I take the point that there will be great interest when Lord Justice Scott finally produces his report.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many charges were originally brought against Mr. Asil Nadir; and how many have been dismissed by the courts or withdrawn by the relevant authority.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mr. Nadir was indicted on 58 counts of theft and eight counts of false accounting. None have been dismissed or withdrawn. He has yet to be tried.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many joint charges were originally brought against Mr. John Turner and Mr. Asil Nadir; how many have been dismissed by the courts or withdrawn by the relevant authority; and to whom and what amount of costs have been awarded.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mr. Turner and Mr. Nadir were not jointly charged with any of the offences. Mr. Turner pleaded not guilty to the offences with which he was charged, verdicts of not guilty were entered by the court as the prosecution offered no evidence, and he was subsequently discharged. He obtained a defendant's costs order and I understand that his legal representatives have yet to submit their bill of costs for determination.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor met the President of the Republic of Northern Cyprus; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor met the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community on 6 May 1993. Mr. Denktash set out his views in relation to the political situation in Northern Cyprus. In addition, the position of Asil Nadir was discussed. The Lord Chancellor also met Mr. Denktash, together with the President of Cyprus, on 7 May 1993 at a function organised on the occasion of the Commonwealth law conference.

  Child Witnesses
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures are being taken by courts in Cleveland to protect child witnesses with particular reference to the use of screens, television link equipment, and pre-recorded interviews; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Television links and video playback equipment are in place in the Crown court sitting at Teesside combined court centre. Screens are also available if required by both criminal and civil cases heard 236
  there. All magistrates courts in Cleveland have video playback equipment, and can arrange the provision of screens if necessary. Arrangements can be made for screens to be available for child witnesses at the family hearing centres at Hartlepool and Stockton county courts.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance has been issued to judges relating to wigs and gowns in court during proceedings of cases of alleged child abuse.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no specific guidance issued to the judiciary relating to the wearing of wigs and gowns in cases of alleged child abuse. However judges have the discretion to remove wigs and gowns when they consider it appropriate.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which courts in Cleveland have child liaison officers to protect child witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is a designated child liaison officer for every Crown court centre, including the one at Teesside combined court centre, in Cleveland.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, further to his answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 759, if he will make it his policy to collate information in the future on the number of cases in which judges have been asked to consider a public interest immunity certificate.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to collate information about applications to courts arising out of public interest immunity certificates.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has introduced 33 Acts of Parliament, including consolidation Acts, which have received Royal Assent since 1990. Of those, the following Acts contain specific references to local authorities:

  Capital Allowances Act 1990 (c.1)

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8)

  Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c.9)

  Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (c.10)

  Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 (c.11)

  Water Industry Act 1991 (c.56)

  Water Resources Act 1991 (c.57)

  Land Drainage Act 1991 (c.59)

  Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 (c.60)

  Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)

  Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992 (c.6)

  Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.8)

  Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.9)

  Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (c.12)

  Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c.52)

  237

  Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c.8)

  Charities Act 1993 (c.10)

  Clean Air Act 1993 (c.11)

  Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (c.12)

  Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c.46)

  Probation Service Act 1993 (c.47)

  Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c.48)

  Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c.49)

  Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993 (c.50)

  Other Acts of Parliament introduced by the Lord Chancellor's Department may affect local government in the same way as other bodies and individuals may be affected.

ENVIRONMENT

  Right to Buy
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council properties were sold in the Breckland district council area under the right to buy legislation in each year of its operation.

  Sir George Young
  Tables showing the available information on total right-to-buy sales for each English local authority and every financial year since 1980, with a cumulative total to December 1993, are in the Library.

  In addition to some 2,500 dwellings sold under the right-to-buy legislation in Breckland district council since 1980, about 6,700 properties in full ownership were transferred from the authority to the Peddars Way housing association in March 1993, by way of large-scale voluntary transfer. Over the last 15 years, approximately 1,200 other voluntary sales were completed in Breckland; these are also shown in the tables.

  Environmental Measures
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to support emerging environmental industries and clean processes in British business and industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government already provide considerable support and encouragement to the development of the United Kingdom's emerging environmental industries. For example, my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry established the joint environmental markets unit in December 1992 to assist and encourage United Kingdom firms to exploit the expanding opportunities in the world market for environmental goods and services. A growing number of firms are now taking advantage of the unit's services.

  The President of the Board of Trade announced on 7 December that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment would jointly run a new environmental technology best practice programme. This will find and present to industry examples of how firms can reduce costs and pollution at one and the same time. The programme's main objective will be to encourage user companies to adopt environmentally favourable technology and best practice in environmental management. It will also encourage suppliers to develop such technology and techniques.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons funding for the 238
  environmental technology innovation scheme and the environmental management options scheme has been reduced.

  Mr. Atkins
  Both the environmental technology innovation scheme and the DTI's environmental management options scheme were three-year programmes which were open to grant applications between October 1990 and September 1993. Funding continues to be paid to on-going projects under the schemes and for disseminating their results.

  The 1993 White Paper "Realising our potential: a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" highlighted the importance of the spread of best practice and the transfer and diffusion of technology. The new £16 million environmental technology best practice programme, which was announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 7 December, has been set up to take this forward and will build on the earlier two schemes.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he considers that more stringent environmental regulations are necessary if British exports are to pass the environmental standards of other countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  A recent report commissioned by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry concluded that United Kingdom firms are in a good position to exploit the rapidly expanding world market for environmental goods and services. The United Kingdom environmental industry is very competitive internationally and a highly successful exporter for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage environmental technology in British industries that would produce less waste and use fewer natural resources.

  Mr. Atkins
  A new environmental technology best practice programme, run jointly by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, was announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 7 December. It will make the best environmental technology and techniques more widely known to potential users and suppliers. The programme will have a strong emphasis on reducing waste at source, thereby making better use of natural resources.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to favour contractors with good environmental practices in its own purchases.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's procurement officers have already been provided with clear guidelines to integrate environmental factors into their buying requirements. This is in accordance with the Department's green housekeeping policy statement which was updated in March 1993 and the recently published green guide for suppliers of goods and services to the Department entitled: "Selling to DOE".

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that products purchased by the Government should be tested for energy and non-renewable resource implications.

  Mr. Atkins
  Decisions on purchasing are a matter for individual Departments. However, recent Treasury
  239
  guidance states that specifications for goods and services should reflect the Department's environmental strategies while using competition and seeking best value for money.

  My own Department has recently published a guide entitled "Selling to DOE" which, among, other things, informs suppliers of goods and services of our requirement for products which are energy efficient and made from recycled or renewable materials. The Department has also instructed its procurement officers to give preference to such products in accordance with our green housekeeping policy statement which was first published in 1992 and updated last spring.

  My Department's energy efficiency office encourages Departments to improve all aspects of their energy efficiency, including purchasing, to assist them in achieving their target of improving their energy efficiency by 15 per cent. over five years.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to impose mandatory minimum standards on matters such as energy efficiency.

  Mr. Atkins
  Standards for the energy efficiency of new buildings already exist in the building regulations. The Government are in the process of revising the regulations which should lead to an improvement in energy efficiency of between 25 and 35 per cent. compared with the current provisions.

  The Government also support the EC proposals for energy labelling and minimum standards of appliances, provided that they can be achieved without excessive costs to consumers and manufacturers. Regulations to implement a directive setting minimum standards for the efficiency of new boilers came into force on 1 January 1994. Minimum standards requirements for the efficiency of other heating appliances await the formulation of appropriate European standards under the construction products directive.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which environmental regulations on industry could improve their competitiveness while protecting natural resources.

  Mr. Atkins
  We keep under constant review both the effectiveness and the effects of existing and possible new environmental regulations, as well as alternatives to regulations.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount of unallocated funds available under the single regeneration budget and the areas for which these funds are being considered.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the current financial year—1994–95 —the funds available under the single regeneration budget will be taken up in meeting existing commitments from the programmes which have been brought together in the Budget.

  In 1995–96, on current estimates, it is expected that about £100 million will be available to support new bids from local partnerships. The budget will be available throughout England. Guidance on bidding for these funds has been published by my Department today, 14 April. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce his decision on the Dartmoor national park boundary variation order submitted to him by the Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has today confirmed, with modifications, the order to vary the boundary of the Dartmoor national park. The Commission proposed 16 additions and 11 deletions, aimed at aligning the boundary with new trunk roads—the A30(T)—and the A38(T)—and adding small areas of common land which are subject to the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. The modifications made to the order by my right hon. Friend retain two small areas proposed for deletion at Whistley Cottage and Cheriton Bishop. In the china clay area, land at Lee Moor will be deleted and at Shaugh Moor added, thereby retaining within the park those areas subject to the order which are presently unworked and whose landscape remains of national importance.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue guidance to English Partnerships, following his consultation last August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to announce that, following careful consideration of over 200 responses to the consultation draft, my right hon. Friend has today issued guidance to English Partnerships. Copies are available in the Library of the House. English Partnerships is required to have regard to this guidance in deciding which land is suitable for regeneration or development; which function it is to exercise for securing the regeneration or development of any particular land; and how it is to exercise those functions. The guidance will be kept under review and can be amended later if necessary.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are considering the large-scale voluntary transfer of housing stock.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: The following 12 authorities are included in the 1994–95 programme for large-scale voluntary transfers—LSVTs: Basingstoke and Deane borough council Castle Point borough council Cherwell district council Maldon district council Malvern Hills district council Mid Bedfordshire district council North Dorset district council Penwith district council Thanet district council Vale of White Horse district council Walsall metropolitan borough council and Wychavon district council.

  We encourage all authorities to consider the possibility of transfer, but it is for individual councils together with their tenants to decide whether to pursue this option. I understand that a number of authorities are considering applying for places on the 1995–96 programme. We are likely to invite applications in the autumn and I hope to announce the names of successful applicants by the end of the year.

TRANSPORT

  Drivers' Sleep Requirements
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has issued as to the minimum sleep requirements within 24-hour and seven-day periods for(a) airline pilots, (b) train drivers, (c) lorry drivers and (d) coach drivers.

  Mr. Key
  The Air Navigation Order 1989 requires that no member of an aircraft crew shall fly, nor shall an operator require him to fly, if either has reason to believe that he is suffering, or likely to suffer while flying, from fatigue which may endanger the safety of the aircraft or its occupants. Aircraft operators are also required to establish a scheme for the regulation of flight times for aircrews. Such schemes need to be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  The CAA's civil aviation publication 317 "The Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews" gives guidance on requirements for operator's flight time limitation schemes. Flight time limitation schemes do not set out minimum sleep requirements but specify maximum duty periods and minimum rests periods. The actual working of the schemes are complex but, in general, the maximum duty hours for aircrew should not exceed 55 hours in one week.

  The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulation 1994 places a duty on all railway employers to prevent employees with key safety responsibilities from working excessive hours. The Health and Safety Executive's non-statutory guidance recommends that train drivers should under normal circumstances have a minimum rest period of at least 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period. Further guidance will be given in a statutory approved code of practice to be produced by the Health and Safety Executive by March 1995.

  For most heavy goods vehicle drivers and about half bus and coach drivers Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 on drivers' hours limits driving hours—nine hours a day which may be increased to 10 hours twice a week—breaks —a break or breaks totalling 45 minutes must be taken during or after 4.5 hours of driving—and rest periods—11 consecutive hours daily rest, reducible to nine hours three times a week, and 45 consecutive hours weekly rest, reducible to 36 hours or 24 hours away from base.

  The remainder, which include drivers of vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on a regular service of not more than 50 km are exempt from EC regulations and are subject to domestic drivers' hours rules.

  The domestic rules for heavy goods vehicles limit the daily driving period of 10 hours and a maximum working day/duty time to 11 hours. The domestic rules for public service vehicles differ from those for HGVs. The daily driving period of 10 hours per day is the same, but the maximum working day/duty time is 16 hours. There is also a 5·5 hour limit on continuous driving and a 10 hour daily rest requirement.

  Booklets providing guidance on the regulations for both lorry and coach drivers are available from local traffic area offices.

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the contracts currently being worked on for his Department by Coopers and Lybrand,242
  Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Binder Hamlyn, Robson Rhodes, Levy Gee, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Hayward.

  Mr. Norris
  The following of the firms referred to are carrying out contracts for the Department.

  Coopers and Lybrand
  Birmingham Northern Relief Road—financial advice.
  Advice on possible sale of vehicle records database.
  Review of Department's motorway communication maintenance contracts.

  Ernst and Young
  Advice on the use of project management systems in connection with the privatisation of British Rail.
  Development of a commercial accounting system for the Coast Guard Agency.

  Price Waterhouse
  Advice on Design Build Finance and Operate contracts and longer term private finance options associated with motorway charging (jointly with Hambros Bank).
  Sale of London Buses Limited subsidiaries.
  Sale of the Trust Ports.
  Royal train audit.

  KPMG Peat Marwick
  Commission to examine the business case for establishing a database of lighting on trunk roads and motorways.
  Scoping study to determine availability of time-cost systems on the market for highways and project management.
  Accountancy and taxation advice in connection with Rail privatisation.
  Grant audit of London Transport.
  Development of software—Routine Maintenance Management system (RMMS).
  Development of software—UK Pavement Management System (UKPMS).

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the rules governing the independent evaluation of the environmental assessment of the channel tunnel rail link, giving the criteria against which any such evaluation is to be judged.

  Mr. Freeman
  The environmental assessment rules for Bills authorising works are contained in Standing Order No. 27A. Where, as in the case of the new channel tunnel rail link, an environmental statement is required, it must be deposited by the promoter soon after the Bill. It must contain all the information set out in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which are based on the requirements of EC Directive 85/337.

  The environmental statement for the new channel tunnel rail link is being prepared for Union Railways by Environmental Resources Management and other specialist consultants. As part of a review for the Government of Union Railway's route development methodology in 1992–93, W. S. Atkins examined and endorsed the

  243
  approach to environmental assessment. Further reviews in relation to the route have not been considered necessary. It will be for Parliament, and the Bill Select Committee in particular, to scrutinise the environmental statement, with the benefit of submissions by petitioners and the promoter.

  Thames Riverbus Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost to public funds of the riverbus service on the River Thames during the period of its operation.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1989, a grant payment of £500,000 was made to the River Bus partnership by the Departments of Transport and of the Environment towards promotion and improvement of the service, conditional upon private sector investment of up to £2 million from five private sector developers, headed by Olympia and York. No other public funds were awarded and the service continued to operate at a loss, despite heavy subsidy from the private sector, until its demise in August 1993. Further contributions from public funds could not have been justified, as in transport terms the service represented poor value for money.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy at the next European Transport Council to press for the admission to the standing working group on the transport of radioactive materials of non-governmental organisations as observers.

  Mr. Norris
  No. The standing working group, set up at the request of the European Parliament in 1982 and administered by the Directorate-General for Energy—DG XVII—already has the power to invite non-governmental representatives to its meetings.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions met the President of the Republic of Northern Cyprus either in her present capacity or when head of the Serious Fraud Office; and what subjects were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has never met the President of the Republic of Northern Cyprus.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the existing assessments were reduced as a result of the child support formula changes on 7 February; how many absent parents were entitled to type A transitional protection before 7 February; how many absent parents have applied for type B transitional protection since 7 February; how many of these applications have been processed to date; and how many of these qualified for the new transitional protection.
  244
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 13 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Services about the impact of the policy changes to Child Support introduced on 7 February.
  As a result of the formula changes around 37% of eligible assessments were reduced.
  At 30 March, 2,226 absent parents whose maintenance liability had been assessed prior to 7 February 1993 had applied for transitional protection under the new arrangements, and over 1,900 cases had been processed. Of these transitional protection had been awarded to 840 absent parents. In addition, absent parents whose maintenance is assessed on or after 7 February have automatically been considered for transitional protection under the new arrangements.
  Figures are not available on the number of absent parents entitled to type A transitional protection prior to 7 February.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Lone Parents
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in receipt of income support and maintenance are subject to the diversion procedure; and what proportion of maintenance orders in favour of lone parents on income support are subject to this procedure.

  Mr. Burt
  The total number of income support cases subject to diversion procedure is 60,927. Of these, 46,370 are lone parents with children whose cases are awaiting the completion of a maintenance assessment by the Child Support Agency. Statistics on the proportion of lone parents on income support whose maintenance orders are subject to the diversion procedure are not kept.

  Family Credit Payments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the money saved from(a) reduced housing benefit payments and (b) reduced council tax payments arising out of the family credit payments in respect of child care for working mothers.

  Mr. Burt
  Payments to all those already in work who begin to use the new earnings disregard in respect of child care costs will increase by an estimated £30 million in housing benefit and £5 million in council tax benefit in a full year at 1994–95 prices. Payments to the estimated 50,000 who commence work because of the introduction of the disregard will be reduced by an estimated £45 million in housing benefit and £10 million in council tax benefit.

  Income Support
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost to the Exchequer of income support to each successful applicant.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in table 2.1 of the May 1993 "Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the terms of reference of the research into the Benefits Agency service delivery to 16
  245
  and 17-year-olds carried out by the child abuse studies unit of London university; what were its main findings; if he will place a copy of the final report in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The report by the child abuse studies unit of London university into service delivery to 16 to 17-year-olds is an operational matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 13 April 1994;
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the report by the Child Abuse Studies Unit of London University into service delivery to 16 and 17 year olds.
  The report to which you refer was not commissioned as a research document, but as an internal consultancy exercise looking at ways of improving service to this group of customers, and as such the Benefits Agency does not intend to publish the document.
  The terms of reference were to investigate the standard of service delivery, identify good practices and areas of concern, establish an understanding of the needs of 16 and 17 year olds, identify the level of knowledge and information needs of advice workers, assess training needs of Benefits Agency staff, and evaluate pre/post claim information.
  The report made a number of recommendations under headings such as Training, Publicity, Local Practice and Payment. Many of these recommendations refer to good practices to adopt when dealing with claims from young people. Guidance to staff in Benefits Agency District Offices is in the form of a Handbook called "Income Support for 16/17 year olds" and contains a section on good practices. This Handbook has been revised recently and where possible the recommendations from this report have been incorporated in the revised Handbook. The revised version has been in District Offices since mid-March 1994. A copy of the Handbook is already in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many severe weather payments have been made in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole since November 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the cold weather payment scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Laurance to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 13 April 1994.
  As Michael Bichard is on sick leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked how many Cold Weather Payments had been made in Greenock and Port Glasgow, Strathclyde, and Scotland as a whole since November 1993.
  Details on Cold Weather Payments made are available for each Benefit Agency District. The attached appendix gives details for the Clyde Coast and Cowal District which comprises the Greenock and Port Glasgow branch offices. As there is no single Benefit Agency District covering Strathclyde I supplied the details for the Districts that fall within the Scotland and Northern Benefit Agency Area Directorate.
  I hope my reply has been helpful.
  246

  Appendix: Number of cold weather payments 1 November 1993 to 31 March 1994

  BA District

  Number

  Clyde Coast and Cowal (comprising Greenock and Port Glasgow)

  25,081

  Strathclyde

  Benefit Agency Districts:

  Glasgow City

  —

  Glasgow East

  —

  Glasgow Laurieston

  —

  Glasgow South West

  —

  Glasgow West

  —

  Renfrew

  —

  Springburn and Cumbernauld

  271,416

  Scotland as a whole

  840,578

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Temazepam
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the incidence of criminal activity involving the drug Temazepam.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received two letters this year from Members of Parliament concerning criminal activity committed by people under the influence of the drug Temazepam. Both letters were from hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-east, and were prompted by the tragic murder of Sgt. Bill Forth on Tyneside.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, concerning the case of Anthony O'Kere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the hon. Members who have written to him concerning the case of John Kamara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Mr. Kamara maintains that he was wrongfully convicted in 1981 of murder and robbery. One hundred and four hon. Members and others have since written on his behalf. All of the matters raised in representations received have been carefully considered, but no grounds have come to light which would justify any action by my right hon. and learned Friend in respect of Mr. Kamara's conviction.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially motivated attacks have occurred in(a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available centrally relates to reported racial incidents, rather than racial
  247
  attacks, as defined by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Figures for Merseyside are given in the table. Information for Liverpool is not collected centrally.

  Number of racial incidents in Merseyside

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1988

  136

  1989

  123

  1990

  144

  1991

  162

  1992

  134

  ACPO definition: Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motive, or any incidents which include allegations of racial motivation made by any person.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to combat racially motivated crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 3 March 1994 at column 821-22 for details of the practical steps being taken by the Government to combat racial violence. Since then, the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986—publication or distribution of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred —an arrestable offence. The Government are also studying ways to deal with persistent harassment. Any further steps will be taken in the light of the report of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into racial attacks and harassment when it is published.

  Prison Service
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department when the Prison Service will publish its next corporate plan.

  Mr. Howard
  The Prison Service has published its corporate plan for 1994–97. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which species of octopus are being used for scientific procedures in Great Britain which might cause pain or lasting harm.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer to my reply to the previous question from the hon. Member for Dundee, East on 11 March at column 415. Octopus vulgaris were included within the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 from 1 October 1993. Information on any scientific use of this species during the remainder of 1993 will be included in the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals 1993" to be published later this year.

  Project licence authority is not required for the use of other octopus species in scientific procedures, and information about such use is not collected.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total annual budget for special constables in England and Wales in each year since 1979;

  (2) what was the total annual budget for special constables for each constabulary in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not centrally available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Each police force has its own special constabulary which is funded centrally through the police grant. There is no separate financial provision for special constables, and such budgetary information is not centrally collected.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables were on establishment in England and Wales in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many special constables were on establishment in England and Wales in each constabulary in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Special constables are not included in the assessment of police establishments. They are usually recruited on a divisional basis to supplement the numbers of regular officers, although there is currently a national campaign to encourage members of the public to volunteer.

  Available statistics for the number of volunteers serving in special constabularies in England and Wales in 1980–1993 are given in table A. Figures for 1979 are not available.

  The figures provided by individual constabularies for the years 1989–1993 are given in table B.

  Table A

  Year

  Number

  1980

  15,108

  1981

  14,978

  1982

  15,160

  1983

  15,331

  1984

  16,012

  1985

  16,161

  1986

  16,070

  1987

  16,209

  1988

  15,788

  1989

  15,589

  1990

  15,881

  1991

  18,073

  1992

  19,243

  1993

  20,566

  Table B

  Forces

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  503

  536

  568

  712

  770

  Bedfordshire

  137

  122

  167

  199

  192

  Cambridge

  169

  173

  198

  182

  245

  Cheshire

  219

  244

  299

  274

  387

  City of London

  60

  56

  68

  85

  89

  Cleveland

  139

  143

  177

  195

  232

  Cumbria

  210

  193

  246

  230

  248

  Derbyshire

  251

  275

  347

  335

  423

  Devon and Cornwall

  852

  913

  984

  946

  1,067

  Dorset

  218

  214

  254

  263

  239

  Durham

  149

  152

  165

  203

  258

  Dyfed-Powys

  189

  210

  315

  260

  271

  Essex

  445

  482

  642

  759

  751

  249

  Forces

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Gloucestershire

  209

  206

  224

  274

  315

  Greater Manchester

  473

  517

  530

  570

  617

  Gwent

  95

  76

  80

  101

  109

  Hampshire

  362

  369

  529

  587

  611

  Hertfordshire

  203

  206

  202

  247

  294

  Humberside

  249

  273

  316

  422

  446

  Kent

  500

  501

  484

  554

  587

  Lancashire

  432

  377

  474

  539

  565

  Leicestershire

  327

  357

  371

  379

  392

  Lincolnshire

  365

  356

  397

  416

  383

  Merseyside

  296

  295

  340

  367

  389

  Norfolk

  269

  268

  312

  346

  366

  North Wales

  175

  199

  256

  295

  298

  North Yorkshire

  334

  383

  387

  388

  497

  Northamptonshire

  240

  218

  271

  302

  330

  Northumbria

  538

  534

  571

  512

  517

  Nottinghamshire

  485

  470

  556

  593

  551

  South Wales

  261

  257

  352

  432

  534

  South Yorkshire

  316

  317

  371

  412

  473

  Staffordshire

  566

  592

  702

  733

  770

  Suffolk

  329

  354

  373

  386

  414

  Surrey

  174

  215

  214

  251

  232

  Sussex

  530

  495

  571

  548

  512

  Thames Valley

  568

  532

  564

  606

  623

  Warwickshire

  347

  361

  384

  350

  350

  West Mercia

  542

  509

  526

  611

  629

  West Midlands

  673

  743

  843

  955

  918

  West Yorkshire

  568

  562

  735

  613

  708

  Wiltshire

  269

  261

  273

  322

  349

  Provincial Total

  14,236

  14,516

  16,638

  17,754

  18,951

  Metropolitan Police

  1,353

  1,365

  1,435

  1,489

  1,615

  England and Wales Total

  15,589

  15,881

  18,073

  19,243

  20,566

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes he proposes to(a) the duties and (b) the powers of special constables;

  (2) how the duties and powers of special constables have altered over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The deployment of special constables and the duties to which they may be assigned always has been, and continues to be, an operational decision for which chief officers are responsible and which varies according to local circumstances and the training, experience and preferences of the special constables concerned. No changes have been made to the powers of special constables over the past 10 years: nor are any changes currently being contemplated.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were worked by special constables(a) per week and (b) per month in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1985.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not centrally available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Evidence on Commission
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will evaluate for use in England and Wales the system for allowing children to give evidence on commission, as d in Scotland.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to consider the adequacy of current legislative provisions relating to the evidence of 250
  children in criminal proceedings when the findings of Professor Graham Davies' research become available at the end of this year. As part of that consideration we shall certainly take into account the early experience of the Scottish courts in taking evidence from children on commission.

  Pagans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Prison Service Chaplaincy has for publishing a section on pagans in its Directory and Guide on Religious Practice; and what are the reasons for this decision.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. David Alton, dated 14 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to publish a section on paganism in the Prison Service Directory and Guide on Religious Practice.
  There are currently no plans to include a section on paganism in the Directory and Guide, although consultation is taking place to obtain more information on such groups and their beliefs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Parcelforce and Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many working days have passed since the start of the Parcelforce and Post Office reviews; what the total expenditure up to the present date has been; and what the average expenditure on consultancy for each day of the review process has been.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government announced their intention to privatise Parcelforce on 15 July 1992,Official Report, column 1137 and announced the review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office on 29 July 1992. From these dates to 31 March 1994 there were 435 and 425 working days respectively. Expenditure on consultancy advice stands at £1,366,204.97 to date, representing an average of approximately £3,150 per working day.

  Trans-European Energy Networks
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy in respect of projects al, a2, cl, d10, el, fl and f2, listed in the annex containing projects of common interest, to the European Commission paper on guidelines for trans-European energy networks.

  Mr. Eggar
  The proposals are one aspect of continuing discussions between member states on trans-European networks. We consider that the criteria for identifying potential projects should be established before considering any list of specific projects. In our view, the criteria should recognise the principle of not supporting projects which are economically unviable, or which are capable of being financed by the private sector.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the DTI research establishments.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I announced on 4 May last year that I had commenced a review of the options for the future of my Department's laboratories. This review, carried out with the aid of KPMG Peat Marwick management consultants, is now complete, and I am announcing my intentions for the future of the three major establishments: the National Engineering Laboratory—NEL—the Laboratory of the Government Chemist—LGC—arid the National Physical Laboratory—NPL. During the process of finalising these proposals, my Department has kept in close touch with the team undertaking the current multi-departmental efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments.

  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses the summary report I have received from the consultants KPMG Peat Marwick. This summary necessarily excludes information the publication of which might be prejudicial to the taxpayer's interest in the negotiations surrounding these privatisations.

  The DTI's laboratories are an important national resource and each of them plays a significant role in ensuring the competitiveness of British industry, and in meeting the needs of Government Departments. In the past few years they have been established as executive agencies within my Department under the "next steps" initiative. This has involved financing themselves principally from fee income, earned on contracts placed by arm's length customers. Their customers are in the private sector, in other Government Departments and in my own Department. Under this management regime the laboratories have become more focused in their work, more sensitive to their customers' requirements, and more cost-efficient. They have a good record of meeting the targets Ministers have set them, and of improving their performance from year to year.

  In the light of reductions in their prospective work load, these laboratories face the need to reduce and restructure their operations and to seek new business and new customers. At the same time, the progress they have made as executive agencies, although it has been impressive, has also revealed more sharply the limitations inherent in operating on a commercial basis within a Government Department. In their ability both to raise and use capital and to develop and exploit the widest possible markets for their services they do not have the flexibilities they would possess in the private sector. All of the laboratories are now facing competition, and are experiencing declining work loads reflecting both that competition and the Government's changing research priorities. In response, the laboratories have improved their efficiency, but now need more flexibility to continue doing so.

  My review has convinced me that each of these laboratories will respond best to these challenges within the private sector, and that once they are set free from the constraints of operating within Government, they will be better able both to serve their existing customers and to market their services to new customers, above all in industry. These laboratories all have a unique asset In the expertise of their staff, which is respected internationally.
  252
  In the private sector there will be more scope for that expertise to be applied to the advantage of British industry. The laboratories will remain first class institutions.

  The NEL's role is that of a technology services enterprise serving customers in the private and public sectors. A decision has already been announced that it will be prepared for privatisation once it has established its commercial viability. For some years now the NEL's aim has been to reach this point in 1994–95, so that the process of privatisation can be set in hand during 1995. It has made major progress towards these targets, and my review has now confirmed them in spite of major changes in its programme of activities, reflecting changing priorities within my Department's research and technology spending. These changes will make substantial restructuring necessary, following which I intend to seek a trade purchaser of the NEL during the summer of 1995.

  The LGC's role is to provide chemical analysis and measurement services to several Government Departments and other bodies. A key asset is its independence and its reputation for impartiality. I have decided to pursue the recommendation of my consultants that it should be established as an independent non-profit-distributing company in the private sector. Preparations for this will be put in hand immediately, including a major restructuring programme, and I hope to complete the process by the end of 1995–96. However my mind is not closed to the possibility of a trade sale of the LGC, if a suitable buyer comes forward who can demonstrate the requisite independence.

  The NPL's main task is to develop and disseminate national measurement standards. Its dominant customer is my Department's national measurement system policy unit. Although this position will remain, the laboratory needs to continue restructuring to adapt itself to a reduced budget for work of this kind. Although the efficiency of the NPL has continued to increase steadily as an executive agency, it now needs to achieve further significant restructuring. I have come to the conclusion that this will be more effectively achieved if its management is contracted to the private sector. I thus intend to invite proposals for a management contractor during 1995. Commercial progress under the management contractors will be carefully reviewed, and might in due course result in the NPL becoming ready to move into private sector ownership.

  I shall separately be considering the future of the National Measurement Accreditation Service, part of the NPL, which the consultants felt should be viable on its own and could more appropriately operate independently of the NPL.

  Although all these laboratories are finding an increasing proportion of their business from the private sector, my review has made it clear that their success under private sector ownership or management will depend on their ability to bid on fair and equal terms for business from customers in my own and other Government Departments. Those taking on the responsibility of their ownership and management will naturally need to be assured that these opportunities will be available. It is the clear intention of the Government that they will be. The White Paper "Realising our Potential" (CM2250) sets out our commitment that competitive tendering procedures must become the normal method of placing work.

  These decisions represent major changes for all three establishments and their staff. The changes will enable the

  253
  NEL, the NPL and the LGC to take better advantage of new opportunities and to forge new and successful futures for themselves. The planning of this process is a complex task requiring thorough co-ordination. To assist in pushing it through with all vigour I have appointed the PA Consulting Group to act as project managers.

  The consultants also considered future options for the National Weights and Measures Laboratory—NWML. They recommended no major change but I am looking at possibilities which the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will offer for contracting out some of the NWML's services. I will be making a further announcement in due course.

  Electricity
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects amendments to the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990 to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In December of last year, I announced a number of forthcoming amendments to the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990.

  I have today laid before Parliament an order which will bring four of the five amendments that I announced into effect. These are:
  raising the amount of power that may be provided by small generators in certain circumstances without requiring a generation licence;
  removing the condition that an own-generator requires a supply licence unless at least 51 per cent. of the electricity from his generating station goes to qualifying customers on the own-generators' site;
  allowing companies to resell limited amounts of electricity purchased from a second tier supplier or own generator to franchise consumers located on their site; and
  removal of the requirement that most exempt generators who have stations over 200 kW capacity must notify the Secretary of State of their name and address.

  My officials have also considered further the fifth of these amendments, to allow more companies to be included in a "qualifying group" of consumers that may be supplied by an own-generator without requiring a licence. I expect to lay a separate order covering this amendment shortly.

  These changes will reduce the regulatory burden on small generators, own generators and consumers who sell on a small proportion of the electricity they purchase. Consumers should also be helped by the undertaking on pool prices and the sale of generating plant that the Director General of Electricity Supply received from the main generators in February. I also note that DTI figures now show that the average electricity price paid by manufacturing industry in Great Britain fell by nearly 7 per cent. between 1989—before the electricity industry was vested—and 1993. This is further evidence of the success of electricity privatisation.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what developments have been made, since his announcement on 14 December 1992, in exploring how the small firms loan guarantee scheme can be improved through linking loans with appropriate help, advice and training in business skills.
  254
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am pleased to announce, subject to contract negotiations, the funding of 10 pilot projects which will offer advice and counselling to borrowers under the loan guarantee scheme. The pilot projects will start as soon as possible and will run for three years. The pilots will operate in the areas covered by the following:

  Avon TEC

  Birmingham Business Link

  Doncaster Business Link

  Hertfordshire TEC

  Tyneside TEC

  Metro TEC (Wigan)

  Kent TEC

  South Thames TEC

  Fife Enterprise

  Tayside Enterprise

  European Union Fifth Directive
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which aspects of the European Union's fifth directive he has opposed.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am opposed to a number of provisions in the fifth company law directive including the requirements for employee participation in public companies with 1,000 or more employees and for executive directors to be in a minority on company boards. I am also opposed to the inclusion in the directive of articles on the adoption and auditing of accounts.

  Israel
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trade figures between the United Kingdom and Israel over the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The trade figures between the United Kingdom and Israel for the past five years are shown in the table:

  United Kingdom trade with Israel—1989 to 1993

  (£ millions)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Imports

  480

  506

  456

  485

  550

  Exports

  502

  568

  531

  586

  876

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade (Business Monitor MA20).

  Novelty Fund
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy with regard to the novelty fund; if he will make a statement as to how much is in it; and what it does.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: I am unaware of this fund.

  Enterprise Budget
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the total enterprise budget for small firms for training and enterprise councils, for the last three financial years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: The total enterprise budget for small firms for training and enterprise councils for the last three financial years is:

  255

  £million

  1991–92

  156·98

  1992–93

  153·90

  1993–94

  162·19

WALES

  Consultation Documents
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 634, if he will list the consultation documents and indicate where the information about them is held.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House and will be updated regularly. Copies of the consultative documents are available from my Department.

  Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the contracts currently being worked on for his Department by Coopers and Lybrand, Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, BDO Binder Hamlyn, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes, Levy Gee, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Hayward.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office currently has contracts with four of the firms mentioned. These are as follows:

  Coopers and Lybrand
  Evaluation of the advice and guidance credits initiative, commissioned jointly by the Welsh Office and the Department of Employment.
  Financial accountancy support on the monitoring of NHS trusts in Wales.

  KPMG Peat Marwick
  Financial appraisal of local authority waste disposal transfer scheme. Advice on the Milk Marketing Board's scheme of reorganisation.

  Pannell Kerr Forster
  GP fundholding—manual of accounts helpline.

  Price Waterhouse
  Financial accountancy support on the monitoring of NHS trusts in Wales.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the position of the ambulance service in Wales in relation to the citizens charter; what is the response time expected for an emergency call; what arrangements have been made for monitoring the speed of response to emergency calls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The patients charter requires that an emergency ambulance should arrive within 14 minutes in an urban area, 18 minutes within a rural area or 21 minutes within a sparsely populated area. In Wales these response times are expected to be met in 95 per cent. of calls. Performance is monitored quarterly and the target is being met for Wales.

  School Buildings (Repair and Maintenance)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the amount spent on repair and maintenance of school buildings by local education authorities in Wales for each financial year since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is given in the following table. Figures for 1992–93 onwards are not yet available.

  Gross current expenditure on repair and maintenance of school buildings, fixed plant and grounds1

  £000

  1989–90

  33,807

  1990–91

  36,984

  1991–92

  40,867

  Source: Local authority returns.

  1Excludes capital expenditure on new buildings, land or plant. Includes salaries of building maintenance workers and groundsmen, cost of materials, recharges by external agencies, charges from direct service organisations, architects, engineers and surveyors and expenditure on energy conservation and on health and safety. Excludes salaries of caretakers, cleaners etc.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidance to both directly managed units and hospital trusts regarding the segregation of clinical waste.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance to both directly managed units and NHS trusts on the management of clinical waste, including segregation, was issued on 30 November 1993 and 21 February 1994.

  CTF Training Courses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to continue the training courses of members of CTF consequent upon the closure on 31 March.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  North East Wales TEC is working with CTF and the Employment Service to arrange counselling and assessment interviews and to identify suitable alternative opportunities. All participants affected will be given the opportunity to continue their programmes.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the closure of the CTF training centre, Shotton, Clwyd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The North East Wales training and enterprise council and CTF did not reach agreement on renewal of a contract for 1994–95. The TEC is working with CTF and the local employment service to ensure suitable alternative training provision for the participants on Government training programmes who are affected.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been trained at the CTF training centre; and how many were undergoing training up to 31 March.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the year up to 31 March 1994, 80 people were trained at the centre with 51 still in training at 31 March.

  Welsh Pre-School Playgroups Association
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to make grant funding available to the Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association has been awarded a grant of £164,400 to help meet its central administrative and service delivery targets in 1994–95.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Desertification
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in the United Kingdom overseas aid programme he expects will result from the negotiation of a global convention to combat desertification.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This will depend on the provisions of the final text although we do not expect the United Kingdom aid programme, which already gives attention to the issues involved, to require major changes. The negotiations are giving high priority to the problems facing many African countries; this region already benefits from a substantial share of our aid.

  Palestinians
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide(a) emergency aid and (b) development finance during 1994 for the Palestinians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are ready to respond to emergencies as they occur. For example, following the Hebron mosque massacre on Friday 25 February, we made an immediate contribution of £34,000 towards the expenses of a surgical team of 10 Jordanian specialists, specialist supplies in support of the team and subsequent nursing, followed by a further £51,000 for hospital equipment. We have also given ·500,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross, in response to an appeal for its work in Israel and the occupied territories.

  Development finance in support of the peace process will continue to be provided during 1994 through multilateral programmes, including those of the EC and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and our bilateral technical assistance programme.

  Iraqi Exiles
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom has given to Turkey and Iran in respect of the exodus of 2 million Iraqi Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldaeans, Yezidis and Turcomans after the uprising in March 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Neither the Turkish nor the Iranian Governments sought assistance from the United Kingdom Government. However, since the 1991 crisis we have contributed over £2 million to helping Iraqi refugees in Iran. Details were given to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 25 January at columns 133-34.
  258
  We have given substantial assistance to all the groups mentioned through the UN agencies and non-governmental organisations.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all payments made by the Overseas Development Administration in relation to the Pergau dam project, with the dates they were made and the amount of the payment made in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration has made over 200 payments in respect of this project since signature of the financial intergovernmental arrangement in July 1991. These fall into two categories:(a) interest rate support payments made to the Export Credits Guarantee Department to reduce the interest rate charged by the lending banks and (b) payments to consultants for technical, financial and environmental monitoring of the project. The cost of (a) has been: 1991–92, £1·882 million; 1992–93, £7·835 million; 1993–94, £14·650 million. The cost of (b) has been 1991–92, £0·039 million; 1992–93, £0·210 million; 1993–94, £0·170 million.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date the contract was signed between Her Majesty's Government and the Malaysian Electricity Company for funding of the Pergau project;

  (2) on what date the formal agreement to finance the Pergau project was signed by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malaysia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government are not party to the contract between the contractor and Tenaga Nasional Berhad for this project. Her Majesty's Government signed a financial arrangement with the Malaysian Government in respect of the project on 8 July 1991.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all British institutions and companies receiving funds from the British aid programme in each of the last five years, listing the amount of funds received by each of the institutions and companies for each of those years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the ATP projects of over £5,000,000 in value in the past 10 years where the escalation factor has been over 10 per cent. after the firm contract proposal has been made by the Government; and if he will name the contractors involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the extent to which British and other non-governmental organisations are seeking to work in Burma and on what projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration does not hold detailed information on the plans of individual non-governmental organisations seeking to work in Burma. However, our contacts with the NGO umbrella group, BOND—British Overseas NGOs for Development—indicate that there are around 13 British NGOs with differing degrees of interest in working in Burma across a variety of sectors. We are currently supporting one British NGO which is involved in English language teaching and teacher training activities.

  We have no information on NGOs from other countries seeking to work in Burma.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the expenditure of his contribution to the Liberian trust fund.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The details of expenditure are for the UN to decide, on the understanding that our contribution of $1 million is restricted to the fund's humanitarian purposes. We understand that $251,000 is committed to a public information campaign to encourage national reconciliation and to facilitate disarmament, and a further $16,000 will help ex-combatants to resume their studies at the university of Liberia. The balance will be used for humanitarian needs connected to the demobilisation programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Department
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission how many cases of dismissal of Refreshment Department staff have resulted in industrial tribunals in each of the past five years; how many have resulted in decisions against management; what was the total cost to Parliament of(a) being represented at tribunals and (b) awards against the Department over the same period; and what was the total cost of out-of-court settlements, pre-tribunal agreements and compensation awards over the same period.

  Mr. Beith
  In the past five years there has been one case of dismissal from the Refreshment Department which resulted in the member of staff concerned appealing to an industrial tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. The member of staff was dismissed on disciplinary grounds on 22 June 1989. The case was heard on 4 December 1989. The industrial tribunal found in favour of the complainant but in doing so acknowledged his contribution to the dismissal, which was placed at 60 per cent.

  The complainant sought reinstatement but the tribunal found neither reinstatement nor re-engagement appropriate. An award of £1,500 was made, paid from House
  260
  funds. The House of Commons Commission was represented by the Treasury Solicitor who, at that time, did not charge for its services. No costs were therefore incurred by the House for legal representation.

  Other than the above there have been no out-of-court settlements, pre-tribunal agreements or compensation awards in the past five years.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, if he will list(a) the location, damage category, extent and scale of damage, and whether such damage is new or recurrent, for each site of special scientific interest contained in reports to the National Audit Office since 1982 and (b) the cases and locations where such damage has been caused by new road schemes or road repairs or reinstatement works.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  I understand that the National Audit Office does not receive routine reports on sites of special scientific interest and does not maintain lists of damage or encroachment to such sites. This is a matter for English Nature.

  The Comptroller and Auditor General is, however, undertaking an examination into "English Nature: Protecting and Managing Sites Of Special Scientific Interest" and expects to report his findings to Parliament later this month. This report will be available to hon. Members in the usual way.

  European Community Institutions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have taken advantage of the visit to a European Community institution that they are entitled to under the resolution of 6 December 1991, for the financial year 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  May I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 4 November 1993 (Official Report, Vol. 231, col. 362) concerning visits undertaken in 1992-93.

  I will write to the hon. Member when final details for 1993–94 become available. So far 69 Members have submitted claims for journeys undertaken during the year.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many parliamentary questions were answered in the year to 28 February 1994, by Government Department;

  (2) who were the 10 members who asked the most parliamentary questions in the year to 28 February 1994; how many questions were asked by each; and at what estimated cost to the departments concerned.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  The POLIS database holds records for the following 41,126 written answers given in the year to 28 February 1994:

  Department

  Number of answers

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,643

  Attorney General

  261

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  457

  Defence

  3,003

  Education

  1,595

  Employment

  1,686

  261

  Department

  Number of answers

  Environment

  3,427

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2,749

  Health

  4,405

  Home Office

  3,233

  Lord Chancellor

  552

  Lord President of the Council

  128

  National Heritage

  751

  Northern Ireland Office

  1,397

  Prime Minister

  844

  Scottish Office

  2,746

  Social Security

  2,138

  Trade and Industry

  2,995

  Transport

  2,589

  Treasury

  1,937

  Welsh Office

  2,343

  Accommodation and Works Committee

  51

  Administration Committee

  66

  Catering Committee

  22

  Church Commissioners

  42

  Committee of Selection

  1

  Finance and Services Committee

  10

  House of Commons Commission

  37

  Information Committee

  11

  Public Accounts Commission

  7

  The 10 Members who received the highest number of these answers, together with the number of answers and the estimated cost, were as follows:

  The hon. Member for:

  Answer

  Cost £

  Blaenau Gwent (Mr. L. Smith)

  1,323

  128,000

  Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

  983

  95,000

  Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo)

  736

  71,000

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)

  517

  50,000

  Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)

  488

  47,000

  Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)

  474

  46,000

  Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins)

  419

  41,000

  Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)

  414

  40,000

  Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)

  411

  40,000

  Leyton (Mr. Cohen)

  403

  39,000

  The cost is calculated from the most recent estimate of the average cost of giving a written answer to a parliamentary question, namely £97, rounded to the nearest £1,000.

EDUCATION

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what checks are made between his Department and the Department of the Environment to establish how much a local education authority's gross expenditure is validly recorded as spent on its schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is the responsibility of the district auditor, appointed by the local education authority, to check that the authority validly records its expenditure on schools and on other areas.

  The Department for Education and, I understand, the Department of the Environment, carry out validity checks on authorities' revenue outturn returns. Any figure on the return which varies significantly from the previous year's return is queried with the authority concerned.

  Students
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what were the factors and figures taken into account in the student income and expenditure survey for 1992–93;

  (2) how the figures for commercial borrowing for student loans in the year 1992–93 were calculated for students under the age of 26 years;

  (3) what information he has on whether borrowing by mature students is higher than by younger students; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference in levels of borrowing between those groups.

  Mr. Boswell
  Copies of the "Student Income and Expenditure Survey" for the 1992–93 academic year were placed in the Library when it was published on 16 December 1993. The survey took account of income from grants, student loans, money and gifts from parents, earnings, social security benefits, commercial loans, withdrawals from savings, and of income from other sources such as investments. Account was taken of expenditure on housing costs, food, travel and other course-related expenses, leisure and entertainment, clothes and goods and services.

  Sampled students were asked what interest-bearing loans they had taken out during the 1992–93 academic year, either from a bank or other financial institution or privately, and how much had been repaid. They were also asked about any overdraft held at the start of the year or expected to be taken out during the year, and how much they expected to be overdrawn at the end of the year.

  The figures published in the survey for overdrafts for younger students show the amounts at the start and at the end of the year, but it is the change in the overdraft balance which is used as a component of student income. The survey showed significant differences in the patterns and levels of borrowing between different groups of mature students as well as between these groups and younger students. Students were not asked their reasons for borrowing money.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to what extent he has taken into account the net change in the overdraft balance bill when he assesses student debts, particularly in the final year; and what assessment he has made of what the final figure would be if the net change in the overdraft balance figures were taken into account.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend collects no information about individual students' debts or overdrafts. The "Student Income and Expenditure Survey" included questions to students in the sample about overdrafts. A copy of the report of the survey, commissioned by the Department, was placed in the Library on 16 December.

  My right hon. Friend keeps the repayment arrangements for student loans under review. He believes it right that students should contribute towards their own maintenance costs. The repayment terms of the student loan facility are generous. Graduates can defer repayments for a year at a time if their income is below 85 per cent. of average earnings. For those with incomes above that level—currently about £14,000 a year—the level of repayments should be manageable.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will conduct an analysis of mature student borrowing by year of course undertaken.
  263
  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend does not propose to undertake such an analysis.

  Education Institutions
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education institutions he and other Ministers in his Department have visited since the 1992 general election.

  Mr. Patten
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Schools

  237

  Further education institutions

  44

  Higher education institutions

  53

  Total

  334

  Drug Abuse (Pupil Exclusions)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils have been permanently excluded from schools in the north Warwickshire area for drug abuse in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for each of the last 10 years are not available. Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two-year period, starting with the summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system—NERS. In England, 81 pupils were excluded for drug-related offences and solvent abuse in year one and 179 in year two. It is not possible to provide an area breakdown of the figures because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughter Licences
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to introduce legislation which would require the purchaser of animals for slaughter to be licensed.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no such plans.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the pesticides safety directorate in 1994–95.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have set the pesticides safety directorate the following targets relating to relocation, financial performance, efficiency, the delivery of pesticides approval services and policy advice in 1994–95:

  To relocate the agency from its present three sites to a single site in York in the Autumn of 1994.

  To achieve 100 per cent. recovery of full costs and an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  To meet the targets for delivery of services as specified:

  Pesticides approval

  Applications completed

  Maximum processing time (working days)

  Technical Stream

  Normal

  280

  335

  Administrative Fast

  500

  20

  264

  Pesticides approval

  Applications completed

  Maximum processing time (working days)

  Fast

  265

  115

  Experimental permit

  40

  190

  Off label

  100

  60

  Upgrade

  160

  —

  Departmental Exp. Permit

  12

  255

  Departmental Normal

  4

  335

  Committee Stream

  Sift

  8

  120

  Active Ingredient

  12

  235-275

  The processing time targets apply to 80 per cent. of new applications.

  The scientific quality of the directorate's work on the evaluation of pesticides will be monitored by the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Details of performance in 1993–94 will be set out in the agency's annual report and accounts to be published during July 1994.

PRIME MINISTER

  Meigle
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Meigle.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Aberdeen
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Aberdeen in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he was able to clarify, in his recent discussions with the Indian Prime Minister, whether the Indian National Commission on Human Rights will be able to look at the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the Indian Human Rights Commission in general terms with the Indian Prime Minister during our meeting on 14 March. We have welcomed the Commission's decision to conduct its first investigation into the incident at Bijbehara in Kashmir in October. Its report is due to be published on 17 April.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  England v Germany Football Match
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice he gave to the Football Association in relation to the proposed England v Germany match in Berlin; and when he first became aware of the date of the match.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave no advice to the Football Association about staging the England v Germany football match in Berlin. We first became aware of the fixture in January of this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 307, what action has been taken by the United Nations Development Programme and other United Nations agencies to ensure that there is funding to ensure the security of the heavy weapons being handed over by militias in Somaliland and to provide for the civilian rehabilitation of the disarmed militias.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proposal prepared by the National Demobilization Committee—NDC—in northwest Somalia, with assistance from the UNDP/OPS contracted team of Zimbabweans—ZIMDAT—has now been refined and will be presented to donors at a briefing and discussion session in Nairobi on 22 April 1994. An appeal for funds will follow the briefing.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress in Burma on human rights; and what representations he is currently making to the Burmese Government for human rights improvements.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There has been no significant improvement in Burma's human rights record.

  We and our European partners continue to press the ruling military regime—the State Law and Order Restoration Council—to respect the human rights of all Burmese people, including ethnic minorities, and to release Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders. A resolution on these lines was adopted by consensus at the recent session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stance was taken on Burma at the recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A consensus resolution was adopted at the recent session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, calling on Burma to release unconditionally Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders, and criticising the human rights violations reported by the special rapporteur, Professor Yokota.

  Hebron Massacre
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Israeli Government about Israeli terrorists and the Hebron massacre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 30 March,Official Report, column 806.

  Syria
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current relations with Syria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since diplomatic relations were restored in 1990 relations have steadily improved. They are now good.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current situation in the Gaza strip and Jericho regarding the withdrawal of Israeli military forces, in line with the timetable scheduled for the implementation of the declaration of principles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Israeli army has begun preparation for withdrawal from the Gaza strip and Jericho. The details of that withdrawal are still the subject of negotiations between the parties.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Palestine Liberation Organisation for Her Majesty's Government to join an international observer force to oversee withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip and Jericho; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received no request for participation in an observer force on withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. We remain ready, together with our European Union partners, to contribute to a temporary international presence in the occupied territories as called for in United Nations Security Council resolution 904, if requested by the parties.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current year's Team Spirit exercise in the Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 16 March,Official Report, column 702.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the US decision to deploy Patriot missiles in South Korea for the United Kingdom's policy on Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The deployment of Patriot missiles in South Korea is not a matter for us. But we have much
  267
  sympathy for the considerations which have led the US Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to agree that this defensive system should be deployed.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has received from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the Centre for Disarmament Affairs at the UN in New York regarding the inspection of nuclear sites in North Korea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 13 April, at column 206.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Ukraine and its commitment to accede to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcomed the decision adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament on 3 February to ratify the strategic arms reduction talks treaty. We also welcomed the Parliament's decision to withdraw its reservation to article V of the Lisbon protocol of the START treaty, under which Ukraine undertakes to accede to the non-proliferation treaty in the shortest possible time. We have noted the affirmations by the Ukrainian President of Ukraine's intention to accede to the treaty, and we shall continue to urge her to do so at the earliest possible date.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries that have not acceded to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A list of the 27 countries which have yet to accede to the non-proliferation treaty has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries that have recently announced their intention to accede to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Argentina and Algeria have recently announced their intention to accede to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have also welcomed the affirmations by the Ukrainian President of Ukraine's intention to accede to the treaty, and we shall continue to urge her to do so at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest situation in respect of accession to the non-proliferation treaty by the states of the former Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Those republics of the former Soviet Union which have yet to accede to the non-proliferation treaty are Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine.

  Iraq
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the International Atomic Energy Agency has made to Iraq regarding its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In Iraq's case, the terms of the fullscope safeguards agreement, concluded pursuant to its membership of the NPT, have been subsumed into United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring Iraq to surrender to the IAEA all its nuclear weapons-usable material for destruction or removal. Moreover Iraq may not in the future acquire, research or develop any materials relating to nuclear weapons. The IAEA is at present setting in place a monitoring regime to ensure that weapons programmes of this type cannot be regenerated in Iraq.

  Israel
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the International Atomic Energy Agency made to Israel regarding inspection of nuclear bases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Israel has concluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA to cover its research reactor at Soreq. We continue to urge Israel to allay suspicions about its nuclear programme by acceding to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state, and concluding a fullscope safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

  Yemen
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Yemen.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support all the people of Yemen in their efforts to overcome the political crisis currently facing the country. We urge all parties to engage in dialogue and to work together for a peaceful and stable future for the people of Yemen.

  Diplomats
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions in London during 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payments.

  The total of 1,941 represents a 53·4 per cent. reduction from the 1992 published figure of 4,166 which has now been further reduced to 2,328 by late payments. This compares favourably with the same period in 1985 when almost 60,000 fines were recorded, and continues the downward trend in parking offences. We welcome this further reduction in unpaid parking fines and appreciate the co-operation of diplomatic missions and international organisations since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall continue carefully to monitor the level of unpaid fines, and take appropriate measures to ensure that fines are paid.

  269

  Unpaid Parking Fines

  Diplomatic Mission

  1993

  1992

  Nigeria

  91

  167

  India

  71

  66

  Saudi Arabia

  60

  127

  Bangladesh

  59

  41

  Pakistan

  54

  57

  German Federal Republic

  51

  60

  U.A.E.

  51

  128

  Jordan

  50

  38

  Hungary

  50

  60

  Spain

  48

  60

  Greece

  46

  153

  Zambia

  45

  117

  Oman

  45

  59

  Tanzania

  40

  23

  Sudan

  39

  70

  Egypt

  35

  68

  Cameroon

  35

  70

  Ghana

  35

  48

  Bulgaria

  34

  33

  Thailand

  32

  80

  Gambia

  30

  63

  Angola

  30

  35

  Bahrain

  29

  18

  Qatar

  28

  52

  Tunisia

  28

  81

  Poland

  27

  69

  Israel

  27

  86

  Romania

  25

  62

  Uganda

  25

  7

  France

  25

  182

  Gabon

  23

  32

  Uruguay

  23

  61

  Brunei

  22

  24

  Cyprus

  21

  62

  Cote D'Ivoire

  21

  106

  Kuwait

  21

  85

  Italy

  21

  25

  Russia

  20

  226

  Cuba

  20

  11

  Barbados

  19

  29

  Malawi

  18

  18

  Philippines

  17

  10

  Algeria

  17

  34

  Malaysia

  15

  27

  Zimbabwe

  15

  38

  China

  14

  159

  Turkey

  13

  245

  Portugal

  12

  42

  Brazil

  12

  25

  Afghanistan

  11

  2

  Lesotho

  11

  10

  Peru

  11

  7

  East Caribbean

  10

  5

  Mexico

  10

  19

  Syria

  9

  22

  Indonesia

  9

  5

  Sierra Leone

  8

  6

  Burma

  8

  7

  Zaire

  8

  20

  Mauritius

  8

  38

  Liberia

  8

  4

  Iran

  7

  12

  Kenya

  7

  12

  Libya

  6

  44

  Chile

  6

  5

  Czechoslovakia

  6

  4

  Trinidad

  6

  2

  Switzerland

  6

  2

  Botswana

  6

  1

  Yemen

  5

  12

  Bahamas

  5

  1

  Japan

  5

  14

  Costa Rica

  5

  1

  Fiji

  5

  9

  Belgium

  5

  4

  Jamaica

  5

  11

  270

  Diplomatic Mission

  1993

  1992

  Swaziland

  5

  0

  Iceland

  3

  1

  Korea

  3

  85

  Lebanon

  3

  14

  Tonga

  3

  0

  Guatemala

  3

  7

  Canada

  3

  10

  United States

  3

  26

  Finland

  2

  16

  Senegal

  2

  19

  Ireland

  2

  13

  Nepal

  2

  11

  Colombia

  2

  2

  Panama

  2

  3

  Paraguay

  2

  10

  Namibia

  2

  0

  Lithuania

  2

  2

  Austria

  2

  5

  Ethiopia

  2

  14

  Australia

  2

  5

  Mongolia

  2

  4

  Antigua

  2

  0

  South Africa

  2

  5

  Yugoslavia

  2

  12

  Malta

  1

  5

  Benin

  1

  0

  Bolivia

  1

  0

  Nicaragua

  1

  2

  Seychelles

  1

  3

  Ukraine

  1

  0

  Armenia

  1

  2

  Sweden

  1

  4

  Guyana

  1

  7

  Venezuela

  1

  16

  Vietnam

  1

  2

  Estonia

  1

  0

  Slovakia

  1

  0

  Netherlands

  1

  2

  Latvia

  0

  0

  Iraq

  0

  11

  Honduras

  0

  5

  Mozambique

  0

  3

  Grenada

  0

  0

  El Salvador

  0

  1

  Ecuador

  0

  0

  New Zealand

  0

  1

  Dominica

  0

  0

  Luxembourg

  0

  3

  Norway

  0

  2

  Singapore

  0

  1

  Denmark

  0

  2

  Slovenia

  0

  0

  Somalia

  —

  —

  Croatia

  0

  0

  Belize

  0

  0

  Sri Lanka

  0

  3

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  1

  Argentina

  0

  0

  International Organisations

  Comm Sec

  17

  28

  Cocoa

  12

  0

  EBRD

  11

  8

  African Dev Ban

  9

  5

  Coffee

  2

  2

  E C

  1

  1

  W E U

  1

  1

  I M O

  0

  1

  United Nations

  0

  0

  INMARSAT

  0

  7

  Sugar

  0

  0

  1,941

  4,166

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious
  271
  offences were allegedly committed in 1993 by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity; and how many foreign diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in the past year as a result of alleged offences.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Twenty-nine alleged serious offences by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1993. "Serious offences" are defined in

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Traffic offences1

  (a) Drink/Driving

  23

  24

  25

  28

  27

  24

  24

  15

  13

  (b) Minor offences

  87

  71

  86

  103

  75

  53

  45

  30

  31

  Totals

  110

  95

  111

  131

  102

  77

  69

  45

  44

  Serious offences

  1. Drink/Driving as (a) above

  23

  24

  25

  28

  27

  24

  24

  15

  13

  2. Theft/shoplifting

  20

  12

  11

  10

  10

  8

  9

  9

  9

  3. Others

  9

  5

  4

  6

  3

  1

  7

  9

  7

  Totals

  52

  41

  40

  44

  40

  33

  40

  33

  29

  Other minor offences

  16

  6

  12

  8

  16

  7

  11

  2

  4

  Parking2

  Unpaid fines

  59,625

  22,337

  14,437

  10,079

  7,831

  6,551

  5,145

  4,166

  1,941

  Withdrawals

  Diplomats withdrawn at FCO request

  18

  17

  18

  14

  14

  6

  7

  8

  1 plus (1 pending)

  1 NB Technically all traffic offences are "criminal" offences

  2 Pre-1985 White Paper: 1984 unpaid parking fines totalled 108,932

  South Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what remaining sanctions are being applied by Britain and other countries on South Africa; and when it is intended that they should be lifted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following international sanctions against South Africa are being applied by Britain—with exceptions as indicated:

  United Nations
  A mandatory embargo under SCR 418 of 4 November 1977 on the export of arms and para-military equipment to South Africa.

  European Union

  (i) An embargo on exports of arms and para-military equipment to South Africa;

  (ii) An embargo on imports of arms and para-military equipment from South Africa;

  (iii) A refusal to cooperate in the military sphere (ie a continuing ban on eg joint military exercises).

  Commonwealth
  (i) The strict enforcement of the mandatory Arms Embargo against South Africa;
  (ii) Economic measures against South Africa as follows:

  (a) A ban on the sale and export of computer equipment capable of use by South African military forces, police or security forces1;

  (b) A ban on new contracts for the sale and export of nuclear goods, materials and technology to South Africa1;

  (c) A ban on the sale and export of oil to South Africa2;

  (d) A strict and rigorously controlled embargo on imports of arms, ammunition, military vehicles and para-military equipment from South Africa;

  (e) An embargo on all military cooperation with South Africa.

  272
  accordance with the report to the Foreign Affairs Committee "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (1985)" as offences falling into the category which would in certain circumstances attract a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or more. The majority involved drinking and driving, and shoplifting.

  One diplomat was withdrawn from post in Britain as a result of alleged offences compared with eight the previous year.

  1 United Kingdom adherence ended following lifting of comparable European Union restrictions following the first meeting of the Transitional Executive Council on 7 December 1993.

  2 United Kingdom adherence ended following lifting of EC Oil Embargo in April 1992.

  The lifting of United Nations embargoes is a matter for the Security Council. The European Union and Commonwealth have not yet agreed when their remaining restrictions will be lifted.

  Somalia
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations regarding the recent meeting of faction leaders in Nairobi to bring an end to the war in Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Representatives of the 15 Somali factions agreed a declaration calling for a ceasefire and voluntary disarmament. They will meet on 15 April to discuss a national reconciliation conference on 15 May to elect a president, vice-presidents and prime minister as well as the modalities to establish a national legislative assembly. We welcome this and hope it will contribute to the resolution of this tragic conflict.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effect recent tax increases will have on the average level of tax in the country.
  273
  Mr. Dorrell
  The average impact across all households will be increases of £5·75 in 1994–95 and £8·75 in the two years to 1995–96.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much poor families on 75 per cent. or less of average earnings are now paying in income tax and national insurance following the changes introduced at the beginning of this month; and what the figure was for 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amount paid in tax and NICs will vary at different levels of income. The real take-home pay of a married man on three-quarters average earnings has increased by £61 per week since 1978–79.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the increase in the tax burden for a married couple on typical earnings, and with two children, since 1978–79 is accounted for by increases and extensions in VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  The amount of VAT paid by particular types of families depends partly on the rate and coverage of VAT and partly on levels and patterns of spending. Reliable estimates of the contribution made by each of these factors are not available.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate how much single persons on average male earnings are now paying in income tax and national insurance following the changes introduced at the beginning of this month; and what the figure was for 1978–79;

  (2) if he will estimate the amount a typical couple with two children and one spouse working on average male earnings are now paying in income tax and national insurance following the changes introduced at the beginning of April; what he estimates this figure will be from April 1995; and what the figure was for 1978–79;

  (3) if he will estimate the change in the direct tax burden a typical family will face in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 on current policies;

  (4) if he will estimate how much poor families on 75 per cent. or less of average earnings are now paying in income tax and national insurance following the changes introduced at the beginning of April; and what the figure was for 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information for 1994–95 was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 19 January 1994, and for 1978–79 in the tables placed in the House of Commons Library as noted in the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 April 1989,Official Report, column 624. The effect of the Budget changes in 1995–96 will depend on changes in earnings and prices.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about tax incentives for industrial research and development.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations for enhanced relief.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has that the business taxation regime has encouraged inward investment into Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The United Kingdom has the lowest rate of corporation tax in the EC and G7. This has undoubtedly contributed to the United Kingdom's success in attracting inward investment.

  Longer-term Investment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new initiatives he plans to encourage longer-term investment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government believe that the best way to promote investment in British business is by creating the right macro-economic environment, with low inflation and sound public finances.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people earning less than £64,000 a year who are now paying more tax than they did in 1979.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people earning less than £64,000 a year who are now paying more tax than they did in 1979.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people earning less than £64,000 a year who are now paying more tax than they did in 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1994–95 no-one will pay more income tax than they would under a 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing the thresholds for higher-rate income tax, at current prices, at constant prices and as percentages of average male earnings in each year from 1979–80 to 1993–94 together with estimates of 1994–95, for single people, single-wage married couples and two-wage married couples.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is in the table.
  275

  Higher rate tax threshold

  At current prices

  At constant prices1

  As a percentage of average male earnings2

  Single person

  Married couple, 1 earner

  Married couple, 2 earners3

  Person in receipt of full married couple's allowance4

  Single person

  Married couple, 1 earner

  Married couple, 2 earners3

  Person in receipt of full married couple's allowance4

  Single person

  Married couple, 1 earner

  Married couple, 2 earners3

  Person in receipt of full married couple's allowance4

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  1979–80

  11,165

  11,815

  12,980

  —

  27,630

  29,238

  32,121

  —

  196

  208

  228

  —

  1980–81

  12,625

  13,395

  14,770

  —

  26,844

  28,481

  31,405

  —

  185

  196

  216

  —

  1981–82

  12,625

  13,395

  14,770

  —

  24,083

  25,552

  28,175

  —

  166

  177

  195

  —

  1982–83

  14,365

  15,245

  16,810

  —

  25,602

  27,170

  29,959

  —

  176

  186

  205

  —

  1983–84

  16,385

  17,395

  19,180

  —

  27,912

  29,632

  32,673

  —

  184

  196

  216

  —

  1984–85

  17,405

  18,555

  20,560

  —

  28,206

  30,070

  33,319

  —

  181

  193

  214

  —

  1985–86

  18,405

  19,655

  21,860

  —

  28,175

  30,088

  33,464

  —

  178

  190

  212

  —

  1986–87

  19,535

  20,855

  23,190

  —

  28,966

  30,924

  34,386

  —

  176

  188

  209

  —

  1987–88

  20,325

  21,695

  24,120

  —

  28,993

  30,948

  34,407

  —

  167

  179

  199

  —

  1988–89

  21,905

  23,395

  26,000

  —

  29,468

  31,473

  34,977

  —

  164

  176

  195

  —

  1989–90

  23,485

  25,075

  27,860

  —

  29,306

  31,290

  34,766

  —

  161

  172

  191

  —

  1990–91

  23,705

  —

  —

  25,425

  26,984

  —

  —

  28,941

  149

  —

  —

  160

  1991–92

  26,995

  —

  —

  28,715

  29,316

  —

  —

  31,184

  158

  —

  —

  168

  1992–93

  27,145

  —

  —

  28,865

  28,589

  —

  —

  30,401

  150

  —

  —

  160

  1993–94

  27,145

  —

  —

  28,865

  28,025

  —

  —

  29,801

  145

  —

  —

  154

  1994–95

  27,145

  —

  —

  27,145

  27,145

  —

  —

  27,145

  139

  —

  —

  139

  1 Provisional. At 1994–95 prices based on Budget assumptions of a 2 per cent. growth in the RPI in 1993–94 and 3·25 per cent. growth in 1994–95.

  2 Full-time males paid at adult rates working a full week (all occupations). Provisional for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  3 Assumes wife's earnings election not made.

  4 Independent taxation for 1990–91 onwards.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has now received concerning the increase in the number of people who will have to pay income tax as a result of his decision to freeze income tax allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations about the freezing of allowances.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of trade.

  Mr. Portillo
  The visible trade deficit in 1993 was the same as in 1992, despite strengthening activity in the United Kingdom and weakness in key European markets. With continuing good unit labour cost performance and improved competitiveness, the prospects are encouraging.

  Debts (Late Payment)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further consideration he has given to the introduction of a statutory right to interest on late payment of debt.

  Mr. Nelson
  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced in his Budget speech, a consultation paper on late payment of commercial debt was issued on 30 November. The consultation period closed on 31 March. We are currently considering the responses to this document.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to bring Government borrowing under control.

  Mr. Portillo
  The tight control of public spending and the tax measures announced in both Budgets last year will 276
  reinforce the fall in the public sector borrowing requirement as the economy recovers, returning it towards balance in the medium term.

  Higher-rate Tax
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has of the effect on incentives of cutting higher rates of direct taxation; and by how much higher rates of income tax have been changed since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1979, the top rate of tax on earned income was 83 per cent. It is now 40 per cent. Cutting tax rates has improved incentives at all levels, and has encouraged entrepreneurial initiative upon which the nation depends. Higher-rate taxpayers now contribute 40 per cent. of total income tax compared with 20 per cent. in 1979.

  Economy
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest state of the economy and the effect on the peripheral regions of fiscal policies.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's sound fiscal policies will ensure that the economic recovery is sustainable; all regions will enjoy the benefits of that recovery.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to publish his latest forecasts for the public sector borrowing requirement for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Portillo
  The first estimate of the 1993–94 outturn of the public sector borrowing requirement will be published on 20 April. A new forecast for the 1994–95 PSBR will be published this summer.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet his Finance Minister counterparts in Europe to discuss developments in the VAT regime.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to meet EC Finance Ministers at the forthcoming meetings of the ECOFIN Council which are scheduled for 16 May and 6 June. The agenda will not be finalised until close to the meetings, but the Greek presidency's provisional agenda for 6 June provides for discussion on the draft EC directive on the VAT treatment of passenger transport and the draft EC VAT simplification directive.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the fuel and power companies about VAT; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  None. However Customs officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of the gas and electricity supply industries and with other fuel suppliers. A wide range of issues about the implementation of VAT on fuel and power have been discussed.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much he estimates the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will cost the average family from(a) the beginning of April 1994 and (b) April 1995;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the increase to the average family's weekly fuel bill of an 8 per cent. tax imposition on domestic fuel;

  (3) if he will estimate the cost in a full year to an average household's energy bills of the introduciton of VAT at (a) 8 per cent. and (b) 17½ per cent.

  Sir John Cope
  The cost of VAT on domestic fuel bills will depend on the future level of fuel prices and on what happens to spending patterns. But VAT at 8 per cent. applied to an estimate of fuel bills in 1993–94, would cost households on average around £1.05 per week, and VAT at 17½ per cent. around £2·30 a week.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has now received concerning the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power.

  Sir John Cope
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number of people who took advantage of avoiding paying VAT on fuel after 1 April by paying their bills in advance;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of pensioners and people on low incomes who took advantage of avoiding paying VAT on fuel after 1 April by paying their bills in advance.

  Sir John Cope
  It is estimated that about 5 per cent. of domestic electricity consumers and about 4 per cent. of domestic gas consumers paid fuel bills in advance of the imposition of VAT on 1 April. It is not possible to make separate estimates for different types of household.
  278
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of an average household's income he forecasts will be spent on VAT in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest published information shows that VAT paid by households averaged around 6·8 per cent. of household gross income in 1992.

  Public Borrowing
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of allowing the current level of public borrowing to continue unchecked.

  Mr. Portillo
  Failure to put the public finances on a sound basis would have severely damaged confidence and thereby weakened the recovery.

  Tax Distribution
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest information he has about the income distribution of the direct and indirect tax burden.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest information is given in the article "The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 1992" published in the January 1994 edition of Economic Trends.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the transitional costs of local government reform in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  The transitional costs of local government reform in England will depend on the final structures that are adopted. The latest estimate of transitional costs in Wales is between £65 million and £150 million and in Scotland between £120 million and £194 million.

  Mr. Michael Allcock
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Mr. Michael Allcock was first suspended from his duties; when he is expected to return to work; if he will receive full pay during the period of his suspension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on these matters to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, (Mr. Cousins) on 30 June 1993 at column 505. Mr. Allcock was suspended from duty pending inquiries being carried out by the Metropolitan police. He was first suspended on 11 September 1992 on full pay. On 20 January 1994 he was charged with criminal offences and since that date his suspension has been without pay. I am not able to make any further statement pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of tax relief on investment income for(a) occupational pensions, (b) personal pensions and (c) other exempt institutions, differentiating between that part of the relief due to relief from tax on dividends and that part of the relief due to relief from tax on capital gains.
  279
  Mr. Dorrell
  The available estimates for 1993–94 are as follows:

  (a) The total cost of tax relief on investment income of occupational pension schemes is estimated to be about £5·1 billion. This includes £2 billion of tax credits issued with dividends of United Kingdom companies for occupational pensions funds.

  (b) It is not possible to provide a total for relief on investment income in respect of personal pension schemes, though the total of tax credits issued with dividends is £0·75 billion for insurance companies on account of their pension funds. It is not possible to seperate this estimate between personal pensions and other pension business.

  (c) Tax credits on dividends to charities total about £200 million. About £60 million of tax repayments for income received under deduction of tax were made to charities.

  Lack of information on the length of time that pension funds hold various types of assets means that a reliable estimate of the cost of tax relief on capital gains of funds cannot be made.

  Mr. Dan Smalley
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what communications Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has had with its United States counterparts in connection with the trial of Mr. Dan Smalley and his allegations about arms exports to Iran.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise has had no communications with its United States counterparts in connection with a Mr. Dan Smalley. However, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise had communications with United States Customs in 1982 and 1983 about the trial of Mr. Ian Smalley and his allegations about arms exports to Iran. No recent communications have taken place on this matter.

SCOTLAND

  Forth Valley Health Board
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list those consulted before the four new hospital units were built by Forth Valley health board;

  (2) on what grounds the contract for the Forth Valley health board's community village project was awarded to Sir Norman Foster and Partners;

  (3) if he will state the reasons why four new hospital units completed in autumn 1993 by Forth Valley health board have not been used;

  (4) what is the cost of the modifications needed to the new hospital units built by Forth Valley health board;

  (5) what defects there are in the newly built psychiatric units in Forth Valley health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  These are matters for Forth Valley health board.

  Conservation
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of the sites of special scientific interest in(a) Scotland and (b) the Highland region are included in the list of possible special areas of conservation compiled by Scottish National Heritage;
  280
  (2) what proportion of the land area in (a) Scotland and (b) the Highland region is concerned by the list of possible special areas of conservation recently submitted to the Government.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 12 April,Official Report, column 119-20.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will have regard to the economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics of those areas included in the proposed list of special areas of conservation he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage when making his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Yes. However, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 April,Official Report, column 120, in which I made clear that the preliminary advice received from Scottish Natural Heritage does not constitute a list of proposed special areas of conservation.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the implementation by(a) the Argyll and Clyde health board and (b) the Scottish Office of the recommendations of the report into the maladministration of the cervical smear test programmes at the Inverclyde royal hospital, Greenock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Argyll and Clyde health board is implementing the recommendations addressed to it through a comprehensive purchasing plan based on service specifications for all components of the board's cervical screening programme including targets and quality control procedures. A purchasing plan has been approved by the board and the specification of service required has now been issued to provider units.

  A task force is currently considering the feasibility and the implications of rationalising the cervical cytopathology services and an extensive consultation exercise is under way involving relevant laboratory consultants, clinicians and independent experts. The task force is expected to report with recommendations to the board by May.

  Those recommendations addressed to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department are being taken forward. The Common Services Agency has been asked to set up the new central co-ordinating unit for cervical and breast screening services at a cost of £100,000 per annum. The post of national medical director to head the unit was advertised in December 1993 but it was not possible to appoint a suitable candidate. Arrangements are in hand to re-advertise the post for either a full-time or two part-time appointments. Work is proceeding on setting out a management framework and a programme of work for the central monitoring unit.

  A working group to formulate the policy for implementation of internal quality control in all laboratories carrying out cervical cytopathology has been set up under the chairmanship of one of the Department's medical officers, and comprises members from the Royal College of Pathologists, the British Society of Clinical Cytology, the Institute of Biomedical Science and

  281
  representatives from each of the three other United Kingdom Departments of Health. The Health Education Board for Scotland—HEBS—has produced a new promotional leaflet encouraging women to attend for screening. This was distributed to all GPs and clinics via health boards at the end of March.

  Revised guidance, covering management responsibilities, quality controls, rationalisation of laboratories, staffing and appropriate levels of training is being prepared and will be issued following agreement with the appropriate professional bodies.

  Progress on implementation of the recommendations will continue to be monitored by the management executive.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the investigation conducted by Dr. Euphemia McGoogan and others into the maladministration of the cervical smear test programme at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: The cost of the inquiry including the publication of the report, into cervical cytopathology at Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, conducted by Dr. McGoogan and the inquiry team, was £41,500.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations led him to collect centrally information on hospital closures.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards are required to submit proposals for hospital closures to the Secretary of State for Scotland for approval.

  Executed Prisoners (Reburial)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many exhumations to allow reburial of executed prisoners have taken place since the abolition of capital punishment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 14 April 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of exhumations to allow reburial of executed prisoners which have taken place since the abolition of capital punishment.
  Enquiries have been made at all prison establishments and no record has been found of any such exhumations having taken place.

  Capital Convictions (Licences)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people reprieved from a capital conviction are now at large in the community on licence; and what is the rate of recall of such people.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Available records suggest that a total of five individuals are in the community on licence who were reprieved from a capital conviction before the abolition of the death penalty in 1965. Two of these people were recalled to custody, but subsequently re-released.

  Two further persons reprieved from a capital conviction were recalled to custody and have not subsequently been re-released.

  Electors
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish tables showing the total electorate, the number of(a) male and (b) female electors, the number of electors attaining the age of 18 years on the current register and the number of electors on the permanent absent voters register in each Euroconstituency, parliamentary constituency and regional electoral division in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has arranged for information about the total number of electors and attainers in the 1994 register of electors in each European parliamentary constituency, parliamentary constituency and regional electoral division in Scotland to be placed in the House Library. Information about electors by gender is not held centrally, nor is information about those electors who have been granted absent votes for an indefinite period.

  NHS (Staff Cars)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on personal cars for staff in real and constant price terms in the NHS in Scotland in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-medical Consultants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the expenditure on non-medical consultants in the NHS in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs of administration in the national health service in Scotland, in real and constant price terms, in each year since 1979; and what percentage this took each year of total NHS expenditure.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is set out in the table.
  283

  Outturn

  Constant price terms1

  Year

  Administration costs

  Total expenditure

  Per cent.

  Administration costs

  Total expenditure

  Per cent.

  (£thousands)

  (£thousands)

  (£thousands)

  (£thousands)

  1979–80

  72,680

  21,024,002

  7·10

  173,015

  2,437,636

  7·10

  1980–81

  92,408

  21,329,420

  6·95

  185,913

  2,674,620

  6·95

  1981–82

  101,288

  21,494,720

  6·78

  185,805

  2,741,951

  6·78

  1982–83

  132,032

  1,622,742

  8·14

  226,098

  2,778,858

  8·14

  1983–84

  138,192

  1,726,950

  8·00

  226,159

  2,826,247

  8·00

  1984–85

  141,829

  1,852,563

  7·66

  221,007

  2,886,781

  7·66

  1985–86

  153,452

  1,963,711

  7·81

  226,551

  2,899,151

  7·81

  1986–87

  162,400

  2,081,844

  7·80

  232,942

  2,986,135

  7·80

  1987–88

  174,541

  2,274,155

  7·67

  237,691

  3,096,954

  7·67

  1988–89

  189,606

  2,509,327

  7·56

  241,962

  3,202,224

  7·56

  1989–90

  205,975

  2,730,014

  7·54

  245,761

  3,257,346

  7·54

  1990–91

  230,766

  2,982,854

  7·74

  254,799

  3,293,497

  7·74

  1991–92

  263,529

  3,623,885

  7·27

  273,646

  3,763,003

  7·27

  1992–93

  302,205

  3,899,208

  7·75

  302,205

  3,899,208

  7·75

  1 The GDP deflator at market prices has been used to adjust the figures to constant price terms.

  2 Community health service administration costs for 1979–80 to 1981–82 were not identified separately in health boards' accounts.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many managers have been employed in the national health service in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  General management has been introduced into the national health service in Scotland progressively from 1986 onwards. The data available centrally on the number of staff employed as general and senior managers are given in the table. These figures include staff previously employed on senior nursing or administrative and clerical terms and conditions of service who are now employed on the terms and conditions applicable to general or senior managers.

  General and senior managers employed by the national health service in Scotland

  Whole-time equivalents at 30 September

  Year

  General managers

  Senior managers

  Total

  1988

  62·0

  28·0

  90·0

  1989

  62·0

  49·0

  111·0

  1990

  65·0

  281·0

  346·0

  1991

  71·0

  452·6

  523·6

  1992

  73·0

  727·5

  800·5

  1993

  83·0

  1,068·6

  1,151·6

  NHS Public Relations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on public relations in the national health service in every year since 1979 in real and constant price terms.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last time a resident of Clydebank was appointed to the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  Mrs. Margaret McGarry, a resident of Clydebank, was appointed to the Greater Glasgow health board in 1987 for a second four-year term.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average debt of students in Scotland to the Student Loans Company Ltd.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company Ltd. and I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  It may not be possible for the company to distinguish between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

  Hairmyres Hospital
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the average admission waiting times at Hairmyres hospital for each of the last five years for the departments of dermatology, urology, ophthalmology, ENT, gynaecology and orthopaedic.

  Mr.Stewart
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: The information, for which the mean waiting time for admission from the waiting list has been given, is shown in the table:

  Days

  Specialty

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Dermatology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  40·2

  49·4

  101·7

  102·4

  74·6

  Ophthalmology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gynaecology

  38·4

  48·4

  51·1

  61·1

  45·9

  Orthopaedics

  86·6

  82·8

  63·7

  70·5

  94·9

  Source: SMR1.

  Notes: 1993 data provisional;

  '—' No data available.

  Police Functions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hours per week are worked by civilians in functions which were previously treated as police jobs(a) in total and (b) per civilian employee; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: The information requested is not available.
  285
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which functions formerly performed by police officers have been transferred to civilians since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: Any function performed by police officers which does not require the powers of a constable can in principle be transferred to civilians. Scottish police forces have recently been advised that the functions set out in the following table should normally be performed by civilians.

  Administration and record keeping

  Animal health

  Audiovisual technicians

  CID administration

  Communications (technical)

  Computer Manager

  Computer services

  Criminal records

  Divisional administration

  Drivers

  Driving instructors

  Fingerprint department

  Firearm registration (administration)

  Fixed Penalty office

  Force information officer

  Force welfare officer

  Forensic laboratory

  Force Finance officer

  Force property custodian

  Home defence

  Identification Branch (including Fingerprints)

  Legal documents

  Lost property

  Photographic department

  Public office

  Road safety

  Scene of Crime officer

  School-crossing patrols administration

  Station assistants

  Support—Air, dogs, marine, mounted, special branch, ports

  Support—general

  Taxi-cab administration

  Technical services and other equipment maintenance

  Traffic administration

  Traffic warden administration

  Traffic warden superviser

  Turnkeys/matrons

  Vehicle fleet workshop or garage including supervisor

  Wireless workshop

  Out-patients (Waiting Times)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of patients are seen by a medical practitioner within(a) 30 minutes or (b) within one hour of their out-patient appointment time.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on how long patients have to wait to be seen after their appointment time at out-patient clinics is monitored by health boards and is not collected centrally. Health boards report that few patients overall wait longer than 30 minutes; that where they do they are given an explanation and an indication of how much longer the wait is likely to be; and that where monitoring reveals a particular problem action is taken to remedy it.

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost of the proven cases of medical negligence in hospitals in each of the past 10 years; what was the average time of such cases to completion; in how 286
  many cases medical practitioners were (a) dismissed from the health service, (b) advised to retire or (c) suffered some other sanction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: The information requested on the cost of settlements in cases of medical negligence in hospitals in Scotland can be provided only from 1 January 1990 when financial responsibility for medical negligence was assumed by health boards. The costs, including claimants' costs, for this period were as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  957,956

  1990–91

  1,290,968

  1991–92

  998,369

  1992–93

  1,091,489

  Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  The length of time taken to settle such cases can vary depending on the nature of the case. If agreement is reached before a case reaches the courts, it can be settled within six to nine months of a claim being lodged. If a claim is determined by the courts, the average time taken to reach a conclusion is around five years.

  Information on the number of cases in which medical practitioners were dismissed from the service, advised to retire or suffered some other sanction is not held centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects information on medical negligence claims for 1992–93 to be made available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: The total amount of compensation payments for 1992–93, including claimants' costs, for all health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland in respect of the negligence of their medical and dental staff was £1,091,489.

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital Trust
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of a detailed statement of the financial accounts of the Inverclyde royal hospital trust since its inception;

  (2) what analysis he made of the financial viability of the Inverclyde Royal hospital application for trust status before giving it approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: Inverclyde Royal NHS trust became operational only from 1 April 1994 and its accounts will not be available until after the end of its first year. The trust is required to produce an annual report including accounts in respect of its first year of operation by September 1995. This is a public document which will be published by the trust.

  A thorough analysis of the finances of Inverclyde Royal hospital involving financial consultants was made during the public consultation period on the hospital's trust application. This concluded that the hospital was financially viable and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the present circumstances of the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow and its likely future use.
  287
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: Consideration of the possible future use of the ropeworks building continues to involve Inverclyde district council, Renfrewshire Enterprise and Scottish Home, as well as Historic Scotland which reports to me for my interest in the ropeworks as a listed building.

  I intend to write to the hon. Member on this constituency matter.

  Hospital Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made for the maintenance of pension funds for staff employed at(a) Inverclyde royal hospital trust and (b) other hospital trusts elsewhere in Scotland, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 April 1994]: Employees transfer to national health service trusts on their existing terms and conditions and have the same rights to membership of the statutory national health service superannuation scheme as other national health service employees. New staff recruited by the trusts also have the same rights to membership. Their contributions to the scheme, and those of their employers, are payable to the Exchequer to fund the benefits under the scheme.

  Blood
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what profits the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service made on the sale of blood to private hospitals or health care organisations in each of the last five years; at what price blood was sold in each year; what happens to the profits; and what steps are taken to inform people giving blood to the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service that their blood is to be sold to private hospitals or health care organisations.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service does not sell blood or blood products and therefore the matter of profit does not arise. Where blood or blood products are supplied to non-national health service hospitals, the administrative and other costs are recovered in the form of a handling charge. Literature is available at donor sessions to explain that a proportion of blood donated may be used to treat non-national health service patients but only where this can be done without detriment to the national health service.

EMPLOYMENT

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what representations he has had from voluntary organisations about the financial difficulties caused to them by the system of funding for ESF projects; and what action he proposes to take;

  Allocations

  1991

  1992

  1993

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Local authorities

  123·31

  33·53

  131·24

  34·76

  217·59

  34·87

  Voluntary sector

  24·20

  6·58

  29·27

  7·75

  59·80

  9·58

  Higher education

  19·87

  5·40

  20·56

  5·45

  46·34

  7·43

  Industrial training organisations

  5·59

  1·52

  6·75

  1·79

  15·42

  2·47

  288
  (2) what steps he has taken to give voluntary organisations an indication about whether their European social fund projects which started on 1 January last will be funded; and what are the reasons for this policy;

  (3) what representations he has made to the European Union about the practice of retrospective funding for ESF projects; and what assurances he has had about improvements.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been a number of representations from voluntary sector organisations concerned about the delay in agreeing plans with the Commission and the consequent effect on money being released from Brussels. This concern is shared by the United Kingdom Government who continue to put pressure on the Commission to respond formally to the objective 3 plan which was submitted last November.

  The United Kingdom Government agreed to arrangements that allowed requests for expenditure received by the European Commission by 30 April 1994 against agreed priorities to be regarded as eligible for assistance from the Structural Funds—including European social fund—backdated to 1 January 1994. Plans for objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5b have either been submitted or will be submitted to the Commission by the end of April. However, until plans have been agreed with the Commission it is not possible to approve formally any projects for 1994. No resources can be made available for individual projects until funds are received from the Commission.

  For all objectives, the 1993 operational year was extended until 31 March 1994 to allow activity to continue following representations from applicant organisations, This has helped voluntary organisations, among others, to continue their work.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date in each of the past five years voluntary organisations were told whether they had funding for European social fund projects starting on 1 January of that year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no single date in any year when voluntary organisations are given approval for European social fund—ESF—funding. A timetable is agreed between the ESF unit and voluntary sector co-ordinators or regional secretariats for submitting applications. This is dependent on the United Kingdom receiving formal decisions from the Commission. Once applications are received, the ESF unit aims to process them within six weeks. We give top priority to the processing of voluntary sector applications.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a breakdown in financial and percentage terms of how ESF funding is allocated to his Department's projects, local authority projects, voluntary organisation and other projects in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table sets out the information requested:
  289

  1991

  1992

  1993

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  TEC-LEC

  1·03

  0·28

  6·40

  1·69

  22·56

  3·61

  Government

  192·91

  52·46

  182·53

  48·34

  261·14

  41·85

  Miscellaneous

  0·85

  0·23

  0·82

  0·22

  1·16

  0·19

  Total

  367·75

  100·00

  377·57

  100·00

  624·01

  100·00

  Information for 1990 broken down by sector could be obtained only by manual analysis at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1989 are available only from the Commission. All money allocated in 1990 which was not taken up was carried forward for use in 1991.

  The figures for 1991 and 1992 relate to the final amounts paid to the sectors, whereas those for 1993 relate to amounts originally approved, since final claims for the programmes in question have not yet been submitted.

  The figures for Community initiatives between 1991 and 1993 are included in the 1993 figures.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much ESF funding has been allocated in real and constant price terms to the Scottish voluntary sector in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information about European social fund support to the Scottish voluntary sector is set out in the following table. The Employment Department took over responsibility for the administration and payment of applications for ESF from the European Commission with effect from the 1990 calendar year; information prior to this is only available from the Commission.

  Cash(£)

  1990 prices(£)

  1990

  5,574,325

  5,574,325

  1991

  8,322,510

  7,866,267

  1992

  10,267,161

  9,283,147

  1993

  18,736,309

  16,377,892

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Requests for collective conciliation

  1,059

  1,164

  1,260

  1,386

  1,207

  Referrals to ACAS arbitration

  138

  169

  200

  157

  162

  Requested advisory mediation work

  985

  1,144

  964

  947

  787

  Individual conciliation cases

  44,443

  48,817

  52,071

  60,605

  72,166

  Public enquiries

  315,601

  349,324

  418,394

  466,954

  487,778

  The figures for 1993 will be available in June 1994, when the ACAS annual report 1993 is expected to be published.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in work; what the figure was in 1979 and 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is shown in the following table:
  290
  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1990–92 are amounts claimed at final claim stage, while for 1993 the figure is the amount originally approved since final claims for the programmes in question have not yet been submitted.

  2. 1990 prices calculated using the GDP deflator at factor cost.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many ACAS offices operate in the United Kingdom; and if he will list them by geographical location.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are currently 13 ACAS offices operating in the United Kingdom, grouped together in seven ACAS regions in England, together with Scotland and Wales. The offices are:

  London region: London

  Midlands region: Birmingham, Nottingham

  Northern region: Newcastle

  North West region: Manchester, Liverpool, Accrington

  Scotland: Glasgow

  Eastern and Southern: Fleet

  South and West: Bristol

  Wales: Cardiff

  Yorkshire and Humberside: Leeds

  Head office: London

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total number of referrals made to ACAS in each of the past five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of referrals and requests for assistance made to ACAS in the last five years is as published in the ACAS annual reports for the years 1988 to 1992. These are as follows:

  Workforce in employment: United Kingdom (Seasonally adjusted)

  (Thousands)

  December 1975

  24,927

  December 1979

  25,485

  December 19931

  25,017

  1Latest available.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each year since 1984 the number of people in Great Britain surveyed by the labour force survey who, although they are without a job, have looked for a job within the four weeks prior to their labour force survey interview or are waiting to start a job they had already obtained, were not available to start a job within the two weeks following their labour force survey
  291
  interview, and the number of people who were neither in employment nor unemployed on the International Labour Organisation measure but who said they wold like a job.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Both of the categories asked for in the question are defined as 'economically inactive' according to International Labour Organisation guidelines. Estimates from the labour force survey for the spring of each year since 1984 of the numbers in each group are given in the following table.

  As shown by the analyses of these groups routinely published in the LFS help line section of the Employment Gazette, the majority of people who say they want work but are not actively seeking it are students; looking after a family or home; or long term sick or disabled.

  Great Britain People who say they would like work but are not actively seeking it and/or are not available to start

  Thousands

  Quarter

  Total

  Of which: seeking work, but not available to start1

  Spring 1984

  2,414

  207

  Spring 1985

  2,266

  222

  Spring 1986

  2,316

  205

  Spring 1987

  2,180

  206

  Spring 1988

  2,184

  195

  Spring 1989

  2,314

  221

  Spring 1990

  2,198

  186

  Spring 1991

  2,245

  218

  Spring 1992

  2,221

  313

  Spring 1993

  2,195

  310

  Source: Labour Force Survey

  1 Numbers without a paid job who had either looked for work in the past four weeks or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained, but were not available to start within the next two weeks.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many indices of unemployment are calculated by each of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The results of a survey of the more commonly used unemployment measures in 16 countries were published in the September 1992 Employment Gazette, a copy of which is available in the Library. To extend this to all OECD countries would incur disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the unemployment statistics used in the Government's submission to the G7 jobs summit in Detroit, "Competitiveness and Employment: The UK Approach" represented the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom, or the monthly claimant count; and if they were validated by the director of statistics in his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Charts 4A and 4B in "The UK Approach" show unemployment rates which use the claimant count as the numerator. Figures based on the claimant count have the advantage of being monthly, up-to-date and available for a long run of years. The charts used figures from published sources. The director of statistics is responsible for the quality of all Employment Department labour market statistics published by the Government Statistical Service.

  The latest available labour force survey results, for autumn 1993, show a seasonally adjusted International
  292
  Labour Organisation unemployment rate for Great Britain of 10·1 per cent.—close to the rate shown in chart 4B for that period.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many changes to the method of calculating the monthly unemployment register and the claimant count there have been since the Government took office in 1979; and what has been the statistical effect on the count of each change at the time the change took place.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 26 October 1992,Official Report, column 496. Since that reply was given there has been one additional discontinuity.

  In February 1994 the Northern Ireland system for administering unemployment benefits was fully integrated into the computerised national unemployment benefit system—NUBS—which has been operating throughout the rest of the United Kingdom since 1983. The changeover eliminated an overcount in the Northern Ireland figures leading to a slight downward revision of about 1,500 to the unadjusted level of claimant unemployment in Northern Ireland, and likewise to the United Kingdom figures.

  Appropriate revisions have been made for past periods to maintain the consistency of the seasonally adjusted series. Full details are given on page S16 of the April Employment Gazette, which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the labour force survey as a representation of the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to improve it.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As with any sample survey, estimates from the labour force survey are subject to sampling variability and "confidence intervals" are published with the results.

  The LFS measures unemployment according to the ILO definition, which is used extensively by industrial countries throughout the world and by international organisations. While EC regulations require all member states to conduct an annual LFS, Britain has opted to conduct the survey on a quarterly basis to ensure more up-to-date results.

  Official statisticians are always seeking ways of improving the quality and speed of publication of their surveys. For example, the introduction of computer assisted interviewing in the LFS has led to higher data quality and an improvement in the speed of publication of the results to just over three months from the end of the survey period.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his definition of the claimant count; and what assessment he has made of the claimant count as an accurate measure of the level of unemployment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The monthly claimant unemployment count covers all those people claiming unemployment-related benefits, that is unemployment benefit, income support or national insurance credits at Employment Service local offices, who declare for each day they claim that they are unemployed, capable of work, available for work and actively seeking employment.
  293
  Students claiming benefit during a vacation and who intend to return to full-time education, and temporarily stopped workers, are excluded.

  The count is accurate at both national and local level because it is a by-product of the system for paying unemployment-related benefits and is a 100 per cent. count. Both the claimant count measure of unemployment and the internationally comparable measure produced by the labour force survey have shown similar trends over recent years and, since spring 1992, the two measures have been at similar levels.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the estimate of the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom in(a) February 1994 and (b) February 1979;

  (2) what was the seasonally adjusted unemployment claimant count for February for (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the regions in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and what were the comparable figures on the current series with the figures for February 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is available from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the cost to increase the frequency of the labour force survey from every quarter to every month; and if he will do so.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The existing quarterly labour force survey costs about £8 million per year. Although no detailed assessment has been made, to increase the survey's frequency to every month, while maintaining the sample size, would lead to an approximately threefold increase in the survey's costs.

  A switch to a LFS providing estimates for individual months would require a re-design of the existing quarterly survey, which would take up to two years to implement.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the seasonally adjusted figure published for registered unemployment for February 1979 using the series existing in February 1979 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the regions in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Prior to 1982 the monthly unemployment figures were based on the number of registrants at jobcentres, not all of whom were claiming benefits. When registration at a jobcentre became voluntary and threatened the integrity of the count the basis of the figures was changed to become a count of those claiming unemployment-related benefits at Employment Service local offices—formerly unemployment benefit offices. The figures given in the table relate to the former basis and are not comparable with the consistent, seasonally adjusted, claimant count figures for the same period.

  Seasonally adjusted registered unemployment—February 1979

  Region

  Level

  South East

  286,300

  Greater London

  140,800

  East Anglia

  33,500

  South West

  97,300

  West Midlands

  121,000

  East Midlands

  75,200

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  117,900

  294

  Region

  Level

  North West

  196,200

  North

  115,100

  Wales

  86,000

  Scotland

  173,700

  Northern Ireland

  60,600

  United Kingdom

  1,362,500

HEALTH

  NHS (Private Finance)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those national health service projects worth over £250,000 which have been financed by private sector money since February 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  The private finance initiative is helping the national health service to capture the skills and expertise of the private sector to give better services, higher quality and more resources for the NHS. Private finance will mean additional capital spending on top of the £2·1 billion public capital in 1994·95. New delegated limits for the NHS, introduced in April 1993, have removed obstacles that were inhibiting effective use of private finance. Only schemes with a capital cost over £1 million must be submitted centrally and, therefore, information is not available centrally on all schemes with a capital cost over £250,000. The table lists 20 schemes of over £1 million capital cost which have been approved since February 1993.

  NHS projects using private capital over £1 million approved since February 1993
  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Agency: lease of office accommodation.
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority: clinical waste incineration.
  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust: Conquest Hospital staff residences.
  West Middlesex Hospital: endoscopy unit.
  North Bedfordshire Health Authority: residential accommodation at Steppingley and Biggleswade.
  Bolton Health Authority: clinical waste incineration.
  New River Health Authority: lease of office accommodation.
  Leicester Mental Health Services: lease of new Trust Headquarters.
  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: generating station.
  William Harvey Hospital (Ashford): clinical waste incineration. Barnet Health Authority: residential accommodation in Hendon. Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority: clinical waste incineration.
  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority: staff residences at Carlton Gate.
  East Sussex Health Authority: residential accommodation for continuing care of the elderly.
  Brent and Harrow Health Authority: provision of residential accommodation.
  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust: clinical waste incineration. Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust: staff accommodation. St. James' NHS Trust, Leeds: combined heat and power plant. Hertfordshire Health Agency: lease of office accommodation. Hillingdon Health Agency: lease of office accommodation.

  Domiciliary Care Agencies
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to implement a system of registration and inspection of domiciliary care agencies.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are already able to inspect such agencies on a voluntary basis. We have no current
  295
  plans to introduce compulsory registration of domiciliary care agencies, but we will review the position next year as part of our overall review of inspection.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South of 18 March asking her to state the intended publication date of the Bloomfield report on proposals for dental remuneration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 13 April.

  Nurses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what expressions of concern she has received about the pay levels of junior nurses;

  (2) what representations she has received from the nursing organisations regarding hours and conditions of nurses and junior nurses.

  Dr. Mawhinney: None.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current annual average working hours for nurses; and what were the figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The normal working hours for all whole-time nurses employed under Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council terms and conditions are 37·5 per week, any additional hours worked would be at the request of the employing authority. Information on annual average working hours is not available centrally.

  Dental Services
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will be giving the Government's response to the Bloomfield report on general dental services in the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 18 February at column 1042.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from(a) the public and (b) the dental profession concerning the timing of the response to the Bloomfield report and the oral health strategy; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have recently received written representations from some members of the dental profession and a few from the public concerning the timing of our announcement of proposals for the national health service dental service.

  Health Services (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the waiting list on Merseyside for treatment of arthritis; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment by specialty and by 296
  regional health authority, district health authority and trust is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", which is published twice yearly. The latest figures are for September 1993 and copies are available in the Library.

  Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment is not yet collected centrally.

  Health Services (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1)what plans there are to establish a rheumatology service for the Merseyside region; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what special facilities are provided for the treatment of psoriasis on Merseyside.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities and general practitioner fundholders are responsible, as the purchasers of health care, for ensuring that patients have access to a comprehensive range of hospital and community health services. There are well-developed services for the treatment of psoriasis and rheumatology for the people of Merseyside. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of North West regional health authority, for details of existing services and any plans for their development.

  St. Helens Hospital
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what complaints she has received from(a) elected Members and (b) patients from the St. Helens and Knowsley area concerning the waiting times at St. Helens hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are not aware of any such complaints. No patients have to wait longer than one year for in-patient or day case treatment at the St. Helen's and Knowsley hospitals national health service trust, and 80 per cent. are seen within six months.

  Abbots Langley Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with Abbots Langley hospital with regard to the pension arrangements for staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Private Prescriptions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Norfolk family health services authority regarding private prescriptions; and what guidelines she has issued to FHSAs on the subject.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  An official in the Department has recently had a conversation with Norfolk family health services authority about private prescriptions. Guidance will be issued to all FHSAs shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department undertakes of the amount of private prescriptions being dispensed; and if she will provide a breakdown by FHSA of the number of private prescriptions dispensed, and the price at which they were dispensed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. These transactions are outwith the national health service.

  NHS Pensions
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to health authorities and trusts as respects the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 with regard to pensions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service executive issued guidance on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the NHS in November 1993. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library. This guidance includes specific references to pensions and an appendix which provides advice on evaluation of pensions comparability and the assessment of pension packages.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected outturn is for each family health services authority for 1993–94; and by how much this varies from the planned expenditure for each authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of individual family health services authority expenditure against cash limits in 1993–94 will not be available until annual accounts are submitted. Information on projected outturn for individual authorities is not collected, but is available from regional health authorities.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State on 24 March,Official Report, column 416, on what basis a family health services authority can refuse to require general practitioners to provide cover to respite centres and similar community care facilities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A family health services authority may require a general practitioner included in its medical list to provide treatment to an individual at any place in his practice area, provided there is no other doctor who, at the time of the request, is under an obligation to give treatment to that person. However, FHSAs are not required, or to require general practitioners on their medical lists, to provide general medical services cover to organisations as a whole.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued to family health services authorities, voluntary groups and local authorities relating to general practitioner cover for day centres, respite centres and other community care facilities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance on ensuring that people attending various care centres have access to general practitioner services has been issued to family health services authorities and other bodies in health circular HSG 92/42 and local authority circulars 92/15 and 88/15, copies of which are available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information regarding the income of fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners is held centrally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is available centrally on the aggregate value of fees and allowances and directly reimbursed expenses paid to general practitioners; and on 298
  the number of general practitioners. These data are collected by family health services authority area and do not separately identify payments to fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held centrally regarding the staff employed by general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the numbers and categories of staff employed by general practitioners is collected bi-annually from family health services authorities and published on a regional basis in "General Medical Services Basic Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. Details are also collected of the total proportional reimbursements made by FHSAs to general practitioners of the staff costs they incur.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the general practitioner fundholding practices in South Yorkshire; and if she will give the total spent out of the allocation for each practice for 1992–93 and the current year to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 March 1994, c. 592]: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. The information provided should have related to Trent rather than Yorkshire regional health authority. The answer should therefore have read:

  There will be 286 fundholding practices in the Trent region from 1 April 1994, covering 44 per cent. of the population. Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas. For local information about South Yorkshire the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, chairman of the Trent regional health authority.

  NHS Reforms (London)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent by her Department in writing, designing, printing and distributing the leaflet "NHS Changes in London—Answers To The Questions You've Been Asking";

  (2) to how many households her Department intends to distribute the leaflet "NHS Changes in London—Answers To The Questions You've Been Asking";

  (3) which Minister approved the contents of the leaflet "NHS Changes in London—Answers To The Questions You've Been Asking";

  (4) which Minister agreed the timing of the distribution of the leaflet "NHS Changes in London—Answers To The Questions You've Been Asking"; and how that timing was agreed upon.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated cost of producing and distributing the leaflet is £150,000. It has been distributed to approximately 3·28 million households within the M25. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her ministerial team approved the content of the leaflet and the timing of the distribution.

  Private Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many GP fundholders have contracts with independent private hospitals;
  299
  (2) how many GP fundholders refer a majority of their national health service patients to private or independent hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 7 February, Official Report, column 52.

  NHS Expenditure
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current total expenditure within the national health service on treatment purchased from independent or private hospitals; and how much is spent by FHSAs and GP fundholders.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available, the total expenditure by national health service trusts, regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities on purchase of healthcare from non-national health service providers was £268·23 million.

  Included in the figure above is £13·13 million expenditure by general practitioner fundholders on hospital
  300
  services from non-national health service providers. FHSAs have no expenditure in respect of hospital services other than that incurred by fundholders.

  Notes.

  1. Expenditure is not analysed to identify precisely purchases from independent or private hospitals. The figures are for "purchase of healthcare" from bodies "other than NHS bodies".

  2. The figures are provisional: the summarised accounts are subject to audit by the National Audit Office.

  3. Source: (i) Annual accounts of FHSAs; and Regional, District and London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals (Special Health Authorities) 1992–93; (ii) National health service trusts' financial returns 1992–93.

  NHS (Private Patients)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private patients were treated within national health service hospitals in 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Preliminary indications for 1992–93 are that private patients accounted for around 100,000 finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals in England, or about 1 per cent. of total episodes.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Transport Research Laboratory
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What decision they have taken on the future of the Transport Research Laboratory in the light of the recommendations by their consultants KPMG and the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 30th March his decision that the Transport Research Laboratory should be privatised. After careful consideration of the reports produced by KPMG Peat Marwick and the Transport Select Committee of the other place, he came to the conclusion that retaining TRL in the public sector would risk its being unable to respond adequately to changes in its markets and so lead to a cycle of cumulative decline.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Will the Minister accept that that decision is further proof that we have an intellectually corrupt government? Is it not a fact that that important announcement was sneaked into another place by means of a Written Answer to a planted Question from the Tories the day before the other place rose for the Easter Recess? Are the Government trying to hide the fact that the announcement flies in the face of every piece of independent evidence put before them —notably, the report of its own consultants, KPMG Peat Marwick, which recommended that the most appropriate form of privatisation (if there had to be privatisation) was through a non-profit distributing company? Did not their consultants warn that a competitive sale of the kind that the Government suggest would involve substantial guarantees of future income, which the Government refuse to give to the publicly-owned laboratory? Did not the Select Committee, which has a Tory majority, announce that it cannot recommend the other place to accept privatisation until it has:
"much more convincing evidence than it has so far been given"?
Can we not therefore have at least an assurance from the Government that the Minister will keep—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness was about to finish her question, and perhaps we ought to have allowed her to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, after two previous Questions and an Unstarred Question, I am not surprised that the noble Baroness does not approve of the Government's decision to privatise the laboratory. But to accuse us of intellectual whatever-it-was flies in the face of the way in which the world has moved on. The world has moved on from a position in which absolutely everything had to be in the public sector and nationalisation was worshipped around the world to one in which every country—even those which still have nominally Left-wing governments—is heavily into privatisation programmes. That is what we have done. We did it because the advice given to us by our independent consultants, KPMG Peat Marwick, was that if we were to retain TRL in the public sector, it would lead to a cycle of cumulative decline. I cannot believe that is what the noble Baroness would like.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would the Minister now concentrate on the realities? He referred to the report of KPMG. Can he point to the clear evidence that the Select Committee of another place called on to show that in fact privatisation would benefit that particular organisation? There is ministerial assertion in plenty; but where is the evidence? There is not a scintilla of it. Does not the Minister know that that is the case?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, KPMG Peat Marwick made it quite clear that retaining that research institution in the public sector would not be in its best interest and that it would go into cumulative decline. That may well be an assertion but it is one which the consultants based on the evidence that was before them and the work that they had done. In fact, it was their conclusion rather than their assertion. We believe that that is the case. I invite the House to join me in noting that all the other institutions and bodies that we have transferred into the private sector and away from the public sector over the past 15 years have been enormously successful. The path that we have shown to the rest of the world is being followed by every other country.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, Ministers have made many assertions in the recent past. They made assertions to the Scott Inquiry and assertions over the Pergau Dam. They now make assertions over this laboratory, based upon a report commissioned by them. They did not inquire into the issue of whether it was right to privatise TRL. They put it that that was an essential prerequisite. Will the Minister indicate what evidence there is that this move will benefit and certainly not prejudice TRL? I ask for evidence and not assertion. Will he also indicate why this announcement was sneaked in by Written Answer on the day before the Easter Recess? Does he agree that that is not a very desirable process?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the last time I was asked this question I was being attacked because we had not made a decision. promised then that we would make the decision as quickly as we could. I promised also that we would meet the trade union side.

1615
We did that the week before the Easter Recess and as quickly as we could thereafter we announced our decision.
The noble Lord knows as well as I do that there is a long tradition of Written Answers in the other place. He only needs to look at Hansard every day to see that. In relation to his substantive point, which is an important point your Lordships should not miss, the Department of Transport is the customer for this research. We believe that it would be better if there is competition for the research and if the institution is able to compete both for our work and for other work.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would not the Opposition Benches create more conviction if they did not over-egg the omelette so? Is it not the case that, if there were a case for Written Answers in this House, it would be in order to prevent noble Lords from becoming so excited?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right in regard to over-egging the omelette. In relation to every privatisation that has taken place since 1979 the Opposition have said, "Woe is me for I am undone" and "This will be a disaster. We will re-nationalise when we achieve power". But a year or two later all that changes and we hear no more regarding their threats to re-nationalise private sector involvement.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are discussing a research capability for a specific sector. What concerns some of us is the fear that there could be fragmentation if research facilities serving a whole sector are privatised. And this decision concerns not only transport but also the question of a research facility for coal which will arise in the coming debates on that subject. Does the noble Lord agree that there is reasonable ground for our anxiety that the research facilities may be fragmented and diminished under the uncertainties of private ownership?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course we appreciate that that is a danger. That is why we are determined to achieve a sale for the TRL which will keep it together and enable it to provide efficient research facilities for the Government and for other people who may wish similar research work to be carried out.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not a case of ideology gone mad? Are the Government aware that every authority other than the Government recommended against privatisation in this case? Is the Minister also not aware that most of us on this side of the House accept that there are some areas in which public ownership is inappropriate and private enterprise ought to and should remain? If we can accept that, why cannot the Government accept a single area in which privatisation should not be proceeded with against all opinions to the contrary?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think I will take a lesson on ideology gone mad from the noble Lord. We believe that the laboratory will operate
1616
better in the private sector and that we and other people who may wish to use its facilities will be able to obtain them not only from this laboratory but from other institutions and organisations which have them and which can also develop similar research facilities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say that if, after the research and examination that the Government intend to undertake, he is apprehensive about the decision, he will bring the matter back to this House to enable us to make a further thorough examination to ensure that we do not commit a serious error?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in relation to the sale, we shall consider all the offers we receive and their nature. In relation to the research matters, I can assure the noble Lord that we in the Department of Transport will always be looking carefully at the research we wish to put out to tender. We shall want to ensure, whether from this laboratory or elsewhere, that we have facilities in this country to provide us with the kind of research our departments want.

Playing Fields: Development
3.19 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the national register of playing fields shows that some 600 sites in England are listed as being under threat; and what action they propose to take to protect these sites and to prevent other similar sites being sold for development.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as at October last year, the register showed that, of the 24,000 sites in England, there were some 404 outside of London which were under threat from development with planning permission either already granted or being sought. The Government are committed to preventing the unnecessary loss of playing fields. Local authorities have been asked to take full account of the community's need for recreational space and to consider the long-term need for playing fields before allowing them to be developed for other purposes.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful reply. Does she agree that the threat to our playing fields will undermine the Government's new initiatives both in regard to play space and school sports? Will she also agree that, in addition to the 404 on the new national register that she mentioned, 220 or more are known to the Central Council of Physical Recreation to be registered but are not yet recorded in the register for central London? The National Playing Fields Association has told me that new cases are being brought to that organisation at the rate of 250 a year, which reveals a very serious situation indeed.
In view of the statements made last week by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sport, can the noble Baroness say what the Government intend to do to stop this rot? Does she agree that, once planning permission has been given, the enhanced value makes it impossible

1617
for the local authorities to buy back the land? Is the Minister aware that in many cases these playing fields have already been built on and cannot be redeemed? Therefore, can we have a full-scale inquiry into the serious situation thus revealed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, until the register was established nobody knew how many playing fields there were in England. Therefore we do not know whether there has been a net gain or loss in the number of playing fields in recent years. The Government are firmly committed to sport in schools. They will be taking the opportunity of the revision of the national curriculum further to entrench the position of games in the school curriculum. In addition, the Prime Minister has asked for proposals to be drawn up by the Department for Education and the NHD jointly for developing team games and competitive sports in schools. The Prime Minister has not yet seen any of these proposals.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the generally accepted figure for a healthy acreage of playing fields is six acres per 1,000 children under the age of eight? If the Department for Education's figures are correct that in 10 years time there will be almost 17 per cent. more children in school, will the Minister bear those facts in mind in taking more affirmative action to prevent the selling of playing fields to commercial interests?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government are committed to the preservation of playing fields and have also issued guidance. It will be up to the Sports Council, which will be deciding what to do with lottery funds in future. But there is no reason that such funds should not be used to purchase or improve playing fields.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, given the widespread concern over the appalling haemorrhage in the number of playing fields and the debate which is currently taking place energetically within the Government over the future role of sport, does the Minister agree that this is exactly the time when we should stop all disposal of sports fields? Why do not the Government announce a moratorium now?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have said before, in the Government's planning policy guidance note 17, we have already taken action to encourage local authorities to take full account of the community's need for recreational space etc. Consideration is currently being given to the Minister for Sports' proposal for a complete ban on the sale of school playing fields.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the sale of surplus school playing fields has proved to be a very valuable source of capital which has actually facilitated, enhanced and developed educational facilities—and on occasions recreational facilities—which have improved generally the status of our educational service rather than working to its disadvantage?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that once a playing field is developed it is lost for ever. That is why we expect local authorities to take account of the long-term community need before disposing of playing fields, and why we have provided £500,000 to establish the register of recreational land. It is also important to make better use of existing facilities, which is why we are encouraging more schools to open up their playing fields to the community.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are as committed to the development of outdoor recreational facilities which are not confined to playing fields and which are not organised competitive games, as they are to the organisation of competitive games?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government's commitment to sport has been demonstrated by the funds which have been made available since 1990 through the reduction in the pools betting duty for the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, the launch of the Sports Match Scheme in November 1992 and the £75 million plus a year which should be available from the national lottery.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it would be grotesque in the extreme, especially to supporters of the lottery such as myself, to suggest that lottery funds should now be used to get local authorities to buy back, at enhanced values, those playing fields which they sold off at the behest of the Government? That would be most extraordinary. Will she kindly tell the Prime Minister to think again about making such a ludicrous suggestion?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is a matter for the Sports Council as the distributing body for the lottery. It hardly seems to be a cost-effective proposal to involve the demolition of new developments and the restoration of land to its previous recreational use.

Common Land
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their intention to legislate for further protection of common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum Report
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, although we see no prospect of adopting the comprehensive approach proposed by the Common Land Forum, I can confirm that it still does remain our policy to safeguard the status of common land and to strengthen the ways in which it is protected and used. Officials are now analysing the results of discussions with the major interested groups that have taken place in the last nine months and Ministers will be considering what scope exists for practical ways to tackle the most immediate difficulties.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Will he accept that I find it rather

1619
disappointing? Does he recall that in 1986, when the Common Land Forum Report was first published, there was at that time complete agreement and it was not until the formation of the Moorlands Association some time later that any disagreement arose at all? Until 1993 the Government continued to promise that legislation would be forthcoming when parliamentary time permitted. Can the Minister say what exactly has caused the delay? I understand that the drafting of the necessary legislation was done some time ago. Can the Minister say whether the delay is because of a lack of will on the part of the Government?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, it is very much the reverse: it is not a lack of will at all. It is complicated country, as I believe the noble Baroness will accept. It involves differing interests and ancient law. If there had been an easy and workable solution we would have found it before now. In fact there was not total agreement at that time. Some organisations, such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association, found problems. At the moment we are trying to find a workable solution.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Government's record on environmental legislation is extremely bad? Not only have they not kept their promises about common land; they have not kept their promises on legislation about hedgerows, national parks and the implementation of the obligations under the habitats directive. Are they going to change?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that this is the time to have a full-scale debate on the Government's environment policy. I believe that it is an extremely sound and reasonable policy which we have stuck to; for example, through the biodiversity plan and the forestry review. I believe that our record is extremely high.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, given the Government's high record, which the noble Earl cites, can I congratulate him on the Department of the Environment press release dated 29th January? It is very rarely that I congratulate the Government, but I would like to do so in the case of the noble Earl. The press release reads:
"The Government is to introduce new laws to safeguard Common Land in England and Wales and provide better management and improved public access".
It goes on:
"The Government accepts the case for future legislation based broadly on the Forum's report and intends to introduce a Commons Bill at a suitable opportunity when Parliamentary time permits".
The press release continues:
"The responses, which should be submitted by 1 May"—
which is not very far off—
"will then be taken into account in the preparation of the legislation".
In accepting my congratulations, will the noble Earl recognise that they are mitigated by the thought that the press release was dated 29th January 1987?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I always accept the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He is
1620
right: the Government are pursuing the point that the press release mentions. They are still pursuing it robustly, and with vigour and determination, to ensure that we have a workable solution to the problems surrounding common land. But, as I have said many times in your Lordships' House, legislation can be a clumsy tool and the way forward in the situation concerning common land is probably on a voluntary basis.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister referred to the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Both those bodies were party to the report issued in 1986. Although there were small points of disagreement, they were broadly in agreement with the recommendations of the report. So I am afraid that that answer from the Minister is not acceptable.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that really is the case. If there had been total agreement—the Moorlands Association is also in disagreement—we should have come up with workable proposals by now.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise that total agreement does not seem to have been the Government's policy in respect of a great deal of their legislation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no. I cannot agree with what the noble Baroness says.

Benefit Schemes: Residence Test
3.31 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their proposals to disentitle Irish nationals and UK residents returning from abroad to means-tested social security benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Government have referred a proposal for a habitual residence test in the income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations. The Government will consider all representations made once the committee's report has been completed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Government have told the Social Security Advisory Committee that undoubtedly some UK nationals returning to the UK after a long period of absence may not be held to be habitually resident. Does that mean that if those regulations were in force this week a British subject returning from Rwanda with no job to go to, and perhaps not so much capital as a toothbrush, might be denied the means to return in safety to his country? In matters of Anglo-Irish relations is there not a case for letting sleeping dogs lie?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that all EC nationals must be treated equally, and that to discriminate on the basis of nationality would run contrary to the Treaty of Rome and leave the new proposed test liable to challenge in the courts.

1621
Although habitual residence applies to all claimants, in practice only people who have come to live in this country within the past five years will be asked to complete the additional questionnaire. UK expatriates who have spent most of their working lives abroad may therefore have to re-establish habitual residence on their return. In that case, we shall be looking at whether people have an established link with this country; for instance, a stable employment record in this country; whether they have any ties here, such as family or a house; why they came back to this country or why they came to this country; and whether they have made a genuine commitment to living and working here. We expect that most returning expatriates will be able to satisfy the requirements quickly and easily.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what happens in the case of a young person who has spent several years in voluntary or low-paid work in a developing country such as Rwanda, as my noble friend said? Would that person be unable to claim any social security benefits? Does not the Minister think that is a disincentive to young people who want to offer their services overseas? Will he consult organisations such as VSO which might have something to say about it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe I have already answered that question with my previous reply. I said that returning residents should be able to establish the fact that they are coming back here. They will be able to satisfy the requirements quickly and easily.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that great concern has been expressed throughout the country by people who know about these things that this is the thin edge of the wedge, and that it is obviously the Government's intention to introduce universal means-testing for social security benefits? What effect will these proposals have on those countries with which we have social security reciprocal agreements?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the effect will be to bring us into line with them. The Government have responded positively to criticism of benefit tourism by bringing forward this proposal which would limit the availability of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit Ito people from other countries who come here without a commitment to this country. Our proposals bring us into line with other member states whose safety net benefits are not readily available to foreign nationals, including those of our citizens seeking work in their countries.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the plight of British nationals coming back from countries where they may be in physical danger probably raises, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, a special case? Will he undertake to pursue that aspect of the matter after this exchange of questions is over?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take the point made by my noble and learned friend. I did say that in those cases it would be easy for those people to establish what is required. I should point out that we recognise that it would be difficult for asylum seekers and refugees to
1622
prove habitual residence from the day of arrival. Since we do not wish to leave them without any means of support after we have given them refuge in this country those people will be unaffected by the test.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, but does not the DSS consultation document admit that the proposed test will catch many of the 100,000 British expatriates returning home? Given the views expressed from all around the House, will the Minister take this question seriously and bring back revised proposals?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am rather surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, because we are taking the question seriously. That is why we have asked the Social Security Advisory Committee to report. We will await its report and look: at it carefully, We shall also look at representations made to us by other people before reaching any decision on this matter.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, what has been the response of the Irish Government to these proposals, particularly in view of the fact that British subjects in the Irish Republic are treated as Irish and do not need to prove residence to claim means-tested benefits?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met Dr. Woods, the Irish Minister for Social Welfare, on 3rd March this year. They discussed the effects of the proposed test on Irish people in this country and the way to reduce the impact, taking account of the traditional pattern of migration and work between our two countries.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is no question of interference where there is a mutual agreement on social security with a foreign country? As there are a considerable number of those, he must be aware that such countries give rights to their nationals in this country and our nationals in theirs. Will those be affected?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Of course, we already test for residence benefits such as family credit, disability working allowance, invalid care allowance, and disability living allowance. If, for example, an unemployed person who has been living and working in Germany, having paid full German contributions and therefore being entitled to German unemployment benefit, comes here looking for work, he or she is still entitled to claim his or her unemployment benefit. We pay that unemployment benefit. We are then compensated by that EC country because such people are allowed to receive that benefit for throe months only.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for new covenants for title to be implied on

1623
dispositions of property; to amend the law with respect to certain matters arising in connection with the death of the owner of property; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

State Hospitals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Huntly, who is unfortunately indisposed, and with his agreement, I beg to move the Motion that stands in his name.
I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sunday Trading Bill
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reform of law relating to Sunday trading]:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops]:
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("280") and insert ("500").
The noble Earl said: I should first declare an interest in that I am the freehold owner of a garden centre and a shareholder in the company that runs it. I hope that it goes on to prosper.
Amendment No. 1 asks about the authority for some of the limitations that have been put in the Bill. I have searched through Eusebius's records of the Council of Nicaea. Nothing is mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon. There is nothing in the Talmud. There is nothing in the Old Testament and there is nothing in the earlier records of the discussions of the Protestant Fathers on how large a shop should be that is allowed to open on a Sunday or where the idea of 280 square metres comes from.
My noble friend Lord Beloff suggested that perhaps I should move the amendment in cubit form. As a tribute to him, I worked out that as a cubit, according to Edward Gibbon, is 22 inches long, the amendment should read that "809 square cubits should be increased to 1,620 square cubits".
The point that I am making is where does the authority come from to determine the size of the shops which should be allowed to open on Sunday. If we go back to Genesis, we have Abraham arguing with God over Sodom and Gomorrah—and they are prepared to go all the way from 100 just men down to five or one, I am not exactly sure. There is a liability for bargaining on the subject of sodomy. It seems to me that we therefore need a proper and authoritative source for the reason the Government have chosen the figure of 280 square metres or, as I say again, 809 square cubits. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I understand that this is a probing amendment and need not therefore be dealt with in too much application. I understand that the authority for the figure is simply an effort to identify the difference between a "small" and a "large" shop in the market place. During an earlier stage of our Committee deliberations some of us pointed out the very serious threat to small shops and small traders that the Bill would provide if large shops were allowed to open, using the definition in the Bill. If the prohibition is going to be reduced by increasing the qualifying size, "small shop" will be an irrelevant qualification.
I have figures from the Parliamentary Works Directorate and understand that your Lordships' Chamber, in which we are now sitting, has a floor area of 334.5 square metres, which is bigger than the size provided in the Bill. The Royal Gallery has a floor area of 459.9 square metres. My noble friend Lord Onslow wants a figure of 500 square metres, which is 41 square metres bigger, so we are into supermarkets in a big way. I thought that this debate was about whether or not supermarkets should be allowed to open during particular times on Sundays. I hope that the Committee will not screw up everything that we have done so far by taking the lid off it to that extent. It is not a religious question at all.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jacques: Both this House and the House of Commons agreed a solution to this problem by substantial majorities. The ink has hardly dried before vested interests are trying to alter the solution to suit

1625
themselves. I suggest to the Committee that we should defeat all the amendments and stick to the solution that has been agreed by both Houses.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The Committee is entitled to some clarification from Her Majesty's Government of the choice of this particular measurement as being the definition of a large shop. I personally take the view that we should not discriminate against any form of shop and that total deregulation is the proper and sensible device. However, your Lordships having decided the other day in favour of this complex and complicated partial scheme of deregulation (which I tell the Committee will cause infinite trouble, particularly to local authorities) it becomes all the more important to get quite clear what is intended and meant by the definition.
So far I have not heard any justification whatever for the figure of 280 square metres or, indeed, for any particular figure. Before we pass from this matter—and I think it useful that the amendment has been moved —we should have an authoritative government statement as to why 280 square metres is to be the sacred figure above which restriction will operate and below which it will be escaped.
Lord McCarthy: I do not normally want to come to the defence of the Government, but surely it is not the Government who should explain this; it is those who produced this option. We had three options. This is what I insist on calling the "Sainsbury option". This is the option that Sainsbury favours and I think that it is for Sainsbury to say why this size has been chosen.
My own attempt to explain it is that we have always been told that 280 square metres is the size of a tennis court. So, one has to think in terms of a tennis court and then double it because the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wants to almost double the size provided. I ask Members of the Committee: have you ever seen a small shop twice the size of a tennis court?
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may endorse what my noble friend Lord Elton said. I should like to throw in yet another measurement—perhaps because my noble friend Lord Onslow has a stronger Biblical basis to his life than me—and to suggest that another equivalent is 3,000 square feet. I hope that the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about a tennis court will also be a matter of a level playing field, upon which your Lordships often like to play.
The figure of 280 square metres or 3,000 square feet is a compromise measurement which has grown up between a lot of conflicting views on the subject and has been generally accepted as the spit or point by the different views expressed by different Members of your Lordships' House. This has gone on for some time and I strongly endorse the suggestion that we should leave the matter as it is in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he did not often agree with the Government. I was delighted that he gave us some sympathy today. If I might say so, he was not unusually full of wisdom. This is not the Government's policy. It was a choice made by the other place and this place between three different
1626
systems. The system which was chosen was that proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. That is the reason it is in the Bill.
The Government commissioned London Economics to examine the economic effects of Sunday trading. Its report found that 90 per cent. of shops were below 3,000 square feet or 280 square metres, as your Lordships may prefer to refer to it. Most of the remaining 10 per cent. of shops are considerably larger than 280 square metres, and considerably larger than the 500 square metres in my noble friend's amendment. They are, for instance, supermarkets, department stores, hypermarkets, DIY superstores and so on. So, changing the size criterion to 500 square metres will allow only a very few more shops to open freely on Sunday.
This may be a probing or a baiting amendment, which is another matter, but Members of the Committee will need to decide whether what is proposed in the Bill should be widened by changing the size criterion in this way. It appears to make little difference in practice. But one point which Members may wish to consider with regard to this amendment is that 280 square metres was also used by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform as their size criterion. Clearly, then, this is a criterion which both regulators. and partial deregulators are content is the one that should apply. I understand too that local authorities, through their associations, are content with a 280 square metres cut-off point.
For all those reasons, it is reasonable that the 280 square metres should remain. However, that is a matter for the Committee and not for the Government.
The Earl of Onslow: The weakness of the approach was given away by my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is in a difficult position. The Government want total deregulation but they get it in the neck from all their supporters, who in turn get it in the neck from the Sabbatarians. We know that that is the situation and there is no need for anybody to deny it.
My noble friend said that if the limit were raised to 500 square metres, only a few extra shops would be allowed to open. What is the harm in only a few extra shops opening on Sunday? Before I withdraw my amendment, will my noble friend tell me what is the harm in that?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend has the capacity to ask the most obscure questions. He knows perfectly well that wherever one puts down a line, some "intelligent" person will say that the line should be drawn in some other place. It may have escaped my noble friend 's notice that it has taken 29 Bills to reach agreement in another place on a certain model. That was agreed by another place and by this Chamber.
Now my noble friend comes with his usual intellectual alacrity and suggests that we alter it. That is the reason that I suggest we should not alter it.
The Earl of Onslow: With my usual intellectual alacrity, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("or—

1627
( ) any shop occupied by persons observing Yawm as-sabt (the Muslim Holy Day).").
The noble Earl said: I sincerely hope that Members of the Committee are impressed with my Arabic. However, it is nothing to do with me because it was found by the clerks in the Public Bill Office. I believe that it is correct, although I hear my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham muttering that I am not accurate. However, I shall leave it for him to criticise or correct later.
The Bill allows Jewish shopkeepers to open their shops on Sundays if they close on Saturdays. That is perfectly right and fair; we are a multiracial and multicultural society. As Members of the Committee will know, we have a different Sabbath from the Jews because of Constantine's anti-Semitism at my old friend, the Council of Nicaea. Be that as it may, we have a different day and that is why such complications arise.
The Moslems have a different Sabbath—that is Yawm-as-sabt —which is Friday. Therefore, if we are to be fair and reasonable, other religions which have taken the Babylonian seven as the holy seven and the Sabbath day should be allowed the same privileges as the Christians and the Jews. If we do not allow the Moslems to have the same privileges as the Jews we shall be accused of being racist. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Onslow has drawn the attention of the Committee to the question of shops owned by Moslems or Hindus. The fact of the matter is that the Jewish religion requires that its members should not work on the Sabbath; that is from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. This means that shopkeepers who observe the Jewish faith do not trade at all during that period. The 1950 Shops Act recognised that a provision was necessary so as to enable Jewish shops to open on a Sunday. The Government felt it was important to make a similar provision to that included in the 1950 Act in respect of large Jewish shops. All small shops can open all day Sunday under the Bill as it stands.
The provisions which are included in the Bill in this regard were drawn up in association with the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In effect, it provides that in return for closing on the Sabbath Jewish shopkeepers occupying large shops can open all day on Sunday and not for just six hours. But we have had no representations from other religious groups seeking an equivalent provision. I understand that, unlike Judaism, neither Islam nor the Hindu religion makes a requirement on its members not to work on a certain day. Indeed, I am advised that shops owned by Moslems are normally open on a Friday, their holy day.
Therefore, as they are not obliged to shut on any particular day, there is no need for an exception for large shops occupied by members of these religions from the six-hour restriction imposed by the Bill. I recognise that the amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord for the best of intentions. But I hope that he will agree it is unnecessary because members of those particular faiths do not wish to close on any particular day of the week.
That being said, I would just like to draw the Committee's attention to an aspect of the amendment
1628
which I suspect that my noble friend may have overlooked. As drafted, the amendment would not place any requirement on shops owned either by Moslems or Hindus to close on any particular day of the week. The amendment in respect of Moslems simply exempts shops which are occupied by persons who are observing the Moslem Holy Day. The amendment in respect of members of the Hindu religion does not specify any religious observance at all.
I am sure that my noble friend did not intend that members of these religions, if they occupied a large shop, would be free to open for seven days a week whereas other large shops would be restricted to trade for just six hours on a Sunday. But this would be the effect of the amendment. It would create the bizarre loophole that the owner of a large shop would be able to open at any time on a Sunday if he converted to Hinduism. I know that this was not the effect that was intended. I hope that that explanation is sufficient to convince the noble Lord that his amendment would be unsuitable.
The Earl of Onslow: I had realised both those points and had not tabled the consequential amendment relating to Moslem shops opening on Friday. However, I had intended to move the amendment relating to Hindus and to raise the point that my noble friend raised. We are imposing on Moslems and Hindus, Christian or Jewish values relating to when they should open and close their shops. Is that right in a multicultural society? I suggest that it is not but that is what we are doing.
Obviously I shall not press the amendment to a vote: nor shall I move the amendment relating to Hindus. My noble friend has reasonably pre-empted what I was going to say. However, I believe that those points demonstrate the fact that the Bill, by its new status, is flawed. That is established by the first two amendments. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3. not moved.]
4 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 39 and insert:
("Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to a large shop on a Sunday between the hours of 12 noon and 6 pm,").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 4 in the name of myself, my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 20 and 22, again standing in those names, and Amendments Nos. 15 and 21, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Onslow.
The main amendment in the group is Amendment No. 4 which substitutes the existing flexible six-hour exemption granted to large shops which have notified the local authority of their intention to open with an exemption permitting all large shops to open on Sundays should they choose to do so between the fixed hours of 12 noon and 6 p.m.
I speak in my capacity as chairman of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign. One of the main arguments

1629
against our proposal was the complexity created by the necessity to register with local authorities. Having accepted the view of Parliament, we do not continue to press our views. However, it seems to me wrong that we should continue with a proposal which involves registration.
As drafted, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 lays down a general prohibition of the opening of large shops on Sundays and then sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) list exemptions. It is the last exemption, which relates to all large shops, with which the amendment deals. Quite simply, the amendment removes the provision in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 which refers to the right of a large shop to open for six hours once notice has taken effect and replaces it with an exemption permitting all large shops to open at any time between the hours of 12 noon and 6 p.m.
The amendment does not state that large shops must open between those hours and they do not have to open for the full six-hour period. But any such shop has the freedom, if it so chooses, to open at any time between those two fixed periods. Obviously, if a large shop opens before 12 noon or after 6 p.m., the owner will have violated the general prohibition laid down in paragraph 2(1) and will be liable to prosecution by the local authority.
I turn now to the other three amendments which stand in my name. Amendment No. 14 removes paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. That paragraph outlines how the flexible six-hour opening for large shops within the eight-hour period is to operate. The provisions are convoluted. They require shops to notify a local authority of precisely which continuous six hours within the eight-hour period they intend to open. Subsequently, they are also permitted to cancel their notice and change their opening times on a fortnightly basis. If the Committee is willing to accept our fixed six-hour option, those notification provisions will become redundant and unnecessary.
Amendment No. 20 has a dual effect. First, it removes paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 which imposes a duty on local authorities to keep a register of the names and addresses of every large shop which chooses to open and the hours it is permitted to open. That is a burdensome and expensive duty for local authorities and places unnecessary strains on already scarce local authority finances. Again, having rejected our option, it seems to me that it is burdensome to continue with a system of registration.
Secondly, the amendment removes paragraph 6 which requires large shops to display a notice of their opening times in a conspicuous position. If the opening hours are fixed, as my earlier amendment proposes, that duty will also become unnecessary and will again make life easier for large shops. Amendment No. 22 is a drafting amendment and is consequential.
I turn to the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Onslow. Amendment No. 21 is picked up by my Amendment No. 20 in any event. As regards Amendment No. 15, from what I have said Members of the Committee will be well aware—
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to move my own amendments and not have my noble friend Lord Brentford do it for me. It is not for him to move my amendments. Will he please not do so?
Viscount Brentford: I am moving only Amendment No. 4 but this is my sole opportunity to speak to the group of amendments. I said when I began my remarks that I was speaking to the amendments. I did not say that I was moving them all. I move only Amendment No. 4.
I totally oppose Amendment No. 15 because I do not favour the proposal to allow shops to open For eight hours. I believe that we should stick to the six hours provided in the Bill as drafted. I merely propose to simplify the law by fixing the six-hour period. That will make it easy to operate both for district councils and large shops. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Baroness O'Cathain: If we accept the amendment, we shall allow local authorities an easier ride in terms of registration and the onus to register will be taken away from large shops. The whole point of the Sunday Trading Bill is to benefit consumers. The legislation has been introduced as a result of consumer and customer demand. I have received no representations whatever from local authorities, district councils or large shops complaining that the registration system would create difficulties.
However, if the amendment were carried it would create a difficulty because large supermarkets and shops would not be allowed to open before midday. I suggest to the Keep Sunday Special group, which is apparently so worried about keeping Sunday special, that this proposal is one way of not keeping Sunday special and is much worse than the option already approved. If shops are not allowed to open until midday, families who would prefer to do their shopping in the morning, in order to cater for a large social gathering in the afternoon, would be constrained from doing so until 12 noon. That would affect the Sunday lunch. Frankly, I do not much care for that, but much was made of the point when the options were being considered.
Secondly, the amendment contains a direct threat to the normal pattern of Sunday shopping which has evolved over the past few years. Some 40 per cent. of all shopping is done before 2 o'clock—between 10 and 2. Of that, the larger part is done between the hours of 10 and midday.
If the hours were fixed between 12 noon and 6 p.m., no account seems to have been taken of the fact that we do not operate on a daylight saving basis the whole time in this country. After 4 o'clock on a Sunday, staff will not much care for having to go home in the dark and I do not believe that families will care to do their shopping at that time.
There is an additional point. The staff employed in the large shops do not want the provision contained in Amendment No. 4. If they are working on a Sunday, for which they are paid premium wages, they have opted to work from between 10 and 4. That means that their Sunday is not completely curtailed and they have—some might say—the best of both worlds. So the people who wish to shop probably want to do their shopping early and the staff who work want to go home early.

1631
The noble Viscount did not mention any problem about deliveries. If there is thought to be a problem, I should point out that most large shops—in fact, all of them to my knowledge, but I would not swear to it—operate a "good neighbour" policy in terms of delivery. Methods of delivery to supermarkets on a Sunday are different from those used on other days of the week. For example, drivers turn off their reverse bleepers when coming out of side roads, and so on, so as not to cause additional noise.
It has been suggested that the option is total deregulation by another name. I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the fact that the normal supermarket operating hours are 12—that is, 11½ to be precise, from 8.30 a.m. to 8 p.m. Therefore, allowing them to open for six hours on a Sunday would mean opening for only half that time. I believe that there should be no further restrictions.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I attached my name to the amendment because I believe that, having taken 29 Bills to get to this point, we now need to produce not only an agreed Bill but also one which is simple to administer and which meets as much of people's desires as possible. It seems to me that that would be very simple to administer and that local authorities—whether or not they have been lobbyers on the matter—will very much welcome such a simple Bill as the one before us. It also has the advantage of at least keeping half of Sunday relatively quiet.
I do not think that some of the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, were entirely convincing. If I took down the figures that she gave correctly, she seemed to be suggesting that 20 per cent of Sunday shoppers shop between the hours of 10 and midday.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am afraid that I made a mistake in that respect. In actual fact, 40 per cent. of all trading is done before noon; that is, between 10 and 12 noon. I apologise for the error.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In that case, I have helped the noble Baroness make her point. However, I am not sure that it is a good thing to encourage delivery vans to back out of side roads without sounding their bleepers, thus running the risk of running over more people. As we have now reached this stage, I believe that the basic idea of making a really simple administrative arrangement is well worth supporting.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: In his intervention on the first amendment the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, seemed to suggest that the Bill is perfect and should not be amended in any way on the grounds that it has been examined in detail both in another place and in this Chamber. With the greatest respect, I must tell the noble Lord that he is wrong.
Lord Jacques: I never mentioned the word perfect; indeed, that word could not be read into what I said. I
1632
said that both places had, by a substantial majority, made a decision and that, before the ink is dry, vested interests are trying to change that decision.
Lord Monson: I understand what the noble Lord says. Nevertheless, the Bill has not been examined in detail by this Chamber. That is what we are in the process of doing at present. Moreover, it was not examined in detail by another place because honourable Members had to spend most of their time deciding between the three main options. That is quite understandable because they are very important. The legislation has not been fine tuned. As I suggested at an earlier stage, the Bill needs some fine tuning. It needs to be made a little more liberal in some respects and slightly more restrictive in others, with the one balancing the other so that neither the Keep Sunday Special protagonists nor the reformers, if I may so describe them, feel cheated or done down.
Provided that we can achieve exemption for garden centres, bookshops and possibly one or two other categories, there is absolutely no need for an eight-hour time frame within which other large stores can be allowed to open. Such a time frame means traffic congestion, the slamming of car doors, the honking of car horns which will go on from 9 o'clock in the morning (allowing for deliveries) until 6 o'clock in the evening. That is almost as long as is the case on an ordinary weekday. One of the main reasons for agreeing to any Sunday restrictions in the first place was to protect those who have the misfortune to live in or near shopping districts from having their peace and quiet disturbed throughout the whole of Sunday.
Moreover, an eight-hour time frame within which the large stores could open for six hours would be incredibly bureaucratic and costly to monitor. I believe that the noble Viscount and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, both made that point. That would also be much to the disadvantage of the council taxpayer. At this time, I should have thought that the Government would be only too anxious to ensure that no further burdens are heaped upon the latter.
I spoke recently to an organisation with the acronym CLIFSS (Council Leaders in Favour of Sunday Shopping) which I understand represents no fewer than 70 local authorities. The organisation would greatly welcome a fixed six-hour period when large stores could open. That would make its task a great deal easier and would save a considerable sum of money. The organisation also made the point—although it is not a very important one—that it would help the consumer living in London to know that stores such as Harrods, Selfridges, Tesco, Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer, and so on, would be open for the same six hours on a Sunday. As I said, it is not an important point compared with others, but it is relevant.
In addition, many of the organisations representing the larger stores have told me that they would not really object to such a limitation. They would not welcome it with open arms, but they would not find it too onerous. I say that on the assumption that we agree exemption for one or two categories such as garden centres, and so on. However, virtually all of them—I believe that the point

1633
was made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain—would find the period of 12 noon to 6 p.m. suggested by the amendment much too late in the day. They would prefer the opening hours to be, say, 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., or whatever, as would their employees. The latter is a most important point. Indeed, my noble friend talked about female employees having to walk home after dark in the winter. I believe that that point must be taken into consideration.
Although I believe that the amendment is, essentially, on the right lines, the hours 12 noon to 6 p.m. are too late. Perhaps the noble Viscount will consider withdrawing the amendment and returning at a later stage with the same six-hour period but fixed rather earlier in the day.
Lord Elton: As my name is attached to the amendment, I should like to say a few words. I see that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter wishes to speak. I give way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As my noble friend has put his name to the amendment, he should certainly take priority and speak now. That will, perhaps, give me the opportunity to answer him.
Lord Elton: I was seeking an opportunity to answer my noble friend. However, I comfort myself by the fact that we are in Committee and that we shall both be able to speak as often as Members of the Committee will stand it.
After a delicate operation of balancing between alternatives, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, came down in favour of the earlier hours against the later on the grounds of the convenience and preferences of the people who work in the shops and those who own them. I have great sympathy for the people who work in the shops, who, I fear, will still find themselves in the position of Esau, having sold their heritage for a mess of pottage. I say that to satisfy the intellectual ability of my noble friend Lord Onslow. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, they are receiving a premium payment for working on Sunday. They are not under compulsion to do so. Therefore, given the fact that they also receive extra money for such work, I do not believe that that should be the preponderant consideration.
Similarly, I do not think that the wishes of the large business organisations which have stood on one side of the divide, where the compromise is in the middle, should be given further advantage because they have already exerted an enormous influence on the course of events during this debate and the progress of the Bill through Parliament.
If we look back to where we have come from, it will be seen that we have come from a very protracted debate—a debate protracted over generations—as to the nature of what Sunday should be and a rather shorter debate about the economic efficiency of the market and the liberty of the subject. Those two camps found themselves so equally balanced that it was impossible to find an agreement in another place until this final, or semi-final, compromise was reached. That compromise is between those who want to keep Sunday special and
1634
who wish to protect small traders and elderly, isolated and immobile people who are dependent on small traders and those communities to whom small traders give a great deal of their individual complexion, reality and sustainability on the one hand, and those who wish to open the till and the shop door to everyone, every day of the week, on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to some of the objections which many of us have to that on purely secular grounds as regards noise, traffic pollution and the employment of a great many other people other than shop workers who will not have the choice as regards working on Sundays once the shop workers start working on Sundays.
It seems to me that the fair decision therefore is to give half the cake to one side and half to the other, and that the compromise does not do. It spreads the possibility of competition with the small shops and the full trading of large shops over a period of eight hours not six. Individual shops can choose a block of six hours but they can move it about and different shops can open at different times. That means that the small trader is in full competition virtually throughout the, whole trading day. It also has the consequence that someone must check whether traders are cheating and must check to see whether they are taking six and a half, seven or eight hours out of the permitted eight. They must all be registered and visited to check whether or not they are breaking the law and, if they are, they must he fined. This becomes a large and complicated job for local authorities and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, a costly one for the community taxpayer.
My noble friend's proposal is simple. He is saying, "Have six hours by all means". We did not want that and we think it is a tragic pity. We think it will change the nature of Sunday and of family life in many areas, certainly in many rural communities, irreversibly in years to come, but so be it. But let us preserve what we can. Let us have half the day. If we permit trading from 10 until six we spoil the morning and the afternoon. If we permit trading from 12 until six we spoil the afternoon. That gives the preachers—I was going to say the churches—a free run in the morning, but it also gives those who want half the day to be different a chance to make it different. All the consequential amendments are genuinely consequential. They flow from this one provision which seems to me to be absolutely fair and square with the compromise. It merely moves the two-hour option of change out of the Bill. It has the advantage of enormously simplifying the situation and it will result in a great saving of cost. I believe that there would be a sigh of relief from around half the nation at the thought that we would still have peace and quiet before Sunday lunch.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and my noble friend Lord Brentford are both quite right in saying that the Bill as it stands will impose a considerable amount of work on and problems for local authorities. They will have all the complex duties of enforcing what many of us regard as an extremely ill-drafted and ill-considered measure. Because of that, I believe the Committee will want to ensure that the Bill does not go further against the interests of those who

1635
want to trade on Sundays. If the Committee is to accept—as the Chamber did by its previous vote—that total deregulation (which is the real answer) is not on, it is all the more important to have in mind the interests not only of those who open shops but also of those who want to go shopping. That is the difficulty which is posed by this amendment.
People's hours and habits on Sundays vary. It is probably a good thing that those who open shops should have the opportunity to study the convenience, or likely convenience, of their customers and adjust their hours of opening, so far as they legally can, to meet those needs. However, this amendment just pegs the whole opening possibility for the larger shops on the midday to 6 p.m. period. At certain times of the year and for those in certain occupations and certain trades that may be perfectly satisfactory, but I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who will not believe that that is going to add considerably to the inconvenience of those who want to go shopping. Sunday shopping is here to stay. In these days, particularly when working wives have their own employment, Sunday shopping is extremely important and increasingly important for couples. People in many occupations consider it sensible to do a little shopping on Sunday morning. If those who operate the shops take that view, they will take advantage of the Bill as it stands to ensure that their shops open at 10 o'clock in the morning to allow for a morning opening period. That, surely, is of considerable convenience to a considerable number of our fellow countrymen.
I very much agree with what the noble Baroness opposite said. She talked extremely good sense, if she will allow me to say so. Accepting, as we have to now, that Sunday trading will be limited, particularly for the large shops, it seems a great mistake to make it even more restrictive as this amendment would do. I hope therefore that the Committee will pay full attention to the wishes and needs of the customer. The Committee should bear in mind the fact that it is only if the customer indicates that it is important for him or her to be able to shop after 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning, that the shops, which have to respond to the demands of their customers, will open during that period. This amendment would inhibit them from doing that and I hope for that reason we shall reject it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall speak as briefly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that there were mainly two interests here: one is the trader and the other is the customer. However, that is not true. There are many other interests involved and we should not be trapped into believing that this matter is just about the right of shops to open and the right of people to go into shops. This Bill involves other people's rights and convenience too. It also involves other people's environment because other people will be forced to work on Sundays who may not wish to work on Sundays or to shop on Sundays. However, they will have to do so as a result of this Bill.
Although partial deregulation has been agreed, we should seek to address the needs of other people besides traders and people who wish to shop on Sundays. After
1636
all, the interests of traders and indeed of shoppers are being addressed thoroughly and as we know, under the terms of the deregulation Bill, it will soon be possible for people to shop 24 hours a day, six days a week—and now six hours on a Sunday as well.
Under those circumstances the amendment we seek to make is very small. It seeks to give a little consideration to people other than those who trade and those who shop. The beauty of the amendment is that it will help both shoppers and traders. Shoppers will know that wherever they are in the country they will be able to shop in supermarkets between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. They will not have to worry about whether they are open at 10 o'clock in the morning or closing at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. They will know that all over the country they can shop between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. That in itself is a convenience to shoppers and traders.
We are told by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there has been an established pattern and that 40 per cent. of people wish to shop in the morning. However, that is a pattern which has been established by firms breaking the law over a long period of time. We should not take too much notice of it.
I want to return to the question of other people who are involved. The local authorities will have to police the Bill when it becomes an Act. We have already heard of the difficulties that that will cause to local authorities and their employees, who will need to be out and about enforcing the Act. It will be much more easily enforced if the trading hours are fixed all over the country between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock rather than differing between 10 o'clock and 4 o'clock or 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock in various parts of the country. Therefore, local authority employees will know where they stand and will be able to make their arrangements in a better way.
There are council tax payers to be considered as well. We are going to have to pay for the enforcement. It is not the big stores which will have to pay for enforcement. All council tax payers will have to foot the bill, whether or not they shop on Sunday. Therefore, we should have some consideration for council tax payers.
We should look further ahead. Once the Bill becomes an Act it will not be only large stores which are compelled to open on Sunday. As I said at Second Reading, all kinds of other businesses will have to open. Local authority offices will be expected to be open. The banks will probably be expected to be open, as will building societies. A whole range of other people in addition to shopworkers will be involved as a result of the Act. Therefore, we should get it as right as we possibly can and ensure that the arrangements are as convenient as possible.
Finally, a great many people live near shops. They are entitled to have at least their Sunday morning free from the dirty environment that can be created by deliveries and by people bringing cars to shopping areas. They too are entitled to be considered. When noble Lords vote on the amendment I hope that they will consider all those aspects. I support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: A number of rather sophisticated arguments have been put forward in support of the amendment. I hope that they will deceive nobody. For example, the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches spoke of fine tuning. The truth is that this amendment is a Trojan horse. One can tell that from the names attached to it. It is a Trojan horse occupied by the crypto-Keep Sunday Specialists. My noble friend Lord Elton let that cat out of the bag.
Lord Elton: There is nothing crypto about my keeping Sunday special.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: To use a cant phrase of the present day, I am glad that my noble friend has come out into the open.
For reasons which have been canvassed widely, the other place has decided that large shops should be able to open on Sundays for a given number of hours. At present they are allowed to choose which hours. They are given that right because they know best what their customers want. The arguments to the contrary are only concealed arguments in favour of keeping Sunday special, a battle which has been fought and, I hope, thoroughly lost by the Keep Sunday Specialists.
Baroness Young: I have not put my name to the amendment, but I should like to speak strongly in support of it. I am very glad to accept the challenge of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. If one looks at the facts of the case, both of them are supporters of total deregulation and have never pretended otherwise, as I believe is the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. That is an option which was overwhelmingly defeated in another place and by your Lordships when we debated the matter some two weeks ago. Naturally, they do not want anything which will upset total deregulation, which may be what they want but certainly is not what Parliament wants. The six-hour option was sold both to another place and to your Lordships as a compromise.
I said both at Second Reading and when we debated the matter just before Easter that I saw this measure as a step towards total deregulation and there was no difference between what is proposed and total deregulation. Having listened to the speeches, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, it is perfectly clear that that is what will happen. In practice, of the eight hours specified the large shops can choose to open for any six. As my noble friend Lord Elton made clear, once shops can choose a different six hours there is in effect eight hours' trading. That would be very damaging to small shops, as has been made very clear. The statistics concerning the number of small shops which will close are unanswerable. No one has denied them. No one will buy more food because shops are open on Sundays. The only way the large supermarkets will make their profits is by squeezing out the small shops. That is what will happen and that is what we will vote for That is what Parliament has now decided.
There is a way we could help small shops for which I have heard a great deal of sympathy from all parts of
1638
your Lordships' House. Statistics indicate that when consumers are asked whether they want Sunday shopping if it means small shops closing they have usually said "No". They have never been asked a question on the basis of what will really happen.
The amendment is a fair and reasonable compromise. I accept, because Parliament has decided, that we shall have six hours' trading on Sunday, but it is much fairer to all to have a fixed six hours. I support the proposal.
As regards the convenience of customers, the point is that what is convenient for one customer is inconvenient for another. The convenience of the shopper who can go to the out-of-town supermarket—Sainsbury's, Tesco, or whichever it may be—by car on a Sunday has to be balanced against the convenience of the other customer who is elderly, does not drive a car and is dependent on the small village shop. One will gain and one will lose It is a compromise. It is not something that I would particularly have chosen.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No one will gain or lose. They can do what they want.
Baroness Young: It is all very well for my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham to say that they can do what they want. No doubt he can do so because he can either drive a car or get someone to drive him.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am a disabled driver; and I use small shops.
Baroness Young: I am delighted that my noble and learned friend still has the opportunity to use small shops, but he should recognise that the small shops may not be there for him to use much longer. That is what the argument is about. Fine, he can continue to drive. Bully for him. That is very good, but there are many others who cannot do so.
It is a question of balance. The House having decided on six hours' shopping, this solution seems to me perfectly fair. A fixed six hours helps many people. The solution is not ideal and in a perfectly fair, free world it is not what I would have chosen. I would not have chosen the six hours on Sunday, but having accepted that option, I believe that the amendment is a better balance. I hope very much that the Committee will support it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she rose to the challenge of the deregulators sitting in front of her. Perhaps I may rise to her challenge and say that as chairman of the Shopping Hours Reform Council my position has always been to support the compromise solution which this House and another place have now accepted. I see it as a genuine compromise. I do not see it as deregulation in disguise.
The proposal for the fixed six hours for trading ignores many of the arguments which were made effectively both during the options debate and at Second Reading about the patterns of consumer choice and the fact that the majority of shopping in small shops is carried out before 10 o'clock in the morning.
Perhaps I may repeat what I said at Second Reading. One can imagine a situation in which if one wishes, for example, to buy a pint of milk or a newspaper, one will

1639
go to one's small local shop—whether it is the local corner shop in town or the village shop—and purchase that item early in the morning. If one has run out of such products one does that in the evening. However, if one wishes to make a substantial purchase, whether of a do-it-yourself kind or a weekly shop, one will go to a supermarket. One can do that between the hours of 10 o'clock or six o'clock with the option which can be agreed by the individual traders. That is the normal common sense pattern of trading which is not affected by fixing the hours between 10 o'clock and six o'clock, given the various options that the shops can choose. It is important that it is a compromise. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I had wished her to complete her argument on that. The point about small shops is that they do the majority of their business on a Sunday. If one considers the statistics, it is quite clear that between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. of their business is done then. Therefore, they are very much affected by what happens. We ought to keep a balance between the interests of the small shops and those of the big traders.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I accept the noble Baroness's point. That is precisely why the genuine compromise solution of the Shopping Hours Reform Council gives those small shops the advantage of being able to open 24 hours a day whereas the big shops are restricted.
I take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that part of this argument must be a stalking horse to some of the failed arguments of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign. My noble friend Lady Dean—she is unfortunately not present today—and I argued strongly during the options debate that the arguments to say that one could not adequately look after one's family if one went shopping on Sunday were completely ludicrous. However, we also made the point that for us shopping was a chore which we wanted to get out of the way as quickly as possible. If we can shop at 10 o'clock in the morning on Sunday and then go home and do precisely what we were encouraged to do by those who spoke for the other side of the argument—to cook lunch for the family, or to spend time with elderly relatives, as indeed we wish to do—we have more time to do so.
Finally, it is rather strange that those proponents of the Keep Sunday Special option which was defeated in this Chamber—it was a complex and an enormously over-regulated solution which would indeed have caused local authorities many headaches—are now arguing in favour of this solution to the problem. They are right that it would ease local authorities' difficulties because they would have no regulations, but, frankly, to propose the amendment as a way of getting out of the difficulties of the regulation involved in their own original solution seems peculiar.
Viscount Caldecote: I support the amendment. In doing so, I hope that I shall not be considered either a
1640
Trojan or a stalking horse. I entirely agree with every word spoken by my noble friend Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
I wish to add one point. The opening time of 10 o'clock means that lorries would unload from nine o'clock. It means that they will be going about the towns from half past eight. If that does not destroy completely the peace of Sunday morning, I do not know what would. It is as close to deregulation as one could possibly come without calling it that.
Lord Milverton: I do not support the amendment because I do not believe that having a set time from 12 o'clock to six o'clock is sensible or convenient. It is argued that, as the Bill at present provides for opening for six hours between 10 o'clock and six o'clock, there would be the lorry traffic. Are noble Lords not aware that even now on Sundays one does not need early delivery by lorries? There is other traffic such as cars and motor bikes. It is not as though early Sunday mornings at present are all quiet.
One noble Lord said that this solution would give the morning in which to preach. The Church should not expect to be privileged by having a certain time on Sunday to conduct their services. We who preach and who take services should do so in a way which makes people feel that they would like to come to church.
I did not agree with the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and others because I do not believe that the Church and Christians should make Sunday just as we want it. It is only when many more people wish to enjoy it in that way that Sunday will become special. Let us face the facts. There are people whose relaxation, besides worshipping, is to shop or join in the many other activities which are different from what they do on other days of the week. Worship is only one aspect. My noble friend the right reverend Prelate may look astounded when I say that I find that I can go for several Sundays without worship because I believe that if one has been worshipping regularly one builds something up. I believe that the Church should be there for when people feel the need for such refreshment.
I believe that the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the others have got it all wrong. Let us not have this provision from 12 o'clock to six o'clock. It is all nonsense.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend on the Front Bench asked me to speak to my amendment which proposes leaving out Clause 5. Because my noble friend Lord Brentford has encouraged me, I shall do so.
I also draw the Committee's attention to two facts. One is that the vast majority of large shopping areas are outside residential areas and are separated from small shops.
Noble Lords: No, no.
The Earl of Onslow: This is factual. It is planning law and it is no good noble Lords saying, "No". It is well known.
Lord Elton: It may not be well known where I live, which is 400 yards from a Sainsbury supermarket.
The Earl of Onslow: That Sainsbury supermarket is not in a residential area.
Lord Elton: Yes it is. I reside in a residential area. I am a few hundred yards from the Sainsbury supermarket. There is no difficulty in the matter. My noble friend, unfortunately and unintentionally, is wrong.
The Earl of Onslow: All I can say is that in the area in which I reside—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Onslow: —supermarkets are well separated, as they mostly are, from residential areas. My noble friend Lord Elton—I use the term "noble friend" advisedly—may have picked the wrong street and the wrong supermarket, but on the whole large shops are separated from residential areas by planning law and planning regulations. That is the point of planning.
Lord Elton: I should tell my noble friend that I was there first!
The Earl of Onslow: I am sure he was. The other point, which has been completely overlooked until now, is that recently there was an appeal by an unholy alliance of Tesco's. Sainsbury's and Safeway's to object to a wholesale warehouse called Costco to be built on the Isle of Thurrock. As I understand the Bill, such a warehouse will be allowed to open on all Sundays if it wishes. All you will have to do is buy your card and buy at a discount at the wholesale warehouse because it is not covered by the six-hour rule. Another one has just been opened in Croydon. I suspect that they will spread fairly widely over the country which will make the Bill even more sensible than it is at the moment.
My amendment is to delete paragraph 5. We do not need the registration of people who have kitchen knives on the off-chance that they might slice their wife's throat. If people can be trusted not to break the law, they should not need to be registered. If shops stay open longer than they are allowed, they should be prosecuted. Is there any necessity for registration? What we are in effect saying by "registration" is: "You have to register people on the off-chance that they might break the law". It seems to me much more sensible not to have that. I thought the whole principle of English law up to now was that if you break the law it is your fault, whether or not you knew it was wrong. What is the point of having registration, piling on regulations and legal points? I always thought the Government, as a Conservative Government, theoretically objected to that.
If we pass a law like this, it might say: "You may only open for six hours on a Sunday, and if you open for six-and-a-quarter hours you are liable to a fine of up to £50,000 for that quarter of an hour and may possibly go to prison". That may be a slightly excessive fine for an extra quarter of an hour, and in these days of trying to reduce the prison population it might be over-egging the pudding to send someone to prison through that extra regulation. Is it really necessary to make a regulation which says: "Here am I, I can open for six hours"? We know that he can only open for six hours; that is what
1642
we are legislating for. If he breaks the law, prosecute him, but do not go in for this extra regulatory effort. It seems to me to be a waste of time.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: if there are any Trojan horses about, it is clear that they are occupied not by members of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, of whom I am one; they are occupied by the deregulators. I do not refer to my noble friend Lady Jay or her colleagues in the House who have fought a perfectly honourable and honest campaign in terms of what they have described and emphasised as being a compromise. I refer to those who stand well behind her—the large stores themselves.
We have the idea to "perm" six hours out of eight. First, that will lead to great confusion. Secondly, through the confusion it is designed to lead to a situation where one is perming any number of hours out of 24. Make no mistake about it, that is the intention and the purpose. The apparent limitation to six out of eight hours will be impossible to police. It will produce pressures on consumers and staff, as well as on small shops, which will be totally irresistible.
If we vote for the amendment, we shall be voting for something with two great qualities. The first is simplicity, not incomprehension and enforcement; the second is in terms of being a general compromise, establishing a compromise for which almost all of us said we were voting on Second Reading; and in the options debate, including my noble friend Lady Jay.
The way to achieve a genuine compromise which will stick and which will presumably be acceptable to the great majority of noble Lords is to clarify the position and vote for the six hours. Let us not be confused by six hours out of eight, but vote for the six hours proposed under the amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: Like many other people, I feel that Sunday is a day on which above all priority should be given to the things of the Lord. This priority will be damaged by the Bill as it stands, but the amendment would reduce the damage and allow people to worship corporately at ten o'clock or half-past ten, before the shops are open. I therefore support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether I shall be able to help the Committee, but I shall do my best. As Members of the Committee know, the Government have no view on this and it will be a matter for the Committee to decide. One never ceases to learn things. I was fascinated by my noble friend Lord Milverton who said that it was perfectly all right not to go to church on Sunday, provided that you had been on a few other Sundays beforehand, because you had built up a certain amount of spiritual fat and you could trade on that. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelates would agree, I rather fancy not. However, we shall leave that point.
It is important to remember that the Bill, which is based on the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council, allows shops to choose the six hours during which they wish to open from an eight-hour period from

1643
10 o'clock in the morning to six o'clock in the afternoon. Local authorities need to know where they are if they are to enforce the law properly.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Brentford, which is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would fix those six hours between 12 noon and 6 p.m. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Onslow would allow large shops to open for the full eight hours between 10 o'clock and six o'clock. Those are the three options.
When the Shopping Hours Reform Council produced its thoughts, it found it was necessary to tread a fairly delicate path. It recognised the need to preserve Sunday as different in some way while designing a model which was flexible enough to meet the needs of shoppers—the point about which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was worried —and which at the same time ensured that no retailer was unfairly treated.
As a result, the Shopping Hours Reform Council created the six-hour option. That has now received the support of both another place and this House. The six-hour option recognises that for some retailers it is necessary to be an early bird: supermarkets which cater for those who seek ingredients for their Sunday lunch and do-it-yourself stores which like selling paint to those enthusiasts who seem to want to paint anything they can on a Sunday. For others, such as garden centres, in the spring and summer family browsing in the late afternoon is the ideal market to catch, while early opening in winter takes advantage of such daylight as there can be. So the principle is pretty flexible. It allows retailers to choose any six hours from the eight hours between 10 o'clock and six o'clock in the evening. But by restricting trading to six hours, the model will in some cases restrict shop opening to little more than half the shop's normal trading days. Therefore, the Shopping Hours Reform Council will argue that Sunday will remain different.
Many Members of the Committee may feel that this, what one might call, balancing act on the part of the Shopping Hours Reform Council comes with a considerable price tag attached to it. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that the price of flexibility is additional bureaucracy for local authorities and for retailers in the need for retailers to give notice and for local authorities to keep registers and so on. However, I wonder how burdensome that is likely to be in practice. The first point to remember is that fewer than 10 per cent. of the shops will be obliged to take advantage of the notice provision if they wish to trade.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Onslow agrees with that of my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Elton on the need to reduce bureaucracy. Of course we all want that. But my noble friend Lord Onslow believes that the way to do it is to extend the trading hours which are allowed on the model from six to eight. It is a fact that eight hours' trading is pretty close to normal trading or total deregulation. That concerns my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lady Young. Total deregulation was decisively rejected in both this House and another place.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I think that there has been a misunderstanding between us. He sent me a very polite note asking would I move my amendment. I took it to mean the one on deregulation alone rather than that on the hours business. The hours question has more or less been answered; namely, what is the authority for the eight over the six? Let that lie. The one that I hoped he would answer was: is there any necessity to make a licence for people to do something when, if they break the law, they only have to be prosecuted and one need not have the licensing authority? That is what I thought he wanted me to address. I am sorry if I had to interrupt my noble friend. I hope that he can possibly clarify both points.
Earl Ferrers: No, that is not the reason I invited my noble friend to address his amendment in this debate. It was because his amendment was grouped with the other amendments. As other Members were discussing their amendments, I thought that it might be convenient—and that my noble friend realised that it might be convenient —for the Committee to discuss all the amendments on hours together. Justification or not, it is in the Bill that there should be some form of regulation. As I said, that is the down side. There has to be some form of regulation in order to ensure that people obey the law.
Let me return to my track. Many Members of the Committee might sympathise with the arguments that there is especial reason for restricting Sunday trading by large shops predominantly to Sunday afternoon. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Brentford would achieve that. That would preserve the special nature of Sunday morning and might prevent Sunday trading from inhibiting attendance at church. That would have the support of many Members of the Committee. That option was put before another place. It was rejected precisely because many of those who wish to shop and trade on Sundays have compelling reasons for doing so on Sunday mornings, such as the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. If trading in general is restricted to Sunday afternoons, there is a much stronger case for excluding certain types of shop—those which depend on morning trade.
As with all the other amendments that we shall consider today, the Government do not invite those who would normally support this amendment to vote one way or another. The issues are plain enough; namely, whether the Bill creates the right balance in terms of trading hours, flexibility and so on, or whether it would be improved by fixing the hours of trading, reducing the trading period or shifting trading to afternoons. My noble friend Lady Young said that the amendment was a compromise. Good heavens above, it is a compromise. The whole of the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal is a compromise from an enormously conflicting variety of views over which there was no compromise or agreement before. It is a compromise which has had the agreement of another place and of this Chamber when the Bill was first committed.
It is up to the Committee to decide what to do. I have a personal view, which I give as an individual and not

1645
as a member of the Government—my noble friend Lord Onslow keeps saying that the Government's view is this, that or the other but the Government have no view on this issue—because I feel that I am entitled to say what I would do in the same way as other Members have said what they will do. My personal view is that the Bill as it stands has got a difficult balance just about right. I shall not vote for any of the amendments. One can go on until the cows come home trying to find different arguments and different hours of opening or different hours during which shops can open. But in view of all the complexities of the subject, I feel that the Bill has got the balance about right. My own view is that I shall not vote for these amendments, but Members of the Committee can and will vote in whatever way they desire. That is the position from the Government's point of view.
Viscount Brentford: I am grateful to all those who have participated in this very high spirited debate on this small amendment. I should like to reject the charge of being a Trojan horse from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that I am very flattered at having attributed to me the very witty remark made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
Viscount Brentford: I beg my noble friend's pardon and will substitute the name of my noble and learned friend. This amendment is not at all a fresh attempt to bring in the previous Keep Sunday Special option. In no way does it do that. We have accepted the view of Parliament that that is dead and buried. This is but a small movement along the lines of the amendment which has been accepted by this House and another place.
Perhaps I may assist the Committee with regard to local authorities and their views by quoting from a letter that I have in my hand. It is from a solicitor to one local authority, commenting on this amendment:
"As the Bill is drafted at the moment Local Authorities will have a duty to enforce its provisions. Consequently, if large shops were left to choose their "six-hour trading period", it would mean Local Authority officers would have to work from before 10.00 a.m. until after 6.00 p.m. to make sure that shops did not open before their chosen hour and close when they should have done. Thus will obviously put a great strain on … [them]. It would certainly make enforcement far easier and also less of a strain and drain on Council resources if large shops could open for a fixed six-hour period, e.g. twelve noon until 6.00 p.m.".
I believe that that is the right way to move. However, I am not sure whether the Committee will agree.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Caldecote, V.

Aylestoné, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

1646

Coleraine, L.

Morris, L.

Congleton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Romney, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Healey, L.

Serota, B.

Holderness, L.

Stedman, B.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hunt, L.

Strange, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Kilbracken, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Listowel, E.

Weatherill, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor]

Wilberforce, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Marlesford, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

McCarthy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McNair, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gridley, L.

Acton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Addison, V.

Hacking, L.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harlech, L.

Annaly, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Haskel, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayter, L.

Astor, V.

Hemphill, L.

Attlee, E.

Henley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Birkett, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blyth, L.

Inchyra, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.[Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kenyon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lawrence, L.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Byron, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cadman, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Macleod of Borve. B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Courtown, E.

Manchester, D.

Craigavon, V.

Marsh, L.

Cranborne, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Montgomery of Aliamein, V.

Davidson, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moyne, L.

Downshire, M.

Mulley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Erne, E.

Nelson, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Flather, B.

Norrie, L.

Gallacher, L.

O'Cathain, B.[Teller.]

Geddes, L.

Onslow, E.

Gisborough, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Goschen, V.

Palmer, L.

1647

Peel, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Pender, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Suffield, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tollernache, L.

Seccombe, B.

Torrington, V.

Selborne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Shannon, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sharples, B.

Ullswater, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Vivian, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Wharton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

[* The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 132 names. The Clerks recorded 131 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("Easter Day or").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 5 because following upon it there are four amendments to widen the scope of those who wish to shop on Sunday. The amendment is basically asking why one cannot buy a frock in a large shop on Easter Day. If we accept the consequential amendments—and I hope we will—the shops will still have to shut at Easter and I can see no logic to that except that we want to boss people about. Parliament should not allow people to be bossed about by others.
My noble friend Lord Norrie tabled the same amendment separately, though my point is slightly different from his. He is not pressing his point. I am pressing just that small point. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I think somebody ought to say something from the Back Benches. Easter is the great, the central, the triumphant day of celebration of all Churches of the Christian faith. I believe that in theology it transcends Christmas Day in importance. If we believe in keeping Sunday special, this is the Sunday above all Sundays to keep special. I hope that my noble friend's amendment will be defeated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was hoping to hear from one of the right reverend Prelates. I should have thought that this matter greatly concerned them and I should like to hear their views.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: I rise reluctantly but I must resist the notion that any attempt to regulate, in tune with the Christian tradition of this country, amounts to bossing people about or interference. We must respect the fact that this society is rooted in a deep Christian tradition, one which I trust is open to an affirming of all faiths and of none, but which also preserves certain regulations.
I cannot think of any one of my friends of other faiths in Coventry who would not resist the proposal. To have some days which are still respected and revered, and seen as celebratory spiritual days, is something that
1648
many people value. A Hindu friend commented to me the other day on how much he liked to hear an Easter hymn sung on Easter morning in the News and hoped that the BBC would not depart from that practice.
The sense of reassurance and joy that one feels in some parts of the Christian framework and tradition being preserved is very strong. For that reason I do not believe that the keep Sunday special proposals or arguments have all failed, as has been suggested. I believe that the basic thrust behind them of keeping a special day has been preserved in the compromise legislation which we have already accepted. We have preserved something of the special nature of Sunday even if it is much less than I would have wanted. I would plead much more strongly that we should take Easter Day seriously and keep that special quality about it which has made it central to our society, our traditions and to our community over the centuries.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not wish to be hasty or to prevent anyone else from speaking on this matter. Under paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1, a large shop may not open on Sunday when that Sunday is Easter Sunday or Christmas Day, unless the shop falls within the exemptions listed in paragraph 3 to the schedule. The amendment in the names of my noble friends would delete that reference to Easter Sunday, but leave intact the reference to Christmas Day when it falls on a Sunday. So large shops would be allowed to trade on Easter Sunday to the same extent as the Bill allows them to trade on any other Sunday in the year.
I should point out that the provision which this amendment seeks to amend was introduced into the Bill by a sizeable majority on a free vote in the other place. The Government have remained neutral on the options for reform of the law on Sunday trading and have not invited the Committee to take sides for or against amendments to the option for reform in Schedule 1.
The Committee may also wish to consider whether the popularity of shopping on Sunday, including Easter Sunday, pointed to by my honourable friends, should outweigh the importance of Easter Sunday within the Christian calendar which found such forceful expression in the other place. The House will need to consider whether it is appropriate for Parliament to make special provision for festival days of the Christian calendar, but not those of other religions. But these are matters for the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: That is a very novel doctrine for the Church of England. I cannot think that in any of the 39 Articles it is stated that it is perfectly Christian for a small shop to open at Easter but not for a large shop. It is a novel doctrine which is not found in the Councils of Nicaea or Chalcedon. It is unnecessary to take this amendment to a Division. One could go on pointing out some of the inconsistencies in the present legislation as proposed. It is not going to advance anything to call a Division on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 46, at end insert:

1649
("( ) Any shop where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of, either—

(i) motor supplies or accessories; or

(ii) cycle supplies or accessories; or both").

The noble Lord said: I believe that this is a technical amendment which seeks to restore to the Bill before us the right contained in existing legislation permitting the unrestricted sale of motor and cycle supplies and accessories which shops selling these products have been allowed lawfully to do since the Shops Act 1936 and also the 1950 Act, and possibly even earlier than that.
The Bill before us would limit shops over 280 square metres to six hours consecutive trading on a Sunday and so does not continue the existing right to unrestricted opening
"for motor or cycle supplies or accessories",
although it does continue to exempt other examples for travellers, such as railway shops, service area shops and petrol filling stations.
Since 1950 car ownership has risen ten-fold and the variety of spares and their complexity have also greatly increased. To satisfy that demand the motor supply industry has developed a comprehensive retail structure within the legal framework of the 1950 Act. To change the law now could prejudice the viability of that investment and indeed the employment of the staff. My interest in this is as a member of the public policy committee of the Royal Automobile Club, although of course I have no financial interest in this.
The RAC, the AA, the Retail Motor Industry Federation and the Consumers' Association feel that the constraint in the Bill before us regarding the sale of motoring spares would introduce an unnecessary and burdensome restriction and could also have potentially dangerous effects. Some 13 million motorists belong to the motoring organisations and the RAC and AA will always rescue and recover members stranded on the roads on Sundays. Indeed, Sundays are one of their busiest days with almost a million call-outs annually on that day. Although their patrols are well equipped, there are many instances which require the purchase of the correct spare part at a reputable motoring shop.
In addition there are over 10 million motorists who are not covered by the rescue organisations who also need access on Sundays to these shops to repair broken down vehicles or those which need maintenance. It goes without saying that a car does not break down to order and it cannot be guaranteed to do so within the six hours in the Bill. Cars are of course more reliable than they were, but they are also more complicated. For example, I am told that there are now some 93 different types of oil filter and 231 air filters. It is against that background that the size and number of specialist accessory shops have lawfully developed.
If the Bill goes through unamended all the large motor and cycle accessory shops which have grown up quite legally over the years will be restricted to the detriment of their many customers who shop early or late. It is estimated that about 25 per cent. of business is now done legally in hours that would be restricted in the Bill as it now stands. It would be odd if a Bill intended to liberalise the Sunday trading laws actually restricted one category of merchandise which has been allowed to
1650
be sold legally and without controversy since at least 1936. It is also interesting to note that the keep Sunday special amendment which was defeated at a previous stage of this Bill, did permit this activity to continue. So I hope supporters of that amendment then will feel able to continue to support this amendment now. As I have said, this is a simple amendment. All it does is to try to keep the law to the benefit of motorists as it stands and as it has stood since 1936. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I wish to say a few words in support of this amendment. As one would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has covered the ground very thoroughly and I need say very little. As the noble Lord explained, under the present law motor and cycle shops have long been permitted to open without restrictions. It seems very strange, as he said, that when there are so many more cars and they have become so much more complicated, and also in the interests of road safety when it is increasingly important that they should be kept in good shape, the Bill which is aimed at rationalising the law, should, for the first time, limit the opening of those shops which carry the widest. range of spares and accessories.
I have no personal interest. Once upon a time I could change a wheel or change the sparking plugs. But now the factory tightens the wheel nuts so much that I cannot cope with them and when I peer into the recesses of the engine in my motorcar it does not seem to have any plugs at all. I am well aware that there are large numbers of private motorists who are responsible for their own repairs and maintenance and who carry out that work on Sundays. In the interests of road safety alone there is a very powerful case for this amendment which does not break any new ground and which does no more than maintain the present position. Owing to the somewhat unusual pattern of procedure which had to be followed in another place, there has not been any such detailed discussion there and this amendment was not discussed. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to approve it today.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I support the amendment because, as the Committee probably realises, I am by nature a liberaliser. However, while supporting the amendment, I draw attention to another little irony that will result from our making it legal for motor supply and accessory shops to trade on a Sunday. It will then be perfectly legal for that shop to sell a pair of dungarees. However, if the amendment is accepted, as I hope that it will be, it will not be legal for a shop which sells frocks to sell dungarees. I am sure that this is the sort of legislation that we love to pass, but that will be its effect. However, I support the amendment.
Lord Elton: With respect, my noble friend is slightly wrong because 51 per cent. of the shop will be able to sell dungarees but, as the amendment is drafted, 49 per cent. will be able to sell frocks or anything else. The amendment states:
"consists wholly or mainly in the sale of".
The words "or mainly" cause me great concern.

1651
I have two reflections to make on the amendment. First, it is a great pity that those who tabled and spoke in favour of it did not take the opportunity to achieve what they wanted when it was offered by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign's compromise. However, that is history, and water under the bridge. Secondly, if the amendment is accepted as drafted, we are left with another Trojan horse because "wholly or mainly" is a term which is justiciable but which cannot be or is not defined in statute. It means that there will be an opportunity for large operators to open a motor accessory shop and to add other activities up to 50 per cent. or possibly beyond. That will introduce exactly the competition against which the rest of the legislation is designed to protect small shops. I hope that the Committee will bear that in mind. I look forward to hearing other views.
Lord McCarthy: This amendment is the first of a series and, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I do not think that we can take it out of the series. It is the first of a series of amendments which, in the Shopping Hours Reform Council option, make use of the exceptions clauses which enable the removal of restrictions from large shops in a number of specified areas. The first problem is that the kind of shops now specified in the schedule do not make sense. They include shops selling intoxicating liquor, pharmacies, airport shops, railway shops and filling stations. Anyone could say, "Why can we not include another type of shop?" People could ask in particular, "Why should we not include a type of shop that was included before we started with this legislation?" Therefore, the Committee has to decide for itself—think that this has been put forward elsewhere—the criteria that lay behind the provisions about intoxicating liquor, pharmacies, airport shops, railway shops and so on. What were the legislators thinking of when they listed such things?
It seems to me that one can argue that there should be exceptions of that kind if three cumulative characteristics exist. First, if all the shops concerned are big shops—there will not be any small shops operating outside the restricted hours because there are none—and if all shops selling motor supplies or accessories or cycle supplies or accessories were larger than tennis courts, there would be a case. However, that is nonsense. It is not the case. Secondly, one might argue that one would be in a state if there was only one shop in an area, if it was a big shop and if it happened to be closed.
The third criterion fits and is a question of whether we think it so important that it overrides the other two. I refer to the question of whether the shop sells necessary things. I do not see how one can say that intoxicating liquor is necessary. Indeed, those to whom it is necessary probably should not have it. However, one might say of pharmacies and airport shops that there is nowhere else that one can go. That is the only real argument.
There are other shops that sell such things. They exist and for the most part they are not the size of tennis courts. The only thing that one can say is that the shops
1652
referred to in the amendment are necessary if one breaks down and needs the parts. However, I do not think that that is convincing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the acting Leader of the House, will be able to confirm the doubts that have been raised about the drafting of the amendment. Its purpose is obviously right. If, as we have been told, it is the case that such activities have been free of restriction on Sundays for many years, it would be most unfortunate if this Bill, which, whatever its shortcomings, is intended to give some liberation to trading activities on Sundays, should have the side-effect of putting out of legality activities that have been lawful for many years. I hope that if, as has been suggested, the drafting of the amendment is not perfect, and my noble friend will no doubt tell us that, he will then be able to tell us that the Government accept that it would be wrong if the Bill were to impose a restriction where one did not previously exist.
Obviously, motoring accessories need to be accessible over as long a period as possible. One's car can break down; one can have a puncture and encounter other sorts of trouble. One cannot foresee whether that will take place within the normal, limited shopping hours. Therefore, both because, as I understand it, the freedom to deal in these matters has been accepted for many years and because of the common sense of it, I hope that my noble friend will either accept the amendment or explain what is technically wrong with it and undertake to put it right.
Lord Crickhowell: I am strengthened in supporting the amendment by the memory that on Easter Day the rector of the church of which I am churchwarden arrived considerably late for the Easter service because his car had broken down on the way. Luckily, our admirable curate was able to conduct the service adequately until he arrived. Clearly, it is in everyone's interest that it should be possible to repair cars on a Sunday if they break down then.
I declare what I suppose is an interest in that I am a member of the committee of the AA. For once, the AA and the RAC are wholly in accord on this matter. I should add that when they first considered the provisions, many people in the AA were not particularly concerned, but the more that they looked at it, the more they discovered that it was crucially important that such shops should be open on a Sunday. It is important, not least for our own patrols which often have to visit such shops to get spare parts which would not otherwise be readily available to them on a Sunday. That is the practical reality of the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, sought to include other amendments and to broaden his argument. I am comforted by the fact that Amendment No. 6 is not grouped with any other amendment and I am not therefore considering arguments about drink or other matters. I am looking at the particular argument of whether we should maintain the law as it exists at present and provide a service that can be obtained perfectly legally at present. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that we are defending the existing legal position, I think it a bit hard of my noble friend Lord

1653
Elton to describe this as a "Trojan horse" argument or even to suggest that we should have supported the much wider proposition that he advocated at an earlier stage simply because within that wider argument, which the House dismissed, he had included this one piece of merit. That is rather less strong than the arguments that my noble friend normally advances in your Lordships' House. I think he can do better than that.
This is really a simple matter. In a Bill which relaxes the existing regulations, we are seeking to ensure that we do not inadvertently tighten them again and remove a valuable service that has been perfectly legal for many years.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may reply briefly to my noble friend, because, quite sensibly as any good general would, he attacked me on my weak flank. I grant that it was a weak flank and perhaps I should not have advanced it at all, but the main question I asked related to the words "wholly or mainly". I hope that my noble friend Lord Brabazon will address himself to them because they colour my attitude to his amendment. If they were not there, I should not be on my feet. I should be content.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may follow that point on "wholly or mainly", because those words are already in the Bill under the definition of "shop" and in the exemptions clause. So if anyone has to defend the words "wholly or mainly", it is my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Elton: I do not accept that at all, because this is a different type. Here is a plea that a tight specification of goods should be available. I should be happy with that. The fact that in other areas the definition is looser and justiciable is beside the point. I am all too pleased that people who break down in distress, whether they be clergy, curates, churchwardens or even me, should be able to be rescued by means of the shops that my noble friend wishes to remain open. But I should not like there to be included in that a carte blanche for large amounts of other goods to be brought in. Therefore I think that this is of a different order and I hope that my noble friend will perhaps come back at the next stage without those words.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The irony of this situation is that the criticisms of the present Sunday trading legislation have been based on the argument that it was full of anomalies, and that it was complex and ambivalent. What do we have now? We have a relatively simple Bill, although it is not without some complexities, as I said earlier. It is a relatively simple approach. We now see attempts to re-introduce exceptions of many sorts. I find that not without irony.
I shall repeat this argument on subsequent amendments; but the amendments are the result of vested interests, log rolling, masquerading as intellectually respectable reasons for varying, doing something extra, modifying, or adding, so that we shall be back in a complicated mess, and there will be yet a further move—I prophesy that there will be a further move—to
1654
sweep the whole thing away and have total deregulation. These are paving amendments towards total deregulation. I hope that they will all be rejected.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My noble friend may be surprised to hear me agree with him; but it is because of the arguments he put forward in his concluding sentences that I want to put on the record the fact that the Shopping Hours Reform Council does not support the amendments because it feels that the Bill, as it stands, has been a difficult compromise to achieve. For the reasons that I mentioned on a previous amendment, a balance has been struck among an enormous number of complicated interests. It is for that reason that the Shopping Hours Reform Council is not supporting or promoting the amendments, and I shall not vote on them.
The Viscount of Falkland: As my name is down to the amendment perhaps I may say that I support it wholeheartedly, although I am, in general, a supporter of keeping Sunday special. As other peers have said, those who use motor cars—whether we like it or not more and more people use motor cars—use them to a great extent at weekends, especially on Sundays. The motoring organisations are called out mostly on Sunday afternoons to deal with breakdowns.
A complexity of parts is required to keep vehicles on the road. That extends to the number of bulbs, quite apart from the number of filters mentioned by another noble Lord. Cars break down. The advertisement of one of the motoring organisations shows a much relieved lady looking through her rain-spattered window at the happy arrival of a repair man. I can imagine how her face might look if the advertisement were continued with him telling her that there was no possibility of obtaining that spare on that Sunday to get her moving again. That is what the likelihood would be.
There is another possibility. Those who find that their cars do not start at a time when they cannot go to larger shops may be tempted to borrow someone else's vehicle, and, as it were, chase around and search for a considerable amount of time, causing added congestion and problems. They might even go onto motorways. On the M.4 one can go on the motorway at one entrance and come off at an adjacent exit. That causes additional problems and the risk of accidents, because people who are searching busily and who are frustrated when driving are more likely to have accidents.
Whether one is a supporter of a special Sunday, or whether one is having a special Sunday, one is likely to be using a motor car on a Sunday. If one cannot get the right part quickly, it would, in practical terms, cause a great deal of frustration and congestion, and risk of additional accidents. Generally, it is only the bigger stores that give the full range of services for modern motor cars. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, is sitting on the edge of his seat to tell us about the position for motor cycles, which is similar but even more difficult.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment. We have heard all about motor cars, about which I agree. I see that the amendment deals also with cycles. More and more people are cycling over the weekend. There are masses of mountain bicycles, although some people do not approve of them. It must be a good thing to have accessories available for cycles as well as motor cars.
Lord Strathcarron: I support the amendment on behalf of motor cyclists who, by tradition, service their motor bikes at the weekend. I should like to remind the Committee that motor cyclists have met the safety targets set by the Government some 10 years in advance, and it would be a great pity if that happy state of affairs were jeopardised because motor cyclists could not obtain on a Sunday the spare parts that they need.
Viscount Brentford: I cannot accept the amendment as it is drawn because of the words "wholly or mainly". I am happy to support the principle behind the amendment, but I should like to ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing the amendment on the basis that the Committee approves it in principle, and to bring it back at the next stage without the words "wholly or mainly". Then I should be happy to vote for it wholeheartedly.
Lord Hacking: Perhaps I may give some comfort to noble Lords who have been worried about the expression "wholly or mainly", and a little assistance to my noble friend the Minister. I am a lawyer, although not a member of the Judicial Committee of this place. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, and perhaps it is better that I did not hear. I have been unable fully to research the definition of "wholly or mainly". It was placed in the Bill, in this amendment and my other amendments because it was the formula chosen by the parliamentary draftsman.
The assistance I can provide is that the words "wholly or mainly" have been considered in revenue law where it means 90 per cent. I would ask my noble friends who are concerned about this matter to have some confidence in the good sense of the courts. As it happens, the burden of proof, under Section 101 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, rests with the person who is seeking the exemption. The burden starts with the person who is advancing the case. Secondly, in 1987 the courts have considered the provisions of the Shops Act, and they have not been prepared to come to a silly conclusion on the words. I shall go into that point in more detail on the next amendment. They have not stretched the meaning of the words in the Shops Act beyond their ordinary meaning. They have come down firmly in favour of construing the Shops Act legislation, unpopular though it may be, by the words that are used in the statute.
I hope that my words will provide some comfort to my noble friends who have expressed anxiety and that they will be of assistance to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: When the previous Bill was before the House and in Committee, many of us
1656
argued consistently in favour of total deregulation. We did so for two main reasons. The first was that there was no reason why people who wished to shop at hours convenient to themselves and why the shopkeepers who wished to serve their needs should not be allowed to do so. The second reason was that the 1950 Act was so strange and produced such extraordinary results—with which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had fun on many occasions—that it invited breach of the law. As the Gowers Committee stated more than 50 years ago, the law was being brought into contempt. Fifty years later the Auld Committee stated that it was being brought into disrepute. In addition to the extraordinary nature of the schedule, one of the main reasons was that many shops stocked goods which could be lawfully sold on a Sunday and goods which could not and that was an invitation to breach of the law, which was widely accepted.
That brings us immediately to the difficulty of this amendment; it is the words "or mainly". The revenue law has nothing to do with it. The words "or mainly" in this context presuppose that the shop in question is selling goods other than those to be sold to motorists. In other words, it is the same invitation to breach the law that we had previously.
On the other hand, powerful arguments have been put forward in favour of the amendment and they must be weighed one against the other. If the matter rested there, I would vote in favour of the amendment. However, it does not, because we have had the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Those of us who wanted total deregulation have accepted a partial deregulation based on a compromise. It was evidently part of the compromise, either explicit or implicit, that the provision now in the Bill should be part of the compact. That being so, those of us who accepted the compromise are bound in honour not to support the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I came to the debate in a fairly ambivalent frame of mind. Members of the-Committee who have spoken against the amendment have persuaded me that I should support it. Many of the arguments have been about important principles; for example, that these items should be available. I was one of those who voted for partial deregulation but who would have preferred to have voted for total deregulation because of the element of protection for small shops. I do not believe that small shops would in any way be threatened by maintaining the law relating to those who are supplying motor accessories.
Without going down the road about the nature of such accessories, I humbly put forward the idea that motor accessory shops are as much hobby shops. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be aware of many people who spend Sundays tinkering about with their cars, adding go-faster stripes, mirrors and signs on the back. That is a Sunday occupation in the same way as that related to garden centres.
Therefore, I support the amendment. Above all else, the principle of not regulating something that is not at present regulated is most important. I urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: In the Bill as drafted, filling stations are exempted from any restrictions. Would not a way out of our difficulties be to amend the Bill so that filling stations could sell any kind of motor accessory at any time? Many filling stations are open on Sundays arid will continue to be. That could solve the problem.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wish to make two comments in almost two sentences. First, I hope that the Committee will not feel bound by the terms of anything which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, may have decided by way of compromise through her admirable organisation. We must make up our own minds on the merits of the amendment—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I was reflecting my personal position in this respect and the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murray. He suggested that following the Trojan horse analogy, which the noble and learned Lord introduced in a previous amendment, this was another Trojan horse and I was rejecting that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not think that this is a Trojan horse, but I fully accept what the noble Baroness said about her personal position.
My second point is that I am not at all worried by the words "or mainly". In this country the courts are judges of fact as well as of law. The magistrates, who deal with 97 per cent. of crime, the civil judges, who deal with the rest and with civil business too, and the juries (when they are called upon to decide) have enough common sense to apply the words "or mainly" in the ordinary dictionary sense as matters of fact and degree.
Viscount Bledisloe: I cannot understand how something can be a Trojan horse if it has existed for 50 years. Surely a Trojan horse is trying to smuggle in something new under a disguise. Secondly, I am amazed and wholly unconvinced by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I doubt that the Shopping Hours Reform Council consciously bartered away the existing right of motor traders of any size to sell goods on Sundays in return for something else. It is extraordinary to suggest that because some organisation bartered away a right, we should be bound or influenced by a compromise which barters away an existing right and removes someone's legitimate trade.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I was glad to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham declare that he was not at all worried about the term "or mainly". The motor spares shop, with which the amendment is concerned, is a highly sophisticated business. It is unlikely—indeed, it is absolutely inconceivable—that an organisation which specialises to such an extent will move into areas that are so far away from its natural product.
I must point out to my noble friend Lord Caldecote that the average shop at the average filling station is quite small. It could not contain an inventory required by the AA, the RAC or other rescue organisations. Those organisations could not carry out their functions without an extremely large inventory because of the sophistication and non-exchangeablity of parts, of
1658
which air filters and oil filters were an example. They are simple examples, but there are others: steering parts, brake parts and electrical parts. We should recognise that the majority of breakdowns are electrical, cooling, mechanical faults or tyres. Therefore, one must appreciate the range of parts which must be carried. They can be carried only by a specialist shop. Such a shop would certainly be over the small shop size and would be very unlikely, in my experience of 30 odd years in the business, to be selling items which are far removed from motor parts.
6 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I add my support to this amendment. I rely on wheels not only in my car but in my wheelchair. If I do not have wheels, I do not have movement. Sometimes, even as the law stands at present, it is extremely difficult to get repairs done, not only on a Sunday but also on other weekdays. Any limitation would restrict some people's mobility even more than it is at present. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look into this matter and I hope that he cart help the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon and his supporters.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that it is inconceivable that specialist shops should start selling other lines. Of course it is as they are presently organised, as the law presently stands and as it is totally disregarded, at present, in relation to Sunday trading.
If a situation arises in which there is real financial advantage to be gained by setting up a small shop which can evade the rules imposed by the Bill, then chains of shops dealing with motor accessories, and so on, may decide to allow in small boutiques of one kind or another. When I say "boutiques" I do not mean only clothes, but small shops of that kind. That will create a very real problem.
It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, does not meet the point that I make. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will listen to me because he may well be able to help me on this matter. He says that the courts will interpret fairly and with common sense what "wholly or mainly" means. Of course they will do that. However, let us take the example of a shop selling 60 per cent. motor accessories and 40 per cent. clothes, although that may seem odd at the moment. Surely the courts would then decide that that shop was selling wholly or mainly motor accessories and that, therefore, it would legally be able to sell the other items.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brabazon, is able to either meet that point or consider it further. This amendment opens a very large door and no one has yet answered the problems that may be created by so doing, at least not in a way that I can accept.
Lord McCarthy: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon to take on board the fact that, if one looks at the schedule, there is no need to use the words "wholly or mainly". The words "wholly or mainly" are to be found in paragraph 3(1) (a) which states:
"any shop where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor".
But, paragraph 3(1) (b) states:

1659
"any shop which is a registered pharmacy and … is not open for the retail sale of any goods other than".
Therefore, that uses the words "any goods other than" and not the words "wholly or mainly". Therefore, at present the schedule has exceptions to the "wholly or mainly" provisions and the noble Lord could make use of them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I wish to say a few words in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said about specialist shops. I agree with him. At the moment they are specialist. At one time we used to think that when we went into a garage or a petrol station we would buy petrol and perhaps some car accessories. Now when we go into a petrol station we find that petrol is almost a sideline. There are all sorts of items. The petrol station which I use sells sweets, chocolates, pop—I still call it pop but I think they call it Coca Cola these days—sandwiches and papers. You name it, they sell it.
The result is—and this is the tragedy—that the shops opposite which used also to sell those items are now on the verge of bankruptcy. That is the thin end of the wedge argument which worries me. After all, nothing can be more specialist than selling petrol. It may be that after a few years people will get the idea that they can make a lot more money by selling many more items other than those items for which they were originally established to sell. That is what worries me about the amendment. That is what worries me about the argument—which was very good and perfectly reasonable—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the Committee will permit me to make a few general points because I believe that we are going to spend a certain amount of time discussing whether or not to extend the very few exceptions as regards large shops opening beyond the six hours. Whatever I say, I remind the Committee that it does not constitute a recommendation about the way in which Members of the Committee should vote or the way in which decisions should be taken. Just as the Government were neutral on the available options, so they are neutral in relation to the amendments to the options which were chosen by your Lordships.
It is entirely for the Committee to weigh up the merits of each amendment. I shall merely attempt, if I can, to be as helpful as possible by putting some of the issues as impartially as possible.
Your Lordships have chosen the option of partial deregulation and we now set out to provide legislation which is simple to understand. It depends on one main criterion: whether the size of the shop is above or below 280 square metres. Shops which are smaller than 280 square metres will be able to open at any time. Shops which are larger than that will, for the most part, be restricted to six hours trading. That is fairly simple and understandable.
But, as Members of the Committee have discerned, the Bill as it stands makes exceptions from those restrictions for some types of large shops. They were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who
1660
referred to shops in railway stations, registered pharmacies which are open for the retail sale of pharmaceutical items only, shops at airports and so on. It is now the duty of the Committee to decide whether we consider that those few types of exempt shops should be added to or whether we believe that even though there may be strong arguments in favour of extending the list, those arguments are not so strong as would justify making the law more complicated.
We do not need to fall into the trap of feeling that we must accept or reject all of the proposed exceptions. Each one must be decided on its merits. Members of the Committee may decide that all the proposed exceptions should be included in the Bill, or that it would be better for, perhaps, one or two additional types of shop to be treated as special cases. That is a matter for the Committee. When I am invited, as I was by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to comment on whether the Government would like to consider the matter, I can only say it is for the sponsors of the amendment to consider any observations made by the Committee.
I have a very personal word to add. As it has taken so much of what one might describe as blood, sweat and tears to reach a position where both places have agreed on the shape that the reform should take, I feel that the more we tinker with it, the more we put at risk the uniformity which, at present, has been achieved. That is merely a personal view of caution as opposed to any form of dictatorial observation.
I turn now to the specific question of motor supply shops. I believe that Members of the Committee would all agree that the approach of the schedule in the Sunday Trading Bill is very different from that which was taken in the 1950 Shops Act. Noble Lords may, therefore, wish to question whether the fact that exclusions are contained in the 1950 Act for the sale of motor supplies is still a relevant consideration to apply in relation to the Bill. But, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, shops have been able to sell motor supplies on a Sunday since 1936 and they have made investment decisions based on that freedom to trade. But, on the other hand, under the option in the Bill, motorists need not fear being stranded for want of a spare part. There is already a general exemption in the Bill for any petrol filling station or for any shop at a service area within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980. Moreover, small shops (those which are under 280 square metres) can sell spare parts for cars and trade at any time of the day.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter took exception to the fact that he was erroneously accused of using the phrase "a Trojan horse". In response, I can only say that he erroneously accused me of being the "acting Leader" of your Lordships' House. I am not. My noble friend the Leader of the House is sitting here in the Chamber and I am not the acting Leader. I believe that my noble friend meant to say that I was the Deputy Leader of the House. I am sure that he, too, makes a mistake periodically. I would not wish to usurp my modest position of being Deputy Leader by considering myself as an acting Leader, because I am not.
Having put that problem to one side, the real point of my referring to my noble friend is his concern about the drafting of the amendment. I shall repeat what I said

1661
earlier. The drafting is a matter for the sponsors of the amendment. It is true that motor supplies and accessories can already be sold on a Sunday. But the amendment is not restricted to the sale of such items; shops have to sell mainly those items. It may appear to some noble Lords that, as the Bill stands, it will not restrict large cycle and motor supply shops in a way which is unacceptable. In fact, it will allow such shops to sell legitimately their whole product range for six hours on a Sunday. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that Members of the Committee may feel that that is not long enough and that motor supply shops are, indeed, a special case. It is a matter for the Committee.
Lord Airedale: I have one point to put to the noble Earl. When the court has to interpret the words "or mainly", is it to consider quantity or value? For example, if a shop sells 100 sparking plugs for £100 and 50 pots of geraniums for £150, how does that affect the court's decision on the question of "or mainly"?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: What a silly question!
Earl Ferrers: My noble and learned friend finds that a silly question. However, another of my noble friends says that it is a sensible one. The answer that I am bound to give to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is that that will be a matter for the courts to decide.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on what is really the first amendment to deal with exemptions. The issue boils down to two things, one of which I might describe in the words of my noble friend Lord Elton—and, indeed, it is becoming something of a catch-phrase—as a Trojan horse. I must point out to my noble friend Lord Elton that if this is a Trojan horse, it is one that bolted in 1936. Such shops have been permitted to trade in those goods since then.
I have a further point to make especially to the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Although I may not have grasped her words correctly, I believe that the noble Baroness started her speech by referring to "these amendments"; in other words, the amendments which deal with exemptions. I should like to make it clear that my amendment is different from the others. It seeks to preserve something which is already a legal activity and has been for many years. It has already been said that accommodation has been made in the Bill for people who have previously been breaking the law. The motor suppliers have not previously been breaking the law. That is a significant difference. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, I understand the difference between the amendment now under discussion and the ones that succeed it. In my opening remarks I was referring to the way in which my noble friend Lord Murray approached the group of
1662
amendments. He sees them as a collective Trojan horse. I hope that that is the last time that the phrase is used this evening.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I fear that the noble Baroness may be unlucky in that respect. However, I shall not use it again. I must point out to the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Stoddart, that this is a different amendment. It deals with an activity which has taken place perfectly legally for many years.
I turn now to a comment made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his closing remarks. It is an important point. Investment decisions have been made by such shops over the years to build shops of more than 280 square metres. They have done so in the knowledge that they can trade perfectly legally for seven days a week. If they are now to be restricted to trading for only six hours, that will have implications for the staff—who, presumably, at present want to work for the length of time that the shop is open—and will also have an impact on the shops themselves. Of course, we have already covered the point about customers. To that extent, it would be retrospective legislation: it would Le putting the clock back to force such shops, which are trading perfectly legally, to close for two or three hours on a Sunday when they have previously been open.
There is another point that has caused a great deal of heat and, perhaps, not given quite as much light. I refer to the definition of the words "wholly or mainly". I believe that my noble friend Lord Hacking and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham dealt perfectly adequately with any queries that Members of the Committee may have on that point. I believe that we should leave it to the good sense of the courts to decide—as, indeed, they have done for many years—on the meaning of those words.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord agree that it is not solely a question of whether the courts think that it is "mainly" or not? There are two questions involved. First, there is the question of law. If one of those shops is selling, say, toys (like petrol stations do at present) it is not sufficient to say, "You are going beyond selling motor goods to motorists", because the answer would be, "As a matter of law, the statute says that it is all right if we 'mainly' sell the motoring goods". It is then a question of fact for the jury or the magistrate to say whether or not that is so substantial an amount that it is, or is not, "mainly", As I said, there are two questions involved. The words "or mainly" raise a serious legal difficulty which I hope the noble Lord will consider.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not a lawyer and I certainly do not have the knowledge of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I would point out that this is a phrase which is used in the Bill in the line above that where this amendment would be inserted which states,
"wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor".
If that is acceptable in the Bill, I do not see why it should not be acceptable in the amendment.
At the end of the day the matter may be one which the courts have to decide but I am sure that they have had

1663
experience of such issues. I do not believe, as regards the kind of shops I am discussing, that there has been any problem over the definition of these goods in the past 50 years. It is not something one hears about very often in any case, if ever.
I believe I have covered the points that were raised but perhaps I should refer briefly to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who mentioned the possibility of motor accessories being available at filling stations or motorway service areas. I believe my noble friend Lord Lucas answered that point. There is no way that the average petrol station or motorway service area could possibly stock the enormous range of goods to which I referred in my opening remarks. That is why big suppliers are already in existence. I hope the Committee will support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) any shop where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of—

(a) trees, shrubs, plants or seeds;

(b) garden furniture, supplies or equipment").

The noble Lord said: We now move on to garden centres and DIY stores. In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 which also stand in my name. The Committee therefore has the choice of supporting the combined amendment that seeks exemption for both garden centres and DIY stores—that is Amendment No. 8—or one or both of the separate amendments; Amendment No. 7 relating to garden centres and Amendment No. 10 relating to DIY stores. All the amendments have been tabled on a cross-party basis and I greatly appreciate the support given by Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber. Unfortunately, I believe I have lost the physical presence of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, but I see that I still have good support from other Members of the Committee on the Opposition Benches.
The purpose of the amendments is to free garden centres and DIY stores from the regulatory structure of the Bill, particularly as regards the hours of opening, to enable them to continue to open and close at such times as they and their customers desire. The amendments are directed—I wish to emphasise this—to the enhancement of the Sunday pastimes of gardening and home improvement, whether the home improvement be painting, wallpapering or carpentry, and to the enhancement of family life. Indeed, many families enjoy touring garden centres and DIY stores where much more viewing takes place than buying.
The amendments are important to the industry. The Bill affects the majority of the 1,400 garden centres and 900 DIY stores in England and Wales. Most of these premises, because they have to stock and sell bulky goods, are over 280 square metres in size. The Bill also impacts on the 40 per cent. of sales, out of an annual turnover of more than £10 billion, which take place on Sundays at garden centres and DIY stores. The Bill is therefore likely to damage the profitability and levels of employment at those stores.
On the other side of the shop counter, the amendments are also important to the customers. Altogether 6 million people visit garden centres and DIY stores on Sundays in the peak season period, particularly around spring. Those customers want to continue to make use of the maximum daylight hours. They want to start their shopping before 10 a.m. and they want to be able to return for further supplies after 4 p.m.
It is important to set these amendments into the history of the shops' legislation. As the Committee knows, the 1936 legislation is the basis of the Shops Act 1950, which was a consolidating measure. The 1936 legislation was not anti-consumer. Indeed, it wanted to accommodate reasonably the needs of society at that time. The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava introduced the Second Reading of that legislation in 1936 in this Chamber. In referring to the exemptions contained in the fifth schedule to the Bill, as it then was, he said:
"You will see there is as complete a list as any man could desire of the things that any reasonable person might require at short notice on Sundays … It is deliberately designed so that no member of the public should be inconvenienced on Sundays".
It was within that frame that this Chamber allowed, within the Shops Act 1950, nursery gardens to sell their own produce. Indeed, when I started gardening I remember visiting nursery gardens and being given a spade by the owner who told me to select the cherry tree or shrub that I wished to plant in my garden. At that stage garden products were predominantly sold from the soil in nursery gardens. That is specifically included in Section 58 of the Shops Act 1950. To take another example, it was, and is, permissible to sell flowers, including potted flowers or flowering shrubs, under Section 47 of the Shops Act 1950 and Schedule 5 to the same Act.
The trouble is that society has changed and, as the Committee knows, the shopping legislation has not responded to that change. There is now 80 per cent. more home ownership than in 1936 and therefore 80 per cent. more home owners who wish to plant out their gardens and decorate and equip their homes to their individual taste. It is not surprising therefore that from the 1960s garden centres and DIY stores started to open up and to increase their range of goods. Are we therefore going to say to those 6 million members of the public who visit DIY stores and garden centres on Sundays, "Sorry, we are going to cut back these facilities." "I am sorry but you cannot shop early in the morning and get on with your gardening." "I am sorry but you cannot return after 4 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening." "Parliament says so."?
We must be aware of the impact of our laws. The hours proposed in the Bill for DIY stores and garden centres were tested in stores in Northampton last month. The same hours as those proposed in the Bill were used. I must inform the Committee that the customers' reaction was extremely unfavourable. Having said that, those of us who have our names to these amendments are sensitive to the opinions held by members of the Retailers for Shops Act Reform group and also by the members of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign. We have been so sensitive that we have taken these exemptions from the option which they were urging

1665
upon us when we debated the options in this Chamber. I should add that we have somewhat simplified the exemptions but in essence they are exactly the same as the exemptions that were included in the option which was before the Chamber.
Genuine anxieties have been expressed by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Elton. I must say in response that we are not attempting to do anything which will damage the "specialness" of Sunday. I can say precisely that we are restricting these exemptions to established Sunday and family fasting. Also, we have drafted our amendments carefully so that they cover only goods properly sold in garden centres for the garden and in DIY stores for home improvement. Under the terms of the amendment, it will not be permissible lawfully to sell groceries or washing powders in garden centres. Nor will it be permissible to sell fridges or soft furnishings in DIY stores.
At this time of night I shall not take your Lordships through the cases that were taken in the High Court in 1987. However, perhaps your Lordships will accept from me that in three consolidated cases concerning a number of parties the High Court of Justice strictly applied the terms of the Shops Act and was not prepared to extend the ordinary meaning of that Act, unpopular though it was. Therefore, if the amendments are accepted, your Lordships can have the comfort—as I hope is always the case—of the courts properly construing your Lorclships' intention.
The other comfort that I would give to your Lordships concerns the terms of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Schedule 2 lays down strict requirements on local authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill and to appoint inspectors. Those inspectors are then given in the Bill extensive rights of entry into and search of shop premises.
Together with Section 101 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, to which I referred earlier, this truly gives protection from what worries my noble friends who sit close to me, from a wedge, or the opening of the deregulation floodgates or the destruction of the sanctity of Sunday.
In conclusion, the amendments are not anti-Sunday or anti-family. They are not against achieving a proper balance in the Bill before your Lordships.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down will he explain one point? It appears to me that the three amendments are largely alternatives. Am I correct in thinking that he does not propose to move all of them, but will move them seriatim?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies to that very relevant question, perhaps I may point out to him that Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 overlap and could not possibly both be added to the Bill. It appears that Amendment No. 7 stands by itself and has a great deal of merit. I have doubts about my noble friend's other amendments.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, indeed, these are alternative amendments. I felt that, since different views
1666
may be held by your Lordships, it was sensible to have a choice of including either garden centres or DIY stores, or both.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to ask the noble Lord a number of questions. Is it not the case that Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 all use the phrase "wholly or mainly"? Therefore we would face the same potential problems if we voted for any of the amendments.
Has the noble Lord read the remarks of Mr. Stephen May of the John Lewis Partnership? If he has not, I should like to quote them. Mr. May says about the noble Lord's amendment that on the basis of "wholly or mainly":
"A large modem DIY store has anything up to 90,000 square feet of selling space. What is to stop a B&Q diverting 40% or more of its space to merchandise from its sister business Comet—and what would electrical competitors such as Currys say about that? By the same score it would be technically possible for a Sainsburys-owned Homebase to incorporate within its perimeter a food supermarket".
Would that be possible under the amendrnent? If not, how can the noble Lord assure us of that?
Lord Gisborough: One reason for not having such shops open would be if they could compete with and drive out the corner shops. None of the items covered by the amendments appears to conflict with the interests of corner shops and the amendments would do no damage to corner shops. Therefore I should like to support the amendment.
Baroness Young: It was inevitable once we took our decision that there would be a number of amendments which were clearly designed to upset the decision which the House reached only on 29th March. We now have a series of amendments which would exempt various stores from keeping to the six-hour rule.
I accept that there is a difference in the case of Amendment No. 6, which was carried, simply on the grounds of road safety. That is a completely different issue from all the others that we have debated in. relation to whether shops open or close. Therefore, I can see the argument there. However, the arguments in favour of garden centres, DIY stores, bookshops and so on simply extend deregulation.
In the debate on Amendment No. 6 I regretted to hear my noble friend Lord Crickhowell—who I am sorry to say is not in his place—dismiss the point of my noble friend Lord Elton that, had anybody wanted these provisions, if they had voted for the KSS/RSAR option they would have been able to have them because under that proposal garden centres and DIY stores were excluded.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has just mentioned the point which was raised by the John Lewis Partnership of the unfairness if such amendments were passed. A garden centre would be able to sell furniture all day long whereas another store would not be able to sell garden furniture for more than six hours. That is the kind of anomaly which would arise. It would be repeated in relation to DIY products and everything else. The difference between these amendments and the KSS/RSAR amendment is that we defined very closely what such shops could or could not sell. We were

1667
laughed at and were told that it was very complicated. However, that proposal was very carefully thought out on the basis that visiting garden centres could be described as a leisure activity. For many people it is.
Therefore, a long list of exemptions was put forward before the ink was dry on what we decided. Those who wanted garden centres to be open all day declined to support the option which would have allowed them to do so; those who support the opening of DIY stores declined the option which would have allowed them to do so. They now think that they can change the Bill further to upset the balance. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said in relation to Amendment No. 6. We would be driving a coach and horses through the Bill. It would mean that within a very short period of time there would be total deregulation, the one option which both Houses of Parliament have been against.
Of course there are winners and losers in all things. I am sorry that our amendment was not accepted and that garden centres in particular could not stay open. However, it would be quite wrong to upset the balance that has been agreed by choosing large numbers of groups of organisations which could have exemption from what Parliament has decided.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I confess that I speak in support of the amendment, but I do so with a good deal of surprise about the course of our debate today. My confusion has been strengthened by the speech which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thought that it was for this House and its Members to make decisions on the merits of the case. Yet many of the arguments—including the argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and that from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, although she half denied it—suggest that somehow a contract had been entered into, but not a contract between Members of this House but one between campaigning outside organisations.
I was very surprised by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose views I always respect, when he referred to an explicit or implicit compromise which he argued meant that he was committed not to seek to amend the Bill today. I have to say that I was committed to no compromise and to no contract. I do not understand how the Committee can take that view. Of course, individual Members may decide that they wish to adhere to the decision made by the House in this difficult area of choice. Individual Members have been free to campaign under one of the acronyms with which perhaps I alone am unfamiliar. But surely each amendment should be discussed on its merits. The case should be examined. It should not simply be said that the House has made up its mind after a long debate, and that that is the end of the matter.
That is the view put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. As always, he does so with great good humour, distinction and subtlety. But that is what the Government are saying. The Government have had enough of this Bill—I do not blame them for taking that view—and they wish the House to leave the Bill well
1668
alone. The Government want no amendments to the Bill, for all that the noble Earl expresses a personal point of view today. Many other Members of this Chamber say precisely the same.
I put it to noble Lords that that is an untenable and dangerous position for this Chamber to adopt. We should discuss and vote on amendments on their merits. We should not refer to the previous decision as being incapable of amendment. Having played no part in previous discussion, and having taken no view between the lobbying organisations, I believe that that is the reasonable position to adopt today, whatever the strength of one's personal view.
I say this in support of my argument. There is a case for examining amendments on their merits. It is a Bill totally lacking in principle and in logic. Every Member of the House knows that to be the case. It is the nature of the compromise. I listened to a very good speech at Second Reading from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. It was a speech of principle. I heard a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It was a speech of principle on another side. But what the House settled on, as noble Lords have said today, was a compromise without principle.
So far as concerns logic, my noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very good speech. I greatly enjoyed it. I heard the powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I followed it almost all the way. Suddenly there was an "however", a change of direction. The logic was not carried through and I do not believe she would claim that it was. She argued that the House of Commons had decided on a reasonable compromise and we should therefore settle for that compromise. I am not against compromises. Perhaps the House had reached the correct compromise. I do not seek to dispute that. But you cannot pretend that there is a principle underlying the compromise and a logic underlying the decision which the House adopted. I do not believe that to be true. I say that because I believe that that argument is more important—it applies to several amendments put forward today—than the argument put forward with great clarity and force by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
I see no case against the amendment and a very strong argument for it. The DIY shops are in a special position. That should be acknowledged. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I hope that the amendment will be discussed and voted on on its merits, without reference either to the decision of the House at Second Reading or to the views of the campaigning organisations outside this Chamber.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 8. I should like to do so as a former full-time director of a garden centre which I still own.
It has been stated previously that we all wish to see an Act which is popular, practical and permanent. A six-hour limit on leisure shopping on a centre's busiest day satisfies none of those criteria. In the Bill, shopping in a garden or home improvement centre and shopping for food in a supermarket are exactly the same activity. In reality they are worlds apart. There is no comparison between choosing a loaf of bread and selecting a shade

1669
of pink camellia from the garden centre or a pattern of floral wallpaper from the home improvement store. The latter is enjoyed for many years; the former is eaten within days.
In short, regular household shopping is a chore. The visit to the garden or home improvement centre is an outing. On those outings, families browse, plan and formulate ideas for their homes and gardens. It is no surprise that Sunday, naturally the family leisure day, has become the busiest trading day in those sectors.
That development over the past 20 years is scarcely surprising. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, home ownership has now extended to nearly 80 per cent. of the population, and people generally have more leisure time. That said, many do not have a great deal of spare cash and so they have to do the work themselves.
Home improvement and garden centres opening on Sundays allow people to undertake those improvements which they could not otherwise afford. Between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of business in that sector is transacted on Sundays. That is when people are free to do their gardens or their decorating. To limit the hours of opening at the busiest time is a recipe for disaster. The public will be frustrated and the traders will be penalised.
With public support and local authority tolerance, such outlets have opened between nine o'clock and six o'clock on Sundays for many years. Some noble Lords may wonder why the extra few hours make so much difference. The answer is that people wish to work on their homes and gardens during the day. Many want to start early and to pop into their local garden centre to buy their plants, or local DIY at nine o'clock in the morning. They then have the whole day at home to complete their project. Others find themselves needing last minute supplies towards the end of the day to finish the job and four o'clock closing is just too early for them, in particular as the evenings lengthen. Four o'clock is too early for those who hire tools or garden machinery for the day from their garden centre. By the time they return to meet the four o'clock deadline, they have lost half the afternoon.
There is no doubt that without the amendment many people will be greatly inconvenienced and they will not thank us for it. I know from my own personal experience just how unpopular and damaging this restriction on garden centres and home improvement stores can be. In this House we have long sought to encourage pursuits which involve the family in constructive activities. Gardening and home improvements are home based, family-inspired activities. How much healthier and social it is to dig the garden or paint the fence than to sit inside watching the television or video. I cannot believe that we seriously contemplate forcing people to rush their Sunday lunch in order to get to the garden centre by four o'clock or be locked out. Frankly, their indigestion will not be relieved by the principles underlying the legislation, especially when the traders and their staff want to serve them.
Noble Lords do not have to accept my word. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, an experiment was carried out in Northampton during the four Sundays in March of this year. The garden and home improvement
1670
centres restricted their opening times from ten o'clock to four o'clock to test people's reactions. My worst fears were realised. The response ranged from amazement through disappointment to downright anger. Most people had the same message. Sunday was their day to improve their homes and gardens, and they were greatly inconvenienced by what they clearly saw as an unexplained restriction.
Perhaps I may give the Committee two examples from the hundreds of quotes from the Northampton public. One person looking for plants for his garden said that he always took his children out on a Sunday afternoon and needed to get his gardening done in order to spend the rest of the day with his family. The ten o'clock opening had spoiled his plans.
Another person had travelled some 25 miles. He said that Sunday was his only day for working on his home but having to wait until ten o'clock for the store to open. meant that by the time they reached home half the day was used up. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, the trial in Northampton demonstrated just how unpopular it would be for the Bill to progress without the amendment. The noble Lord also said that in the spring and summer 6 million people visit garden centres and home improvement stores on a busy Sunday.
I have concentrated on the plight of the customer if the amendment is not passed. However, it goes. without saying that the garden and home improvement centres themselves, and the people already working in them, will suffer financially if we leave the Bill as it is. Paradoxically, the Bill specifically deregulates some of the nation's largest retailers, the oil companies, who will be free to expand their forecourt sales at the expense of garden centres and home improvement stores. Are Members of the Committee aware that the non-petrol and oil sales already account for £1.7 billion of garage turnover? It would be ironic if legislation—one of whose main purposes was to protect the small from the large—gave the very largest a monopoly.
Perhaps what is most important is that the amendment is not a significant or fundamental change to the integrity of the Bill. There are fewer than 2,500 garden centres and home improvement stores in England and Wales—less than 1 per cent. of our shops. We all know a garden centre and a home improvement store when we see one.
I take great heart from the fact that the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform specifically sought in their options to exempt these types of outlets from their general restriction on large shops. They recognise the special position of leisure shopping. The early and late shopping visit is long established. To force shopping hours into the middle of the day is wholly counterproductive and it will not carry public support. Without that, we do not do our job well as legislators. This is a genuine attempt to make regulation work and since November 1993 we in this House and those in another place have voted on this Bill on no fewer than six occasions, excluding Committee, to reform the Shops Act. Throughout that process, those in this House who have campaigned for regulation have

1671
acknowledged the special place of motoring, gardening and home improvement. To do otherwise at this stage would be perverse.
I greatly respect the impartiality of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. However, the fact is that the local authorities have in the main turned a blind eye to garden centres and home improvement stores which have been trading on Sundays for the past 20 years. Why ask those local authorities to continue to do our dirty work for us? Many will not do so. Those that do will become the subject of ridicule, and the law will again fall into public disrepute. I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As one in favour of total deregulation, I have no difficulty with the amendment as regards garden centres and do-it-yourself stores. If I had any difficulty, I should certainly have been persuaded by the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Norrie. The case seems to me overwhelming from the point of view of a complete deregulator.
However, we cannot consider those two types of shops alone. We are considering them in the context of the total retail organisation of the country. Moreover, we cannot consider the issue irrespective of what happened when we last had such a Bill. It was hard fought, in the end noble Lords carried a Bill with deregulation and it was thrown out in the other place. The Home Office then tried valiantly to reconcile the different interests. It failed officially, but in the end the various interests came together. Each side made concessions, the Keep Sunday Special Campaign (with whom I had been at variance) made concessions in our direction; we made concessions in its direction. The noble Viscount said that there was no principle behind the compromise. The compromise itself is a principle: each side gives up something in favour of the other on reciprocal terms. That is the principle and it ought to be adhered to.
Recently in your Lordships' House we had a notable example in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill where the different sides were irreconcilable. Then the Leaders on each side, including the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, himself, came together and negotiated. In the end, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was right in saying that his side attained two-thirds of what it had been seeking. That was not disputed by the noble Earl. But it was important that, having arrived at that compact, each side resolutely adhered to what had been agreed to. Without that kind of action, the Bill would have foundered; without that honour in negotiation, the conduct in your Lordships' House would be quite impracticable. I therefore strongly adhere to the line that was taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
There is another point. As the noble Earl reminded us, the matter has come from another place which has blessed the compromise. We are running a risk—not only a moral but a political risk—if we now try to whittle away in our favour what has been conceded by
1672
our opponents. However much I favour the economic argument that has been so cogently deployed, I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I supported the KSS option on the first Committee day on the Bill. I therefore consider it entirely logical that I should at least wish to consider again the part of that option which states that garden centres and do-it-yourself stores should open without restriction on Sundays. I think it would be totally illogical to reject them without further discussion. I disagree with those Members of the Committee who feel that garden centres and do-it-yourself stores cannot be separated from general retailing. They are a different kind of retailing; they are a leisure activity. That is particularly true in the case of garden centres.
Garden centres in particular have gone out of their way to make special provision for families. I listened with some amazement to my noble friend and other noble Lords during the Second Reading debate, when they described a visit to Sainsbury's as the highlight of a family's outing in the week. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, the matter is quite different when it comes to a garden centre because children enjoy it. The centres have set out to make them enjoy it and it is part of the family's exercise for that weekend that they should be able to go together to choose what they want to enrich their gardens.
The garden centres too are usually in locations where they do not cause traffic problems. Usually they are away from shopping centres. I have no doubt that there are exceptions to this rule, but most of them are well away from shopping centres and they cause no difficulty, either to the local residents or to the people who want to go to them and to park.
Furthermore, the goods they sell can be much more easily categorised—if noble Lords will forgive the word—and identified. However, I accept that if the Committee were to agree to extend the opening hours of garden centres it may be necessary to look again at the wording, to prevent an expansion of inappropriate sales. There is another point. Since they have operated on Sundays for many years, there is not likely to be a difficulty as regards staff.
However, when it comes to do-it-yourself stores, I am in slightly more difficulty. Although the activities which they serve are also leisure activities and they serve weekend activities which the family can share, there is a difficulty because of the problem of location in many cases. I see that they can add to the traffic problems and be seen to pose a threat to other stores which may have an overlap of goods. There is much more difficulty in identifying the range of goods which they should be permitted to sell in pursuit of a leisure activity. So I am willing to be persuaded so far as concerns do-it-yourself operations, although I put my name to the amendment. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, decided to give the Committee separate choices, so that if we want to vote for one amendment and not for the other, we can do so.
At this late hour I shall not say any more. However, I feel that to bring in the matter of principle, as some

1673
Members have attempted to do, is in this case quite wrong. The two cases can stand alone and should be allowed to do so.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: If most of the amendments on pages 2 and 3 of the Marshalled List are accepted, it will take us step by step a long way towards deregulation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was fully justified in the very general comments that he made on that point.
With regard to this group of amendments, I am in favour of Amendment No. 7 and not opposed to Amendment No. 8. But quite frankly, if we have No. 8, we do not need No. 7, which is a duplication of it. Amendment No. 10 is in a different category altogether.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol (perhaps she will give me her attention), that we can make an exception in favour of leisure activities. But Amendment No. 10 seems to have precious little to do with leisure activities. It deals with the repair, building and decoration of dwellings—homes. Quite frankly, it goes very far. It would cover all builders' merchants and what I call wallpaper shops, which are more euphemistically called home improvement shops.
I strongly oppose Amendment No. 10 and hope that it will not be pressed. It has nothing to do with garden centres, DIY or leisure activity. It is in an entirely different category. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hacking, with his well known good judgment, will not press it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I may put in some words edgewise, "like a fish slice" as Flanders and Swann said. In an intervention earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, referred to all the discussions on this part of the Bill as being concerned with vested interests. Like my noble friend Lord Norrie, I have been involved in horticulture for much of my working life, but I should state clearly that only once, for a three-week holiday job, have I ever worked in garden centres or earned from them. My family firm, which is a nursery, does not even supply them. But I am an occasional customer and have seen their expansion over the past 20 years. It is not unreasonable to say that, without them and the DIY centres, which grew up almost in parallel, we should not now be discussing this Bill at all. Quite honestly, I do not think that we would have a Bill.
Although in recent years the whole opposition to the Shops Act 1950 has developed to embrace what one might broadly call the food trade, it was started by the garden centres and do-it-yourself shops. They first tested that Act and in many cases local authorities failed to prosecute them, as we all know. But that is not why they continued to trade. The sectors expanded simply because there was demand for them. Very successful they have been, too.
Looking back—it is easy to look back, is it not? I wish that I had put a great deal of money into garden centres and do-it-yourself stores 20 years ago, but I did not—their success is particularly marked when those sectors have traded on Sundays. The Horticultural Trades Association say that Sunday sales represent 40
1674
per cent. of garden centres' annual sales. It is not unusual for someone to wake up on a sunny Sunday morning, especially in the late spring, and say to himself, "I must go out and garden today but I do not have any seeds, pots, wallflowers, bedding plants, or whatever." Exactly the opposite applies to do-it-yourself activities. It is the rainy, cold day which acts as an incentive to put up shelves, hang wallpaper and so on, and then you find, on going to start the job that you do not have a sharp drill or have run out of wallpaper paste or whatever. As has so aptly been said, being leisure activities, it is at the weekends, and particularly on Sunday, when those things are done, almost always by more than one member of the family.
I believe that we all recognise that fact. Although their words were different, the promoters of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign recognised it, too. Obviously, they can and have spoken for themselves, believe that they have recognised that both activities are family activities; that garden centres are a part of our very successful tourist industry; and that neither sectors compete with village stores. The Royal Horticultural Society's plant centre at Wisley is an example. It is an adjunct to a garden which cost slightly over £3 million last year to keep up. I am told that if the trade on Sunday is restricted to six hours when the garden is open for eight hours, it will mean a reduction in income of £180,000. That is quite a lot of money for an educational charity with a turnover of just under £11.5 million. Nor is that all. The total cost of the bill to the RHS is estimated at over a quarter of a million pounds because of other garden centres which they run (at Rosemoor in Devon and Hyde Hall in Essex). More gardens and hence more garden centres are planned across the country. I do not have a figure for the National Trust but I should have thought that it must be in that order, or greater with four large garden centres now in its properties.
Having said that, my main concern is not about money but about politics. Politics has had a dirty name in this country for some time. People to whom I have spoken from all walks of life have welcomed the fact that at last Parliament has decided to liberalise Sunday trading. What will they say when they discover that in these two areas, far from being liberalised, they are in fact being restricted? That is why I have no difficulty in supporting the middle one of the amendments to which I put my name. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. Amendment No. 10 goes much further than I should like. I believe in liberalising shopping for leisure activities on Sunday for as many hours as those traders feel confident to open. That is the position with which I shall remain content.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask this question. Does he agree that the issue is not as he states it; namely, that DIY and garden centres should close down on Sundays but that they should not be allowed to open before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m? How many of them do that now?
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to declare an interest again. I have a garden centre. I paced it out the other day and it sneaks in at just under the 809 square

1675
cubits of which the law speaks. I suppose, as a small garden centre, the internal area (the external plant area does not come under the Bill, nor do the awnings or the pergolas) or the actual sales area is considerably larger.
Perhaps I should argue in favour of restricting access to competitive shops, like the big garden centres such as Capability Brown or whatever. There are many very big garden centres. However, I do not believe in doing so. As has been said several times before, it is a family activity. We should be able to function on the merits of our own businesses. We do not need either mollycoddling or bossing about, which is what the Bill tries to do.
I shall therefore support the amendment. But I add one further point. Whenever one visits a service station on the motorway or a large garage, one can almost certainly buy potted plants, house plants, cut flowers and several gardening items but one cannot buy a cylinder head gasket or an oil filter. Most garages, therefore, are being allowed to sell garden plants while garden centres cannot sell garage items. That is not a sensible piece of legislation.
Lord Elton: I am sure we all want to finish this point quickly—or at least I should like to finish it quickly because I want my dinner. I do not know whether other noble Lords agree with that. However, one or two issues must be brought together.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made it clear that we must consider the merits within the context of the principle. The principle was that the scales were balanced and a compromise reached. Now, one by one, we are beginning to drop things into one side of the scales and not the other; that destroys the compromise. It was reached in this Chamber and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, if he were able to hear me, would agree, outside among the other organisations. I was interested in the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in relation to the earlier stages of the Bill. Unfortunately I missed his contributions though I thought that I had been here for most of the time. However, his points were adequately met by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I want to point out one or two misconceptions. First, the sale of anything but plants in a garden centre has been illegal since 1950, as has the sale of almost all forms of DIY. We are therefore not talking about restoring the status quo, but legalising an illegality. The question of anomalies is not swept away by these amendments, as proposed. I received a letter from the John Lewis Partnership which says,
"Already big DIY businesses sell a wide range of non-DIY goods such as carpets, curtains, kitchen furniture and lighting, contributing perhaps one-third of their total turnover".
It is big business. We are not talking of something the size of this Chamber, where we sit below and above the Bar. We are talking of places of many thousands of square feet. It is not proposed that they should be shut; it is only proposed that their hours of opening should be limited, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, aptly intervened to say.
1676
Members speak of this proposal as though it were the proposal offered by the KSS at the last stage. It is not. There was no "wholly" or "mainly" in that; it was for the straightforward admission of garden centres for their own proper trade.
I have already spoken of the anomalies. It is worth illustrating that a 90,000 square foot garden centre could easily set up a 40,000 square foot electrical store; for instance, Kingfisher owns B&Q and it could do it. We are not talking only about existing garden centres. We are talking of an area into which the major traders—the people who sponsored the great revolt which overturned the KSS proposals—are being offered an opportunity to set up their own garden centres and then sell all sorts of other lines which, though they collectively add up to less than half of what is sold, separately could wipe out the competition from the small shops in the area.
Therefore the principle and the merit combine. The principle is that there was a decision that we should maintain some sort of speciality for Sunday on the balance in the Bill as we agreed it in Committee before it was reconvened. The merit is that if we start adding more and more to this side of the scales we re-introduce all the anomalies that my noble friend Lord Onslow—in a commendable speech—decried earlier. We also threaten the small traders who this country need and who should be protected.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I support Amendment No. 8 which will allow the freer opening of garden centres and DIY stores. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that we were changing the balance between regulation and deregulation. I am an unashamed deregulator, which will come as no surprise. But the noble Lord has much to answer for. Once we embrace regulation we are embarking upon an impossible task of drawing lines between permitted and non-permitted activity. I was shocked to hear my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, drawing a line between garden centres and DIY stores. It was his elevated and final view that garden centres may be leisure activities but not DIY.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord may not have heard me properly. I said that I was in favour of garden centres and DIY stores. They can both be justified on the grounds that they are leisure activities. I was against Amendment No. 10, which comes in a quite different category.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I apologise to the noble Lord. I thought that Amendment No. 10, which concerns,
"construction, extension, renewal, decoration, repair or maintenance",
embraced DIY but went wider. I am supporting Amendment No. 8.
The difficulty remains for all Members of the Committee that if we are in principle a regulator, we must draw lines and not object when other people find that those lines do not precisely correspond to any principle. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon says that it is a principled compromise. But it is an

1677
unprincipled compromise because there is no litmus paper to enable us to judge the good exceptions from the bad.
I am not a gardener nor, I am afraid, addicted to DIY. But I have visited garden centres on a Sunday morning before or after Church,—if before, I have had coffee in a garden centre as early as nine o'clock; it is out in the country and perfectly acceptable to go with my wife or grandchildren. Garden centres and DIY stores are one of the great examples of the revolution in retailing which opened up new possibilities. They are one of the great glories of the capitalist system, even under some constraints. They present an opportunity for new businesses catering for developing and aspiring, ambitious families wishing to improve their estates in the same way as some Members may do on a larger scale.
I was shocked again—it has altogether been a very shocking day for me—to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, say, not with precise accuracy it appears from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the KSS offered the option of freer opening for DIY stores and garden centres as part of its package. As its package was rejected by the other place, it must now withdraw that concession. It was the bait to persuade people to swallow full restriction; once restriction is defeated then the bait is snatched away.
Baroness Young: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. He is grossly misinterpreting what I said. If I said it in that way, I obviously did not make myself clear.
It is true that under the KSS/RSAR option we believed that garden centres and DIY stores should be open. But the difference between our proposals and the ones in the amendments is that everything was closely defined. Therefore the unfairnesses which were drawn to our attention by, in particular, the John Lewis Partnership, were not present. The point is that, once that proposal was lost—and the House decidedly did not want that option—we then had another option. If we now break the second option, we are simply going straight down the path of total deregulation. That is what I always suspected would be the case. As I do not believe in total deregulation, I think that we should call a halt to it.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I shall not continue with the argument about the Keep Sunday Special change of stance, as it seems to me. It is something which many people outside this House would not fully credit; namely, that experienced and prominent statesmen in our land should devote parliamentary time, attention and expense to this kind of pettifogging effort of where to draw the noose around the consumer's freedom of action. It is a wholly preposterous effort to curb and curtail pleasant, agreeable, and useful activities. I stand by my position that useful and harmless freedoms should only be abridged in the cause of some major national advantage and I see none of that here.
I wish to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that freedom will gradually develop because retailing developments are by no means at an end. They will go on in ways which we cannot yet foresee, but they will
1678
turn out to be less unpleasant than she currently believes. So when deregulation fully arrives we may join hands and go on our way at any time of the day or week on our harmless rounds.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: For a few moments I would like to deal with the compromise that was reached. It is important. It is important also to understand that it was made in the House of Commons. It was not made outside, but in the other place. It was made to resolve a stalemate which had existed over a very long period of time and which the Government and all Members wished to break. That is why the compromise was reached. It was reached by only 18 votes.
If there had been no compromise it is likely that we would not be dealing with a six-hour Sunday but with a "no hours" Sunday. The big stores would have been able to open for four Sundays before Christmas. That is what would have happened unless a compromise had been reached. That is also why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend were absolutely right to say that it would be wrong and dangerous to break that compromise now. That is what we are in danger of doing with this group of amendments.
The fact is that once we pass one it will be very difficult to refuse to pass the others. I shall tell the Committee what will happen. We have heard a great deal about leisure. Now we want to make an exception because something is "leisure" which is not a necessity. Previously, we made exceptions because things were necessary. We allowed chemists to open outside certain hours because they were selling necessities. Now it is proposed that we should give a privilege to firms which are selling "unnecessaries". That is absurd.
What will the food shops say? They will say, "If we agree that it is correct and will not hurt anybody to sell leisure goods which are not necessary, how much more necessary is it to sell things which everybody needs which comprise not only food but clothing as well?" My noble friend said that it was a great chore to go food shopping, but in my experience I have never understood that it is a great chore for women to go clothes shopping. But they will not be allowed to do that. I give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: I must have explained myself rather badly. As regards garden centres, it is not so much the article which one goes to buy but the activity of going to the garden centre itself which is the leisure activity. It is the pleasure of going into those surroundings and enjoying the facilities which are available there. That is the leisure activity, not the actual product.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I perfectly understand that. We could get over it by charging admission to the garden centre and not selling anything. Whether that would be agreed is another matter. I hope that the Committee sees the difficulty. There has been a sort of arrangement reached which has come from the House of Commons in this form. If we interfere with it and pass one of these amendments, then we have driven a coach and horses through a Bill which the other place agreed

1679
to after much heart searching and a great deal of hard work and conciliation by many dedicated people on both sides of the argument. That is why I implore the Committee not to pass any one of these amendments: if it does, it will be regretted later.
Lord Glenarthur: Until now I have hesitated to play any part whatever in this Bill for the very good reason that in 1986 I was the Minister who had to take the then shops Bill, the Sunday trading Bill, or whatever it was called, through your Lordships' House. That was a most exhausting experience. But having listened to some of the comments made this evening I am provoked to make a brief intervention.
I suppose it is a question of once bitten, twice shy, which explains why I did not play a part at either Second Reading or as regards the so-called "compromise amendment" debated just before Easter. I was very struck by a remark made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. He said that it was largely because of the activities of the DIY centres and garden centres that the Auld Report, which pre-dated the earlier Bill and other things, came before your Lordships. It was very much because of the nature of the change in the way in which people used their Sundays and led their lives in general that those enterprises grew and became such an important part of the countryside and our way of life. I can say from my own experience in Scotland where, thankfully, we are not troubled by this Bill, that we are able to go to our garden centres and DIY centres as and when we please on Sundays because they are not regulated in the way that they are here.
I take the point which my noble friend Lord Norrie made—that is to say, that there are very sound practical reasons and family reasons why these centres should be open. I also take the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton about the difficulty of Amendment No. 10. I suspect that my noble friend. Lord Hacking will accept those difficulties. I cannot accept the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others that because a compromise agreement was reached before Easter we are still ruled out of order if we try to amend the Bill further with a view to putting right certain obvious anomalies which go back a very long way. In part they were what the 1986 Bill was designed to put right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I wish to make it clear that I was not suggesting that amendments should be ruled out of order. The House is perfectly entitled to discuss them and pass them. I was merely trying to warn the Committee not to pass them and to draw its attention to what had happened in the other place.
Lord Glenarthur: I did not word my remarks nearly carefully enough. Even that is something which we should not be asked to adopt. It is perfectly reasonable that we add to the Bill sensible amendments. I do not believe that that would put at risk the compromise which has been achieved outside or inside, or wherever it was arrived at. I endorse the remarks made by the
1680
noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I hope that the best amendment, which is Amendment No. 8, can be properly endorsed by the Committee this evening.
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, tell the Committee whether he has had time to reflect on the very real difficulty, which several of us have tried to point out, that a 90,000 square foot garden centre or DIY centre could incorporate a 40,000 square foot electrical goods centre or something else? That is how I understand the law, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, seemed to endorse that. Will the noble Lord consider drafting his amendment in terms so that a garden centre can open only for the sale of garden plants, goods and furniture, and a DIY shop can open only for the sale of particular goods associated with DIY? I cannot draft on the hoof, but at the moment many of us see a large hole in this drafting.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may comment on that point and make one other point briefly. I may have misunderstood my noble friend Lord Hacking, but I understood him to say that, as far as garden centres are concerned, his amendment permitted the sale of garden goods only. However, that is not my reading of it. The amendment refers to "wholly or mainly" garden goods. Therefore, a court could easily interpret the provisions to mean that if a shop sells 51 per cent. gardening goods and 49 per cent. clothing it would be perfectly in order to open on a Sunday. We should know that that is what the amendment states. Therefore, I oppose it.
My other point relates to DIY centres. We should realise that there will be an element of unfair competition if we permit such centres to open. At the moment, they have some 20 per cent. of the self-assembly furniture market. The other 80 per cent. of similar sized shops would be ruled out of order for trading on a Sunday. Such DIY centres also have 27 per cent. of the lighting and minor electrical business. It would be unfair competition if they were allowed to be open to sell all the goods that they stock. Therefore, I do not believe that we should accept the amendments both for those reasons and for all the reasons that were so ably expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Viscount sits down, does he not agree that the problem with the word "mainly", to which he rightly drew attention, could be overcome by inserting at the next stage a definition subsection which could provide that "in the above subsection, the word 'mainly' means 80 per cent.", or 90 per cent. or whatever percentage is thought appropriate?
Viscount Brentford: I made that point in relation to a previous amendment, but it was not taken up. I am open to considering that particular point, but it does not alter my view of the amendment as a whole.
Earl Ferrers: The question that we are debating is whether the Committee feels that garden centres alone or do-it-yourself stores alone should be exempted from the six-hour restriction or whether the arguments are so

1681
strong in both cases that both types of shop should be permitted to trade all day. We must remember that garden centres and DIY stores which cover an area of under 280 square metres can open all day. We are considering only those of over 280 square metres, and they can open for six hours on a Sunday in any case.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, made a very impressive speech. I did not agree with the content, but I was impressed by the delivery. He said that there was no principle or logic in the Bill. He said that he had listened to speeches of principle on one side and to speeches of principle on the other side, but that the Bill had no principle. He also said that the Bill is a compromise. I can only say to him that, of course, it is a compromise. I do not think that that is anything to be ashamed of. It is a compromise because for years we have heard people of principle and speeches of principle and the trouble was that there were so many principles there was no meeting point. The only way to get them to meet was to have a compromise. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that it is a principle to have a compromise—and a very suitable one it is. That is nothing to be apologetic about.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I did not suggest that there was anything dishonourable in a compromise—only that if one has a compromise, one cannot object to amending it on the grounds that one is challenging a principle. If a compromise represents an agreement, it is open to individual Members of the Committee, particularly those who have not hitherto taken a view, to argue the case on merit and not be bound by what sometimes has been described as a contract, signed and sealed in this place on 29th March. There was no contract and we are free to discuss and decide on the merit.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is entirely right. I would never have suggested anything other than that. I have suggested throughout that this is a matter for your Lordships to decide. I simply warn the Committee that it has taken about 45 years and 29 attempts to get some kind of agreement in another place. We now have a certain amount of agreement there and a certain amount of agreement here—and we do not want—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene because I may not have made myself clear. The principle is—and it is a firm and universal principle—that contracts should be observed, and should be observed strictly. I add that the agreement that was reached on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which was observed strictly by the proponents of that agreement, was also observed—because we felt that we were bound to observe it—by those of us who had no part in the negotiations.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that we want to go too far down that road at this stage. I was merely trying to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was right to say that it is up to your Lordships to decide but, in deciding, your Lordships will want to take the general picture into account. I do not wish to persuade your Lordships what to do.
1682
Unlike motor supply shops, garden centres and DIY shops by and large cannot trade legally on a Sunday under the 1950 Act although, as we know, going to garden centres or DIY shops is a popular Sunday leisure. time activity. Your Lordships may feel that garden centres, in particular, are for this reason, too, a special case. Indeed, garden centres are perhaps the only retailers whose trading depends on taking advantage of all available hours of daylight. But your Lordships may also wish to bear in mind the fact that garden centres also sell many products which are sold by other large shops. For example, they sell barbecues, garden furniture, pet equipment, power tools, toys, and even clothes. They sometimes sell paving slabs, swimming pools and fencing timber. They even sell singing Christmas lights and metal cats with reflecting eyes which are supposed to terrify the daylights out of normal cats and keep them off the flowerbeds. All that is highly desirable and much valued, but your Lordships may wish to consider how large shop competitors of garden centres might feel if large centres were to be allowed to open at any time on a Sunday but their shops would he restricted to six hours' trading.
As your Lordships have been told, one argument for allowing DIY shops to trade for more than six hours is that if garden centres are allowed to do so, in schoolboy language "it isn't fair" if DIY shops cannot do so as they often have the same products and are in some respects direct competitors to garden centres.
But if one follows that argument, if all large DIY stores are to be exempted from the six-hour restriction and to be allowed to open all day, what about furniture stores, carpet warehouses and other types of shop which sell many of the same products as DIY stores themselves sell? Where should the line be drawn? If all these stores were allowed to open at any hour on a Sunday, as my noble friends Lady Young arid Lord Elton have pointed out, that would be total deregulation by another name, but your Lordships have decisively rejected total deregulation.
On a question of practicalities, your Lordships might care to consider whether the courts will be able to decide, with any degree of confidence, exactly what is a DIY shop or a garden centre and what is not. For example, a department store sells Christmas decorations, carpets, furniture, kitchens, tools, and paint. So does a DIY shop. Does that therefore make the department store a DIY shop? Will it therefore qualify for unlimited trading on a Sunday under the terms of the amendment? The Committee may feel confident that a garden centre can be identified readily and easily as a garden centre, but that a DIY store is riot specifically distinct; or the Committee may take the opposite view and favour an exception for DIY stores but not for garden centres. That is entirely a matter for the Committee.
I would add just one personal caveat. I have mentioned it before, and I do so without any form of direction. I think that we should be careful about bringing into the Bill a great number of additional exceptions. We have already agreed an exception for motor supply shops. If all the exceptions which have been proposed were accepted, we might well find, as my

1683
noble friend Lady Young has said, that the reform is becoming largely indistinguishable from the total deregulation which this place has already rejected. But the decision as to what to do is entirely a matter for the Committee. I try only to put those views as impartially as one reasonably can.
Lord Hacking: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate. The argument has been put fully, and therefore I have just a few observations to make before I test the opinion of the Committee.
Mention has been made of our political relationship with another place. As with the earlier amendment about motor supplies and cycle supplies, the other place has not separately considered the issue.
Baroness Trumpington: Order! I am terribly sorry, my noble friend must not speak from the Gangway. He must speak from his place.
Lord Hacking: I am so sorry. I shall constrain myself. I was more comfortable in that position, but I shall speak from my place. Because the other place was anxious about which option to choose, it did not consider separately these amendments, as it did not consider separately the other amendment. If the Committee is pleased to pass one of the amendments, and the matter goes back to the other place, it will then be in a position, for the first time, to consider the issue and to express its views by accepting or rejecting our amendment or by sending back a substitute amendment. I am a great admirer of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I do not see that as a political risk; I see it as part of the norm of our relationship with the other place.
Again, much has been said about compromises. I played no part in any of those compromises. The majority of the Committee played no part in any of those compromises, and it seems to me that each of us, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly said, should reach a decision on the merits. As for driving a coach and horses through the Bill, it is for us—is it not?—to consider each of the issues and to decide whether there should be further exemptions. If we decide on a case-by-case basis that there should be further exemptions, then there will be plenty of time for this place on Third Reading and for the other place to look at the Bill as a whole. We cannot tell the contents of the Bill until we have been through the exercise of considering these important issues.
It seems to me that the correct approach is to reach a decision on the merits, and in doing so to understand the needs and reasonable desires of the public who may not elect us but whom we continue, none the less, to serve.
There are three amendments before the Committee. Having heard the debate, I do not propose to press Amendment No. 7. It is my intention to withdraw Amendment No. 7 if invited to do so by the Committee. It is my intention to put Amendment No. 8 before the Committee, and I do so for two sound reasons. The first is that in the practical world, where DIY stores and garden centres function, they both engage in the
1684
business of providing garden products and DIY products, and therefore to divide them has a certain artificiality about it.
The second reason is that I believe the amendment deals with the concerns that have been expressed about the words "wholly or mainly" and the fear that the two issues will cause the deregulation horse to canter through the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, makes a number of remarks when he is sitting down which I do not always hear. I am not inviting him to stand up, but I should be grateful if he could kindly listen to me, because I wish to press the matter at the end of the debate.
If the Committee would look at the words of Amendment No. 8, it will see that it deals with the problem of "wholly or mainly", because we set out in Amendment No. 8 a list of items which come under the garden centre category and a list of items under the DIY store category. For a court to be invited to say that a store selling in any quantity carpets, refrigerators or white goods is involved "wholly or mainly" in the business of that garden centre or DIY store, is to invite the courts to come to the sensible decision that the selling of carpets, refrigerators and so on does not fit into the frame which is set out in Amendment No. 8. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) any shop which is a nursery, garden centre or do-it-yourself home improvement shop, or both, and is open wholly or mainly for the sale of plants, garden supplies and accessories or materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
7.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 34.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Attlee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Barber, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McNair, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nicol, B.[Teller.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norrie, L.

Courtown, E.

Northbrook, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pym, L.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennell, L.

Hacking, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renwick, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Seccombe, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

1685

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Torrington, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Wharton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ashbourne, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brentford, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Caldecote, V.

Plant of Highneld, L.

Cockfield, L.

Reading, M.

Coleraine, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L

Coventry, Bp.

Rochester, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Flather, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Goschen, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Holderness, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: It might be for the convenience of Members of the Committee if we were to break at this time. If that meets with approval, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.40 p.m.]
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Airedale) in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [Restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops]:
The Earl of Buckingham The Earl of Buckingham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) any shop where the trade or business carried on consists wholly or mainly of the sale of books,").
The noble Earl said: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 9 or 12 this evening. However, I propose to move similar amendments at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson: moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert:
1686
("( ) any shop at a farm, smallholding, allotment or similar place which is not open for the retail sale of any goods other than produce produced thereon.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence in the Chamber of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, it falls to me to move Amendment No. 11. It is wholly self-explanatory. It would exempt from the regulations:
"any shop at a farm, smallholding, allotment or similar place which is not open for the retail sale of any goods other than produce produced thereon".
It does not leave room for any ambiguity. There is no question of trying to use the provision as a cloak under which to sell carpets, furniture or anything else. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is a thoroughly worthwhile amendment. It makes no dent at all into the general restrictions imposed by the Bill.
I should add also that it will help English and, indeed, Welsh winemakers who are struggling so hard to overcome the obstacles erected by the European Commission, in spite of the fact that the quality of their wine improves enormously year by year. Every bit of help that can be given to them will be extremely welcome. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: This is just one more move to extend the exemptions to the Bill. It seems to me that once again we have a further attempt—and Members from all sides of the Committee were saying this a few moments ago in the supper room—to drive a coach and four through the Bill.
We should remember that the area of 280 square metres is that of a tennis court. Therefore, that is quite a large area. I do not favour the amendment. It is one more step towards total deregulation.
Lord McCarthy: The amendment refers to a "smallholding" but it sounds rather like a "largeholding". What proportion of such shops would the noble Lord say are larger than a tennis court?
Lord Monson: I do not have the faintest idea because I did not draft the original amendment. Of course, in the example of a vineyard, it is difficult to define where the shop begins and the vineyard ends. It might include the whole vineyard, it might not.
The noble Viscount suggests that this amendment drives a coach and horses through the Bill. In fact, it drives the tiniest of Shetland ponies through it, if it drives anything at all. We are talking about a very tiny amount of trade in relation to the total trade undertaken on a Sunday. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asks a perfectly reasonable question. However, it really depends on where the shop part ends and the smallholding or farm begins. That is a grey area and I should have thought that it would be safer to drop all restrictions.
The Earl of Onslow: This amendment could be called a Trojan pony, if one is allowed to mix one's metaphors somewhat. I believe that the farm retail shops were excluded under the 1950 Shops Act. I know that there are different rules for farm shops which produce their own produce. They were certainly exempt under the 1950 Act.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, there will be very few shops which are larger than a tennis court. I

1687
suppose it is possible that some of those shops sell a lot of home-killed meat. However, as Members of the Committee will know, I am in favour of allowing people to do what they want to do without let or hindrance from other people. I support the amendment, although I suspect that it is not quite as well drafted as some of the others.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: It had not been my intention to speak to this amendment. I had taken it for granted that it would have the support of the Committee and it is only the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, which makes me realise my naivety in approaching the more arcane aspects of the Bill.
I took it for granted that the omission of this provision was an oversight which the Committee would wish to remedy. It now seems to me that it was omitted as a result of an agreement reached in a smoke-filled room. It is part of a contract to which many of us were not party. I understand that no doubt it will be a great embarrassment to the Minister if the amendment is accepted. However, I hope that the amendment will be judged on its virtues and I believe that its virtues are clear. I see no reason whatever why the amendment will drive a coach and horses through the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has not explained why that should be the case, how it is the thin edge of the wedge or why this is a further step towards complete deregulation. If that is the case, I should like to hear the argument.
It seems to me that there is an extraordinary tendency throughout the whole debate to say that matters were all signed, sealed and delivered on 29th March and that it is improper, almost, for any Member of the Committee to challenge the agreement reached at that time. That agreement was reached between organisations with which some of us have not been in any way involved.
It may be that the amendment is defective. I should be prepared to listen to that argument and not support it if it is. It may be that in some way this opens the floodgates to total deregulation. The noble Viscount has not made that point. I hope that the noble Earl will not repeat the Government's position and say that he is neutral. He is neutral so long as there are no amendments to the Bill. I hope that the Committee will accept what seems to me to be a totally reasonable amendment to which no Member of the Committee can take exception.
Earl Peel: I apologise to Members of the Committee for not being present in the Chamber when the amendment was called. The main point that I should like to make is that the amendment is very similar to one moved, and accepted by the Committee, by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara earlier today. It is concerned with the position of relatively large farm shops which sell their own produce—whether it be fruit, vegetables, meat or whatever—which has been produced on the farm from where it is offered for sale to the public.
Under Section 58 of the 1950 Shops Act—I cannot claim to go as far back as my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in his amendment which referred back
1688
to 1936, but I still go back to 1950—farms have until now been trading without any restrictions. As the Bill stands, farm shops of up to 280 square metres in floor area will continue to be able to sell either their own or brought-in produce without any hours' restriction, but large shops will be limited to six hours on a Sunday.
As the relevant provisions in the Shops Act will be repealed, the six-hour limit would also apply in the case of retail sales to the public for produce from the farm on which the larger shop is situated. In other words, those farm shops which are larger than 280 square metres in size which are currently able to sell their own produce for any number of hours on a Sunday would be restricted to six hours in the future.
We are probably talking about 100 or so such farms. But exactly the same argument applies as was put forward by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. The people concerned have understood that they will not be restricted. They have developed their business accordingly, which in many cases has involved them in considerable capital investment. I should also point out that, generally, we are talking about fresh produce which is produced on the farm and which can, in many cases, go off. Therefore, it would be only sensible and fair for them to be allowed to continue in such a way.
If the amendment is not accepted, it would be tantamount to retrospective legislation in that we would be preventing such people from carrying on a business which they have been legally entitled to do since 1950. Therefore, in the same way as the Committee agreed to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, I very much hope that Members of the Committee will be persuaded to accept my amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It had not been my intention to intervene in the debate because I do not hold very strong views about anything. However, I wonder whether the amendment is necessary, if we are simply talking about shops on farms. In my experience —and I am talking about some farms that I know in Wiltshire which sell their own produce—the shops concerned are really quite small. If that is so, they are covered by the legislation that has already been agreed. On the other hand, if they are very large (the size of a tennis court) it seems to me that they will be in competition with other shops which are limited to opening for six hours. It does not seem to me to be at all reasonable to accept an amendment in those terms. I shall vote against it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that the amendment would cause embarrassment to me and that he wanted it to be judged on its virtue. I am quite happy to judge it on its virtue and to invite Members of the Committee to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that there was a grey area about vineyards as to where the vineyard stops and the shop starts. I do not believe that there is such a grey area. We are talking about covered areas. If the covered area is below 280 square metres, the shop can be open the whole time and you could have a vineyard of about 100 acres in size. That would be perfectly all right. However, 280 square metres is quite a sizeable area. As we know, it is about the size of a tennis court. That is a

1689
substantial area. I find it hard to believe that there are many shops approaching 280 square metres on an allotment site. After all, that is what the amendment suggests.
My noble friend Lord Peel must have come across some funny allotments in his lifetime if they have had shops of over 280 square metres on them. It seems to me that that would not leave much ground left for growing the various crops. I know that there are some farm shops that are larger than 280 square metres. But where they exist. I suspect—although, I do not know—that they sell a great many items other than produce grown on the farm.
On the whole, large farm shops tend to sell salad stuff out of season and such produce as oranges, pineapples and so on. I am bound to say that I find great difficulty in growing oranges and pineapples around my part of Norfolk. However, larger farm shops sell not only vegetables which they have brought in but also biscuits, sweets, flowers and a great many other items. If a farm shop is selling just home grown produce, in all likelihood it will be smaller than 280 square metres and therefore it will be able to open at any time on a Sunday. If it is selling other items, one must ask why it should be treated differently From a large supermarket to which it would be a direct competitor. But, of course, that is a conclusion at which Members of the Committee must arrive.
It is true that Section 58 of the 1950 Act allows farm shops to sell their own produce, but the difference is that the Bill already allows small shops under 280 square metres in size to sell anything that they like. The question is: do the big farm shops sell only their own produce? Even if they did so, they would still be able to open for six hours on a Sunday. It is a matter for Members of the Committee to decide.
Earl Peel: I should like to respond to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I believe that the noble Baroness said that she regarded such shops as being in competition with smaller shops. It is worth pointing out that, by their very nature, farm shops tend to be remote and in the countryside and therefore they do not really compete in the way suggested by the noble Baroness. Further, we are talking about produce that has been produced on the farm. Therefore, there is a significant difference from what the noble Baroness suggested.
Lord Monson: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his most powerful support and to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for filling in the gaps in my knowledge as regards the number of shops which in fact exceed 280 square metres in size. The noble Earl says that there are about 100 of them. That is quite a number, but not so many as to greatly alter the effect of the Bill as a whole.
The pertinent issue here is that of retrospection. After all, as I understand it, we are talking about produce produced solely on the farm and not items brought in from elsewhere. We are not talking about other people's produce. If the amendment is not accepted there will be a degree of retrospection in that the 100 shops which are
1690
currently allowed to trade under the 1950 Shops Act will no longer be allowed to do so. I believe that to be wrong. Therefore, I intend to press the amendment.
8.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 25.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V

Monson, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Moyne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harris of High Cross, L

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lyell, L.

Torrington, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

McCarthy, L.

Barber, L.

McNair, L.

Brentford, V [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caldecote, V.

Morris, L.

Coleraine, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stoddart of Swiadcn, L. [Teller]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Trumpington, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Cochrane of Cults Lord Cochrane of Cults moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert:
("(h) any shop within a holiday park and open only for the sale of goods as an incidental facility to persons using or enjoying other facilities at that park.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who unfortunately, due to the illness of his mother, is not able to be here tonight. I find myself at a particular disadvantage in moving an amendment standing in the name of another noble Lord at this late hour. I should at this stage declare an interest in that for many years I have been involved in the holiday trade, albeit not on the scale of the organisations mentioned in this amerdment. I also have the further advantage of trading in Scotland, where we are not subject to any of the nonsensical rules which this Bill attempts to remove.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove new controls from large holiday parks where none had previously existed. It falls neatly into the category which we have heard described at great length by various noble Lords earlier concerning restrictions, so altering circumstances which have existed at least since the 1930s.
These large holiday parks currently trade on Sundays under what is called the "resort exemption". It is a complicated matter and I shall not labour the point

1691
tonight, but, at the will of the local authority, it allows trading on Sundays in holiday resorts. There is another category called a "fishing resort", to which a different set of rules applies. Neither set of rules is provided for in the Bill.
These holiday park premises—for convenience one might like to imagine the word Butlins but there are many others —nowadays are self-contained. Once you are in the door it is almost like a holiday prison. You are not expected to go out for any purpose unless you are so disgusted that you demand your money back—you probably will not get it back —and push off.
I wrote to my noble friend on the Front Bench and received, as always a helpful and courteous reply. However, I have to say to my noble friend that some of his arguments appeared a little despairing. His principal point was that it was inequitable that other tourists who were not so lucky as to stay in these magnificent establishments would feel jealous if they saw people within them shopping wildly at all hours of the day. I would respectfully point out to my noble friend that not only is that slightly unlikely, because people would probably not be able to see through the fence anyway, but also, if the park did not exist, the local economy would not benefit and people in the town would not have anything to feel jealous about.
Further, these shops are not on a thoroughfare. They are not generally accessible to the public. There are problems in relation to whether or not they are akin to museums in that in certain circumstances you pay to go in—not to stay but just for a day visit to ride on the giant slide or whatever it may be.
The parks are not competitive with local shopping. As we have heard, you can shop at airport shops and the like. People travel to these parks in the same way as they go to a station. If they go on a Sunday they will be very angry to find that they have to wait until 10 o'clock in the morning before they can buy their breakfast whereas the chaps at the lesser park up the road can buy their breakfast at 8 o'clock. These parks cater substantially for people in self-catering accommodation. Those of us who have used such accommodation know how annoying it is if you want something; let us imagine a perfectly ordinary requisite such as a corkscrew, which the previous occupant of the flat has stolen and you do not have one.
Park operators build into their pricing structure an estimate of the amount of money that will be spent in their shops, restaurants and so on. If that is reduced it is inevitable that the level of service within the park will diminish. Alternatively, the park will become less valuable because it will be making less money, or the operators will have to raise their prices. It is well known that in a parallel operation the cross-Channel ferries virtually exist on duty-free sales. And if one did not buy any duty-free goods at airports, for example, the charges to airlines would rise enormously. This is another version of the same situation.
The main point is that a new level of restriction is being imposed retrospectively on a long-established business which is much needed by the public. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I must again ask what percentage of shops in holiday parks which sell goods as an incidental facility are larger than a tennis court? Why do they need to be so large? The noble Lord states that such shops sell breakfast goods, food and corkscrews. Such items do not seem to require a large shop. What percentage of them are vast shops?
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Does it matter what the percentage is? All that we ask is that a right which exists is not taken away. It must be wrong for legislators to take that right away unless there is a serious reason to do so. If those shops are allowed to be open, even if the provision applies to one shop, it seems to me that we do not have the right to take away someone's existing legal right without very good cause.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I wish to support the amendment. I refer to the element of retrospection which was involved in the first amendment. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I do not believe that the number of shops matters. It may be 10 or 20; no doubt my noble friend will be able to tell us how many shops there are. The fact is that they have opened perfectly legitimately under the law as it stands. Investors have made their investment decisions on that basis; people have been employed on that basis. They are currently employed for eight hours a day. The hours will be cut back to six, or whatever the figure is. That will be a disbenefit to them. It will be a disbenefit to the shop owners and to the consumers who wish to use the shops.
If the shop owners are allowed to do that under the law as it stands, why should they now be restricted to do less than at present?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not understand this notion of retrospection. The amendment does not make any retrospective provision. It merely states that from the coming into force of the Act, certain shops will be subject to certain restrictions. If shops hitherto have not been subject to those restrictions, they will not be fined for having carried on business before the Act, that they may not carry on after the Act comes into force. Therefore it is not retrospective legislation, and that must be made clear. The arguments put forward that it is retrospective legislation simply do not hold water.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: They certainly hold water. Those shops have opened under the law as it stands. If the law is now changed retrospective to the building of those shops, their opening, the investment put into them, the employment of the people in them and to their use by customers, and if they will now no longer be able to open for more than six hours a day, it is a retrospective move.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord opposite. I understand that at present about 40 parks of this nature exist. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to apologise to noble Lords for the late tabling of the provision. The problem came to light only comparatively recently and it required a good deal of work by my noble friend to elicit the various details.

1693
With regard to my reference to corkscrews, I did not suggest that the shops sold only corkscrews. I stated that if one were self-catering, various items were needed. In view of the time of night, I thought that, if one did not have one, it might he easier to imagine a corkscrew rather than rashers of bacon.
Lord Moyne: A point has been missed in the debate. The reference to retrospectivity, which is wrong, is an example of how the point has been missed.
The entire Bill is designed to make legal practices which were in existence, and which no one contested in practice. In other words, it brings the law into line with practice.
In a small way the amendment simply does the same. It would have been stupid not to pass the amendment with regard to DIY. It would be equally stupid not to pass this amendment for that reason, because the whole purpose of the Bill is to bring the law into line with practice.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: That is the nub of the matter, and a very powerful argument. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in saying that it is not retrospective legislation as we understand it. The Bill means that those who have invested in such facilities will no longer be able to attain a return on an investment honourably made. Looking at the issue in a different way, those who have enjoyed such facilities as customers in the past will not be able to enjoy them in the future.
As I said earlier to the Committee, I come new to this legislation. I come new to the arguments; I have listened to them for the first time. However, I cannot conceivably understand why, in legislation which is meant to move forward a situation which is totally unsatisfactory, we take away what people have taken for granted in the past.
I am sure that the omission is an oversight. I appreciate that from the Government's point of view it is better not to pass the amendment. However, I hope that the Committee will recognise that this provision is one with which we can be content without proceeding to a Division.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord consistently misrepresents the position. It is not a case of the law being in line with practice. If we had legislation which brought the law into line with practice we would have deregulation. That is what the noble Lord wants; it is what the noble Lord opposite wants. But that is not what we have.
We are not bringing the law into line with practice. We have a compromise. Therefore some practices which are lawful will be made unlawful. That is not bringing the law into line with practice.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy attributes to me views which I have not expressed and which he cannot possibly know because he is unable to read my mind. I have not said that I am in favour of deregulation. All I said was that we should judge those matters on the merits of the case. I confess that my ignorance extends to what is wrong with the tennis court. I do not understand the argument that a
1694
shop which is as large as a tennis court is an improper shop to be open except for the restricted hours. That is the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I do not see how it stands up.
The essence of the case is that those facilities have been available to the public; those who own them have invested in them. It is as simple as that. All right, it is not retrospection; it is common sense. The argument we have heard time and time again today for the compromise is common sense. The amendment is common sense; let us, for goodness sake, accept it.
Viscount Brentford: I suggest that the amendment is similar to the last one rather than to the one on DIYs. We should bear that in mind. It is the same argument, in my view. I say to my noble friend Lord Cochrane that I should be happy to present him with a corkscrew if that is his great worry on the position.
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults has argued gallantly in favour of an amendment which would exempt from the six-hour restriction any large shop within a holiday park which is open,
"only for the sale of goods as an incidental facility to people using … other facilities",
at the park. Supporters of the amendment can conjure up the spectacle of benighted holidaymakers being deprived of their bacon and eggs first thing on a Sunday morning because they forgot to stock up with those essentials the evening before.
It is entirely a matter for the Committee to decide, as we have said ad nauseam. But Members may wish to consider why holidaymakers in a holiday camp should have access to a large shop before 10 a.m. on a Sunday morning when holidaymakers in the nearby seaside resort do not. I remind Members of the Committee of the resort exemptions in seaside towns. Those exemptions apply only for 18 weeks in the year and shops can sell only certain goods, listed in Schedule 7 to the Shops Act 1950. They are also at the discretion of the local authorities under Section 51 of the 1950 Act.
I wonder whether Members of the Committee are necessarily convinced that it will always be clear when a shop is an incidental facility to the holiday park. It might be possible, if such an amendment were carried, for a park to develop a retailing complex. At what stage would that be regarded as a shopping mall in its own right rather than an incidental feature?
Members of the Committee may wish to consider whether it would be possible to argue that an exception should be made for practically any type of large shop. The Committee may feel that shops at holiday parks are indeed a special case. On the other hand, the Committee may feel that any additions which cannot be considered as strictly essential will inevitably make the Bill more complicated and so less easy to enforce. However, the matter is in the hands of the Committee.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I thank my noble friend for her speech on behalf of the Government. For once I am sorry to say that I find extremely little I can agree with. I normally regard my noble friend as a staunch upholder

1695
of all that I believe in, and I am sorry. I shall make sure that when she comes to stay with me she does not get any breakfast until well after 10 o'clock.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall have gone quite legally to a shop and stocked up before I arrive!
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I am grateful to my noble friend. The hour is late and we must get on. The nearest shop is a mile and three-quarters away. I did not say that resort exemptions should be continued in their existing form. I said that they existed but that no comparable purpose was intended. That is the lacuna in the Bill.
My noble friend delved into various definitions and said that possibly one could develop a holiday park into a shopping mall. I do not see what is the matter with that if the customers on the park want to shop in those premises. If you have built them too big, you will either have to close them and turn them into something else or go bust. It is not something on which the Government should tell people what to do. That is the great distinction in the Bill. We have the nanny side and the freedom side.
However, in view of the late discovery of the problem and the lateness of the hour, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. It can then be further considered before the Report stage, when it will undoubtedly be raised again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("10 a m.") and insert ("10.30 a. m.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 18. When I spoke to Amendment No. 4, in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and other Members of the Committee, I suggested that one of the few arguments against total deregulation was the need to protect the peace and quiet of people who live near shops. It was a very powerful argument. That is one of the reasons why I swung against total deregulation.
The other main argument against total deregulation is the desirability of keeping most small shopkeepers in business, to the benefit of themselves and of us all; an objective against which only the most ultra-zealous free marketeer could argue. I am a free marketeer but, I hope, not an over-zealous one.
It is argued that a permitted opening time as early as 10 a.m. for large stores would adequately protect small shopkeepers. But let me read to the Committee two items:
"it is well known that on Sunday, the period between 7.30 am and 10.30 am is the time when small convenience shops, newsagents etc, do the bulk of their business".
The Committee will note that it does not say 10 a.m. but "10.30 a.m.".
One might suppose that the quotation comes from an organisation devoted to the protection and furtherance of small businesses. It does not. It comes from Kingfisher plc, which is an organisation representing a large business.
The second quotation is from the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which maintains that,
"SHRC proposals recognise the needs of small shops by requiring supermarkets to stay shut until 10 a.m. at the earliest".
I suggest that that implies that the council recognises that it would be much more helpful to small shops if the supermarkets stayed shut until at least 10.30 a.m., if not later.
There is also the question of disturbance to people living nearby. As one Member on the Government Benches, whose name I did not catch, pointed out, a 10 a.m. start means a 9 a.m. delivery, which results in lorries rumbling through streets from 8.30 a.m. onwards. An extra 30 minutes' peace and quiet on Sunday morning would be most welcome to such unfortunate residents.
As I indicated earlier, over and above that the principle of a fixed six-hour permitted opening period is a good one for reasons which many noble Lords from all quarters of the Committee have explained. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on one point that he made this evening; namely, that it would save council tax payers a very substantial sum of money. That must be something which we should take into consideration.
However, I could not support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford and others. In fact, I abstained because I felt that the period from noon to 6 p.m. was too late. Apart from the arguments already advanced, it would operate against those small shopkeepers who deal mainly in luxury goods, such as antique dealers and such places as the Body Shop which do most of their business in the afternoon. It would help the grocers but not the purveyors of more expensive goods.
I feel that a fixed period of opening of either 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. or 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. would be much better for shop owners, shopworkers and consumers than 12 noon to 6 p.m. However, that is dependent on agreement being reached to relax the law relating to booksellers, farm shops and others, to which we shall return at Report stage. Unless agreement can be reached on that I can see no case for contracting the maximum permitted period during which large shops can remain open.
If, at Report stage the House decides against any permutation of the fixed six-hour period, I suggest it will still be highly desirable, both from the environmental angle —that is to say, the peace and quiet and tranquillity angle—and for the purpose of giving an extra lease of life to small shopkeepers, to prevent large stores opening before 10.30 a.m. at the earliest rather than 10 a.m. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I am not sure whether this is the right time for me to ask a question. Are we talking also about shopping arcades where there are several shops like the Body Shop? Can the arcade stay open but only the shops smaller than 280 square metres, or only individual shops? This is probably not the right time to raise the matter but I should like an answer to my question.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: As Members of the Committee know only too well, a key element of the Shopping Hours Reform Council option is the restriction of trading by large shops to six hours. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would still allow six hours' trading but would reduce the hours from which the shop could pick, as it were, from eight to six-and-a-half. The potential trading period therefore would be 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. instead of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that seems to me to jettison the advantages of flexibility without any of the offsetting advantages in terms of reduced bureaucracy which my noble friend Lord. Brantford and other Members of the Committee sought in their amendments debated earlier. Some people feel there is a special reason for restricting Sunday trading by large shops predominantly to Sunday afternoon, and I recognise that. But that option was put before another place and rejected on a free vote. It was rejected precisely because many of those who wish to shop and trade on Sundays have compelling reasons for doing so on Sunday mornings.
As I have said many times, the Government are not inviting Members of the Committee to vote one way or another. My view is that the Bill has the balance about right and we would be better to leave it as it is rather than to adopt the amendment of the noble Lord which is more restrictive. 01 course, that is entirely a matter for the Committee.
Lord Monson: The noble Earl misinterprets what I am trying to do, but that is entirely my fault. In order to save time I omitted to flesh out and explain the purpose of Amendment No. 18. My inclination was for a six-hour period from 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. I thought some Members of the Committee would perhaps prefer 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. and therefore tabled 5 p.m. to give the Committee an opportunity to discuss the two possible options. It was not my intention to give a six-and-a-half-hour period. As the noble Earl said, that would be silly. Either we have a fixed six hours, which saves a lot of time and money, or we have a longer period.
There is an advantage in the 10.30 a.m. start rather than 10 a.m., giving a seven-and-a-half hour period. I fully accept that there is no advantage in a six-and-a-half-hour period. I am a little lost as to what to do because I do riot believe there is a case for a fixed six-hour period unless there is a concession between now and the next stage for booksellers, farm shops and the shops which are the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane.
I know that there has been talk of deals, contracts and so on which has been well shot down by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and others. Between now and the next stage it might be possible to have fruitful discussions with members of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign to see whether we can agree compromise amendments which can be accepted by virtually everybody. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("10 a.m.") and insert ("12 noon").
The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move this amendment or Amendment No. 19. We have covered a great deal of the ground already. I should like to consider what has been said with a view perhaps to bringing it back at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert:
("Transitional Provision)
Any notice given for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above after the passing of this Act but before the commencement of this Schedule shall, notwithstanding paragraph 4(3) above, take effect on that commencement.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical and, I believe, uncontroversial amendment. Its purpose is simply to ensure a smooth transition from the existing law to the new in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. Under the Sunday Trading Bill large shops are obliged to notify the local authority of their intention to open on Sunday and their proposed opening hours.
As the Bill stands, a notice of intent to open does not become effective until 14 days after it is given unless the local authority agrees to a shorter period. This is to provide local authorities with reasonable time to deal with any bureaucracy involved, but equally it allows them to speed up the process if they are able to do so.
When the Act comes into force therefore the following situation could arise. Depending on the efficiency or disposition of the local council, some stores will be able to open immediately while others will have to wait a week or two weeks. This would of course have a particular and unfair effect on those stores which currently open lawfully under the 1950 Act but which, because of their size, will be required to give notice under this legislation. I am thinking here, for example, of shops in service areas or railway stations. This is clearly not what Parliament had in mind.
Fortunately, there is an easy remedy. The Bill provides for a gap between enactment of the Bill and the day (referred to as "the appointed day") on which its main provisions actually come into force:. This is to give local authorities, employers and others time to put in place any new procedures required by their obligations under the Act.
My amendment simply ensures that if shops give notification to open during that gap between enactment and the appointed day then they can start to open on Sunday immediately the law comes into force. In other words, if they give notice early the 14-day requirement will be waived. This is to the benefit of all. It surmounts the problem of continuity for various stores. It ensures consistency of treatment for shopkeepers and consumers across the country and, just as importantly, it helps local authorities with their planning and organisation.
Let me make it clear that nothing in this amendment effects the requirement to give 14 days' notice in the future. Stores which take the decision to trade after the appointed day will be bound by the 14-day rule. This amendment is exactly what it says it is: a transitional

1699
arrangement to ensure the new Act gets off to a smooth start. I cannot believe that this modest proposal need detain the Committee long. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults accused me of being "nanny government"; but I must point out that in truly neutral fashion I merely put the pros and cons regarding the amendments moved by your Lordships. Regarding this amendment, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie for pointing out what might have proved a stumbling block—if only a minor and inconsequential one. The noble Lord has explained that in order to trade for six hours on a Sunday, large shops which are required to give notice under paragraphs 2 and 4 of the schedule can expect to wait for 14 days for the notice to take effect unless the local authority agrees to a shorter period.
I remind the Committee that as the Bill is drafted large shops would not be able to give notice until commencement of the schedule on the appointed day. Taken together, that might have the effect, if the local authority failed to agree to a shorter period, that shops might be required to wait for 14 days after the commencement of the schedule before being able to trade legally on a Sunday. I suspect that by far the majority of local authorities would in any case agree to the 14-day period being waived in those circumstances; but, as my noble friend has pointed out, the proposed amendment would have the effect that provided notice is given to the local authority after the Bill has received Royal Assent but before the schedule comes into force, the shop should be permitted to trade on the day that the schedule comes into force irrespective of whether 14 days have elapsed.
Once again, this is a matter entirely for your Lordships; but in this particular case, giving my own personal feelings and in no way trying to influence anybody, the amendment is of a minor and non-controversial nature and should help to ensure that the law comes into force in an orderly manner. I shall therefore support it.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the Minister for her co-operation in agreeing to this necessary amendment. As has been said, it is non-controversial and will ensure a smooth transition from the existing law to the new.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Renton: I should like to make one or two brief comments about the drafting of paragraph 2, of which I have given notice to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Your Lordships may find that the provisions are drafted in a rather confusing way. The paragraph's meaning depends upon negative exceptions to negative exceptions. That leads to double negatives which we always try to avoid. It is important to get this right because paragraph 2 of the schedule governs paragraph 3 and various later paragraphs. I could say more about the drafting, but all that I ask is that my noble friend will
1700
ask Parliamentary Counsel to clarify paragraph 2 before Report stage. I should be glad to have a word with him about it if that would help.
Earl Ferrers: I know that my noble friend Lord Renton is a past master at drafting, and I fancy that he would always prefer to redraft almost any clause or schedule that came under his eye. I would not quarrel with him about what he said. That would be a most inappropriate and uninformed thing for me to do. I shall certainly ensure the point he has raised is drawn to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman so that he can look at it and satisfy himself that what he has drafted is phrased as well as it might be.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 on page 9 and insert:
("(3) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in the form of a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.").
The noble Lord said: I have some hopes of winning an easier passage for this modest amendment, because it does not tinker with the great compact that has been struck by at least some Members of this place with Members of another place. Nor does it raise again the. shadow of dispute over the rights and wrongs of Sunday opening. Rather, it is a simplification that I hope might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
On Second Reading I complained that, whereas the famous Trumpington Bill for the repeal of the 1950 and other Acts, which passed through this place, was a one-page document, we find here a 20-page Bill in which two whole pages are devoted to defining the conditions under which exemption might be granted to persons of the Jewish religion. I mocked the whole of the procedure whereby a person of the Jewish religion is required to have signed by an authorised person a certificate giving notice that he was a person of the Jewish religion. An authorised person could be the secretary of the synagogue or any other person approved by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It seems to me that a person of the Jewish religion might know that he was such a person and would not necessarily need all those other folk to vouch for him.
I am particularly encouraged to bring forward the amendment because I recently read a paper by Graham Mather, whom I might describe as a qualified solicitor of my acquaintance, in which he discussed the need for better legislation, and in particular, simplified and shorter legislation. He quoted some statistics from the Hansard Society Commission showing that the volume of legislation had increased from 40 general Public Acts in 1901, with 247 pages, to 70 or 80 Acts over the past two decades which ran to between 2,100 and 2,200 pages. In the interval larger A.4 sized pages were being used. So those statistics understate the proliferation and verbosity of legislation. It seems to me that if we could make do with two lines rather than two pages, that would be a help. In particular, it would remove what I

1701
categorise as a Schindler's List whereby there is this vouching of persons of the Jewish religion and the requirement that local authorities should keep a public register of those people who would be permitted to open on Sunday because they would be closing their shop on a Saturday.
My simple amendment, which I hope will find favour with the Committee, removes all that gobbledegook and mumbo-jumbo and inserts as sub-paragraph (3):
"A notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in the form of a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835"
I understand that that is a serviceable measure. It is a solemn declaration of intention which would be cast in terms of a solemn declaration to close a shop on Saturdays and to open on Sundays. Breach of such a declaration would give rise to criminal penalties. I hope that at this late hour the Committee will see that there is some merit in that proposal which will not inflame passions among Members of the Committee or between this place and another place. Therefore, I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: While I have no quarrel with the noble Lord's argument, I have been informed that discussions were held yesterday with the Board of Deputies of British Jews on this matter. Its preference is to leave the Bill as it stands and not to accept the amendment. It prefers the way the Bill is drafted, and because that is its view I should not support the amendment. I hope that it will be withdrawn. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would like to have discussions with the Board of Deputies of British Jews on this matter.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, say whether it is intentional that paragraph 10 of the schedule has been lost? That would appear to be a change, although I do not know how important. It excludes some people from the operation of the schedule and I thought that the intention was merely to simplify the operation.
Baroness Trumpington: There is an immediate appeal in an amendment which appears to delete 20 lines from a Bill. However, I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord did not consult the Board of Deputies of British Jews before he tabled this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brentford that the noble Lord's amendment does not have its support.
The provisions in the Bill for shops observing the Jewish Sabbath were drawn up in association with the board of deputies and I am advised that it does not wish for self certification, which is the effect in practice of this amendment. The board is concerned that the provisions which have been provided for those with a genuine religious commitment might be used by others for narrow commercial advantage. The board of deputies believes that it is important that a rabbi or other authorised persons should vouch for the bona fides of each applicant. The Committee might consider that it should respect those views.
I am sorry that the noble Lord considers the provision to be unnecessarily complicated but I can assure him that it is the result of a great deal of thought and
1702
discussion. It has the support of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and therefore I hope that he will see fit. to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I am not in the least disconcerted by the announcement that the Board of Deputies of British Jews is not in favour of the change. The gobbledegook of which I complain has become time hallowed and has featured with slight variation in previous Acts. It is a natural conservatism which may incline those most affected to cling to these familiar formulations.
The reason that I would not consult the Board of Deputies of British Jews implies no disrespect whatever. However, I would no more consult it than I would consult the Bishops' Bench on other terms of the Bill. This is not a workers' co-op or a Bill put forward by representatives of different interests, although sometimes one hears the sharpening of axes in the background. Therefore, when the Chamber is fuller and I have canvassed among my Jewish and non-Jewish friends in this House, I shall bring the matter forward on Report taking into account the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("9 a.m.") and insert ("9.30 a.m.").
The noble Lord said: I rise briefly to move Amendment No. 25 solely for the purpose of explaining its intention. Those of us whose alertness remains undiminished, despite the lateness of the hour, will have observed that it ties in with my Amendment No. 16 which I withdrew some little while ago but which I may well move again on Report.
Clearly, if large stores are not allowed to open until 10.30 a.m., they do not need deliveries until 9.30 a.m. Therefore, local councils should have the power to prevent deliveries before that time. That would clearly be of great advantage to the man in the street and, in particular, to the man on the lorry route. With that brief explanation, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 2 and Schedule 3 together allow a local authority in effect to prohibit the unloading or loading of goods from a vehicle at a large shop before 9 a.m. on Sunday unless it is carried on with the consent of the local authority or subject to the conditions on which that consent was granted.
These provisions were introduced as government amendments at Report stage in the other place. They followed concerns expressed by the local authority associations that their existing powers under traffic and nuisance legislation were inadequate to deal with the specific problem of deliveries to large shops on Sunday mornings.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that an additional half hour would make a significant difference to local residents. That is a matter for the

1703
Committee, but I wonder whether the half hour will really be considered important. While I am sure that many people will value the opportunity to have a lie-in, equally I am sure that the majority of residents will be awake by 9 a.m. on a Sunday morning.
The time of 9 a.m. was chosen as a compromise between the need of people living near to a large shop to have an undisturbed early Sunday morning and the need of large shops, in particular supermarkets, to receive deliveries on Sunday. The Government were told by retailers that 9 a.m. was the latest time they could receive deliveries and manage to replenish their shelves in time for a 10 a.m. opening. The local authority associations were content that the powers in Schedule 3 met their concerns.
Both this Chamber and the other place have voted for the SHRC option, which would allow large shops to open at 10 a.m. on Sunday if they so wish. Having decided on that, the Committee may wish to consider whether it would be consistent with this decision for retailers to be placed in the position that they would be permitted to open at 10 a.m. but not enabled to be fully stocked. If the time were amended to 11 a.m., it is likely that some retailers would not be fully stocked until a considerable way through their six-hour opening period. As I said, this is a matter for the Committee. In deciding whether to amend Schedule 3 the Committee will wish to consider whether adding an extra 30 minutes to the prohibition is a substantive change worth making. I ask Members of the Committee to consider those matters.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I do not agree that 30 minutes makes no difference. I believe that it would be helpful to local residents. However, I accept that while the earliest opening time remains at 10 a.m. it would be rather hard on retailers not to allow them to unload until 9.30. Unless such a change is agreed to at the next stage, there is no point in going ahead with the amendment.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on being so sensitive to public opinion that they introduced the amendment in another place to impose the 9 o'clock limit. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 3 [Construction of certain leases and agreements.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) Where under the terms of any such lease or agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) above the occupier of a shop is required to pay to the landlord a service charge (however described), that lease or agreement shall not be regarded as requiring the occupier of the shop to pay any part of a service charge in respect of a Sunday on which the shop is not open for the serving of retail customers.
( ) In this section "service charge" means an amount payable by the occupier of a shop within a shopping centre as part of or in addition to the rent and—
1704

(a) which is payable directly or indirectly for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and

(b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the costs incurred on behalf of the landlord in connection with the matters specified in paragraph (a) above or according to any formula specified in the lease or agreement for the purposes of securing payment of a proportion of the service charge.").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is unavoidably detained this evening, I should like to move the above amendment. It is specifically related to a finer point, but one which is of considerable importance. It relates to service charges for shops within shopping centres. I shall not dwell further on the matter as regards whether or not such shops are malls. However, I believe that the issue will be familiar to Members of the Committee. The amendment is adequately drafted to cover what is stated in Clause 3.
It may well be that in those shopping centres half or a proportion of the shops will decide to open on a Sunday while others will decide not to do so. Opening the centre for any shopping on a Sunday would certainly involve costs and clearly the ground landlord would be entitled to recover the costs involved for security and other essential services. However, I believe that Members of the Committee will agree that it would be unfair if such costs were to be borne in part by those shops which did not open; that would benefit those who did. The amendment seeks to secure that any service charges relating to Sunday opening, which I believe can. be defined, would be shared by those shops which avail themselves of the privilege of Sunday opening.
In Clause 3, the Bill recognises that there will be some problems in leases. It makes clear that shops will not be required to open on a Sunday, even if their lease from the ground landlord would require them to be open during normal business hours. We hope that the amendment will simplify the matter and bring a practical and common-sense extension of the principle in Clause 3. We also hope that it will benefit both tenants and landlords in clarifying what might otherwise become a bone of contention between the parties. Indeed, it could easily become a bone of contention between fellow tenants within the shopping centre.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to indicate to us that shop owners should know where they stand in such matters, rather than the whole decision being taken to court and becoming part of case law. It is in the nature of a probing amendment. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will be able to take it in that spirit. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend makes it all sound so simple. He says that the amendment would make practical and common sense. Members of another place were concerned that shop owners might be obliged to open on Sundays, even though they wished to stay closed, by the unfair wording in their leases. Therefore, the Government added Clause 3 to the Bill so as to make it completely clear that a general provision in any lease that requires opening during "normal opening hours", or similar such phrases, could not be construed as requiring shops to open on a Sunday.

1705
My noble friend feels that the Government have not gone far enough. Those who feel like him fear that some shops may be pressurised into opening on a Sunday if they were required to pay a service charge regardless of whether or not they opened or stayed shut. I ask my noble friend to consider some of the practical problems involved with the amendment. The service charge on shops covers such things as security, lighting and heating, the cleaning of passage ways between the shops and the fountains and flowers in those shopping centres, where applicable. How can a shopping centre manager be sure which part of the flower bill relates to Sunday and which part relates to Friday afternoon? It might sound simpler for items such as heating. But I am told that the heating bill is not metered on a daily basis; it may not even be fair to divide by seven and knock off one-seventh of the charge in respect of Sunday. For example, what would happen if the weather one Sunday was particularly warm or cold?
Again, if we take security, shops which are closed on Sunday also need security cover. However, that cover is obviously less when all the shops are shut than when they are open. How does one differentiate between the costs for those shops which are shut and those which are open? It must be impossible to work out with any accuracy the charge which relates to Sunday.
The Committee might like to consider another practical difficulty. As the amendment is drafted, the occupier of a shop would not be obliged to pay a service charge in respect of any Sunday in which a shop is not open. But there may be many reasons why a shop may not be open on a particular day of the week. The owner might wish to attend, for example, a wedding or a funeral. If he chooses to take a Tuesday or a Wednesday off, can he be let off the service charge in respect of that day? The answer must surely be "no". Why should Sunday therefore be any different? But that would be the effect of this amendment. It would not matter if the shop normally opened on a Sunday if the owner went down with 'flu on a Sunday he could demand a rebate. The Committee may take the view that this is as it should be, and that is entirely a matter for the Committee. However, I ask the Committee to consider whether in practice this amendment, if carried—I realise it will not be carried—might prove impossibly difficult to administer for even the best intentioned landlord.
1706
I also ask my noble friend to consider whether, even if the amendment is fair, it is a practical proposition. The Committee will realise that I have substantial doubts about that. As service charges reflect the actual costs incurred, it follows that if a bit is knocked off the service charge for one shop a bit must be added on the service charge of another shop. The Committee might say that is fair enough if it were a case of a small shop which chose to shut and a large shop which chose to open. But what would happen if it were the other way round? Would the Committee still feel that was fair? What if the large shop, though shut, benefited from all the potential customers passing its window displays and seeing all the lovely things inside on their way to the small shops? Would it still be fair if, for instance, by not paying, a large shop such as John Lewis forced up the charge for all its smaller neighbours, perhaps obliging them not to open too, even when they most certainly wished to do so?
I am bound to say that there is no easy answer and. that is why the Committee may feel that this is a matter best left to local negotiation between the parties concerned. This is, of course, entirely a matter for the. Committee. If my noble friend does not wish to press the amendment—from what he has said I do not think that he does—he might like to cogitate upon those problems before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Lyell: My noble friend has been most generous in giving a full explanation and has given me, my noble. friend and, I suggest, many others a great deal to read and digest. I shall withdraw the amendment this evening and no doubt we may wish to discuss this principle again at the next stage of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, arid, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 12th APRIL
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 12th APRIL
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS: SAFETY WARNINGS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS: SAFETY WARNINGS
  PRISON SERVICE: CORPORATE PLAN
  PRISON SERVICE: CORPORATE PLAN
  SECURE UNITS: MANAGEMENT
  SECURE UNITS: MANAGEMENT
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE: DEVELOPMENT PLANS
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE: DEVELOPMENT PLANS
  HILTON v UK and KISS v UK
  HILTON v UK and KISS v UK
  DARTMOOR NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY VARIATION
  DARTMOOR NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY VARIATION
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: LAND PARCELS AND AGENTS' FEES
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: LAND PARCELS AND AGENTS' FEES
  WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSING REGULATIONS 1994
  WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSING REGULATIONS 1994
  MINERAL PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTE:AGGREGATES
  MINERAL PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTE:AGGREGATES